Talk:Diaphoretickes

untitled

Can Bikonts, Diaphoretickes, Corticata, Cabozoa, etc. PLEASE all be merged into a single page?

I think theyre separate because they are notable as ideas, even if t hey cannot all simultaneously exist. e.g. we have a page for Pancrustacea even though not everybody believes in it. —Soap— 19:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Pronunc of diap

Is there reference for the unusual pronunc of the diap word ? It's not used in the source linked, so no help there. —Soap— 19:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Couldnt find a source for the pronunciation, but it seems that it is sometimes spelled without the c. And that it may come from a Greek word for "diverse". But the name may also be a pun between that word and another one meaning "sweating" ... as all plants are known for pushing water through their body. I'll look into this when I get a chance to see if the variant spelling is acceptable. —Soap— 23:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I was not able to find anything so Im giving up on this. it may be that diaphoretickes was never approved as an official name since i dontsee it in ICZN, etc. —Soap— 20:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hemimastigophora

Hemimastigophora was removed from the list of subtaxa earlier. I'm putting it back (with question mark) for two reasons: 1) Some recent studies found Hemimastigophora nests among the sub-clades of Diaphoretickes. The Lax et al. 2018 paper that described Hemimastix kukwesjijk also mentions this is a (less likely) possibility. 2) Moreover, if the Lax paper's preferred placement of Hemimastigophora is correct, the Hemimastigophora still falls within Diaphoretickes, by definition.

The paper itself suggests this, although there some of the language is equivocal. Some statements do indeed imply that Hemimastigophora is outside the clade: "They instead comprise an independent supra-kingdom-level lineage that most likely forms a sister clade to the ‘Diaphoretickes’ half of eukaryote diversity" (in the abstract), and "Hemimastigophora outside of and sister to Diaphoretickes" (p.3). But there is also wording that implies membership within Diaphoretickes: "actually branched sister to all of the other Diaphoretickes" (p.2) and "Their consensus tree shows Hemimastigophora as sister to (other) Diaphoretickes with maximal support" (in Methods section). [Emphasis added in all of these.]

This equivocation makes some sense if we think only of the clades originally considered members of Diaphoretickes. But the definition of Diaphoretickes is clear: if a taxon is closer to Rhizarians, Alveolates, Stramenopiles, and Archaeplastida, than it is to Opisthokonts, Amoebozoans, or Excavates, then it belongs in Diaphoretickes.

In this diagram, the Diaphoretickes is defined as the branch marked "Y", even though sometimes people refer to the clade as if it were the node marked "Z":

               .----------- Rhizaria
  .-Y------Z---|----------- Alveolata
 |      |  |   '----------- Stramenopiles
 |      |  '----------- Archaeplastida
 |      | 
 |      '---------- Hemimastigophora
 |
 |         .---------- Amoebozoans
 |---------|
 |         '-----------Opisthokonts
 '------------ Excavates

It might be reasonable to redefine Diaphoretickes as clade "Z" to better match the original membership, but as far as I know no one as done so. Cephal-odd (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

new supergroup Provora

Proposed member of Diaphoretickes: Provora = nibblerids (Nibbleridia) + nebulids (Nebulidia)

Reference:

• doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05511-5 Microbial predators form a new supergroup of eukaryotes
  • Fig. 1 Cell morphology
  • Fig. 2 Phylogeny of eukaryotes reconstructed with a concatenated 320-gene dataset

It is a home for Ancoracysta as already contained in the Diaphoretickes tree given at Eukaryote#Phylogeny.

For more details see Talk:Eukaryote#Phylogeny - new supergroup Provora Ernsts (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC). Updated --Ernsts (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me,seems worth adding. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Diaphoretickes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Snoteleks (talk · contribs) 22:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 10:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "At some point" in the lead is a bit vague, please indicate the date. You could say something like "In 1999, Tom Cavalier-Smith called the group photokaryotes." for example.

I removed that wording and made it more similar to the main text.

• We should probably attribute "Corticates" to Cavalier-Smith as well. Or possibly Lankester, but the discussion would need to change for that.

Not sure I understand this, do you mean as a taxon in the taxobox synonyms section? Would you say the footnote is not enough?

The discussion is spread over multiple places, and is sufficient.

• The cladogram, and much of the discussion around it, centres on the root of the eukaryotes rather than on the Diaphoretickes as such, so it borders on being off-topic. The lower part of the cladogram in particular is basically just a list of basal groups and says nothing about the Diaphoretickes.

Totally agree, I removed all that fuzz and centered it more on Diaphoretickes.

• The cladogram would in any case be much improved by showing where familiar groups fit in. You could say "Archaeplastida (inc. plants)", "Amorphea (inc. fungi, animals)", for example.

Agreed. I removed Amorphea but did include plants and green and red algae as more familiar groups.

• I suggest that the cladogram should be illustrated with small thumbnails of members of the various clades. Happy to add these if you like.

Done.

• Since you mention heliozoa and radiolaria in the lead, they must be important enough to have on the cladogram, too.

Done, marked with asterisks.

• It would be helpful, too, to give a bit more detail in the tree on the Archaeplastida, since you have a whole paragraph in "Diversity" on them.

Done.

• The lead needs to reflect the structure of the article, with coverage for each chapter.

Done, let me know if you see it lacking more coverage.

Images

Colponema vietnamica is the only Commons image that currently comes at all close to showing the 2 flagella and the distinctive groove of the Diaphoretickes.

• We are missing a (simple) diagram of the supposed Diaphoretickes ancestor. The traits of this organism are discussed in the article but are not easy to visualise. It should be straightforward to locate or draw such an image, which would certainly assist the general reader. Alternatively you might use an actual micrograph of a suitably representative species, suitably captioned.

I did this with Colponema, using the image you suggested below. Unfortunately, I could not get a good (and free) image of any basal corticate where both the ventral groove and flagella are clearly visible; electron microscopy images are overly detailed, harder to understand, or out of scope. I did however come across an image of Neocolponema that could be an improvement, but I'll have to try to upload it through a different rout as it is non-free. I'm currently in touch with Kaonashia's author, I hope I'm able to get her to upload good images of it to show the cortical alveoli as well.

• The rather uneven, rather unreadable composite image in the infobox is currently the only illustration. It is not very satisfactory, not least because its 10 component images have all to be viewed as a single thumbnail on whatever (often small) screen the reader is using. For instance, the whole image is 45mm wide on my mobile, while the individual Paramecium at lower left are no more than 5mm long. I know that some editors like composites for groups, but this image does not work at all well. There are two smudgy green squares in the second row; apparently the second one is a "water mold", an unidentified Oomycete. It isn't one of the four images used in the lead of Oomycete, by the way. And, the thing doesn't even have a caption! So it's not clear what the ordinary reader could make of it: not much, I suspect. In short, I think we could do a lot better than this, by having bigger and better-selected images to accompany the text, and then something a lot more legible, possibly a single image, possibly a clearer composite, for the lead.

Let me know if this new composite image is more satisfying.

It's certainly more readable; as you imply above, the composite still fails to convey the defining features of the group. Its name, "Diverse", does suggest why there is an issue here, which doesn't occur with groups that people can form an intuitive picture of (like "Animals", say). The Colponema image is definitely better, and (I agree) still not ideal as the groove is not terribly visible. If you can get hold of a clearer micrograph that would be the right answer.

• Specifically, I suggest we have images of (at least) Archaeoplastida, Haptista, Cryptista, and SAR in "Diversity".

Done.

• I suggest we might use this image of Colponema which you describe as an "early-branching species", to accompany the text in "Ancestral traits". The caption can label the pair of flagella and the ventral feeding groove.

(See above)

• "Convergent traits" describes the ways that different groups acquired plastids from varied sources. This would be well worth illustrating with a simple diagram (it could readily be made in PowerPoint and saved from there as an SVG, for instance).

Done, I hope the image is satisfactory!

Wonderful. Readers will find it enlightening about the group, and about Endosymbiosis, where that image and a cited section explaining it is needed.

Sources

• All the sources are appropriate for the subject. Most are primary research papers, which does lay the article open to the charge of WP:PRIMARY rather than being unquestionable WP:RS, pace the text's careful discussion of the relative merits of the differing hypotheses about the group's composition and phylogeny.

• I suggest we add |display-authors=5 (or near offer) for all many-authored papers. "Adl-2005" has 28 authors, for instance.

• Spot-checks: [3] ok; [13] ok; [23] ok; [33] ok; [47] ok; [53] ok.

Summary

• The main text of this article covers the territory well, and is robustly cited. The main improvements needed are to the lead, which needs to reflect the main text, and the images, which need to illustrate the various parts of the main text, the current single composite image not being terribly satisfactory. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Chiswick Chap Thank you very much for the review! I will get on with the improvements as soon as possible. — Snoteleks (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  Snoteleks, many thanks. It'd be helpful if you could respond to the individual comments above, even if it's only "Done", so I can see how we're progressing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Chiswick Chap No problem, I was planning on doing exactly that. Just haven't been able to be online for long periods of time lately. — Snoteleks (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Chiswick Chap How's it looking so far? Are the improvements enough? — Snoteleks (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  A remarkable improvement. I hope you feel that the effort was worthwhile; I am sure the article is stronger for it. It's a GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Giant kelp

• ... that Diaphoretickes, a group containing an enormous diversity of eukaryotes including plants, ciliates, and kelps (pictured), derives from a Greek word meaning "diverse"?

• Source: Adl, Sina M.; Simpson, Alastair G. B.; Lane, Christopher E.; Lukeš, Julius; Bass, David; et al. (28 September 2012). "The Revised Classification of Eukaryotes". The Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology. 59 (2): 429–514. doi:10.1111/j.1550-7408.2012.00644.x. PMC 3483872. PMID 23020233.

• • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Snoteleks (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

— Snoteleks (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC).

• By the way, WP:DYKMOS recommends against brackets anywhere other than (pictured). Cremastra (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

• Starting review--Kevmin § 14:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• @Snoteleks: Article expansion new enough, GA new enough, Issues raised during and just after Ga have been resolved. Article is fully sourced and neutrally worded. AI detection came back as human, no copyvios are close paraphrasing identified in the prose. The hook is confirmed and verified in article and source. The hook itself could used some work though, right now its very clunky and a general "rule to live by" is the less extra links in a hook the better. could we reword the center to maybe just listing two or three example taxa, say "...including giant redwoods, ciliates, and kelps (pictured)..." with an image of one of the taxa to draw readers in more.--Kevmin § 01:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• @Kevmin: Let me know if the new changes work for you. — Snoteleks (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• Apologies for the delay, yes the updated wording flows much better, and the image adds well. We look good to go.--Kevmin § 16:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Disputed section Convergent traits

The first paragraph of the section Convergent traits is false, the image in is misleading (and its description also false). Since the death of the chromalveolate hypothesis (~ 2012) the origin of all "red" plastids is not a secondary endosymbiosis of a red alga. This is probably true only for the cryptophyte plastids (maybe also for the haptophytes). Myzozoans and ochrophytes have their plastids not from an endosymbiosis of a red alga, but of a cryptophyte or another "chromist" algae. The section and the image description need rewording, to present the correct view ofthe consecutive endosymbiosis of "red" plastids and especially to clarify the misleading red discontinuous arrows in the image. Petr Karel (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Petr Karel This is entirely a subjective wording matter, since the statement "the origin of all red plastids is a secondary endosymbiosis of a red alga" is completely true: that is their origin, with "secondary" meaning "after the fact" in the context of evolution. Even if you went ahead and placed a specific order of secondary endosymbioses (of which there is no consensus except(?) for cryptophytes being the first, and neither the text nor the image refuse to support one hypothesis over the other, which would be misleading), that would not make it any less true that ultimately they all derived from a red alga. I can see a different wording being helpful and I will try to implement that, but the statement itself is not misleading, the scope is just narrow. I can also just add more information (something like what we see at Algae#Consecutive endosymbioses) if that suits you better. — Snoteleks (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Petr Karel I have re-worded both the section and image description. Since you were the one to post the warning, I think you should review it to see if it's satisfactory now. — Snoteleks (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. It was not subjective wording matter, secondary endosymbiosis is a specific term which shall be applied correctly in a "good article". The wording "plastids acquired in the secondary endosymbiosis of red alga" was not correct, the new "plastids originating from a secondary endosymbiosis" completed with the explanation is OK, I am deleting the "disputed" template. Petr Karel (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Petr Karel I think I see what you mean now. I see that the wording is indeed misleading for someone that does not already know the theory in-depth, or at the very least it's easy to misinterpret. Thank you for reaching out about that.

On another note, your comment made me wonder, would it be more clear for the reader if I used this image instead?

It's the same as the original but following the 2024 hypothesis (with hypothesized acquisitons marked '?'). Perhaps with the right caption it would avoid misleading the reader more easily than the original image. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, it is not easy to find a balance between corectness and clearness of the formulation or a scheme. I like the new image, showing that the red plastid is not "preserved" in all lineages from one act of a secondary endosymbiosis (chromalveolate hypotesis) neither is originated in many independent acts of secondary endosymbiosis of red alga. But the explanation to the previous version of the image was also satisfactory. Petr Karel (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the explanation, but I think I also like the new image better. I might update the image so that the explanation does not have to be so lengthy. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The name

'The name Diaphoretickes derives from Greek διαφορετικές (diaforetikés) meaning diverse, dissimilar, referring to the wide morphological and cellular diversity among members of this clade.'

That's fine, but what needs to be explained is:

1. Why on Earth it is derived from Modern Greek and not from Ancient Greek. The adjective doesn't exist in Ancient Greek, and also the form -ικές for the feminine plural only exists in Modern Greek (in Ancient Greek it would have been -ικαί). They might as well have derived the term from, say, an Albanian word. On the other hand, if it's supposed to be from Modern Greek, it should have been spelt with F - diaforetikes - and not with PH.

2. Why on Earth it is spelt with a CK, which is utterly abnormal for borrowings from either Ancient or Modern Greek - and typical of native English words instead. Might as well have spelt it Dyuhferettickeese. It should have been either just a K, which is used for borrowings from Modern Greek and sometimes from Ancient Greek too (diaforetikes), or, more reasonably, a standard Latinisation of the Ancient Greek with a C: -icae.

I don't get what part of this is some weird expression of cultural pseudo-radicalism and what part is just linguistic illiteracy. With about 20 co-authors, I would have imagined that there must have been at least one who knows how neoclassical terms are formed, or that they would have been able to consult someone who knew that. Now this pathetic linguistic monstrosity is codified forever. 62.73.72.101 (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what exactly you're asking for, this just reads like an ill-directed angry rant. — Snoteleks (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)