 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Citations to papers for the following point would be useful
- Rabdiophrys, Pinaciophora, and Pompholyxophrys are nuclearids
Merger?
editShould Nuclearia be merged into here? It’s the only genus in Nucleariida, so it seems impractical for them to have separate articles. Interested inTaxonomy (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- According to citation 8 in the article at least Lithocolla and Pompholyxophrys belong to Nucleariida. That article takes a broad view of Nucleariida, also including Parvularia and Fonticula. Wikipedia has the broader group as Cristidiscoidea, and Pompholyxophrys in a 3rd subgroup (Rotosphaerida). The Wiki articles on Rabdiophrys and Pinaciophora don't reference any recent work on their position. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- At we have "Currently, five genera of filose amoebae are considered bona fide nucleariids. These are the uncovered Nuclearia', Fonticula and Parvularia, and the covered Lithocolla (with xenosomes) and Pompholyxophrys (with idiosomes) (Fig. 1, Table 1). At least another six morphologically described genera of filose amoebae are suspected to be nucleariids and await molecular confirmation: the incertae sedis Vampyrellidium, Elaeorhanis, Pinaciophora, Rabdiophrys, Rabdiaster and Thomseniophora)".
- An alternative action is to merge Cristidiscoidea here. In either case it is necessary to evaluate consensus on the classification of these taxa. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- If Fonticula can be considered part of Nucleariida, then the alternative aproach of merging Cristidiscoidea into here may work. Essentially, if you count the incertae sedis genera and fonticula and a few other genera, Nucleariida is equal to Cristidiscoidea. However it still needs concensus. Interested inTaxonomy (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- If we do go ahead and merge Cristidiscoidea into here, then Rotosphaerida maybe should also redirect to here. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Vampyrellidium currently redirects to Vampyrellidae. While it's position isn't conclusively resolved, it would be better redirected to Nucleariida sensu lato. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wait what page should be redirected to Nucleariidae sensu lato? Interested inTaxonomy (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- On the principle, in the absence of an article for a taxon, of redirecting that taxon to the smallest taxon that includes it, if we decide to make the scope of this article Nucleariida sensu lato (=Cristidiscoidea) rather than Nucleariida sensu strictu (=Nucleariidae) then as the scientific consensus appears to be Vampyrellidium belongs in the former group, rather than in Vampyrellidae, the appropriate action is to mention Vampyrellidium as a genus thought likely to belong to Nucleariida, and to change its redirect to point here, rather than to Vampyrellidae, in which there is little current support for including it. (No one seems to have proposed a familial assignment for Vampyrellidium with Nucleariida. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Good idea. Also now Rabdiophrys has Beene changed to reflect that it’s likely it’s a Nucleariid Interested inTaxonomy (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- If Fonticula can be considered part of Nucleariida, then the alternative aproach of merging Cristidiscoidea into here may work. Essentially, if you count the incertae sedis genera and fonticula and a few other genera, Nucleariida is equal to Cristidiscoidea. However it still needs concensus. Interested inTaxonomy (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- An alternative action is to merge Cristidiscoidea here. In either case it is necessary to evaluate consensus on the classification of these taxa. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)