# Talk:Ochrophyte

The references are all wrong in the phylogeny section. Ruggiero et al is NOT a phylogenetic analysis, it is a list of taxa. And the other reference is a french textbook (though doesn't look like any official one I've seen before) that copies phylogenetic trees from very outdated sources. This happened also in Cercozoa, where the edits previous to my own referenced the same french book (and the cladogram shown in the Wikipedia page didn't even match the one in the book, an even weirder occurrence). I'll try to update the phylogeny here as well. ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 19:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(User:Snoteleks) Thanks for the recent revision. My answer: Why is Actinophryida kept to be a possible sister group to Raphidophyceae? This is not supported by either of the recent references to the cladoram (Barcyté 2021, Bringloe 2020, Graf 2020, Derelle 2016) with only one exception (Cavalier-Smiths 2018) and is not in compliance with the last sentence of the section Phylogeny and its reference (Azuma 2022). Also Adl et al. 2019 (very respected reference) does not consider Actinophryida as part of Ochrophyta. IMO it should be put out of the tree, even if it is marked by "?".
Is Wikispecies the reason?
(Well, is only a minor thing in the contrary to a complete mess in the intro of Actinophryid, e.g. considering Heliozoa aspart of Straamenopiles!). Petr Karel (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It is supported by older 18S rDNA analyses, so until Azuma 2022 gets confirmed by other analyses, I would rather not outright delete them off the ochrophytes (although I would love for Cavalier-Smith to be proven wrong already). Let me know if my latest additions to the phylogeny section clear things up. —Snoteleks (Talk) 13:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree. I also had to correct my oppinion about the Actinophryid article, after I learned that enwiki stil uses Heliozoa in a broad polyphyletic meaning. --Petr Karel (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
@Petr Karel Is there someone/somewhere where Heliozoa is considered a taxon? —Snoteleks (Talk) 12:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Note I put this article in the protists section of the Good Article listing - if it should be elsewhere, please feel free to put it where it belongs. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth Sorry for the late reply; don't worry, ochrophytes are protists, you did good. — Snoteleks (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ochrophyte/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
Spotchecks:
"A new class of algae, Olisthodiscophyceae, was described in 2021 and recovered as part of the SII lineage," is sourced to this source which supports the information
"The phylum to which ochrophytes belong in his classification system is Gyrista, a clade that also contains some heterotrophic heterokonts, namely the Pseudofungi and the Bigyromonada." is sourced to this source which supports the information
"As of 2024, it is estimated that ochrophytes amount to 23,314 described species, with 490 species of uncertain position." is sourced to this source which supports the information
General:
There's a LOT of duplicated links here - suggest using the "highlight duplicate links" script to identify them. Examples include "cells" which is linked in the first pargraph of Description as well as in the next paragraph of the article (which is the Flagella section) and then in the next paragraph (the first paragraph of Chloroplasts section) or "photosynthetic" which is linked in the first sentence of Chloroplasts and the second sentence of the same section.  Implemented didn't know that script existed, it is very useful!
Also with links - you're linking some things that are probably not needed to be linked - "freshwater" "soils" "plants". See MOS:OVERLINK  Implemented deleted those links.
Lead:
While this is mostly understandable to the layperson, I'd suggest a few quick explanations of the linked words so that you don't lose the reader to other articles. My suggestion would be "eukaryotes", "plastids", "thylakoids", and "chlorphylls".  Implemented added a bit of context for those words.
We say in the description section that they are considered algae - this should probably be in the lead  Implemented mentioned algae in lead.
Chloroplasts:
"They have a distinct plastid" it is unclear what "they" is here, as the last thing we've discussed was leucoplasts - are we still discussing leucoplasts or are we back discussing ochrophytes?  Implemented cleared up.
Ecology:
Suggest using the plain "seawater" rather than "marine water"  Implemented changed to seawater.
Freshwater:
"to avoid being pulled by the downward water current" suggest rewording to "to avoid being disturbed by water currents"  Partially implemented the new sentence has the word "displaced" rather than "disturbed".
Taxonomic history:
"accordance to ICN recommendations" we should spell out what ICN means on first mention  Implemented spelt out.
"The origin of this name is the class Heterokontæ, introduced by Luther in 1899 to include" link and full name for Luther?  Implemented full name is Alexander Ferdinand Luther, and I found a link to the Finnish Wikipedia.
"Robert Andersen validly published Heterokontophyta as phylum in 2023" did you mean "Robert Andersen validly published Heterokontophyta as a phylum in 2023"?  Implemented yes I did.
I did a light copyedit, please check that I didn't break anything.  Checked your copyedit was welcome, no breaks caused.
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you @Ealdgyth for the review. Please let me know if there is any additional issues that you notice. —Snoteleks (Talk) 18:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Changes look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! —Snoteleks (Talk) 15:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The footnote clarifying that class Synurophyceae is more accepted as order Synurales in class Chrysophyceae cites the wrong reference, as that is the paper where Synurophyceae was proposed as an independent class — Snoteleks (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

It's no mistake, the other source (Adl et al.) doesn't provide that info. Jako96 (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
@Jako96 It's still the wrong source regardless of what the "other" source provides, because it also doesn't provide that info. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The references for the deleted footnote, i.e. Synurophyceae only as order Synurales under Chrysophyceae:  Adl 2019 was correct reference for the new hierarchy, respects the previous 2013 article by Škaloud. I think the information should return to the article (for readers trying to find Synurophyceae in the article; it is still present in some textbooks and in the web). (The reference by Andersen, 1987 is the reference only for the name and description of Synurales, but it classified this order under a specific class Synurophyceae making Chrysophyceae paraphyletic – it could be applied only in a more detailed footnote, referring the obsolete proposal of the class Synurophyceae.) --Petr Karel (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
---

For the next days I will be rearranging this article to add more information, inspired by the Fungus article and this comprehensive source material. I will be following roughly this system:

Etymology (discussing the various names)
Characteristics (the Description section, + info on cell coverings)
Diversity (species diversity + classes, with a brief description of what makes each class different)
History (of knowledge and study)
Nutrition (phagotrophy + phototrophy)
Reproduction
Ecology (the current section + symbionts)
Evolution (more fleshed out current section + evolutionary origin and fossil record, and perhaps secondary chloroplast losses)
Human use (food, chemicals...)
— Snoteleks (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@User:Snoteleks In which way do you intend to mention Chrysomeridophyceae (ad do you ever)?

Let me summarize the history (known to me):
After reclassification of “chrysophyte” filamentous heterokonts, redefinition of Chrysophyceae and creating the classes Pelagophyceae and Phaeothamniophyceae, the remaining filamentous marine species, e.g. the Sarcinochryidales (sensu Gayral and Billard 1977a), were placed near the class Xanthophyceae in the class as Chrysomerophyceae – Cavalier-Smith (in Cavalier-Smith et al. 1995) described the class Chrysomerophyceae cl. nov. T. Cavalier-Smith, 1995 nom. typificatum (type Chrysomeris). The correct Latin spelling is Chrysomeridophyceae ([1]), not Chrysomerophyceae; the misspelling was correctable (see Art. 61.4 of the ICN). Despite the diagnosis (see Cavalier-Smith et al.1995), the name was explicitly formed from a generic name, it is an automatically typified name and must be applied to a class that includes the type of Chrysomeris ramosa (see Art. 16.1 & 16.2, Art. 10.10 of the ICN).
Phylogenetic analyses showed that such broader identification of Chrysomeridophyceae was polyphyletic (e.g. Yang et al. 2012 10.1016/j.protis.2011.08.001 https://www-sciencedirect-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S1434461011000770) or paraphyletic, Chrysowaernella and Giraudyopsis (nowadays invalid name, see [2]), did not form a monophyletic group. (The phylogeny of the stramenopile SI clade became more complicated by the description of the new class Chrysoparadoxophyceae by Wetherbee et al. 2019. In the study from 2019, the Chrysoparadoxa is grouped together with Chrysowaernella.)
Problems exist regarding Chrysomeris ramosa N. Carter 1937, the type for Chrisomeridophyceae, which was never analyzed with modern methods. The genus Chrysomeris has not been examined using molecular phylogenetic analysis, so its classification remains uncertain.
You deleted the Chrysomerophyceae as obsolete. Do you have any recent information about the resolving the problems with the phylogenetic position of Chrysomeris, Chrysowaernella (and Giraudyopsis), and about the lost acceptability of Chrisomeridophyceae (at least as monotypic in compliance with AlgaeBase)?
BTW: The wikipedia article Chrysomerophyceae has at least an obsolete name. The class contains there a single family Chrysomeridaceae, which is in compliance with AlgaeBase, but the genera Chrysowaernella and Giraudyopsis inside are not (https://www.algaebase.org/browse/taxonomy/#199821). Petr Karel (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Petr Karel The problem is pretty much as you described it: the class is polyphyletic, its members are slowly being reassigned to other classes. I am planning on including a paragraph on Chrysomeridophyceae at the bottom of the Diversity section (or in a separate subsection on uncertain taxa), in line with what I have been gathering in the footnotes here. Basically saying "hey, this class existed, and then it didn't, here's why." — Snoteleks (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
 Petr Karel (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)