Talk:Green algae

message: "The Viridiplantae diverged into two clades. The Chlorophyta include the early diverging prasinophyte lineages and the core Chlorophyta"
Huh? Wasn't this article just talking about how Viridiplantae = green algae + land plants, and green algae = chlorophyta + charophyta?
Yikes it's almost like two different articles were written. One with the old convention, one with the new convention. And then in typical Wikipedia fashion, were merged lazily, causing confusion for intelligent detail-oriented people like myself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.40.209 (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So instead of being rude and publicly preening yourself, like other, even worse, Wikipedia editors, why don't you try your hand at improving the article? --Epipelagic (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does that fall to me? I wasn't aware I couldn't expect a certain level of quality from Wikipedia without having to become a content creator myself. You're like those people that insist that people who critique movies shouldn't do it unless they can do better.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.40.209 (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it falls to you. This is a collaborative project. You are just as responsible as anyone for shortcomings in the article. Do you pay to read Wikipedia like you pay to watch films? We are volunteers, and no content builders are paid like film producers. Wikipedia relies on people with good heart to donate their time and expertise. If you identify shortcomings and do nothing, then the blame falls squarely on yourself for the continued shortcomings. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  More taxonomy confusion 

message: See my sandbox for a suggested update to the taxbox. I am happy to keep the Plantae Kingdom though. Onco p53 23:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tax box

message: How about placing green algae in the Kingdom Viridiplantae?
That would account for both the Kingdom Protista and Plantae characters of it.
:Hi, we have kind of been over this discussion here please add more comments if you wish. Onco p53 06:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if they are not in Viridiplantae they are still in Plantae though. Right? There divisions are.--Kupirijo 12:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingdom Viridiplantae 

message: OK perhaps I'm too old. But just keep them as Chlorophyta! See: Hrady, F.G. and Guiry, M.D. A Check-list and Atlas of the Seaweeds of Britain and Ireland. 2006. British Phycological Society, London 
Osborne 14:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification

message: I added an image of conjugating green algae and I put subheadings in. This required me to move text around to improve readability. Sorry if it ruffled anyone's feathers. Rozzychan 14:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conjugation and subheadings

message: Is green algae the stuff that grows in water filters? If so, is it harmful and is there a way to prevent the growth? CharmeC 00:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is green algae harmful

message: Question regarding the first line of this article, "Green algae are microscopic protists; found in all aquatic environments, including marine, freshwater and brackish water and tummies". Tummies? Possible vandalism? SabreWolfy 02:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tummies

message: There are articles on Brown algae (Phaeophyta or Heterokontophyta?); Red Algae (Rhodophyta) so I suppose this should be "Green algae" (Chlorophyta)q.v. Osborne 13:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Green Algae OR Chlorophyta

message: This is a bit confusing! In the "Green algae" should I leave the classification and copy in the classification from the Chlorophyta? Perhaps I should. So there! Osborne 13:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't quickly find the answer to this.  The 6000 comes from a book which I don't have easy access to (as does the 7000, for that matter). I did ask myself whether the number of species in Charophyta was very small, but not really, it (excluding land plants) seems to have well over 4000 species.  There are a lot of reasons for such numbers to be imprecise, but since I don't really know where any of these numbers are coming from, I'm not sure which one is going on here. Kingdon (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers on the Plant article are cited, but are no more reliable for the Chlorophyta, in my estimation (and I pulled and cited those figures).  Part of the problem is that the basic circumscription of the Chlorophyta has changed in recent decades, so an accurate count is difficult to come by.  Most articles cite someone else, who cites comeone else, etc. back into the mists of confusion.  The count for the Plants article is only slightly better, since it was made by adding the counts from the various member groups given in a modern textbook, so at least it does not contain the Charophyta count.  However, this sadly does not mean the figure is necessarily more accurate. Worse, the best recent summary article on the phylogeny of the green algae (Lewis, L. A. and R. M. McCourt. 2004. "Green Algae and the Origin of Land Plants". American Journal of Botany 91: 1535-1556) does not give species counts at all, although it does give a nice summary of the phylogeny and a working classification. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification

message: The section on origins is confusing and the flow is not intuitive. The bit about double membranes should presumably lead to a statement about endosymbiosis. 
Can somebody who understands this better than I rewrite this section? Presumably what needs is meant is that green algae share descent with reds and glaucophytes, and that the pigments of greens are not necessarily indicative of which specific cyanobacteria was the endosymbiont, but rather a case of convergence?Spamburgler (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins

message: I had to do some relatively major tweaks to the cladogram based on the Lewis and McCourt paper from 2004.  For me the key quote in that paper is:
:Despite the convincing evidence for monophyly of charophyte algae and embryophytes, the topology of the charophyte tree has shifted dramatically. Specifically, the exact identity of the group sister to embryophytes has proven to be elusive
I don't know what has been found since 2004, but my general bias is to try to err on the side of making more general, safer claims, and waiting for a consensus to emerge, rather than trying to be up-to-the-minute. What I came up with seems to be something which the Bhattacharya and Medlin papers and the Lewis and McCourt ones agree on. Kingdon (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Something is wrong in either the coding of the tree or with the  template.  The branch to the Charophyte polytomy is not connecting to anywhere near where it should.  As a result, the polytomy is floating separately. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this depend on the browser or something?  I'm not sure what you are seeing, so I'm not sure what to try to fix/clarify, but the polytomies as of my edit were a 3-way branch to Chlorophyceae, Ulvophyceae, Trebouxiophyceae and a 5-way branch to Charales, Klebsormidiales, Zygnematales and Desmidiales, Coleochaetales, Higher plants. I did notice some cases in which the template invocation didn't explicitly have the "1=", "2=", etc.  Does adding them help? Does the problem match any of the ones already previously reported at Template talk:Clade? Kingdon (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phylogeny 

message: Would someone please add some non-microscopic photographs that would help people identify the primary groups of algae?   Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) are a serious health hazard but these only, as far as I understand, refer to blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria ) not to green algae.  Helping people distinguish between the two would be a helpful service for the article to provide in my opinion. LookingGlass (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The green algae include thousands of species, most of which can only be distinguished using chemical or microscopic characters.  Likewise, the primary groups of algae differ consistently only in chemical and microscopic characters, and many kinds of algae have only microscopic forms.  There are harmful blooms of algae in groups other than cyanobacteria--the most notable being the dinoflagellate blooms.  To read about differences between major groups of algae, see Algae. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, not helpful.  Knowing less than lookingglass I looked up green algae after thinking about the broadcast news report of all the US lakes filled with toxic "green algae" slime causing illness and death.  A see also link at a minimum with a descriptive for this weather/pollution related problem would be appropriate, even if the green in the news should have been some other color.  Better yet, a lay person's interpretation of common use of "green algae" in the intro linking someplace useful.  My sincere thanks for all the great work that makes wikipedia so useful and vital... Mulp (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identification and HABs 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Green algae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060921203727/http://home.arcor.de/stefan.wic/diplomarbeit.pdf to http://home.arcor.de/stefan.wic/diplomarbeit.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: is confirming the Basal Green algae character of the Mesostigmatophyceae and the Chlorokybus, and mentions that Spirotaenia (Mesotaeniaceae) belongs there too. The article main text does not mention the faith of the rest of the Mesotaeniaceae, but the supplemental figures do. Figure AppendixS2 in the supplemental information shows Spirotaenia (Mesotaeniaceae) as sister of Chlorokybus. Of the other Mesotaeniaceae, in this figure, Mesotaenium is placed as sister of the Zygnematophyceae, while the rest is interdispersed among basal Zygnematophyceae. So the cladogram suggests Zygnematophyceae appeared as sister or in Mesotaeniaceae (and certainly not the other way around, as suggested by the use of "Zygenamatales" nomenclature. At best, one could then consider them paraphyletic stem Zygnematophyceae). The difficulty is how to represent this. Adding to the difficulty is that the article mentions Zygnematophyceae to be the sister of the Embryophytes, without mentioning their view on the position of the Mesotaeniaceae.
Currently, I have made the trees with Zygnematophyceae and Mesotaeniaceae (senso strictissimo, taking it basically corresponding to Mesotaenium) as sisters, as a proposed way of doing it, but it appears equally fair to have Zygnematophyceae emerged in Mesostigmatophyceae  (senso stricto, removing Spirotaenia) (ignoring the Taxonomic ranks, which can be misleading/erroneous).
Note: finding are based on plastid genes. Then again, I have not seen a proposal of plastid tranfer WITHIN green algae.
 
The article further supports the Gluacophyta as sister to the green algae, for which consensus is growing.Jmv2009 (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mesotaeniaceae