![]() | Last universal common ancestor has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 11, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Last universal common ancestor appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 January 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Last universal common ancestor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I have to say I'm slightly confused by the opening sentence, as to what this LUCA thing actually is. An individual, or a group of individuals? It's described as a "population" but then other parts of the article imply it was just a single bacterium or similar. — Amakuru ( talk) 22:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
This scheme is based on the cited original publication (Woese, Kandler, Wheelis 1990, Fig. 1, page 4578), called a “universal phylogenetic tree in rooted form, showing the three domains”. The term LUCA (last universal common ancestor) is not used. The author of the file mentioned above should explain, that he has added the term LUCA.
In addition, Woese et al. proposed the new taxon Eucarya for the third domain (instead of the former terms Eubacteria, Archaebacteria, Eukaryota). Please kindly use the designation of the original. Maya Kandler ( talk) 12:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 September 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Gretashum (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Kcshaffman.
— Assignment last updated by Kcshaffman ( talk) 01:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Based on the text of the source, it appears to me that the hypothetical organism being described as the LUCA is actually the first universal common ancestor, as they state that their date reflects the common ancestor of all cellular life (not necessarily living cellular life) and even more tellingly that the archaea–bacteria split would only happen or hundreds of millions of years after the time of their "LUCA." This would explain why their date is far more ancient than any other given in the article, because our sources are talking about entirely distinct things. Could someone take a look at the source and confirm that I am not confused or misreading anything? I'm certainly not calling these experts wrong, I'm just saying that their terminology might not match the terminology we use in our articles. Anonymous 18:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)