Talk:Euglenid

• The article is marked as not citing any sources, but links to a Rutgers source at the bottom. This is the most common plant like protist. It is in most foods that we eta today.

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BrittneyLambert, Cjrodgers. Peer reviewers: Sofiagians, Ctracy333, Burn1113, Javelez2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I just added the genus Hemiolia to the disambiguation page Hemiolia, directing here, but it is not covered here. This leads me to two questions:

1. Should genera be covered here? (Since Hemiola is one of the “Genera unassigned to any subordinate taxa within Euglenida”[1], there is no better article.) But that would require adding a whole taxonomy section to this article.
2. While there is no taxonomy section in this article, there is a pretty extensive one at Euglenozoa. Should redirects then point to the higher taxon? That seems counterintuitive to me. If one decides for that, then the taxonomy section there would have to be blown up to include genera. ◅ Sebastian 14:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not only is the entire paragraph that mentions why they're not considered animals completely unsourced, it also pretends that the only reason why they're not considered animals is the lack of sexual reproduction. Which I find absolutely ridiculous for a number of reasons. 1) Animals aren't the only organisms with sexual reproduction, it is literally a defining quality of almost all organisms including fungi and plants. 2) Tons of animals have no sexual reproduction. 3) If they're not considered animals because of this rule, then what are they considered? Rocks? Because you could also say they're not plants for the same reason. Bacteria, maybe? (obviously they aren't but it goes to show how ridiculous the statement is). 4) Tons of protists have no known sexual reproduction, I don't see why the lack of this trait is even relevant at all. —Snoteleks (Talk) 20:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Euglenophyceae redirects here, even though it only refers to a smaller photosynthetic group that branches within Euglenida. That ought to be fixed soon. Euglenophyta itself is considered a synonym of Euglenozoa, so neither name (-phyta or -phyceae) applies to Euglenida. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The existing introduction was a forest of technicalities with little to help the ordinary reader. I am simplifying it by adding explanations and deleting technicalities that belong in the article. Deletions:

• "phagotrophic eukaryovorous euglenid and a Pyramimonas-related green alga" > "euglenid and a green alga" (honestly, there is plain English for "phagotrophic eukaryovorous" and it is largely superfluous).
• "In January 2024, some fossilized forms of euglenid had been found to be mistakenly classified as Pseudoschizaea shells.^[1]" This has no evident value in the introduction. If it has a value, that has to be explained.

Zaslav (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply