Talk:Xenophyophore

message: The bit about xenophyophores being the largest protozoa seems kind of questionable, since it depends 
on whether you count the Mycetozoa.  Saying they are the largest single-celled organisms compounds the 
problem, since it's even less clear on whether to include them, as both xenophyophores and Mycetozoa are 
multinucleate.  I'd like to suggest dropping the superlative, though I don't know as much about the 
group as the author (Hadal).  Who, btw, has done a really excellent job on this page. -- Josh
:Thanks Josh! As for the superlative, it was repeated in all the literature I read, including the site linked; I thought it was safe enough to include as an interest grabber (a sin of popular science?). I completely overlooked the slime molds, and you're absolutely right; it does depend on your perspective. :\
:So, as you seem to be the local protist expert, I'll heed your suggestion. Rewording will follow shortly. :) Hadal 11:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're the 'largest' single-celled organisms, wouldn't it be useful to give some indication of how big that is? It's hard to tell from the picture. --Tsbertalan (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Without scale it's impossible to tell if that's one meter or one millimeter. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Hi, This may be a kind of elementary question in basic biology. For single cell to have more than two nuclei, that cell has to be either syncytium or coenochyte. I am not an expert in this field at all. Can anybody add this to make the excellent article perfect? AIEA 16:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  single-cell / multinuclei 

message: Article: 
I'm no expert in this, but there may be something interesting in there. Esn 00:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Found near Canada

message: Clicking around I find a number of variant pronunciations. Who can provide a good standard with the phonetic spelling?  This site accentuates each of the two "oph" syllables, thusly: - / -/ -. But if the original Greek is adhered to then the final "e" will be vocalized, moving the second accent onto "phor," resulting in -/- -/- . Orthotox (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Latinised Greek uses the Latin accent rule. Hence, . See Traditional English pronunciation of Latin#Stress placement. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: D'oh! I only just re-read this and realised that I'd talked bunk. The -e is not an Ancient Greek ending, as the Ancient Greek original would end in -phōros or more likely -phōron (because of the implied zōon, i. e., "living thing"); the word is already adapted to English, so it should be end in a homonym of "fore"/"four" like semaphore, I guess, but I'm not sure where the stress falls, then. Hm. Probably a question for the refdesk. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation?

message: The article suggests a variety of different classifications. How certain is it that these are foraminifera, or even animals? Vicki Rosenzweig (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The molecular evidence that Xenophyophores belong among the foraminifera is quite strong, I think (I've added a couple of recent citations to the article). However, they are certainly not "animals" (animals, or metazoa are an entirely different group). Deuterostome (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there enough evidence for the taxobox? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Xenophyophore. 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  tag to http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/GDD/DEEPSEAS/giantprotozoans.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Xenophyophore. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20050517164034/http://ngo.grida.no:80/wwfneap/Projects/Reports/Offshore.pdf to http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfneap/Projects/Reports/Offshore.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051227112128/http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov:80/explorations/03windows/background/education/media/03win_giants.pdf to http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/03windows/background/education/media/03win_giants.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "They form delicate and elaborate agglutinated tests..."
Uh, yeah.  Sure.  OK.  Whatever the f*** those are.
Some explanation, a footnote, or maybe a link, please?
BTW, are these plants or animals?  The Article doesn't say.
:Test is linked in the lead; where it states that xenophyophores are Foraminifera, which are protists which apparently are neither plant, animal nor fungus. zzz (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned, the composition of the test is covered elsewhere in the article. However, "agglutinated" is a specialized term, so I added a brief definition. As zzz says, they're neither plants nor animals, but Rhizaria (a separate branch of the eukaryote tree, within the supergroup SAR).   Deuterostome  (Talk) 11:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Say what?