Talk:Cryptomonad

message: This page should say how many species there are in the phylum. --Savant13 20:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Species

message: Shouldn't we mention the protoctists (or protists) here? An "alga" without plastid is strictly speaking not an alga, right? StefanTerwijk (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you are asking. The classification here is quite new, and somewhat uncertain.  But as noted at Protist, the Chromalveolata are a subcategory of the protists (same with the Hacrobia, probably, whether or not it is considered part of the Chromalveolata).  But "protist" isn't particularly used in most recent classifications. Kingdon (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protists 

message: Cryptomonads are now thought to be a very basal lineage of the Streptophytes (Kim, E & L Graham. 2008. EEF2 analysis challenges the monophyly of Archaeplastida and Chromalveolata. PLOS One 3(7): e2621.).  This view is now widely accepted, even by those who formerly advocated for a single primary plastid endosymbiosis event (personal communication with L Graham, 2012).  --Jjknack1 (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add the information by sourcing it to a reliable published article that incorporates it. This can be done by looking at the citations for the original journal article. Eau (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: New Phylogenetic Classification

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cryptomonad. 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/20110610151135/http://www.life.umd.edu/labs/delwiche/PSlife/lectures/Cryptophyta.html/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Info&id=412159&lvl=1 to http://www.life.umd.edu/labs/delwiche/PSlife/lectures/Cryptophyta.html/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Info&id=412159&lvl=1
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) 04:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: While I originally believed the designation of Cryptomonads under "Cryptomonada" perfectly appropriate for the article, I no longer believe this to be the case and would prefer to see it (as well as other wiki articles referencing Cryptomonads) changed to "Cryptophyceae", except in any cases where the former designation is neccesary (such as material concerning historical changes in classification). Given that such a name/classification change would affect dozens of articles, I would prefer to get feedback from other editors before making this change to other relevant articles, though I have made the change in the main article.
My methodology is not really scientific, but I believe it sufficient for this purpose. The search terms for possible scientific IDs were put into Google Scholar, and English-language articles using the term between 2013 and 2019 were counted, from the first five pages of results than Google Scholar returned. This count found that Cryptophyta is much more common in recent scientific literature than Cryptomonada.
Doing this, I found only 4 examples using Cryptomonada, but 43 examples using Cryptophyceae. I find User:NessieVL's concern well founded.
Thereppy (talk) 06:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Article Name/Scientific Classification