Talk:Rhizaria

Taxobox

Would it hurt to have a taxobox here? Unikont and bikont have one, primoplantae has one, yet when I put one here it gets deleted! This is a technical taxinomical grouping, therefore it should have a taxobox! Something like, domain Eukaryota, subkingdom bikonta, Supergroup Rhizaria. If we must (to please the pagans) you can shove in kingdom protista. Werothegreat 20:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, Rhizaria is a clade, and it's not clear how it will be used in ranked taxonomic systems. Cavalier-Smith treats it as a protist infrakingdom, in a subkingdom Gymnomyxa; but nobody else seems to recognize Gymnomyxa, which is after all a paraphyletic group. Listing them as bikonts is a possibility, but I'm not sure it makes sense to list that as established; things like Adl et al. still consider their relationships uncertain.

That, by the way, is why I removed the box. All that would be left is saying Rhizaria are an unranked group of eukaryotes, which doesn't add much to the article. So long as we're organizing pages by kingdoms rather than clades, I thought it would make more sense to wait until they find a place in an established ranked system. I'll check with WP:TOL, though, if we should still be using Protista as our main organizational scheme. Josh

It's been a few days and nobody there has expressed opposition to dropping Protista. I'll replace the taxobox. Josh 07:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For now, I'd like to suggest we remove the reference to Cabozoa from the taxobox. This relationship to Excavates is hypothetical and is contradicted by some studies. For example, the paper Burki et al. 2007. Phylogenomics Reshuffles the Eukaryotic Supergroups. PLoS ONE 2(8): e790.

concludes that Rhizaria clusters with the alveolates and stramenopiles.

Cephal-odd (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have done so. I think it is premature to start rewriting a bunch of pages to reflect the SAR hypothesis, but I'm not comfortable with Cabozoa either (after having read that paper and a few others, especially Laura Wegener Parfrey, Erika Barbero, Elyse Lasser, Micah Dunthorn, Debashish Bhattacharya, David J Patterson, and Laura A Katz (2006 December). "Evaluating Support for the Current Classification of Eukaryotic Diversity". PLoS Genet. 2 (12): e220. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0020220. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)). I will let stand the statement about the monophyly of the Rhizaria. It might be a bit early to really be sure about that, but it seems to be reasonably well-supported by many of the studies. Kingdon (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Taxobox colour change

Hello,

After much discussion, it has been agreed that colour changes for taxoboxes are necessary; it's currently proposed that amoebozoa taxoboxes should become #FFC8A0 and rhizaria, lavender. These changes would be carried out automatically, determined by regnum/phylum/etc entries in the taxobox. Your comments and opinions would be gratefully received here!

Thanks,

Verisimilus T 20:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom?

The introduction says Rhizaria is "...a species-rich kingdom of protists." How can something be a kingdom of protists when protista is a kingdom, according to the Eukarya page? Maybe Rhizaria should be considered a phylum or subkingdom of protists, or maybe you should call it a kingdom of eukaryotes. Anyways, just taking note of that. 69.15.134.58 (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the usual word is "supergroup" (which is a way of not worrying about exactly how you are arrange things into ranks). If you have to pick a rank, you'd probably pick superkingdom (the kinds of people who talk about Rhizaria are probably not going to recognize protista as a kingdom because protista is paraphyletic). My opinion is that it is a bit premature to worry too much about the rank; maybe it would be better to change "kingdom" to "group" or something. Kingdon (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So, is anyone going to change it then? --AznShark (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you get to Wikipedia:Be bold. Kingdon (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

taxbox needs to be changed too, though i don't no how to change it. --AznShark (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone tried here but that isn't correct; there is no "group" parameter to taxoboxes. There is also no "unranked_regnum" (the unranked feature is for phylum to family; see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/taxobox_usage#Unranked taxa). Also, taxobox coloration is based on kingdom, and there's also the question of all the taxoboxes for all the taxa within the Rhizaria. If someone really wants to try to take this on, propose something at WT:TOL, but it is far from clear to me what a solution would look like given the unsettled nature of the research itself. Kingdon (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Protista, the idea that being paraphyletic disqualifies or invalidates a taxon is pure nonesense. That may work in the limited perspective of cladistics but we're talking about taxa here, not clades. If Protista is paraphyletic, it going to be paraphyletic no matter where it's put, and according to that argument, invalid anywhere. Does this mean there aren't any.

In the meantime Rhizaria is way over ranked as a kingdom and even as a phylum. Since Rhizaria replaces and is essentially equivalent to the Rhizopodea, it too should be ranked as a class, perhaps only a subclass, and certainly no more than a subphylum.

It's one thing to be bold, it's another to be inaccurate and inconsistent.

J.M. (talk) (Sept 21 2009)

Is it mostly uni-cellular, multicellular or what?

Just wondering...thanks!(Can someone explain this in the article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senantiasa (talk • contribs) 17:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added this to the article. Kingdon (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Where goes Rhizarea

Very few protozoan, or protistid, classifications that I have been able to find online include or even recognize Rhizarea. This might be expected since Rhizaria is a rather new concept. In fact the only place I have found it, besides in Wikipedea articles is in Tree of Life (TOL web)pages

Assuming Rhizaria qualifies as a valid taxon, it essentially emends the Rhizopoda or Rhizopodea. It does not qualify as a kingdom or even as a phyllum, even though some classifications have gone to eleveling orders, e.g. Formaninfera, to phyla. Rhizarea as an ememded Rhzopoda best qualifies for the same rank, that of class. At most if need be it might be elevated to superclass.

In the meantime it mght be better to stick with well established taxa found throughout the literature and leave Rhizarea for the time being to discussion related to new ideas and concepts.

JM discussion

Rhizaria is one of the eukaryote supergroups discovered by molecular phylogeny about ten years ago. Although it does bear some resemblance to the traditional Rhizopoda or Rhizopodea, Rhizaria excludes the lobose amoeboid taxa, such as slime molds and Amoeba itself, which belong Amoebozoa. The traditional [rhizopod]s seem to include several groups with distinct origins.

Thomas Cavalier-Smith, who named Rhizaria, ranked it as an infrakingdom. But it's more common today for microbiologists to name the taxa without ranks, as in Adl et al. (see p. 401, for instance).

Cheers, Cephal-odd (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cephal-odd for the response and for the links to Cavalier-Smith and Adl et at. Since Cavalier-Smith proposed the Rhizaria and gave it the rank of infrakingdom, I suppose to be Wiki-proper we're stuck with it. That is until someone publishes an emendment that gives it, in my view, a more sensible rank. On the other hand referring to it simply as a super-group as in Adl et al seems to give greater flexibility in defining its taxonomic position. Just how far below Kingdom Rhizaria belongs may be a matter of perspective and debate. Elevating it to kingdom on the other hand seems unreasonable and excessive.

Regards J.M. (talk)

Origin of the name

What's the Greek origin of the name Rhizaria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartosz (talk • contribs) 20:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I also inquire about the pronunciation of the name, please. --Octra Bond (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Retaria

There's a page on Retaria, which denotes the clade including the Foraminifera and the Radiolaria. Is that worth noting here? It seems like it could also make sense to simply merge that page into this one, it's so small anyway. Daemon328 (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Rhizaria

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rhizaria's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "pmid18952499":

• From Arachnula: Bass D, Chao EE, Nikolaev S, et al. (February 2009). "Phylogeny of novel naked Filose and Reticulose Cercozoa: Granofilosea cl. n. and Proteomyxidea revised". Protist. 160 (1): 75–109. doi:10.1016/j.protis.2008.07.002. PMID 18952499.
• From Reticulosida: Bass D, Chao EE, Nikolaev S, et al. (February 2009). "Phylogeny of novel naked Filose and Reticulose Cercozoa: Granofilosea cl. n. and Proteomyxidea revised". Protist. 160 (1): 75–109. doi:10.1016/j.protis.2008.07.002. PMID 18952499.
• From Proteomyxidea: David Bass, Ema E.-Y. Chao, Sergey Nikolaev, Akinori Yabuki, Ken-ichiro Ishida, Cédric Berney, Ursula Pakzad, Claudia Wylezich and Thomas Cavalier-Smith (February 2009). "Phylogeny of novel naked filose and reticulose Cercozoa: Granofilosea cl. n. and Proteomyxidea revised". Protist. 160 (1): 75–109. doi:10.1016/j.protis.2008.07.002. PMID 18952499.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• From Desmothoracid: Bass, D.; et al. (February 2009). "Phylogeny of novel naked filose and reticulose Cercozoa: Granofilosea cl. n. and Proteomyxidea revised". Protist. 160 (1): 75–109. doi:10.1016/j.protis.2008.07.002. PMID 18952499.
• From Gymnophryidae: Bass D, Chao EE, Nikolaev S, et al. (February 2009). "Phylogeny of novel naked Filose and Reticulose Cercozoa: Granofilosea cl. n. and Proteomyxidea revised". Protist. 160 (1): 75–109. doi:10.1016/j.protis.2008.07.002. PMID 18952499.
• From Endomyxa: David Bass; Ema E.-Y. Chao; Sergey Nikolaev; Akinori Yabuki; Ken-ichiro Ishida; Cédric Berney; Ursula Pakzad; Claudia Wylezich; Thomas Cavalier-Smith (February 2009). "Phylogeny of novel naked filose and reticulose Cercozoa: Granofilosea cl. n. and Proteomyxidea revised". Protist. 160 (1): 75–109. doi:10.1016/j.protis.2008.07.002. PMID 18952499.
• From Cercozoa: Bass D, Chao EE, Nikolaev S, et al. (February 2009). "Phylogeny of Novel Naked Filose and Reticulose Cercozoa: Granofilosea cl. n. and Proteomyxidea Revised". Protist. 160 (1): 75–109. doi:10.1016/j.protis.2008.07.002. PMID 18952499.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)