Talk:Eukaryote
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks! |
||
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Top | This article is on a subject of Top-importance within molecular and cellular biology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
Eukaryote has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
 To-do list for Eukaryote: |
edit · history · watch · refresh | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
The taxobox is going to present considerable difficulty here. First, there are problems associated with top-level groups, for which see Talk:Bacteria. More importantly, however, there is no good way to divide the eukaryotes. The standard approach is of course to divde them into four kingdoms, with most forms thrown in the Protista, but this is not really standard when talking about the eukaryote groups in general, and the domain was partly established to get rid of that group. At the moment, some people recognise varying numbers of kingdoms, while others abandon ranked taxa altogether when talking about the top-level groups. There are dozens of these, ranging in size from the kingdoms to peculiar species without any known relatives, as listed on evolutionary tree.
All in all, I would be surprised if any ranked or comprehensive breakdown would be the suitable quick overview that taxoboxes are supposed to provide, and I think it might probably better to skip it. It's not like it's that important to extend the system to the domains - there are only three, of which the other two can double as kingdoms, and they are not always treated formally. The composition of the eukaryotes is already given in the second sentence of the article, and any more detailed notes on systematics would probably warrant another section (which we may want anyways).
- I fully recognize the problems here. One way it could be handled is to put in parentheses after Protista in the taxobox something like - (metakingdom) to indicate it's not really normal, and let people go to the Protista page for further breakdown. What both classical taxonomy and cladistics do clearly share is hierarchy, and I think we should do our best to blend these. The reasons are these:
- First, people mentally organize information logically, and when there are certain fixed categories, it's easier for people to conceptualize information.
- Second, it makes for greater ease of navigation thru the system.
- Third, it's adapting a system in long usage that's not about to go out of business any time soon, so forcing it to better adapt to reality is a good thing.
- Now, the classification of the various unicellular organisms are certainly outside my area of core expertise, so I certainly welcome any good modifications to anything I've done. jaknouse 16:03 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)
I see the taxobox on the left margin overwritten by text. Is this a formatting problem or my browser? Skeetch
It looks like the div tags around tables break them on older browsers. Since the tables can be placed on the right without them, is there any reason not to get rid of them?
That fixed it for me. I'm using a current, MS-WIN2000 version of IE. Skeetch
Ok. It looks like the tags were added to create margins, but if they don't work on even newer browsers, they should definitely be removed in all cases. I will notify the author who had put them in.
A quick note on some reverts. It was added that some eukaryotes - for instance diplomonads and microsporidia - do not have organelles. These groups are unusual in lacking mitochondria, but all eukaryotes have nuclei and an internal membrane system, and diplomonads have other organelles such as flagella. I also changed back the passage explicitly calling the protists a kingdom; not everyone classifies the eukaryotes that way, I don't think it makes things any more clear.
Also, someone changed the eukaryotes share a common origin to the eukaryotes are thought to share a common origin, and I've changed it back. There is no serious doubt on the matter, and we shouldn't treat all biology as a matter of opinion. Thanks, Josh
Question: the reproduction part mentions that eukaryotes have a *smaller* volume to surface ratio than prokaryotes. It seems to me that since they can be a thousand times as big that they should have a *larger* volume to surface ratio, or, conversely, *smaller* surface to volume ratio? Cheers, Frank.
[edit] pronunciation
how do you say it GrimRepr39 22:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Archaea
The article needs to mention the modern three-domain system eukarya/archaea/bacteria very early on (say, in the second sentence). As it is, the article reads like the distinction between eukaryotes and prokaryotes is still thought of as the basic division of life; this view is obsolete. Archaea are more closely related to eukaryotes than to bacteria. In the article they are barely mentioned at all. --mglg(talk) 23:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
