# Talk:Vampyrellida

Reference 1 

Guiry MD, Guiry GM, eds. (2015). "Aconchulinida". AlgaeBase. National University of Ireland, Galway. World Register of Marine Species. Retrieved 22 November 2015.
that is

{{cite WoRMS |date=2015 |title=Aconchulinida |db=AlgaeBase |id=178849 |access-date=22 November 2015}}
mixes up AlgaeBase and WoRMS.
For further discussion on taxonomy please refer to Talk:Vampyrellidae#Please check classification
Thank you.
--Ernsts (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The text says that only Placopus exhibits filoflabellate morphology, but the illustration just under that paragraph uses Hyalodiscus as an example. Oddly, the Wikipedia article and its sources say Hyalodiscus is a diatom, not a vampyrid, but a quick web search finds many articles (e. g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28064061/) that say it's a naked amoeba instead.
Is this a case of duplicate nomenclature? Or a very dramatic taxonomic shift? The linked articles says that Hyalodiscus sometimes consumes chloroplasts. Was it mistaken for a photosynthesizer because of that, and was never a diatom? 
In any case, "only Placopus" and "also Hyalodiscus" are contradictory.  IAmNitpicking (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@IAmNitpicking Hey, thanks for reaching out. It seems I completely missed this talk page message until today, sorry about that.
So yes. Placopus and Hyalodiscus are synonyms. But Placopus is the conserved name, because Hyalodiscus is also the name for a diatom, given by a different author. The footnote of the article explains it. Since Hyalodiscus as a name for the diatom came first before Hyalodiscus as a name for the vampyrellid, we prefer the usage of the name Placopus for the vampyrellid. —Snoteleks 🦠 18:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)