User talk:Snoteleks

Welcome!

Multiple paraphyly

I agree that the exact phrase "multiply paraphyletic" isn't common (although both a straight Google search and a Google Scholar search found instances for me), but see the definition of "doubly paraphyletic" here. It's not the case that the term paraphyly cannot be qualified. A paraphyly is a clade with one or more embedded clades removed; counting the number of clades removed qualifies the term. As the Palaeos glossary says under "triply paraphyletic", "There would also be quadruply paraphyletic groups and so on."

The "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa" box in the taxobox of Protist implies that Protista is triply paraphyletic, because three monophyletic groups – animals, fungi and embryophytes – are excluded. Maybe it would be better to say "triply paraphyletic" in the opening. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead I just don't see the necessity, it's an overly specific adjective for a term that is already understood in its absence without issue. But I will look into it, since you reached out. Perhaps it could appear in the first section of the article. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was concerned that an editor had changed some text from "paraphyly" to "polyphyly", which I reverted. I'm aware from previous interactions that it's not uncommon to believe that "paraphyly" only applies to a single removed clade. But I agree it's not needed in the first sentence if made clear elsewhere. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead You were absolutely right from reverting the change to polyphyly, as it is wrong. I thank you for that edit. Honestly it does seem plausible that some people would think that paraphyly implies a single removed clade. However I trust that the definition of paraphyly speaks for itself, where ancestry and not number of removed clades is the defining characteristic.

I also must admit that part of the reason why I didn't like the addition of the adjective "multiply" is the sensation that it could be easily confused with the verb "multiply", but that might just be me projecting. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

btw if there are to be many incertae sedis then they can go in a footnote, or a separate list article, they don't have to take up an acre of space at the top of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap That's what I think as well. I changed the recent taxobox subdivision edits of adding Meteora for that reason. The Protist article already has a section on those uncertain genera. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Provora

As of 13:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC), Provora:

has 8 known species – a new species was discovered in 2024 called Nibbleromonas piranha Belyaev et al. 2024.
is incertae sedis within Eukaryota (but was formerly classified in Diaphoretickes as sister to the clade of Haptista, possibly Telonemia and Sar) – according to the same 2024 study, Provora may be closer to Hemimastigophora than Diaphoretickes. Hemimastigophora is also classified Eukaryota incertae sedis.

The reason I wrote is that in your cladogram page, Provora is placed in Diaphoretickes, and in the full Eukaryota cladogram, Provora was said to have 7 species. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alfa-ketosav Thanks! — Snoteleks (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for The 6 Thanks

You've gave me a total of 6 thanks. Thank you! I will pay my debt sometime. Jako96 (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 No problem at all, I always thank edits that I appreciate — Snoteleks (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User 2001:1308:2695:7300:28f9:8297:d35a:7cf8 is directly vandalising wiki pages such as choanozoa and parazoa pls help before people are misdirected.

Please kindly help to stop vandalising. YameenØriøn (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@YameenØriøn Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I didn't know they were also modifying other pages. I checked this User's edit history and it seems that they were only active on march 16th, and all of their edits were reverted eventually by other users. Perhaps you know a different user that's vandalising right now in those articles? — Snoteleks (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch the parazoa wiki page sometimes as he reverts edits there .I am a big fan of ur editing style.:)Thanks for ur quick response. YameenØriøn (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@YameenØriøn That's very kind, thank you :) I always try to respond as soon as possible. I will make sure to watch that page! — Snoteleks (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx vmuch

thnanks YameenØriøn (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why Revert My Edit?

Planomonadea and Planomonada are not published (not peer-reviewed). Jako96 (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 Planomonadea (the class) was described in a peer-reviewed article by T. Cavalier-Smith published in 2022. Planomonada (the phylum) is indeed not published. — Snoteleks (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh. I'm so sorry then. Jako96 (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 That's alright. Just please make sure to check the reference parameter before doing any big changes, and try to explain the reason behind your edits and deletions whenever possible. — Snoteleks (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The authority parameter was saying "Tedersoo 2017". That was the reason. Jako96 (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean the reference parameter in the taxonomy template, not the article taxobox. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I checked it but because the authority was saying different, I guess I was kinda confused. Jako96 (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]