Template talk:Rhizaria

Something very wrong here

This navbox is overcomplex and hard to maintain, embodying as it does one particular hypothesis about the phylogeny (leaving aside the explicit incertae sedis); and it should not contain redlinks. Basically it's trying to do far too much in a group that has been reorganised repeatedly. It occupies almost the whole height of a large screen, and presumably takes two screen heights on a laptop. Needs to be radically simplified. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed partly, the navbox is overly complicated and should be changed to strictly recognized clades such as written in Adl et al. 2019. It is currently portraying a load of paraphyletic subphyla described only by Cavalier-Smith, and it just doesn't make sense. But since when is the absence of redlinks a requirement? ☽ Snoteleks ☾ ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 11:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Great, glad we agree. Tom C-S did fantastic work stimulating everyone else to get into phylogenetic analysis, even if many of his suggestions have proven wrong. Redlinks have been non grata in templates since time immemorial, it's in our DNA. I expect it's enshrined in some policy or guideline somewhere but whatever the case, it's clearly not ideal having non-navigable features in a navigation box. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey there, it's been a long time but I finally got around to changing most of the outdated taxonomy in the template. But I realized there are too many red links, so I would rather wait until those red links are blued before further chhanges. —Snoteleks (Talk) 21:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Incertae sedis?

According to the template, gymnosphaerids are incertae sedis within Rhizaria, i. e. its phylogenetic position is unknown, but according to the article, it's in Filosa, aka Cercozoa. Are they really incertae sedis? Alfa-ketosav (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is unfortunately very updated, as many Rhizarian articles are. If you consult Adl et al.'s 2019 classification, you'll see they are incertae sedis on the basis that there is no DNA sequence information. — Snoteleks (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The 2025 phylogeny also places them directly in the Rhizaria. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Aquavolonida, Tremulida

According to Adl et al.'s 2019 phylogeny and Adl's 2025 phylogeny, Aquavolonida and Tremula (= Tremulida as of 2025) are treated separate from Cercozoa, Endomyxa and Retaria. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

You are correct. By all classifications except Tom Cavalier-Smith's, those two orders do not belong to either of the phyla. I will try fixing this. — Snoteleks (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to start from scratch in a sandbox page, because Cavalier-Smith's classification of Rhizaria is very wrong (although sometimes it was correct at the time, but nobody else has tried to re-classify it) and it's hard to disentangle the navbox it currently is. — Snoteleks (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I was wondering why it was like that in the first place, and I went to the Taxonomy of Protista article where I placed both orders inside of Cercozoa as well. I believe it's because I saw this 2019 paper where an aquavolonid (Lapot gusevi) is counted as part of the now-obsolete definition of Cercozoa. Plus, this is just one analysis with one species, and other analyses definitely do not recover the two orders as part of any of the phyla. Anyway, just a reminder that I need to fix the article as well. — Snoteleks (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Alfa-ketosav Just out of curiosity, what Adl's 2025 phylogeny are you referring to? — Snoteleks (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Adl SM. "Rhizaria Cavalier-Smith 2002". Protistology (PDF). Elsevier. Retrieved 2025-05-09. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately this seems to be a preprint article and not a phylogeny. But it seems to be simply copying the Rhizaria-only info from Adl et al. 2019, so it should be accurate. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Silicoloculinida

@Snoteleks:, is there a reason to list Silicoloculinida as an order(?) here? I'm not seeing it in Adl 2019/2025, and it is a suborder on WoRMS. Plantdrew (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Plantdrew It's a residue from before I made my edits here. I haven't gotten around confirming its placement and I was more focused on fixing the non-Retaria parts, since the Retaria taxonomy is so vast. — Snoteleks (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Snoteleks:, I figured it might just be residue. I'm going to remove it for now; I want to see if there any incoming links to it that aren't from this template. If you think it should be listed here, feel free to add it back in a few hours. Plantdrew (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll check the literature for this name meanwhile — Snoteleks (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

So as you might have expected, Silicoloculinida is no longer an order. However, it's difficult to know its current situation, as the only recent mention is from 2013 in Pawlowski et al. where they simply say it's been included into Miliolida. That can mean very different things, from converting it into a suborder to making it a junior synonym of Miliolida. The 2017 Handbook of the protists refers to this 2013 paper for all things regarding forams. Earlier accounts from the 80s and 90s use Silicoloculinina. I came across this paper where it's explained that the original name was Silicoloculinina and it was proposed as a suborder of Miliolida from the start, so I guess the Pawlowski team is simply embracing the original position. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)