This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Protista, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of protists and protistology 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.ProtistaWikipedia:WikiProject ProtistaTemplate:WikiProject ProtistaProtista 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
Eukaryote is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles
This article is part of WikiProject Algae, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the photosynthetic organisms commonly called algae and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AlgaeWikipedia:WikiProject AlgaeTemplate:WikiProject AlgaeAlgae articles
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 Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
It doesn't seem like it's good enough to substitute the current fossil range in the taxobox, because it is only cited by two other articles that have nothing to do with eukaryotes. But you can always just add a little cited paragraph with this info in the Fossil section. —Snoteleks (Talk)13:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before it goes in the taxobox, it should be added to the main text. It's a primary source so should be treated as provisional until confirmed. The abstract actually says "Once confirmed ...". It looks important so would be a welcome addition to the fossil section. As it is, I think it supports the earliest date (2100mya) in the long fossil range bar rather than justifying a change to the 1700mya.
More generally I note that the lede has information on the fossils not mention in the main text. The text doesn't mention Gabonionta, although it does refer to the Francevillian B Formation, in Gabon, with another recent reference on zinc content. Both lede and fossil section start with mention of eurkaryotes dating from 2.2bya, but Knoll et al (2006) doesn't seem to support anything older than 1800mya (1700; 1800-1600 in Table 1). The fossil section needs updating and the lede modified accordingly. — Jts1882 | talk13:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby did not expect this taxon to ever be disputed over synonyms... the original name is Eucarya, both Eukarya and Eukaryota are junior synonyms, so it doesn't matter. Both names are widely used today, and both deserve to be in the lead and taxobox interchangeably. I for one prefer Eukarya because it has three syllables much like Bacteria and Archaea, that's all. (also noteworthy, both names are attributed to Chatton 1925 in the sources that I could find, so where did you find one is a junior synonym of the other?) —Snoteleks (Talk)23:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current article attributes Eucarya Woese et al. 1990 and Eukarya Margulis 1996, so that's something that should be checked. Even though both names are widely used, it would be better to have the same in the lead and taxobox for consistency, but calling the taxobox on "Eukarya" breaks as that is not the name used in Template:Taxonomy/Eukaryota. Right now the taxobox is broken, which isn't great for a GA. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fwiw, Google Scholar produces 37,000 hits for Eukarya, 28,000 for Eukaryota, 12,700 for Eucarya and 1,110,000 for Eukaryotes. For comparison the corresponding terms Procarya (104), Prokarya (1170), Prokaryota (4200) and Prokaryote (211,000), appear much less frequently in the literature. Plantsurfer23:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Came here 'cos I saw the taxobox was broken (broken taxoboxes end up in a hidden category). I think this needs a wider audience before the change is done, and if a change is to be done, it needs to be done in a way that doesn't cause a breakage. - UtherSRG(talk)01:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the major* nomenclatural codes makes any claim to regulate the name of this clade. There is no applicable definition of priority that would make any name a "junior synonym".
The PhyloCode apparently recognizes Eukarya, but attributes authorship to R. Creti 1991; I looked at the Creti paper, and Eukarya isn't even defined, it is assumed the reader is already familiar with the term. Creti might be the first to use the spelling Eukarya after Woese (1990) spelled it Eucarya. Google Scholar results pre-1991 for Eukarya are heavily polluted with publications from years later, and results for Eucarya pre-1990 are polluted or about one of two plant taxa. I guess Woese could be credited with "formally establishing" (under which code?) the rank of Domain and "formally naming" (under which code?) Eucarya.
There are papers going back to the 1970's that discuss Eukaryota as a kingdom or superkingdom (but I guess without "formally naming" (under which code?) it).
I don't understand why "real life" (as Chiswick Chap puts it) favors Eukarya over Eucarya or Eukaryota. Is there any nomenclatural argument there, or is it just protistologists and researchers studying all 3 domains of life using Eukarya in abstracts picked up by Google Scholar (researchers studying 1 domain of life probably aren't going to bother mention the domain they study). Plantdrew (talk)
@Plantdrew (wouldn't let me reply elsewhere) I can think of several reasons why Eukarya is preferable to Eukaryota. Firstly, the suffix -ota in bacterial taxonomy denotes a phylum, not a domain. Secondly, it's easier to say/read since it has three syllables over four. Thirdly, it matches the shortness of Bacteria and Archaea, both of which also have 3 syllables. Lastly, pioneers of eukaryology/protistology such as Lynn Margulis have been using Eukarya since its renaissance in the 80's-90's. Since there is no consensus, people are able to prefer this over the other name. —Snoteleks (Talk)08:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the new-ish scholar.archive.org: Eukarya 9,797 hits; Eucarya 1,771; Eukaryota 6,570; Eucaryota 227; Eukaryotes 584,564; Eucaryotes 23,907. FWIW, Snoteleks's reasons above seem sensible to me, all other things being equal. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eukaryote goes back to Chatton (1925), who used prokaryotes and eukaryotes to distinguish two major types of cellular organisation, and Lwoff (1932), who credited Chatton for distingishing two types of protist. This division was picked up in the late 1950s by Dougherty, who used eukaryon and prokaryon as names for the types of nucleus (plurals eukarya and prokarya), and in the early 1960s by Stanier, who also used the terms for two different organizational patterns of cells rather than formal taxa. The earliest use as taxa seem to be Murray (1968), who proposed Procaryotae and Eucaryotae as the top level taxa, and Allsopp (1969), who suggested rank superkingdom for Procaryota and Eucaryota. These names were in use as taxa before Woese's Eucarya (1990), notably by Cavalier-Smith (who some want to erase from history). Eukaryota is widely used (albeit with a "k" now) as google shows. I suspect the google scholar numbers are selection bias (as Plantdrew suggests). — Jts1882 | talk14:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article Domain (biology) correctly refers to Eukarya throughout, so this article is internally and externally inconsistent and out of order. Eukaryote is widely used as an informal or common name, and is not generally capitalised, but its elevation to a domain name is a mistake.Plantsurfer14:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I'm fine with using either Eukaryota or Eukarya, I'd just prefer it to be internally consistent throughout the article (or to have something like Eukarya or Eukaryota in the lead). It's just that the taxonomy template is at Eukaryota and the last change there didn't go through, so getting a consensus to change it might be harder (although it could be possible if we end up with a consensus here for Eukarya). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eukarya
Eukartyota
% Eukaryota
1985-1989
168
3
98%
1990-1994
218
175
55%
1995-1999
412
1300
24%
2000-2004
1410
3390
29%
2005-2009
3440
5850
37%
2010-2014
5340
8050
40%
2015-2019
7400
9560
44%
2000-present
7640
8410
48%
2023-present
2320
1900
55%
Both are used so both should be mentioned. The use of Eukarya in the lede to the exclusion of Eukaryota is a recent change and doesn't accurately reflect the use by different sources.
For those who take Google scholar seriously for this sort of discussion, we might be past peak-Eukarya. Usage peaked in the late-1990s and over the past year Eukaryota is slightly more used. — Jts1882 | talk17:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google Bard says "Technically, both Eukarya and Eukaryota are valid domain names in terms of the technical specifications set by the Domain Name System (DNS). They meet the length requirements (between 3 and 63 characters) and can use the allowed alphanumeric characters (a-z, 0-9) and hyphens (-).
However, the more appropriate choice for a domain name related to the scientific domain of Eukarya would depend on your specific intentions:
Eukarya: This is the preferred scientific term for the domain itself. It's shorter, easier to remember, and aligns with the standard nomenclature.
Eukaryota: This is a less common variant of the term, although still technically correct. It might be considered less familiar and potentially harder to remember for a general audience.
Therefore, while both domain names are technically valid, Eukarya would be the more common and appropriate choice for a domain related to the biological domain of Eukarya." Plantsurfer18:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google Bard says "Technically, both Eukarya and Eukaryota are valid domain names in terms of the technical specifications set by the Domain Name System (DNS). They meet the length requirements (between 3 and 63 characters) and can use the allowed alphanumeric characters (a-z, 0-9) and hyphens (-). (emphasis mine) There is no "Domain Name System" in biology, that's a website thing. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned in the lead without a ref (because it's the lead) but nowhere else in the text. It should be mentioned there first. —Snoteleks (Talk)10:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
