This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
taxonomy and the
phylogenetictree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Species#The isolation species concept in more detail|biological species concept]] The anchor (#The isolation species concept in more detail) is no longer available because it was
deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
When was Fungi classified as seperate from Plants?
In article: "In the past, mycology was regarded as a branch of botany, although it is now known fungi are genetically more closely related to animals than to plants." Soucre? And when did this happen?
Flasher702 (
talk)
10:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
When did this happen? – I think the first system with Kingdom Fungi separated from plants was the system of R. H. Whittaker from 1969 (
[1];
[2];
[3]) but there may be some older reference. --
Petr Karel (
talk)
12:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The first two paragraphs under [Taxonomy] should be moved to [Taxonomic groups] (or possibly be deleted). The problem with their current position is that they, and the first paragraph in particular, obfuscate the reclassification of fungi as a separate kingdom.
12:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Btw, the comprehensive fungal taxonimical system Outline of Fungi by Wijayawardene et al., 2020 (broad collaboration of mycologists from many research organizations all over the world;
[4]) should be mentioned (at least) in the second paragraph. --
Petr Karel (
talk)
17:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Remove Chromista from lead para
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
These organisms are classified as a kingdom,[4] separately from the other eukaryotic kingdoms, which, by one traditional classification, includes Plantae, Animalia, Protozoa, and Chromista.:
Remove Chromista as it is not traditional nor supported by any references in article :
Kingdom Chromista is "traditional" (originated 1981
[5] or earlier; then used in "
Cavalier-Smiths" system (e.g.
[6];
[7]) and survived at least till his last study published 2022 (
[8]). The same or similar system with 5 eukaryotic kingdoms containing Chromista is applied in many other projects (
AlgaeBase;
WoRMS...) The only problem is, that it is (most probably) not a monophyletic taxon (for the death of the "Chromalveolate hypothesis" see e.g.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1550-7408.2012.00644.x and its references). The same problem as Chromista has the "traditional" kingdom Protozoa.
Given the response by
Petr Karel, this edit request should probably be marked as responded to. This edit very likely needs a response/decision from someone with specific knowledge of this field (such as Petr Karel). I suggest someone with that knowledge
be bold and make a decision about Chromista and possibly Protozoa and then implement it. --
Pinchme123 (
talk)
03:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)reply
IMO the "definition" of Fungi as 1 of the 5 eukaryotic kingdoms is OK for lay readers. As a reference, one or more of the refs to Cavalier-Smith's system could be added (see my previous answer). The problem of this approach for phylogenetical taxonomists is that
Chromista, even in the modified definition since cca Cavalier-Smith 2015), are probably
paraphyletic (not a clade inside
Diaphoretickes) and Protista
polyphyletic taxon, as I mentioned.
The lead paragraph could be completed by the phylogenetic quasidefinion: Fungi ≈ sister group to
Cristidiscoidea Page, 1987 (syn. Nucleariae Tedersoo, Sánchez-Ramírez, Kõljalg, Bahram, Döring, Schigel, T. May, M. Ryberg & Abarenkov 2018 syn. Rotosphaerida Rainer 1968), making together an
opisthokontcladeHolomycota Liu et al. 2009 (syn. Nucletmycea Brown et al. 2009). (I mentioned most of the significant synonyms to show, that individual approaches in systematics and taxonomy for the basal opisthokont groups vary at least in nomenclature; in the lead paragraph only one taxon name, without authority and year, shoud be presented which equals to the name of the wikipedia article.) Also for this approach there is a problem of competition: Instead of the broad definition by mycologists (Outline of fungi, 2020,
[9]), protistologists would like to rule above the Opisthosporidia (paraphyletic group of
rozellids,
microsporidians and
aphelids) so they prefer narrower definition of kingdom Fungi without the whole Opisthosporidia or at least without rozellids and aphelids (see
[10]); this narrower group/clade is sometimes called true fungi (Eumycota).
The cladistic definition as another alternative is too complicated for wikipedia: "The smallest crown clade containing Rozella allomycis F. K. Faust 1937, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis Longcore, Pessier and D. K. Nichols 1999, Allomyces arbusculus E. J. Butler 1911, Entomophthora muscae (Cohn) Fresen. 1856, Coemansia reversa Tiegh. and G. Le Monn. 1873, Rhizophagus intraradices (N. C. Schenck and G. S. Sm.) C. Walker and A. Schüßler 2010, Rhizopus oryzae Went and Prins. Geerl. 1895, Saccharomyces cerevisiae Meyen 1838, and Coprinopsis cinerea (Schaef.) Redhead, Vilgalys and Moncalvo 2001)" (Phylonyms, 2020, ISBN: 978-1-138-33293-5, p. 109).
These organisms are classified as one of the
traditional eukaryotic kingdoms, along with Animalia, Plantae and either Protista[1] or Protozoa and Chromista.[2]
(But IMO any featured article about a higher taxon should also have a precise taxon definition based on recent knowledge - I'm missing a paragraph on the phylogenetic position of fungi e. g. between the paragraphs Evolution and Taxonomy.)
Petr Karel (
talk)
04:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)reply
References
^Whittaker, R.H. (January 1969). "New concepts of kingdoms or organisms. Evolutionary relations are better represented by new classifications than by the traditional two kingdoms". Science. 163 (3863): 150–60.
^Cavalier-Smith, T. (1998). "A revised six-kingdom system of life". Biological Reviews. 73 (3): 203–66.
Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2023
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The article is detailed yet brief enough to read and comprehend. It is well-written for both the public and experts. The content is very well-organized into sections, as well as related groups.
Mr21782 (
talk)
04:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply