Template-protected edit request on 3 August 2016
|This edit request has been answered. Set the |
Unikonta according to Campbell Biology Ninth Edition by J.B.Reece, L.A.Urry, M.L.Cain, S.A.Wasserman, P.V.Minorsky and R.J.Jackson is a recently proposed, extremely diverse supergroup of eukaryotes that include animals, fungi and some protists . The supergroup Unikonta consists of 5 monophyletic clades - Amoebozoans, Nucleariids, Fungi, Choanoflagellates and Animals. Based on the facts stated, Unikonta should be ranked as a clade for now also in Wikipedia because the recent molecular evidence supports the monophyly of this group. Thank you.
- I believe the request is asking changing
|rank=clade. I'm no expert at all, but browsing around...
the article Unikont seems to support thisredact, not an expert, I shouldn't be judging. Question. Is there a reason Template:Taxonomy/Opisthokonta doesn't put Opisthokont as a clade for similar reasons? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Bob the Wikipedian, Faendalimas, JTtheOG, Sarefo, SMcCandlish, and Dan Koehl: pings of some WikiProject Tree of Life folks for comment...? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not too sure on this, there seems to be few papers discussing this, although one being a Nature paper is a good start, but with little followup support. It is also solely based on molecular evidence, no comparisons with other datasets. This is poor taxonomy and lacking in characterisation. The Campbell 9th edition is a 1st year text book on general biology. Not my preference for a reference. I would like to see some references that are effectively reviews. This allows us to have some stability before we make changes. Same goes for Opisthokont. cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Clade isn't really a taxonomic rank, it's a classification of a different sort, that can apply at any level, with taxonomy increasingly conforming to the data that cladistic approaches provide. Birds and dinosaurs form a clade, but so do the Jefferson salamander and several other intergrading caudates, the taxonomy of which has seen some dispute. That said, the fact that the parameter was initially intended for taxonomic ranks, in the strict sense, doesn't mean it can't be operator-overloaded to also label clades, and it might be more informative to do so for things like Unikonta that are clades and do not fit the standard taxonomic hierarchies. So, I do not oppose the suggested change if the data support it. I tend to agree that a single freshman-level textbook source (i.e. a middling-quality, tertiary one) may not be enough to go on. That said, it's unlikely this source would have said what it does without better sources behind it, so they must surely be available. Just need to find them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not done for now: a "clade" by definition is "unranked", although there are a relatively small number of scientists who sometimes will argue differently. Of note is the clade "Sauropsida" as used in the Tetrapod article as a biological class. Very arguable. Cladistics is often a controversial subject among the experts; however, Wikipedia is compelled to go with the prevailing scientific thought, which continues to see "clade" as an unranked classification that can at times become a helpful description to taxonomy. It can be added to this template either as "clade" or "clade unranked" ("unranked clade" just displays as "unranked") if and when reliable sources are found. Temporal Sunshine Paine 22:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)