Talk:Endostelium zonatum

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 1 May 2025 by reviewer ScrabbleTiles (talk · contribs).

Microbiology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology 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.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Protista Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Taxobox Taxonomy

The taxonomic designations currently generated by the Speciesbox tag is no longer accurate for the genus Endostelium. I corrected this by manually entering the correct taxonomy in a Taxobox, but it was reverted. How would I go about retaining the changes to the Taxobox for this organism, or correcting the taxonomy automatically generated by the Speciesbox, so that the taxonomy for this organism can be correctly represented on this page?

Bleblebleb (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, you need a source to prove your assertion that the assignment of Endostelium in Protosteliaceae is incorrect, as this is how the genus is listed at GBIF, the reference I used. Once you have that, there's a pencil icon in the taxobox that will take you to the templates that are used for the automatic taxobox system, which contains help for how to work with that system. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I have the appropriate reference for the Endostelium's taxonomy (Shadwick LL, Spiegel FW, Shadwick JDL, Brown MW, Silberman JD. Eumycetozoa = Amoebozoa?: SSUrDNA Phylogeny of Protosteloid Slime Molds and Its Significance for the Amoebozoan Supergroup. Plos One. 2009;4: e6754. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006754). I'm just working my way through appropriately editing the taxonomy within Wikipedia, but it may take some time to learn.

As it turns out, GBIF seems to not have been updated for many protist groups for a very long time. Protosteliaceae has not been a valid group for nearly 20 years. Bleblebleb (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bleblebleb:, where are you getting Flabellinia from? It's not mentioned in Shadwick et al. (2009). A phylogenetic study that shows that a previous classification was wrong, without putting forward an alternative classification isn't really something Wikipedia can use for taxoboxes. Lahr et al. (2011) doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022780 put Endostelium in Goceviidae (which they have within Himatismenida). Is there a reason not to use Lahr's classification? Lahr et al. also note that Spiegel questioned the monophyly of Endostelium. Has that been resolved? Plantdrew (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much of contemporary Amoebozoan phylogeny is resolved in Kang et al. (2017) doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msx162; however, I believe that Kudryavtsev et al. (2014) doi.org/10.1016/j.protis.2014.02.003 was first to place Endostelium in Flabelinia. Bleblebleb (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bleblebleb:, Kang has Endostelium in Centramoebia. Kudryavtsev does have it in "Flabellinia, or Longamoebia, depending on taxon sampling". Kudryavtsev could be used for the taxa in Pellitida (including families). I'm not sure where the classification down to family in Wikipedia's Discosea article comes from. It is ostensibly sourced to Adl, but Adl only mentions genera within Pellitida, not families.

Pragmatically, it is far easier to rely on an outdated classification in GBIF, rather than trying to stitch together sometimes conflicting sources that vary in their coverage of taxonomic ranks. Plantdrew (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, indeed Kang et al. did reclassify it to Centramoebia. Good catch, even ncbi is a bit outdated. Given the far-greater resolution of the phylogenomic dataset used by Kang compared to Kudryavtsev, Kang seems to me to be definitively correct (barring a more recent publication that I am unaware of). I do not think there is any conflict in the sources here. There is a clear progression of taxonomic rearrangement, based on increasingly modern methodology and increasingly complete datasets with larger amounts of phylogenomic data, which leads to Endostelium's placement in Centramoebia.

In any case, the GBIF classification is definitely completely wrong, using taxonomic groups that are not valid. Bleblebleb (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The general concept here, is that we don't want to use manual taxoboxes unless absolutely necessary, for maintaining them is ridiculously difficult. Instead, the automatic system allow us to update taxonomies much more quickly and efficiently: a change of family placement into a different order would require all articles in that family to be updated. With the automatic system we just change the template for that family and all articles are automagically updated. This also means that we can more easily maintain a consistent taxonomy, though that's still not a guarantee. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]