Talk:Euglenozoa

This  level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Algae Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Algae, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the photosynthetic organisms commonly called algae and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Microbiology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Number of species

This page should say how many species are in the phylum. --Savant13 20:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature

• Are Euglenozoa and Euglenophyta the same? Euglena is said to belong to Euglenophyta phylum but Excavata doesn't contain it. --Abanima (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Euglenophyta is the same as the euglenids, one of the three (or so) groups in the Euglenozoa. Kingdon (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The rod

What is the function of this rod? There is not much written about this in the wikipedia article. 84.112.136.52 (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Differences in the two descriptions of Kostygov et al.

The classification by Kostygov et al. (2021) is shown twice, once as a horizontal cladogram in the Phylogeny section, and once as bulleted list in the Taxonomy section. One would think that both should show the same structure, but that is not the case. At least the following names only appear in the cladogram: Glycomonada, Olkasia. Also, Eutreptiaceae are assigned differently. I didn't check the classification by Cavalier-Smith (2016); that may show similar discrepancies. ◅ Sebastian 12:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I have checked it in the reference document and both the taxonomy and the cladogram are correct (there are no discrepancies). You should take into consideration, that the cladogram for a more compact presentation sometimes does not show the names of monotypic taxons and only the lowest rank is shown, so insted Olkaspira—Olkasia only Olkasia, instead Eutreptiales—Eutreptiaceae/Eutreptiidae only Eutreptiaceae/Eutreptiidae (this approach is quite common in the phylogenetic presentations in cases, the higher and the lower rank names are created from the same original name). You are right in one aspect – it is not applied everywhere in the cladogram (Rapazida—Rapazidae, Diplonemea—Diplonemida, and Trypanosomatida—Trypanosomatidae are not reduced). Glycomonada (Kinetoplastea + Diplonemea) is a name of a diplonemid-kinetoplastid clade (according Lax G., et al. 2021, DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2021.107088), which is mentioned in the reference document by Kostygov et al., but is not included as a separate taxonomic rank in the presented taxonomy. Petr Karel (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I'm not sure what you mean by “there are no discrepancies”. Are you saying “(A) there is no difference between our cladogram and the one in the source and (B) there is no difference between our bulleted list and those in the appropriate “Taxonomy” section in the source.”? I agree with (B) since both “Glycomonada” and “Olkasia” do not appear in section 2.2 in the source, and the difference for “Eutreptiaceae” can be explained away as just a different choice for a synonym. As for (A), I can't say that, since I don't see any cladogram in the source that would include names for taxa above genera. Did I miss any? ◅ Sebastian 20:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

By "no discrepancies" I ment no contradictory facts. So here as well as in the reference the same facts are presented in several forms with different level of detail (taxonimical system, comments in text, figures, cladograms). Sorry for my English. Petr Karel (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

No need to apologize, your English is great. I, too, understand “discrepancies” to mean “contradictory facts”. I only asked about “differences” because it's less presumptuous. (A good example are the synonyms, which show just a difference in naming, no contradiction.)

What about my last question? Do you see any cladogram in the source that would include names for taxa above genera? ◅ Sebastian 10:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes: Figures called Tree A, Tree B, Tree C, Tree E, Tree F (the right side of the figures). Petr Karel (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I now see “Glycomonada” in Tree A and “Olkasia” in Tree F. This agrees with our cladogram. However, I see neither “Eutreptiaceae” nor “Euglenales”. Both should be in Tree F, shouldn't they? (BTW, there are more differences between our cladogram and Tree F, but since those agree with the bulleted list, I'm not worried about them.) ◅ Sebastian 11:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)