Talk:Amoeba
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Amoeba is part of WikiProject Microbiology, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of microbiology and microbiology-related topics. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| High | This article is on a subject of High-importance within microbiology. | ||
|
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. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] Naming
This article had "Bery St. Vincent" listed as the one who coined the term "amoeba." A Google search for "Bery St. Vincent" yields a lot of references back to Wikipedia and very little else, leading me to believe that the name is a typo and actually refers to Jean Baptiste Genevieve Marcellin Bory de Saint-Vincent, a prolific French naturalist for whom independent documentation exists (Charton, Barbara. A to Z of marine scientists. Facts On File, 2003).
The original source cited for the name was the Gale Encyclopedia of Science. There seems to be a consensus that this source is prone to editorial errors, particularly in earlier editions.
I bring this up because there are so many citations of this one mistaken statement online, all without any real verification, all tracing back to this entry. I went through no fewer than ten databases of scholarly scientific literature looking for sourced statements about "Bery St. Vincent," and found nothing that leads me to believe he a)named anything, or b)existed at all.
It's a minor point, but it's telling in regard to how we acquire and disseminate (erroneous) information.
Tevebaugh (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)tevebaugh
For such a huge topic, this article is seriously lacking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.37.146 (talk) 2006-10-26T07:15:26
[edit] Picture
Why is the picture of Chaos diffluens, which is in a differnt genus? The picture is not Amoeba proteus. Werothegreat 16:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- i dont see a picture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert carter083190 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-26T18:02:04.
[edit] Food chain
please add whether or not its is a decompose a parasite or is part of a sybiotic realationship. also tell how it gets its food —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert carter083190 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-26T18:03:38.
- According to the example about collecting, some of them eat bacteria. There certainly exist parasitic genera, for example, Entamoeba histolytica. -- saimhe 16:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nice, fast edits
I was reading this, and saw the line of vandalism on there. I was about to change it when somebody already got it seconds before me. I refreshed and it was gone. Nice job!
Feel free to delete my message here, it's not important... just wanted to say thanks.
[edit] AGAIN WITH THE PICTURE!
This is Chaos diffluens! Different genus! I'm removing this picture again. If you find a picture of Amoeba, not Chaos, then please put it up. Thank you. Werothegreat 18:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course I have no idea what I'm talking about, but Google knows all (?):
- [1] Amoeba Soup: An A - Z of AmoebaeAmoeba proteus. Alternative names: A. diffluens, Chaos diffluens.
- [2] "Pinocytosis of inorganic salts by Amoeba proteus (Chaos diffluens)."
- [3] JSTOR: The Genus PelomyxaTo the latter genus, he assigned Amoeba proteus ("Chaos diffluens") and Pelomyxa carolinensis ("Chaos chaos").
That's the first three returned by searching for "Chaos diffluens" "Amoeba proteus" [4]. (I escape with my integument intact now...) Shenme 21:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
According to ITIS and NCBI Amoeba proteus is the proper name, so why not change the Chaos diffluens article's name? We should also change the line in this article that says "An amoeba ... is a single-celled organism." I don't know much about amoeba taxonomy or else I'd do it myself. Calibas 03:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Discovery
Right now it says amoebas were discovered by Rosel. Rosel who? The source it cites no longer works. I found a link that may or may not be trustworthy that says the person was called Rosel van Rosenhof. Then I also found another link, which might be even less verifiable that claims Anton van Leeuwenhoek discovered them, and a previous version of this Wikipedia page says they were discovered by Kara Flanagan, but there is no reason given in the history or this talk page for having changed it. Hopefully someone has time to investigate this further. Chainer29 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed the link, it should work now, and updated the name. Jvbishop 13:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
All amoebas are unicelled and also they have a very large diet they eat algae, plant cells, bacteria, microscopic protozoa and metazoa and lots of other things.
[edit] Upscaling
Does anyone know why an ameoba would die if it were as large as a shark? Would it be a surface area problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.35.224.63 (talk • contribs).
- I'll confess, this sounds like a homework question. In any case, it's not well-formed. Would the atoms be expanded? Would things be stretched? Duplicated? How? The cellular membranes would then have a different ratio of thickness. Beyond even these points, this page is for the discussion of the amoeba article. This sort of "factoid" information probably wouldn't belong there. --Eyrian 03:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
There's two broad reasons for a maximum size for amoebae. One is that their internal processes include things like diffusion, which really doesn't scale well, for example it's why you have a heart instead of just letting food diffuse from your stomach and air from your lungs. Second, for things like pseudopod motion which may scale well enough for it to live, simply aren't efficient compared to other living things it would compete with, like shark swimming. 70.48.107.69 18:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Needs cleanup
Poor language, redundant info, quotes without reference footnotes, references to images which are nowhere to be found in the article.
References also seem awful, Recognition section reads like sensationalised fiction, we need some factual verification here as Google searches for amoebas listed in Recognition turn up no results on Wikipedia or the Web. Removing the Recognition section until someone can verify the text maintained and requesting general cleanup on this page. Hyaline eston
How much of the text has been copied from a book? I see references to "page seven" and various figure numbers. Ebichu63 13:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Parts of the amoeba
The "parts of the amoeba" section needs massive cleanup, as it is written in a manner that literally makes absolutely no sense. And it makes references to diagrams that don't exist, leading me to believe that it is actually copied from some sort of textbook. On the subject of diagrams, do you think it would be possible to get one of those diarams that labels all of the parts, either on a drawing or superimposed on to a photograph? Calgary 06:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- wow that is atrocious, isn't it? without checking its hard to know if it's the result of vandalism or poor copy edit. however, the diagrams are probably copyrighted, so unless someone would be kind enough to draw one or find a very old one? i know little to nothing about amoebas, so i cannot help. i've never been able to ask this before, so i'll just throw it out there: where is an amoeba expert when one needs one???--Snideology 02:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Are you sure that is an amoeba?
It looks like a puddle of water with seashells inside. Are you sure it is not staged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.81.193 (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC) you r todilly wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.26.45 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Possible plagiarism?
I'm concerned that the section titled "Stimuli" might be plagiarized. It cites sources -- however, it also includes the suspect phrase ("See Figure 4.") Why would this be in the article if it wasn't copied verbatim from a text? — Adam Conover † 01:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you want, the references in question appear to be cited at the bottom. You could check them yourself, but I'm far too lazy. Speaking of laziness, I'm too lazy to figure out the proper method of Wiki citations at the moment. Perhaps you(plural) could change them? 70.48.107.69 19:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Polyphyly
Not all "amoeba" belong to the genus Amoeba (for example all the heteroloboseans). In fact, amoeba are quite polyphyletic. A disscussion of this would be helpful, as it is a common misconception that amoeba are monophyletic. Fritzlaylin (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
you suck!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.233.45 (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Request Edit
Could someone please close the unclosed cite before "Reaction to Stimuli"? 132.250.130.206 (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
