Talk:Chlorophyta

Protista Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Protista, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of protists and protistology 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.ProtistaWikipedia:WikiProject ProtistaTemplate:WikiProject ProtistaProtista articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.AlgaeWikipedia:WikiProject AlgaeTemplate:WikiProject AlgaeAlgae articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taxonomy

Shouldn't Chlorophyta belong either to Kingdom Protista or the new Kingdom Viridiplantae?

Read the referenced article and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive11#Algae. Basically we decided that it is not Protista, and yes maybe should be Viridiplantae, but there is no consensus amongst scientists yet. So rather that change every single plant taxbox, we have stuck with Plantae. Onco_p53 3 July 2005 01:38 (UTC)

But if the text says "Chlorophyta are today classified under the Kingdom Protocista, Under the Phylum Viridiplantae, often called Phylum Algae.", I think it's best to change plantae to protisa. Now it's really hard to try understand which one this is. — linnea (<3) 18:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that text, which is simply wrong - Viridiplantae is not the same as the algae, and is never treated as a protist phylum. Nor are the Chlorophyceae a family, nor are they the only subdivision used today. Josh

So this also is wrong? http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Chlamydomonas&diff=19308236&oldid=16049359 — linnea (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not wrong per se, but it's following a different standard then the one we agreed on. Josh

Where can I find the standard you agree on? According to the NCBI Taxonomy server at [1] the division Chlorophyta belongs - together with the Streptophyta - to the phylum Viridiplantae. Is this wrong? --Tom 15:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright?

A lot of the text on this page can be found on www.bartleby.com/65/ch/Chloroph.html, which states: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright © 2001-05 Columbia University Press.
lycaon 13:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This material was added at the same time as the incorrect classification, so I'm reverting the previous version. Josh

Dit stukje hierboven klopt dus niet zo goed he. Eigenlijk niets. Ik wil meeeeeer info!! Ik weet er ook geen drol over. Ik weet wel dat de fochels HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL lief zijn :)

Stubs and Viridiplantae

OK I added protist and plant stubs to this category, as well as a link to my barebones article on Viridiplantae. Hopefully more people would add things in about the taxonomical debate.

The above comment was unsigned by User:68.163.203.253. Onco_p53 00:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

This information and page needs merged into the Green algae page. It looks complex. Is there someone comfortable doing it? I'll do it later on in the week if no one else jumps to it. KP Botany 17:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Possibly I should not have added to the Chlorophyta! I added the classification to be found in Hoek,Mann & Jahns 1995.

Perhaps they should be merged, However under "Chlorophyta" rather than "Green algae" - it could be redirected! Too big a job for me! I don't know how to copy & paste an image for a start. Osborne 11:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Ah!! The article "Green algae" is concerned with MICROSCOPIC green algae - or so the first line says! Can I move it to an article entitled "Microscipic green algae"? and move the Chlorophyta to "Green Algae"? There are "Brown Algae" and "Red Algae" articles, so this (i.e.Chlorophyta) should be moved to "Green Algae" - I think! Please advise, I am not confident to make such a move. Osborne 13:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC) {{help me}}[reply]

References

Suggest a full reference be entered under "References" Osborne 08:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A division of green algae?

To me, this sounds like only some algae are chlorophyta. Is this correct? 141.14.245.148 (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confused names and information

The name "Chlorophyta" has been used in a number of different senses, two of which are confused in this article. Firstly it can be used to mean all green algae in what is called Viridiplantae or Chlorobionta or Chloroplastida or even just Plantae. This seems to be, for example, how it is used in the Encarta reference [2], which is why the total number of species is given there as 8,000. Secondly it can be used to mean only one of the two clades which make up Viridiplantae. If you go to [3] you'll see that in this sense Chlorophyta has only 4,300 odd species. The two uses of the name are muddled up in the current version of the article, which thus contains inconsistent information. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now re-structured the article to distinguish between the two senses. There is some material which is commented out, which can be restored if someone works out which of the two senses it applies to (perhaps both, perhaps only one). Peter coxhead (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bold and Wynne 1985

According to the article, the classification of Bold and Wynne (1985) is that:

But, according to Hoek, Mann and Jahns (1995), the classification of Bold and Wynne (1985) is that:

Chlorophyta

Volvocales
Tetrasporales
Chlorococcales
Chlorosarcinales
Ulotrichales
Chaetophorales
Ulvales
Cladophorales
Siphonocladales
Acrosiophonales
Caulerpales
Dasycladales
Oedogoniales
Trentepohliales
Zignematales

Charophyta

Charales

Does anybody have the book of Bold and Wynne and could confirm if it is correct? Zorahia (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article classification is missing the orders Zygnematales (in Chlorophyta) and Charales (in Charophyta). I find the summary of the book in the site of a German library ([4]).Zorahia (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History

I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006. 18 years. I have a doctorate in biophysics, and so I edit a lot of biology articles. This is the first biology article that contained an extensive history of the past classification schemes. Including an 86 year old scheme. Really?!? Eighty-six years old!?! All previous schemes are made obsolete by the modern DNA sequencing techniques used in the paper by Li, et al. ^[1] There is no need in this article for nine previous schemes, most of which are demonstrated to be incorrect by the Li paper. The very title of the Li paper illustrates just how incorrect they are, when it says, "...unveils the existence of a third phylum within green plants." All of them missed a phylum?!? If you feel passionately about presenting this old superseded data, then create an article, "Chlorophyta, History of Classification", or some similar. Nick Beeson (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nwbeeson There's no need to be upset about this, or to create an entirely separate article for the history of classification when it can simply be a section. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nwbeeson I have reverted your edit due to being exclusively a deletion of information which is otherwise perfectly notable within this article. The history of research of a given taxonomic group is important, no matter how obsolete or superseded it is, and regardless of its current classification scheme. I suggest you make more constructive edits, for example adding information about why and how exactly the classification schemes changed. For an example, see the Protist and Pedinellales pages. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Li L, Wang S, Wang H, Sahu SK, Marin B, Li H, et al. (September 2020). "The genome of Prasinoderma coloniale unveils the existence of a third phylum within green plants". Nature Ecology & Evolution. 4 (9): 1220–1231. doi:10.1038/s41559-020-1221-7. PMC 7455551. PMID 32572216.

[1] Li L, Wang S, Wang H, Sahu SK, Marin B, Li H, et al. (September 2020). "The genome of Prasinoderma coloniale unveils the existence of a third phylum within green plants". Nature Ecology & Evolution. 4 (9): 1220–1231. doi:10.1038/s41559-020-1221-7. PMC 7455551. PMID 32572216.

[1]