Talk:Domain (biology)

message: The link labeled "Two-empire system" actually points to a page about the political meaning of "two empire system". And that page does not have a disambiguation paragraph.
How is the five-empire system different from the old five-kingdom system that was used before monera was divied up into archaebacteria and eubacteria? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two- empire System

message: Should the Empire be listed as an equivalent term for Domain? I believe that the Empire was originally conceived as a top-level rank encompassing all living things (Empire Organisata) as distinct from non-living things (Empire Inorganisata), and is therefore superordinate to what are now called Domains. Gnostrat 13:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The original two-empire system

message: The two-empire system . . . , with top-level groupings of Prokaryota . . . , Eukaryota and the more recently discovered Archaea empires.
Prokaryota, Eukaryota and Archaea — that's three, not two.
The linked "Two-empire system" page claims on the contrary that the empires are "Acytota and Cytota".  (The latter contains all three of the "two" empires mentioned in the quote.  Compare with Gnostrat's remark above.  There are related comments on the "Two-Empire System" discussion page; in particular Solo Owl's remarks might be helpful.)
None of the three systems currently include non-cellular life.
This contradicts the linked "Two-empire system" page (which, as mentioned above, has an Acytota empire). — Dan337 (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Two-Empire System [Episode III]

message: Should these be merged?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.239.56 (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a proposal for the merge of two articles (this and the Three-domain system), or some other also? --Biblbroks's talk 21:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

text: If just for the two my vote is:
*Support the merge. --Biblbroks's talk 22:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Three Domain System Page

message: What is a domain?
(In a few sentences somebody-please!)--DJackD (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a Domain? 

message: In the last sentence, it says a citation is needed for the phrase stating that non-life is not currently grouped with domains. I don't think it needs a citation, for it is obvious, in my opinion. Heritagefarm (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for non-life 

message: I forgot my notes in my classroom!! Can someone please tell me which Domain is the multi-cellular one. You know, the one all the animals and plants go under. Someone is bound to know something!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.86.79 (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Domain is the multi-cellular? 

message: According to a recent study  giant viruses may represent a fourth "supergroup" of life, along side archaea, bacteria, and eukarya. Should this be added? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this honestly notable enough to include? One study is one study in millions - has there been any further developments?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.82.250 (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, viruses in general are quite controversial in the debate about whether they should even be called life. Since they are generally not accepted as "life", and domains are to classify "life", I really don't think that it should be in this article. There should also be more reliable studies/sources confirming this. Devinthepeng (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth domain of life? 

message: hey, there is a frog on the picture, but there is also a tree under it. that's also eukarya :D what's more the animal is actually called tree frog! wouldn't it be better to show just a tree or just a frog, or mentioning each?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.72.252 (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably better so as to only have one organism representing each domain. Two and people might get confused, especially because it's hard to see what tree the frog is on and people might think that Plantae and Animalia are two different domains. Devinthepeng (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture on the top 

message: The image provided is not static, but rather is dynamically linked to the full set of sub-topics that are represented within the image.  This seems counter to all other images  represented in Wikipedia, in which clicking on an image provides a zoomed version to the image.  A separate article or sub-article should provide all of the sub-topic links, rather than within this thumbnail sized image.  SquashEngineer (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The image with caption that begins "A speculatively rooted tree" doesn't magnify when I put my cursor on it and click. Can this be fixed? Attic Salt (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a figure that is some kind of interactive nonsense which can not be zoomed in on is really useful with microscopic unreadable letters, ingenious!--84.209.8.208 (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Image - Phylogenic Tree of Life

message: I commented out an ostensible error at the end of a paragraph in the introduction:
: ... The first two are all prokaryotic microorganisms, or mostly single-celled organisms whose cells have  All life that has a cell nucleus and eukaryotic membrane-bound organelles is included in Eukarya.
and replaced it with
: ... The first two are all prokaryotic microorganisms, or mostly single-celled organisms whose cells have no membrane-bound nucleus. All life that has a cell nucleus and eukaryotic membrane-bound organelles is included in Eukarya.
or more legibly
: ... The first two are all prokaryotic microorganisms, or mostly single-celled organisms whose cells have no membrane-bound nucleus. All life that has a cell nucleus and eukaryotic membrane-bound organelles is included in Eukarya.
I am not a histologist, so there easily could be an exotic exception that I don't know about. The original writer, for example, may have been thinking of a nucleoid and was perhaps confused by the similar name. However, the standard line given in the linked article (cell nucleus) and prokaryote & eukaryote articles, is that prokaryotes have no nucleus at all. This postulate / definition is so thoroughly embedded in the articles I consulted, that the remarkable discovery of exceptions (which I, personally, would suspect are actually unusual eukaryotes that have drastically reduced or discarded their earlier nuclear membrane) there needs to be a citation to safeguard / validate the extrordinary claim. Lacking that, I'm going to suppose that it's an outright error.
107.115.33.14 (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commented out apparent prokariote "nucleus" error & supplied more conventional replacement 

message: — Assignment last updated by Gustavo1231 (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: General Biology I Honors