Talk:Two-empire system

Question

What view has vanished in the face of genetic analyses? The two-kingdom or three-kingdom one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.81.110 (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The two-empire/two-superingdom system has vanished. Current phylogenetic trees show that the split between bacteria and archaea is older than that between archaea and eukaryotes. If someone could find a good reliable source, an addition to the article would be good. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Bipolar

This is linked from Domain (biology), should we tag it? Because redirection to Bipolar doesn't work in this case. --Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 19:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Why? Two-Empire System is almost exclusively used by biologists. Vvvvvvvvvvv 23:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

older two empire system

From the Domain talk page... it says that an older version of Empire in classification was...

• Empire Inorganista ( IOW: Mineralia, or dead stuff)
• Empire Organista ( IOW: Biota, or living stuff)

This would seem to be a much older usage of Empire, predating the 3-kingdom system, (animal, vegetable, mineral) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.84.42 (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

illegible table

Whoever is in charge needs to fix the colors in the table. I cannot see the hot-linked names against the background. As a general rule, background colors (or highlights or fill colors) should always be in very light pastel colors. Please fix this and give the readers a break. (Do the colors actually help the understanding?) Solo Owl (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comparison to Linnaeus and other Considerations

The names used here are not the names used by Linnaeus, viz., Regnum Vegetabile, Regnum Animale, Regnum Lapide. See Linnaean taxonomy. (As a point of grammar, vegetabile, animale, lapide are Latin adjectives (neuter singular). Modern usage requires Latin or pseudo-Latin plural nouns for the formal names of taxa above the genus level.)

This article is entirely too brief. There are no citations to any works that used the names Cytota and Acytota; a citation for the first use would be necessary. I assume they are extremely rare, since I have never seen them before, but what do I know? (If they are as rare as I think they are, perhaps this concept of a two-empire system is not notable enough for Wikipedia, and the article should be deleted.)

Another point: the word Procaryote was first used, probably, in 1925, but the idea of a Kingdom Prokaryotae = Monera did not become popular until the 1960s or 1970s. (For a history of this idea see Jan Sapp, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1197417/.) Viruses were once thought to be very small bacteria. I am not an expert, but I strongly suspect the idea that viruses are not cellular was not widely accepted until after the idea that bacteria lacked nuclear membranes reached the textbooks and merited a separate kingdom for the bacteria; if so, this would invalidate a key claim in this article.

There should be a discussion of the usefulness of an Empire Acytota. A virus or a prion can be thought of as a scrap of the organism it originally infected – a dangerous, infective scrap to be sure, but (it can be argued) not a new form of life.

The article lacks any kind of citations for its claims.

Solo Owl (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)