Brief comment: it seems to me that an page like this could benefit greatly, for the benefit of people who don't actually know what protista are and therefore need this article, to begin with examples of protists. Whenever defining any term in any field, it always helps to begin with concrete examples (if possible). Generally speaking, unless you're just trying up the knowledge of biologists, without good examples generously interspersed, and other jargon explained, these articles aren't going to be as helpful as they might otherwise be. -- LMS
I need to know wither a protist is a single celled or mulit celled and if they move on thier own.
Ok. What protists are people familiar with that reference can be made to? The only ones I can think of that are truly well-known are Amoeba - maybe Paramecium and Euglena, but I'd be surprised if anyone has heard of those and didn't know they were protozoa. Multicellular forms people would know, but they're already mentioned on the page. Maybe it would help to say the rest comprise all single-celled forms, instead of are just single-celled? -- JGh
You'd know the answer to your questions better than I would, I'm sure. When I write an article or lecture about a philosophical subject to nonphilosophers, I try to ease my way into the subject, if I can. That's all. -- LMS
The term seaweed covers a large array of lifeforms, some of which are in the plantate (plant) kingdom, and some of which are in other kingdoms, specifically protista. Are all commonly eaten seaweeds in the plante kingdom? Are there any protista seaweeds (or any protista anything) which are eaten? RK
The Sea Palm is a brown alga, and it is eaten. I believe kombu, one of the most commonly eaten algae, may also be from a brown (Laminiaria?). Brown algae are chromalveolates, definitely not plants. Safay 07:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we can add some sort of breakdown of the Protista "kingdom" like this?
There are many Eukaryote Kingdoms, including Plantae, Fungi and Animalia. The rest of the many eukarote kingdoms are, for the sake of convenience, lumped together into a super-kingdom known as "protista". However, DNA and RNA analysis of these lifeforms shows that the protista actually consist of many kingdoms, each as distinct from each other as plantae is from fungi or animalis. The precise terminology and method dividing these kingdoms is still undergoing many changes, and the terms below are not accepted by all authorities.
Diplomonads - .
Microsporida - These all live as parasites inside the cells of their hosts. They reproduce by sudden bursts of division to generate an instan swarm.
Parabasalids - Only a small number of organisms are in this category.
Myxomycota - True slime molds. They form patches of wet slime on fallen, rotting logs.
Euglenozoa - Single-cellular organisms that can move by waving a flagellum. Some have chloroplasts and engage in photosynthesis, while others do not.
Naegleria - They live as amoebas in dirty water, feeding on bacteria. They can develop flagella and swim.
Entamoeba - A kingdom with many kinds of parasitic amoebae. Some species in this kingdom live in the human colon.
Acrasiomycota - Cellular slime molds. They live in fresh water, on damp soil, or on rotting logs and vegetation.
Rhodophyta - Red seaweeds; these are not in the plant kingdom! About 400 species are known.
Alveoles - Contains three taxa (large categories): ciliates, dinoflagellates and apicomplexans.
Stramenophiles - A group of six related protist kingdoms:
Source: “The Variety of Life: A survey and a celebration of all the creatures that have ever lived” Colin Tudge, Oxford University Press, 2000
This looks good to me, but Josh Grosse is our Protista guy around here - I'm just a generalist who happens to have a lot of bacteria-focused micro training. -- mav
Ha, I'm a mathematician by training, and this is just a subject I've done a great deal of reading in. Don't worry about stepping on my toes.
As for the above, it's fine but very incomplete. The full list of groups which currently are considered top-level is on evolutionary tree - as you can see, it's kind of long, which is why I originally broke things down into subpages. But we could have the whole thing here, if we really want. Alternatively we could mention a few notable groups, things like the Euglenozoa, without bothering to list smaller groups like Ebriids.
I think the Protist Kingdom is out of date it was only a collection of "life" that some one tried to put together! All very different forms of life, large, small highly organised relatively simple . Osborne 10:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Removed from article:
This statement is misleading since even though those that do use this taxon (still the vast majority of biologists) know that Protista is a multiphyletic taxon. The trouble is that there are perhaps dozens of kingdoms in Protista but most of those only have a very small number of known living genera. So most textbooks simply admit that Protista isn't really a kingdom in the classic sense and this is also what most professors still teach. But there is significant movement toward the 6-kingdom classification system in order to make the now standard 5-kingdom system be compatible at the kingdom level with the 3 domain system. I'm not aware of any major movement to split Protista into multi kingdoms and have that be the standard (it may happen eventually but until it does our articles should reflect, not lead, scientific development). -- mav
Even systems that create new kingdoms from certain groups of protists still typically have a kingdom Protista for the variety of forms whose affinities are unknown. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is one by Cavalier-Smith, which has a paraphyletic kingdom Protozoa filling exactly the same function. I've changed the article to try and make the status of the Protista a little more clear, though really I felt the description given was adequate. Anyone who feels they can do a better job, please help out! Why is it, btw, that the only interest anyone shows in this group is how it is divided into kingdoms? -- Josh
When wikipedia was first started, there was no source on the different groups that was both up to date and comprehensive. Most of these protist pages were created with the aim of (perhaps) someday filling that niche, essentially in keeping with the stated aim on WP: Tree of Life of classifying all living things down to genera. Since then various other sources have made considerable improvements in this regard; searching for material on some of the newer groups, I ran into this page, which includes a full and recent classification system with considerable detail about (most of) the taxa. They did a really excellent job, and I don't think that we would want to duplicate their efforts, even if their was a hope of us achieving the same level of quality. So the question now is, what do we hope to achieve with our Protista section? I was wondering if anyone had any ideas for what sort of goals we should be setting.
I'm well aware of the special and occasionally superior nature of wikipedia. My main concern was the information, since faced with few reasonably comprehensive sources on relatively new or poorly known groups, any attempt at utilization seems like it is going to border dangerously on plagiarism. We can avoid this for the big, well known taxa, but it seems like something we would have to deal with eventually. I will look into use policies for things like images later, but at the moment I just wanted to raise the issue, while it was fresh in my mind.
I've added a few major groups to the taxobox, since it seems important to people that we have something there. The selection is meant to include all the most notable protists that we can reasonably treat as phyla - the major groups of algae and alveolates, groups containing the best-known flagellates, and groups corresponding to the traditional rhizopod classes (lobose, filose, reticulose) as closely as possible. On the other hand, the radiolaria and heliozoa are completely omitted because there still isn't any concensus on how monophyletic they are. The green algae, Myxozoa and Microsporidia are skipped because they're now considered in other kingdoms.
It's not meant to be complete, but hopefully this is a satisfying compromise. Josh 06:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The Linnean system is not dead, but taxonomic ranks are dying as more phylogenetic information emerges. Whether or not PhyloCode will emerge as the newly accepted taxonomic system in the scientific community is not clear. What is clear is that a rank-based taxonomic system is insufficient and becoming more useless (from a phylogenetic systematics point of view) every time we collect more data.
Protists are the perfect example of why ranks like "Kingdom" are not going to survive, and at the most basic level will not make any sense once the early history of life is more clearly understood.
So, I too think the discussion should move away from an emphasis on what's a kingdom and what's not. It was said that people come here to find out what a protist is. The people who care about resolving the deep roots of the eukaryote tree, the ones who are making the taxonomic decisions with their publications, they don't need Wikipedia. The people who are worried about the tree of life will go to the ToL project website, whose function is to address this very problem. Let's concentrate on showing what protists are and what makes eukaryote diversity so fascinating.
Safay 04:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that protists are essentially a kingdom, not much more. They aren't a clade, and they aren't much of a grade - there aren't many things they have in common besides some sort of simplicity. Pages on protist groups can and do go into more detail, but here there isn't much to say besides what they include and how they are classified. And I don't think it's clear that ranks like kingdom are going to be abandoned, so some variations should be noted. Josh
I don’t mind the removal of the "color commentary" regarding the turf battle between botanists and zoologists. As it stands, the wording is OK -- except that it must be FREE energy (the surrogate for entropy production), since energy itself cannot be used up. Also, for grammatical reasons, it should be "but also biochemistry and genetics". David Shear
Fair enough. I see you've fixed both - thanks! Josh
As you saw, I said "use light energy" rather than introducing the term free energy. I added Paramecium bursaria to Euglena as an example of a ciliate, and a reference to endosymbiosis. I think it's helpful to indicate how some protozoa picked up chloroplasts. (I didn’t say Chlorella.) If you object, you can take this out. David Shear 21:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
soz guys, i was trying to help because the groups seemed to be repeated twice at the top. i was trying to just delete the repeat but deleted wrong thing i think. tried to fix but don't know how. sorry again
It is not your fault at all, someone else broke the template. Thanks for calling attention to the problem. Josh
Josh thanks for editing my reorganization of the protist page. Without the categories I think it was confusing to people who don't know what protists are (see the first comment on this discussion page) with a lumped discussion of traditional vs. modern classification schemes. I was inspired and just went ahead without brining it up here.
A couple of remaining problems:
The New Higher Level Classification of Eukaryotes with Emphasis on the Taxonomy of Protists, J. Eukaryot. Microbiol., 52(5), 2005 pp. 399–451.
Is this something we can/should explain? The problem is that everyone who took high school biology wants life to be broken into Kingdoms. But I don't think that the breakdown of Linnean-rank-based taxonomy is something that we can really get into a discussion about on the protist page. I'm not sure who the authority (ICZN?) for protist nomenclature is, but if we're going to present the "official" taxonomy I think this JEM article above is it, in terms of people who actually study these things.
I think we can and should explain it, but since it isn't really a classification of protists but of eukaryotes in general, it probably belongs on the eukaryote page. There's already a brief overview of the modern supergroups there, which could definitely be expanded. For the protist groups, I don't see much harm in using the paraphyletic kingdom, so long as we explain the real relationships in the text. Other than that, I've been trying to use ranked taxa that do match the actual clades, usually following Cavalier-Smith as he suggested many of them.
I know there's no single traditional system of protist classification. The idea was more to present the main morphological groups, which are still very helpful for understanding and recognizing protist diversity, and to explain their correspondence with the modern clades (on pages like amoeboid, flagellate, and algae). If you feel the present page is misleading, unclear, or could be improved in any way, please feel free to make whatever changes you think would help.
It would be interesting to know some names related to the research history of protists. Who gets credit for the change in taxonomy? (Specifically, does Lynn Margulis have a role in this subject?)
--
User:Jussi Hirvi
What are you guys even talkning about!?!?!? I can't understand a word ytour saying!!! Are you guys like super duper smart or just nerdy people that like correcting other people to make yourslef feel useful!? I got lost like at the first sentence how could people be so smart?? even though I am only 12 I can't understand any of this? I have one question, What do Protist eat? they eat stuff I can't find it anywere. Its so hard to find in formation about the five kingdoms. This is so not funny I have to do a report and its making me frustrated!!
yeah, i agree w/the first person, i'm 12 and i am doin a project on the 6 kingdoms.....what is the common name of Entosiphon sulcatum? or how about where it lives? i also agree w/the second person, because that diet question is quite vague...and the information is subject to change rapidly...unfortunately. mind ur language.u could be banished. -- Divya da animal lvr 21:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
p.s. they should make a "homework help" section of wiki....would help, but it would still change....readers please think about this.
Someone with some knowledge in the field needs to add something to the evolution section. Right now it only explains the endosymbiotic theory, which pertains top all eukaryotic cells.
Ch@z 23:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone agree with me that there should be a section on the function of protists in the article? -- RebDrummer61 12:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
What is its scientific name?
I think it would be a great asset to this page to more clearly define the differance between Protists and the other Eukaryotic organisms. Since Protists aren't animals, plants, or fungi there must be something that sets them aside, and while it may be here somewhere its not very clear and should have its own little section.
What sets them aside is that they aren't animals, plants or fungi - full stop. The point the article keeps making is that they aren't a group. They are a number of different groups thrown together because nobody knows how to separate them properly. There are characteristics that define some protists groups that are completely lacking from other groups. Try comparing a trypanosome with a brown seaweed with a slime mould with a radiolarian and see what they have in common. 90.195.223.211 22:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, do protists have a cell wall and, if yes,what are it's components?-- 72.91.155.248 SampleUser
Hi I was wondering if you guys could help me and tell me all you know about protists thanks bye reply soon! 199.224.105.136 22:18, 27 March 2007 oh yeah thanks if you reply to this i am doing a school project that invovles protists so i most know about them so thanks bye
I have a problem with the first line of this article - "...comprising those eukaryotes that can not be classified in any of the other kindoms such as fungi, eubacteria, archaebacteria, animal or plants..." How is it that eubacteria and archaebacteria are considered within eukaryotes? This line should be changed. Ansuman 13:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
According to Josh Grosse: "...there are Rhodophyta - Red seaweeds; these are not in the plant kingdom! About 400 species are known." (see above) According to Biology of the Red Algae they are Rhodophyta as they are included it this book Edited: Cole, K.M. and Sheath, R.G. 1990. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. p.2 read: "There are over 10,000 described species of red algae." Osborne 10:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Sholud be added the code [[Paraphyly|*]] in the table. Compare with Even-toed ungulate. 83.45.217.189 17:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC) also live in subsoil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.186.141 ( talk) 01:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The article is locked, yet I cannot see anything on the article page or on the primary discussion page explaining why this is so. Can someone either unlock the article, or add some information explaining why it is locked? Thanks. -- RealGrouchy ( talk) 21:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Reading through the above comments, I see a lot of frustration with this article. I believe the main problem is that it isn't immediately clear to the reader why this term is deprecated. Rather than trying to expand this article to better explain what a protist is, I believe we should reduce the size of the article. We should simply explain how people used this term in the past, and gently guide the reader to more appropriate terminology. Does anybody object to this reduction? -- Arcadian ( talk) 20:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I somewhat disagree. While the term is not widely used anymore in biology, the extra info should not be deleted because it shows what used to be referred to as protista. If the article is not clear on protista being a much more defunct term now, then you can go ahead and add as much info to point this out. But to understand what is meant by protista and its historical usage....much of the deleted info (especially the different types of supposed protista historically classified) should be restored. Zachorious ( talk) 02:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a source that is actually freely available to view? This one is not: 'Simonite T (November 2005). "Protists push animals aside in rule revamp". Nature 438 (7064): 8–9. doi:10.1038/438008b. PMID 16267517.'
-- Agamemnus ( talk) 02:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed the Taxobox uses collage image File:Protist collage.jpg that is derived from File:Paramecium.jpg. I have a few concerns. I believe the collage license should include GFDL of the Paramecium image. The latter was added to this article in October 27, 2004 with this edit. However I am unsure that the Paramecium image is correctly attributed but as it is used in 100 wikipedia pages I assume this has been checked? The image file itself contains text that has "Paramecium caudatum" while the page description has "Paramecium aurelia". Finally, the Paramecium image appears to have been posted to usenet in 16 May, 1998 ( [1]). The photographer appears to have posted several similar images around that time annotated with his copyright (see http://staff.jccc.net/pdecell/cells/paramicium.html for 1999 example of website using his image with permission). 84user ( talk) 02:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
"as the kingdom Protista but this group is no longer recognized in modern taxonomy" ...say what? I was just taught this kingdom in school like... two months ago! One source is not enough proof for the dissolution of a kingdom! Especially in taxonomy, which changes very often. I have many problems with many biology articles on this Wikipedia! (note that I said this, meaning other Wikipedias in other languages don't make such mistakes.) Look:
Sure, there are a few other wikis that copied from en:wp, but those aren't as many. Not only this, but I see that English Wikipedia is also the only one wich classifies Green Algae as Plantae!!! insane much? I want an explanation and other reliable sources, not just a paragraph from nature.com!— 93.122.135.1 ( talk) 12:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
BradyDale ( talk) 23:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Other protists can engulf bacteria and digest tem internally -> should be 'Other protists can engulf bacteria and digest them internally'
Why does Prasiola deserve a link at the bottom of the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.114.11.83 ( talk) 13:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
2-venus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.203.156.109 ( talk) 11:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The title of the article is Protist, a singular noun, yet it launches immediately into a discussion of protists, a plural word referring to the group of applicable organisms. How come? If anything shouldn't protist be redirected to Protists. After all the article isn't about a single protist, or a single protistan species. It is about protists as a whole. Better yet why not redirect protist to the scientific term, Protista, or perhaps even better, to Protoctista; although the two have distinct meanings. J.H.McDonnell ( talk) 02:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Section titled: Historical classifications
"...when it became apparent that neither protists or monera were single groups of related organisms..."
Should be
"...when it became apparent that neither protists nor monera were single groups of related organisms..."
Changed or to nor.
Skwerlhater0 (
talk)
20:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Done
This section contains a sentence fragment. The section begins, "Some protists are significant pathogens of both animals and plants. For example Plasmodium falciparum which causes malaria in humans and Phytophthora infestans which causes potato blight." The part beginning, "For example," isn't a sentence; it probably ought to be moved to just after "Some protists." I'd fix it myself but the article is mystifyingly locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.114.176.218 ( talk) 13:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the intro is trying to say, without actually saying it, that in modern biology we prefer to have taxa that are monophyletic, rather then taxa based on morphological traits. IN this sense, protista is not really a scientific group, but sort of leftovers that don't fit in other groups. we might, when we know more, move some protists into other groups, or break protista up into 2 or more groups of equal rank Cinnamon colbert ( talk) 02:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the
includes an engraving of what appears to be primitive mollusks (I can spot an ammonite there) while in the Historical classification of the article, it is made clear that:
"... the term protist is used to refer to unicellular eukaryotes that either exist as independent cells, or if they occur in colonies, do not show differentiation into tissues. "
An actual shell, without regards to what grew it, required specialized tissue and thus differentiation. Historically, such organisms may have been part of the protist kindgom, but for use in the taxobox, this collage is misleading. If I am in the wrong, please inform me on the nature of those organism that are causing me grief. Tinss ( talk) 22:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Would have added this to the document but your shields are up. The section:
Lacks a citation and thus needs a citation needed, or a suitable citation. Please amend or lower the shields. Thanks! 93.97.31.222 ( talk) 17:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Bacteria are Protista sensu Haeckel in 1866
Porifera are Protista sensu Haeckel in 1866
Cilliophora are Animalia sensu Haeckel in 1866
This article must be revised.
--
Euzomo (
talk)
16:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following text & link in the "external links" section of Wikipedia's Protists page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protists
Protists: Cells in the Sea (HD video & photos) : http://www.planktonchronicles.org/en/episode/9
Smirshak ( talk) 19:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
As all A-Level Biology textbooks call this kingdom 'Protoctista', and its' members 'Protoctists', this would heavily imply that the more widely accepted name for the group is 'protoctists', as opposed to 'protists'. Thereby, I suggest that the article should be renamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohdear15 ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Futhermore, OCR AS Biology papers do NOT give students the mark for calling the kingdom Protista, and ONLY accept the spelling protoctista-- DJK ( talk) 18:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Unlike most of the people here, I'm a total layperson who just happens to find biological classifications interesting. I find the current introduction to be awful and incomprehensible.
Let's look at this: "Historically, protists were treated as the kingdom Protista, which includes mostly unicellular organisms that do not fit into the other kingdoms, but this group is contested in modern taxonomy..."
This makes no sense to me for two reasons.
First of all, "protist" and "Protista" seem like two different forms of the same word, like "mammal" and "Mammalia"... yet this seems to be saying they're no longer considered the same? How can two different forms of the same word not refer to the same thing?
Secondly, the phrase "this group is contested in modern taxonomy" is true of EVERYTHING in modern taxonomy. In fact my impression is that cladistics is an attempt to destroy the classic notion of "taxonomy" completely so that only Ph.D. specialists are even allowed to refer to living beings in the first place. "What do you mean by dog? That's not even a meaningful term. Shut up you ignoramus."
The whole article now reeks of in-group pedantry and in-fighting. I know, I'm not in the field, I should just genuflect and move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.102.251 ( talk) 20:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure why this article is locked and "protissts" mis-spelling cannot be fixed ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.200.51 ( talk) 11:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that it woul be clear to say that Phototrophs use as Source of carbon Inorganic Carbon (e.g. CO2) and Organic Carbon 89.181.202.136 ( talk) 09:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Luis
The current Lede is not at all clear even after multiple readings & I had to go thru the talk-page to understand what is a Protist/Protista. This represents a total failure of the description in the current lede.
In contrast, I found the Modern Classifications section much better and would highly recommend replacing the content in the Lede with something on the lines of what is present in this section J mareeswaran ( talk) 14:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
when I started editing this recently I was not aware that protoza and amoeba are no longer a monophylic clade/phylum. after browsing thru other wiki articles I can understand scenarios where even today it makes sense to use the "informal" term protist in a scientific sense
there could be more such properties which continue to keep the usage of protists relevant in a scientific context. probably we should mentions some of them (with examples) in the Lede J mareeswaran ( talk) 13:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Archaeplastida includes land plants and things traditionally associated with the traditional kingdom Plantae so does it really make sense to include this taxonomic classification within Protista or to mention somewhere that this taxonomic group was once classified with the Kingdom Protista before it began including land plants? -- Thenewguy34 ( talk) 21:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Please revert in appropriate words. Please consider the pain of the creators and readers (including me). -- G.Kiruthikan ( talk) 13:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)