Talk:Vampyrellida

AlgaeBase is not WoRMS

Reference 1

Guiry MD, Guiry GM, eds. (2015). "Aconchulinida". AlgaeBase. National University of Ireland, Galway. World Register of Marine Species. Retrieved 22 November 2015.

that is

{{cite WoRMS |date=2015 |title=Aconchulinida |db=AlgaeBase |id=178849 |access-date=22 November 2015}}

mixes up AlgaeBase and WoRMS.

For further discussion on taxonomy please refer to Talk:Vampyrellidae#Please check classification

Thank you.

--Ernsts (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vampyrellida/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a go at this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I have read all the comments and fixed the article accordingly. However there is one comment I don't quite understand. "Found through genetic data" does not imply genomics, and nowhere in the source does it say that whole genome sequencing was used for the establishment of the clades; it only says that genetic data was used, which could mean anything from an entire genome to very small sequences of DNA. I hope this clarifies the situation.

Also, I am choosing to retain Cienkowski as the article's spelling because that's how the bibliography refers to him. I have no reason to oppose it.

As for the cladogram, I don't see fitting the full-width placement over the boxed placement as it is a small cladogram and only one group, Vampyrella, has a page and images of its own. When the rest of pages and images are uploaded, we may enlarge the cladogram and add images to it. ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 12:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Citations of German papers need an English translation (|trans-title= ) and a language parameter (|language=German).

• Thalassomyxa is a genus, but is listed under "Families"?

• The drawings "The three distinct morphotypes of vampyrellid amoebae." are too small for the embedded captions to be legible (you could use |upright=2.5, say).

• Several images have captions that are not complete sentences, so they should not end with a dot.

• The indented but unnumbered and unbulleted list inside "Trophic diversity and feeding strategies" is non-standard and doesn't stand out well (probably won't work well on some browsers or small devices, either). Would suggest you number them, or remove the indentation and use some list wording like "Firstly, ...".

• "Trophic diversity and feeding strategies" is an instance of a heading containing "and", i.e. it covers two subjects. Suggest you have two sections; you could actually (per the above) have a named subsection for each of the feeding strategies, as they are quite important.

• "large or bulky prey": is there any difference?

• "the most famous strategy": is this relevant? If so, it belongs, cited and explained (how did it become famous?), in "History of discovery", along with the mention of vampires.

• "found through genetic data" – genomics, surely.

• "Cienkowski" - full name at first mention. I note that his article chooses the spelling Tsenkowsky.

• Fresenius, Cienkowski, Zopf: please gloss briefly who these guys are ("the German physician", etc).

• "a large vacuole that resembles a sucking motion": which means what exactly?

• Nothing to do with this GAN, but the Rhizaria navbox is overcomplex and hard to maintain, embodying as it does one particular hypothesis about the phylogeny (leaving aside the explicit incertae sedis); and it should not contain redlinks. Basically it's trying to do far too much in a group that has been reorganised repeatedly. It occupies almost the whole height of a large screen, and presumably takes two screen heights on a laptop. Needs to be radically simplified.

• Cladogram is a bit obscure with its "lineage B1" etc; these ought to be explained in a caption below the cladogram, or linked, or both. I can see "lineage B5" in the indented taxonomy list but none of the others, and where is B3?

• Cladogram would be more readable if enlarged (full-width) rather than boxed, and illustrated with suitable small images of the various clades.

• Spotchecks all ok.

• The PLOS one images (File:Vampyrellid morphotypes.png and the following 5 images) should each have a link to the license page https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright on Commons.

• Other images ok on Commons.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Vampyrella lateritia

• ... that vampire amoebae (example pictured) are naked? Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S143446102100064X?via%3Dihub "All known vampyrellid amoebae are naked and filose, but the different species display a broad morphological variety." This might make a good quirky hook.^(?)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Yume Nikki

Improved to Good Article status by Snoteleks (talk). Nominated by BorgQueen (talk) at 11:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Vampyrellida; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• @Snoteleks: please suggest your alt hooks here. BorgQueen (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  • BTW I'm not a reviewer, just the nominator. BorgQueen (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
    • . Recently promoted to good article. The article is long enough, written neutrally, has inline citations and appears free of close paraphrasing/plagiarism (Earwig ✓). The hook is formatted correctly, interesting, cited inline, and would make a good quirky hook. (I would have gone with "free-living and naked"). The image is released under a free license and used in the article. gobonobo ^{+ c} 20:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Filoflabellate morph

The text says that only Placopus exhibits filoflabellate morphology, but the illustration just under that paragraph uses Hyalodiscus as an example. Oddly, the Wikipedia article and its sources say Hyalodiscus is a diatom, not a vampyrid, but a quick web search finds many articles (e. g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28064061/) that say it's a naked amoeba instead.

Is this a case of duplicate nomenclature? Or a very dramatic taxonomic shift? The linked articles says that Hyalodiscus sometimes consumes chloroplasts. Was it mistaken for a photosynthesizer because of that, and was never a diatom?

In any case, "only Placopus" and "also Hyalodiscus" are contradictory. IAmNitpicking (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@IAmNitpicking Hey, thanks for reaching out. It seems I completely missed this talk page message until today, sorry about that.

So yes. Placopus and Hyalodiscus are synonyms. But Placopus is the conserved name, because Hyalodiscus is also the name for a diatom, given by a different author. The footnote of the article explains it. Since Hyalodiscus as a name for the diatom came first before Hyalodiscus as a name for the vampyrellid, we prefer the usage of the name Placopus for the vampyrellid. —Snoteleks 🦠 18:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)