Talk:Stramenopile

Pseudophyllomitus is Sagenista

@Chiswick Chap I forgive your accusation of modifying the internal cladogram based on «personal "knowledge"», and kindly ask you to check the sources provided in the paragraph itself (see for example Cho et al. 2023). Even taking Lamża 2025 as the only source, you can read in page 11: Pseudophyllomitus vesiculosus is a member of the MAST-6 clade (Shiratori, Thakur & Ishida, 2017) and, as such, is the deepest-branching member of Sagenista. Surely you agree that one very minor mistake in a figure should not be passed down onto Wikipedia as strict gospel. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk of "accusations" and "forgiveness" is deeply unhelpful. But I agree that Lamża mentions the MAST-6 clade. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Sourcing is fundamental to my editing, so I take it quite seriously, but I agree that it was unnecessarily harsh wording. I apologize. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Pseudophyllomitus is plainly important in the context; the cladogram is plainly a great improvement on what we had until today based on pre-Lamża sources. We need to have the three somewhat uncertainly-placed, somewhat basal groups explicitly mentioned for the reason Lamża gives, namely that further work will examine them to determine the basal structure of the Stramenopiles better. I'll pop it back in, at the base of the Sagenista. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

BTW we need at least a stub for Pseudophyllomitus; at the moment it exists only as a set of redlinks at David J. Patterson. DJP seems to have edited his own article... it'd be good to have some independent sourcing for it, given his important work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I can probably pull an article for Pseudophyllomitus quickly. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Great. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Just did. I will try to make an article for Eogyrea ASAP. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You assigned Cubaremonas, Develocanicus and Develocauda to Developayellidae without a source, because assigning them to Developea wouldn't make sense (both for phylogenetics and Linnaean taxonomy), so why would you assign the two newly described eogyrean genera directly to Eogyrea and not Pseudophyllomitidae? Assigning Cubaremonas, Develocanicus and Develocauda directly to Developea and not committing WP:OR could be the solution. If possible, I'd genuinely want to hear what Chiswick Chap thinks about this, and if he's quite neutral to the topic, it might be a good idea to discuss this in WP:TOL.

By the way, AlgaeBase assigns these two new genera to Pseudophyllomitaceae. Jako96 (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Kind of you to ask, but I'm not up with those details. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, it's okay, I might take this to WP:TOL soon. Jako96 (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jako96 Because of Cho et al. 2024: Extensive ultrastructural and cellular examination of the first cultured MAST-6 lineage, Pseudophyllomitus vesiculosus (family Pseudophyllomitidae Shiratori et al., 2017), describe it as a relatively large algivore [...] with a flagellar apparatus ultrastructure characteristic of deep-branching stramenopiles (e.g., no x-fiber, R2 flagellar root with 13 microtubules) [...]. The genus Pseudophyllomitus (Lee, 2002) was erected to describe Phyllomitus-like taxa without two adhering flagella. This resulted in re-designation of four species (e.g., Pseudophyllomitus apiculatus, P. granulatus, P. salinus, and P. vesiculosus), however with no molecular and ultrastructural data available to indicate the monophyly of the genus. Later, a new family Pseudophyllomitidae (Shiratori et al., 2017) was erected, apparently corresponding to a MAST-6 clade however, with unknown phylogenetic position of the type species, P. granulatus. As a result, we refrain from using Pseudophyllomitidae in replacement of MAST-6 hereafter. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)