Talk:Euglena

message: Nice appropriate references. But why are some called outside links when they're specific research articles? In any case, shouldn't they have the citation in the link/reference, so people can at least see the date before link? Another way of thinking about it is, that if the citation is meaningful, it's a reference.  DGG 04:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: references vs outside links

message: A computerised algorithm has generated a version of this page using data obtained from AlgaeBase.  You may be able to incorporate elements into the current article. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to create a new page at Euglena (alga). Anybot (contact operator) 16:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot-generated content 

message: I am a TA for an introductory biology course, and some of my students will be editing and improving this page as part of a class project July 8-18th.  They will use this discussion page to post information about changes they have made (or are considering making) to the article.   -- EricaVE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricaVE (talk • contribs) 22:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upcoming edits 

message: I'm not sure how much longer the class project mentioned above will run, but if anyone wants to keep the recently-added "Uses" section in the article, please bear in mind that we try hard to avoid promoting products. I believe the "Uses" section needs a reference in a reliable source that provides some scientific support for the product, otherwise, the whole section should be omitted since it will only act as a magnet to attract WP:SPAM in the future. Or, if available, perhaps give a very short statement with a reference to some general article discussing uses (and omit the product name and details here). Johnuniq (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Uses

message: these need to be integrated into the article & linked to the list at the end  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.60.227 (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: How is “rear mounted” defined here?  It seems to me that the only meaningful definition of “rear” vs. “front” for a euglena would be based on its usual direction of movement; with “front” being the end of the creature that is facing the direction in which it moves, and “rear” being the end facing away from the direction it moves.  By this definition, based on my own microscopic observations of these creatures, the flagella is on the front, not the rear.  I'm going to remove the phrase “rear mounted” from this sentence, for now, as I think it is incorrect, if not meaningless.  Does anyone here disagree with me?  — Bob Blaylock (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: &ldquo;&hellip;using a large, '''rear mounted''' flagellum for locomotion.&rdquo;?

message: I started the process, by creating a reflist (and added the new section on Historical Background & Early Classification).  I'll finish the job as time permits.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuterostome (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning up references

message: This section to me seems rather confusing. It suggests that the organism has a "choice" in how it behaves. Is that true? Is that even a meaningful question? I would have imagined that in the presence of sunlight, the chloroplasts would do their thing without any control over them being possible.
Old_Wombat (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the wording in that passage sounds odd, and makes it sound like phototrophy is an act of volition.  I think the original writer just wanted to emphasize that the creature has two nutritive modes & can shift from one to the other as environmental conditions require.  In fact, when deprived of light for a long period of time E. gracilis will entirely lose chloroplasts and revert to a purely heterotrophic way of life.  But, of course, while it can adapt readily, it isn't "choosing," from moment to moment, how it will feed.  I'll reword the passage (I have some other stuff to add, anyway...the section on recent phylogeny needs to be expanded.)  
Deuterostome (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  " When acting as an heterotroph / autotroph ... ". 

message: Added a few paragraphs on issues of classification, 19th century to present day. 
Deuterostome (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New Section

message: In various revisions over the years, the lead of this article has placed Euglena in either the ICZN (zooloogical) phylum Euglenozoa or the ICBN (botanical) phylum Euglenophyta.  The article has flipped back and forth numerous times, presumably because of confusion over the fact that Euglena's phylum differs, depending on which system of nomenclature you happen to be using.  For consistency within the article, Euglenozoa is a better choice, because the taxobox uses the ICZN nomenclature.  However, Euglenozoa is not exactly exactly synonymous with Euglenophyta(which omits the kinetoplastida), and the claim concerning "44 genera and 800 species" applied explicitly to the phylum Euglenophyta.
To settle this, I've rewritten the the lead, bypassing the phylum altogether, and situating Euglena within the class Euglenoidea, which happens to be coextensive with phylum Euglenophyta. The number of genera has been changed to 54, to match those listed at The Euglenoid Project website, a trustworthy source presided over by noted Euglenoid researcher Richard Triemer. I've added a second citation from that site, backing up the original claim concerning 800 species.  The citation of Freshwater Algal Flora of the British Isles is omitted, since it gives a different genus count (which is normal....taxa come and go, and taxonomists don't always agree).
While editing the lead, I changed "unicellular" to "single-celled," just because it's simpler.  Deuterostome (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Since well-meaning users continue to change phylum Euglenozoa to Euglenophyta (which, as noted above, is a taxon of slightly different composition), I've added a couple of references. I also removed the formal rankings from Discoba, Excavata and Eukaryota (as in Adl et. al, 2012). As long as Wikipedia has no taxonomic standard, and higher-level classifications continue to change with the appearance of new molecular data, assigning ranks creates confusion. Deuterostome (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolving the Euglenozoa / Euglenophyta nuisance

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Euglena. 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/20071007115729/http://starcentral.mbl.edu/microscope/portal.php?pagetitle=assetfactsheet&imageid=23340 to http://starcentral.mbl.edu/microscope/portal.php?pagetitle=assetfactsheet&imageid=23340
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) 16:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified