Talk:Xenophyophore

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Marine life, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life articles

Tree of Life

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life 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.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles

Comment

The bit about xenophyophores being the largest protozoa seems kind of questionable, since it depends on whether you count the Mycetozoa. Saying they are the largest single-celled organisms compounds the problem, since it's even less clear on whether to include them, as both xenophyophores and Mycetozoa are multinucleate. I'd like to suggest dropping the superlative, though I don't know as much about the group as the author (Hadal). Who, btw, has done a really excellent job on this page. -- Josh

Thanks Josh! As for the superlative, it was repeated in all the literature I read, including the site linked; I thought it was safe enough to include as an interest grabber (a sin of popular science?). I completely overlooked the slime molds, and you're absolutely right; it does depend on your perspective. :\

So, as you seem to be the local protist expert, I'll heed your suggestion. Rewording will follow shortly. :) Hadal 11:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If they're the 'largest' single-celled organisms, wouldn't it be useful to give some indication of how big that is? It's hard to tell from the picture. --Tsbertalan (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Without scale it's impossible to tell if that's one meter or one millimeter. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

single-cell / multinuclei

Hi, This may be a kind of elementary question in basic biology. For single cell to have more than two nuclei, that cell has to be either syncytium or coenochyte. I am not an expert in this field at all. Can anybody add this to make the excellent article perfect? AIEA 16:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found near Canada

Article: [1]

I'm no expert in this, but there may be something interesting in there. Esn 00:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation?

Clicking around I find a number of variant pronunciations. Who can provide a good standard with the phonetic spelling? This site accentuates each of the two "oph" syllables, thusly: - / -/ -. But if the original Greek is adhered to then the final "e" will be vocalized, moving the second accent onto "phor," resulting in -/- -/- . Orthotox (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latinised Greek uses the Latin accent rule. Hence, ZEN-o-fee-OF-o-ree. See Traditional English pronunciation of Latin#Stress placement. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I only just re-read this and realised that I'd talked bunk. The -e is not an Ancient Greek ending, as the Ancient Greek original would end in -phōros or more likely -phōron (because of the implied zōon, i. e., "living thing"); the word is already adapted to English, so it should be end in a homonym of "fore"/"four" like semaphore, I guess, but I'm not sure where the stress falls, then. Hm. Probably a question for the refdesk. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there enough evidence for the taxobox?

The article suggests a variety of different classifications. How certain is it that these are foraminifera, or even animals? Vicki Rosenzweig (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The molecular evidence that Xenophyophores belong among the foraminifera is quite strong, I think (I've added a couple of recent citations to the article). However, they are certainly not "animals" (animals, or metazoa are an entirely different group). Deuterostome (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Xenophyophore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/GDD/DEEPSEAS/giantprotozoans.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Xenophyophore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Say what?

"They form delicate and elaborate agglutinated tests..."

Uh, yeah. Sure. OK. Whatever the f*** those are.

Some explanation, a footnote, or maybe a link, please?

BTW, are these plants or animals? The Article doesn't say.

Test is linked in the lead; where it states that xenophyophores are Foraminifera, which are protists which apparently are neither plant, animal nor fungus. zzz (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, the composition of the test is covered elsewhere in the article. However, "agglutinated" is a specialized term, so I added a brief definition. As zzz says, they're neither plants nor animals, but Rhizaria (a separate branch of the eukaryote tree, within the supergroup SAR). Deuterostome (Talk) 11:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]