This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage oftaxonomy and thephylogenetictree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Protista, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofprotists andprotistology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ProtistaWikipedia:WikiProject ProtistaTemplate:WikiProject ProtistaProtista
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofMicrobiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology
The question is whether there are reliable secondary sources that support the view that Amorphea is now the accepted name. If the sources are good enough, the article should be moved.Peter coxhead (talk)17:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References to these high-level groups in secondary sources are fairly rare (indeed, references in the article itself seem to be mostly primary). Here's one, fromThe Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Biology, ed. Kliman, 2016, p. 354: "The Amorphea supergroup (previously known as 'unikonts') unites Amoebozoa and Obazoa, two major taxa that are examined individually below." Another from the bookEvolutionary Transitions to Multicellular Life, Ruiz-Trillo & Nedelcu, p. 5: "the major division Amorphea...roughly equivalent to 'unikonts' of Stechmann and Cavalier-Smith." See alsoBiological Innovations that Built the World, Roberto Ligrone, 2019, p. 192, andThe Handbook of Protists, ed. Archibald, 2019, p. 13. A search in Google Scholar returns 126 results for "Unikonta", since 2016, and 301 for "Amorphea". Deuterostome(Talk)16:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone object to the move? The article will need a few adaptations, and refs will have to be added. I suppose taxonomy templates will need to be updated, too. Deuterostome(Talk)20:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this clade is now known as "Amorphea", should that term be used throughout the article? The last section still uses the label "unikonts". --llywrch (talk)21:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the first paragraph of the article, Amorphea does contain the whole Obazoa clade. The third paragraph states instead that this is not sure, but only a possibility. Which is correct (as of 2023)?Alfa-ketosav (talk)18:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apusomonads are explicitly part of Obazoa, a name formed from the acronym OBA (opisthokonts, breviates and apusomonads). I've adjusted the text in the third paragraph. Deuterostome(Talk)12:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The french pageUnikonta is linked with the english redirection pageUnikont, which redirects toAmorphea.
I tried to add a link between the english Amorphea page and the french Unikonta page, but it seems that it's not possible because the french Unikonta page is already linked with the english redirection Unikont page (image in thumbnail, I didn't really understand the message).
I'm not a Wikipedia pro so I don't really know what to do. I know the article needs a rewriting because the term Unikont is outdated, but I don't have time to do it and I just want to fix this interlanguage link problem.Thanks for your help !Neoverse (talk)21:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)