Talk:Eukaryote - Knowledge

983: 1643:

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). —

1570:, 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. 1602:(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. 812: 923: 896: 791: 411: 390: 168: 822: 1036: 1015: 421: 1129: 21: 723: 702: 222: 68: 201: 159: 315: 294: 1046: 538: 1249:, 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. — 1586:

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

1469:

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

1953:

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

1237:

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

1941:

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

1642:

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

1523:

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.

1218:

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.

1580:

Eukarya does beat Eukaryota in Google Scholar and . Taxonbar links in this article go to databases using Eukaryota, not Eukarya. There is no Wikidata item for Eukarya, and it seems that no Wikipedias in any language use Eukarya as the name for this

1538:

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. -

1662:

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

1725:

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).

1496:, 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 1620:

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.

1291: 1470:

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?)

1301: 1954:

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."

1312: 1195: 2132: 1899:

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. —

1305: 973: 1896:

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.

992: 906: 1563:

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".

2122: 2137: 2237: 1297: 1212: 1715:

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

372: 2097: 1575:

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).

2222: 963: 276: 486: 2242: 649: 1106: 878: 773: 609: 1950:

However, the more appropriate choice for a domain name related to the scientific domain of Eukarya would depend on your specific intentions:

558: 2217: 2019:

They meet the length requirements (between 3 and 63 characters) and can use the allowed alphanumeric characters (a-z, 0-9) and hyphens (-).

1203:

Since my edit got reverted for lacking a source, I’ll put the paper here so people can evaluate it and see if it’s good enough to include.

939: 666: 1328: 674: 2167: 2162: 362: 2147: 2117: 266: 2070:

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.

2127: 79: 50: 2177: 2107: 930: 901: 549: 476: 338: 2252: 2207: 2192: 2152: 1551:

BTW - I reverted for now. Not because I disagree, but because it was broken and as a GA, I think this needs more discussion. -

1096: 868: 763: 2182: 575: 2257: 2232: 2157: 997: 172: 1241:

More generally I note that the lede has information on the fossils not mention in the main text. The text doesn't mention

2212: 2197: 2142: 670: 242: 97: 1410:

It would, except that unfortunately for the internally consistent WikiWorld, in real life the domain is called Eukarya.

2037: 1991: 1932: 1740: 1514: 1442: 1401: 1387:

For consistency, it would be better to have Eukaryota everywhere given that that's what used by the taxonomy template.

1361: 322: 299: 2172: 1632: 1232: 1072: 1428:

NCBI, EOL and the majority of sources I've found use Eukaryota, not Eukarya (which by the way is a junior synonym).

2247: 2202: 2187: 2112: 2102: 1460: 1446: 1419: 1405: 1382: 844: 2055: 2041: 1995: 1533: 85: 2009: 2227: 1558: 1518: 1483: 229: 206: 1744: 1637: 1281: 1936: 1546: 584: 452: 439: 395: 54: 1672: 1365: 1963: 1615: 1208: 1059: 1020: 181: 1653: 1259: 1497: 1183: 982: 835: 796: 739: 730: 707: 46: 1708: 1909: 1200: 1246: 2083: 1238:

earliest date (2100mya) in the long fossil range bar rather than justifying a change to the 1700mya.

515: 1334: 1150: 1145: 1296:

I was just wondering cause I wanted to add something about this so many people don’t get confused

1071: