Talk:Prokaryote
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Prokaryote 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. |
||
| Top | This article is on a subject of Top-importance within microbiology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) prokaryotic cell in your body .they contain ribosome,DNA is free in cytosol,produce ATP. |
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Top | This article is on a subject of Top-importance within molecular and cellular biology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · history · refresh · how to use this template) prokaryotic cell in your body .they contain ribosome,DNA is free in cytosol,produce ATP. |
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) prokaryotic cell in your body .they contain ribosome,DNA is free in cytosol,produce ATP. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] bacteria/archea
Could somebody please describe difference between Bacteria and Archea ?
See those pages.
[edit] Empire/Superkingdom/Domain
| Prokaryotes | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scientific classification | ||||||
|
||||||
| Kingdoms | ||||||
|
| Prokaryotes | ||
|---|---|---|
| Scientific classification | ||
|
||
| Kingdoms | ||
|
| Prokaryotes | ||
|---|---|---|
| Scientific classification | ||
|
|
||
| Kingdoms | ||
|
| Prokaryotes | ||
|---|---|---|
| Kingdoms | ||
|
It does seem that Procarya or similar is the taxon for this Empire, with Eucarya or similar being the other. As we're not using the three-domain system, can't it be placed in the domain box? 132.205.45.110 16:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Note in other languages, there is a prokaryota domain.
The other languages have made a minor error, then. Domains specifically refer to Woese's groups. It would be ok to use an empire Prokaryota, if we wanted to commit to the 2-empire system instead. I wouldn't mind, but I'm not sure we should. Domains are questionable but much more popular, and Prokaryota is often broken down differently. All in all, none of the ranks above kingdom are really standard and they don't add very much information, beyond giving a controversial placement. As such, I would suggest omitting them in cases like this, unless someone has strong opposition. Josh
The box is still a useful navigation guide, just omitting the Domain rank would seem to be sufficient? The two kingdoms listed are Wikipedia recognized as such... 132.205.15.43 00:41, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't think the top-level pages are sufficiently numerous to make boxes that useful. After all, there are only two prokaryotic kingdoms. If there were an standard system, that would be one thing, but in its absence I don't see why we need to worry about including ranks above kingdom. Most people who know about prokaryotes know about bacteria and archaea already. Also keep in mind categories already provide an alternate, somewhat more flexible navigation system. Josh
Eukaryotes does have a Domain taxobox though, so what is the status of the empire/domain debate?
- Eu
- Pro
132.205.15.43 05:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Three domains
Someone removed the note that the split of the prokaryotes is controversial. Well, a majority of microbiologists do accept the split, but it's based mainly on rRNA trees which are known to be unreliable, and at least until very recently a few other relationships have been argued for - e.g. bacteria paraphyletic, archaea paraphyletic, cyanobacteria (cyanoprokaryotes) a separate group. If the line should be removed, we should at least give a reference explaining why the criticisms no longer stand. Josh There is no questioning that Woese's is now the dominant and widely accepted paradigm, which is not to say that there is no place for a discussion of criticisms of his scheme. But that discussion rightly belongs on the three-domain system page. The current statement is pretty NPOV — it just say "This arrangement", which seems to leave the door cracked for other taxonomic systems. Fawcett5 04:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] First "sentence" of 'relationship to eukaryotes' is
NOT a sentence in 11/1/06 version.Regards,Rich 11:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Examples
Can someone please tell me some examples of Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes?? Thanks.
[edit] Membranous organelles contradiction
In the relationship to eukaryotes section it is stated that "[prokaryotes] lack membrane-bound cell compartments such as vacuoles", whereas in the structure section "Membranous organelles are known in some groups of prokaryotes, such as vacuoles". Personally I don't know of any such prokaryotes, but I'm not an expert. If this is true it certainly needs a citation, as well as a specific example. If not, it should be removed Odmrob 18:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] you need
you need the scientific classification of prokaryote —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.72.108.236 (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Structure - Recent research needs referencing
"Recent research shows that procaryotes actually do have cytoskeletons albeit more primitive than that of eucaryotes" (Not a direct quote): Whoever wtote this, can you please reference it? What newer research are we talking about here? If I can't check the credibility, then I can't use it! Madskile 19:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
