Talk:Green algae

More taxonomy confusion

"The Viridiplantae diverged into two clades. The Chlorophyta include the early diverging prasinophyte lineages and the core Chlorophyta"

Huh? Wasn't this article just talking about how Viridiplantae = green algae + land plants, and green algae = chlorophyta + charophyta?

Yikes it's almost like two different articles were written. One with the old convention, one with the new convention. And then in typical Wikipedia fashion, were merged lazily, causing confusion for intelligent detail-oriented people like myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.40.209 (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

So instead of being rude and publicly preening yourself, like other, even worse, Wikipedia editors, why don't you try your hand at improving the article? --Epipelagic (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Does that fall to me? I wasn't aware I couldn't expect a certain level of quality from Wikipedia without having to become a content creator myself. You're like those people that insist that people who critique movies shouldn't do it unless they can do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.40.209 (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it falls to you. This is a collaborative project. You are just as responsible as anyone for shortcomings in the article. Do you pay to read Wikipedia like you pay to watch films? We are volunteers, and no content builders are paid like film producers. Wikipedia relies on people with good heart to donate their time and expertise. If you identify shortcomings and do nothing, then the blame falls squarely on yourself for the continued shortcomings. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom

The text here was deliberately indecisive about whether the green algae should be placed among the Protista or the Plantae, since it is done both ways. The algae are of definite affinity to the higher plants, sharing common pigmentation and ultrastructure, but have a typically protozoan organization. Should the table (as per ciliate, dandelion) list one kingdom, the other, or both as parents? The same question applies as to whether the chytrids should count as fungi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom David (talk • contribs) 30 April 2006

Tax box

See my sandbox for a suggested update to the taxbox. I am happy to keep the Plantae Kingdom though. Onco p53 23:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am going to do it then. Chlorophyceae
Pedinophyceae
Picocystophyceae
Prasinophyceae
Trebouxiophyceae
Ulvophyceae
I'll keep these here temporarily since this is going to be moved off the main page Onco p53 03:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kingdom Viridiplantae

How about placing green algae in the Kingdom Viridiplantae? That would account for both the Kingdom Protista and Plantae characters of it.

Hi, we have kind of been over this discussion here please add more comments if you wish. Onco p53 06:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Even if they are not in Viridiplantae they are still in Plantae though. Right? There divisions are.--Kupirijo 12:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Classification

OK perhaps I'm too old. But just keep them as Chlorophyta! See: Hrady, F.G. and Guiry, M.D. A Check-list and Atlas of the Seaweeds of Britain and Ireland. 2006. British Phycological Society, London ISBN 3 906166 35 X Osborne 14:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Conjugation and subheadings

I added an image of conjugating green algae and I put subheadings in. This required me to move text around to improve readability. Sorry if it ruffled anyone's feathers. Rozzychan 14:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is green algae harmful

Is green algae the stuff that grows in water filters? If so, is it harmful and is there a way to prevent the growth? CharmeC 00:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Green algae are a large group of algae - both marine and freshwater, many are microscopic others are up to 1m. long. There are "about 1000 - 2000 species of green seaweed." ref: Thomas, D.N.2002. "Seaweeds." p.11. ISBN 0 565 09175 1 . The "stuff that grows in water filters " will include green algae probably, possibly more than one species. It initself is not harmful, however I suppose it may trap other growths and particles which may be harmful. I trust you will not wish to kill all green algae in the world! Osborne 09:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Tummies

Question regarding the first line of this article, "Green algae are microscopic protists; found in all aquatic environments, including marine, freshwater and brackish water and tummies". Tummies? Possible vandalism? SabreWolfy 02:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Plain stupid or immature. Anyway they will not grow in "tummies" without light and floating in acid! Osborne 13:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Green Algae OR Chlorophyta

There are articles on Brown algae (Phaeophyta or Heterokontophyta?); Red Algae (Rhodophyta) so I suppose this should be "Green algae" (Chlorophyta)q.v. Osborne 13:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Classification

This is a bit confusing! In the "Green algae" should I leave the classification and copy in the classification from the Chlorophyta? Perhaps I should. So there! Osborne 13:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Another confusing thing is that someone has said at the beginning of the article that there are about 6000 species of green algae, but if you click on the phyla chlorophyta, it says there are more than 7000 species within chlorophyta. Someone needs to figure out what the number 6000 is referring to- its probably just the number of species within chlorophyta. 71.198.112.46 (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't quickly find the answer to this. The 6000 comes from a book which I don't have easy access to (as does the 7000, for that matter). I did ask myself whether the number of species in Charophyta was very small, but not really, it (excluding land plants) seems to have well over 4000 species. There are a lot of reasons for such numbers to be imprecise, but since I don't really know where any of these numbers are coming from, I'm not sure which one is going on here. Kingdon (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The numbers on the Plant article are cited, but are no more reliable for the Chlorophyta, in my estimation (and I pulled and cited those figures). Part of the problem is that the basic circumscription of the Chlorophyta has changed in recent decades, so an accurate count is difficult to come by. Most articles cite someone else, who cites comeone else, etc. back into the mists of confusion. The count for the Plants article is only slightly better, since it was made by adding the counts from the various member groups given in a modern textbook, so at least it does not contain the Charophyta count. However, this sadly does not mean the figure is necessarily more accurate. Worse, the best recent summary article on the phylogeny of the green algae (Lewis, L. A. and R. M. McCourt. 2004. "Green Algae and the Origin of Land Plants". American Journal of Botany 91: 1535-1556) does not give species counts at all, although it does give a nice summary of the phylogeny and a working classification. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Origins

The section on origins is confusing and the flow is not intuitive. The bit about double membranes should presumably lead to a statement about endosymbiosis. Can somebody who understands this better than I rewrite this section? Presumably what needs is meant is that green algae share descent with reds and glaucophytes, and that the pigments of greens are not necessarily indicative of which specific cyanobacteria was the endosymbiont, but rather a case of convergence?Spamburgler (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Phylogeny

I had to do some relatively major tweaks to the cladogram based on the Lewis and McCourt paper from 2004. For me the key quote in that paper is:

Despite the convincing evidence for monophyly of charophyte algae and embryophytes, the topology of the charophyte tree has shifted dramatically. Specifically, the exact identity of the group sister to embryophytes has proven to be elusive

I don't know what has been found since 2004, but my general bias is to try to err on the side of making more general, safer claims, and waiting for a consensus to emerge, rather than trying to be up-to-the-minute. What I came up with seems to be something which the Bhattacharya and Medlin papers and the Lewis and McCourt ones agree on. Kingdon (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Something is wrong in either the coding of the tree or with the {{clade}} template. The branch to the Charophyte polytomy is not connecting to anywhere near where it should. As a result, the polytomy is floating separately. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this depend on the browser or something? I'm not sure what you are seeing, so I'm not sure what to try to fix/clarify, but the polytomies as of my edit were a 3-way branch to Chlorophyceae, Ulvophyceae, Trebouxiophyceae and a 5-way branch to Charales, Klebsormidiales, Zygnematales and Desmidiales, Coleochaetales, Higher plants. I did notice some cases in which the template invocation didn't explicitly have the "1=", "2=", etc. Does adding them help? Does the problem match any of the ones already previously reported at Template talk:Clade? Kingdon (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Plant?

Who is the [incivility removed] who put the algae into the Plantae Kingdom???? It's a Protista! Learn some biology! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.122.135.1 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just until recently, algae was thought of being plants, but they are inferior even to fungi! Taxonomy changed. Any sources that are older than 2007/2008 are invalid!--93.122.135.1 (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "sources older than 2007/2008 are invalid"? Do you have sources to back up your claim? A quick read of our articles on Viridiplantae and Archaeplastida may be useful. The Charophyta and Chlorophyta are included under Viridiplantae. Yes, the taxonomy has been shifting recently, but the green algae have not been considered protists for some time. Oh, and please remember to be civil. --Rkitko ^(talk) 17:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"algae have not been considered protists for some time"...really? This is currently the way this matter is taught in schools at the moment. 3 years ago, pupils learnt that algae were inferior plants. Now, according to the constant chages of taxonomy, they are taught that algae are protista. If you think about it, it makes sense. They really have nothing except nutrition in common with plants. Mosks, the most inferior of plant species, have both green algae and plant characteristics, and it's just under the limit. And by "sources older than 2007/2008 are invalid", I mean that taxonomy just changed (again). So sources more than a year old aren't true anymore.--17:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.122.212.73 (talk)

Please note I said "green algae". Rhodophyta, Phaeophyta, etc. are a different issue. You still provided no reference - with what publication did the taxonomy change? Which taxonomic shift are you referring to? And if current textbooks were the bar for the most up-to-date science, we'd have to limbo pretty low. Especially when new ideas are nuanced and difficult to explain, textbook writers will often choose "easiest" over "most correct". I recently taught an intro bio course and was appalled at all the corrections I had to make. New editions of textbooks can also overlook changes that the writers are not aware of. --Rkitko ^(talk) 20:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with treating green algae (not all algae) as Plantae. As I read the literature it is well-established that the group of green algae plus land plants is monophyletic, and although I don't have a particularly strong opinion about whether we call this "Plantae" or "Viridiplantae" or what, and whether it is a kingdom or superkingdom or what, it is far more misleading to talk about "algae" as if that were a single lineage. Kingdon (talk)

Not only does taxonomy change all the time, there isn't one single taxonomy that everybody agrees on. The view that an entire discipline changes its paradigmata every few years, and textbooks immediately reflect that change, and everything written before that magic date is invalid... that's just not the way science works. (Taxonomy is, to some extent, a matter of convention. For me it makes sense to say that green algae are plants, as they seem to be at the very origin of what makes a plant. But I'm not a biologist.) Currently the taxonomy in this article directly contradicts the taxonomy in Algae where Plants are explicitly excluded. IMHO if there are two or more taxonomies that relevant parts of the scientific community adhere to, both articles should reflect that controversy, instead of each just reproducing a single view that contradicts the other article. The way it is now is very confusing.--87.162.19.59 (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

But "algae" is not a taxon. "Algae" is a loose grouping of organisms that share certain gross physical and ecological traits, just like "marine mammals" or "alpine plants". The situation for green algae is different. They share with land plants a number of specific and quantifiable structural and chemical traits, including specifics of their DNA structure, that are not found in any other organisms. This is why green algae have been returned to the plant kingdom; they share a recent common ancestor with plants from whom both received the traits that characterize them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

In the school, just recently, I learned Algae as a part of the Protista, and that is for all types of Algae. When I asked my teacher about the statement they are plants on the Wikipedia, he told me it's old and untrue information. Is it true? Can anyone please explain a little closer?--109.228.94.219 (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Your teacher is probably going by what the textbook says, which is woefully inaccurate. I've seen numerous textbooks that say green algae are Protists, but in light of the recent research, this is incorrect (and simplistic since Protista is not a well-resolved group). Wikipedia is able to adapt to recent changes, whereas textbooks are slow to update their information, especially in rapidly changing fields like molecular systematics. In this case, the information in Wikipedia better reflects current consensus in the literature than your teacher's knowledge or the textbook they might be using. Read the thread above and take the earlier suggestions about reading our other articles on this topic (link above). We shouldn't have to explain this to you on this talk page (WP:NOTFORUM). Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 20:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the stance that land plants are not algae was criticized in [1] as "artificial".Jmv2009 (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Identification and HABs

Would someone please add some non-microscopic photographs that would help people identify the primary groups of algae? Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) are a serious health hazard but these only, as far as I understand, refer to blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria ) not to green algae. Helping people distinguish between the two would be a helpful service for the article to provide in my opinion. LookingGlass (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The green algae include thousands of species, most of which can only be distinguished using chemical or microscopic characters. Likewise, the primary groups of algae differ consistently only in chemical and microscopic characters, and many kinds of algae have only microscopic forms. There are harmful blooms of algae in groups other than cyanobacteria--the most notable being the dinoflagellate blooms. To read about differences between major groups of algae, see Algae. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not helpful. Knowing less than lookingglass I looked up green algae after thinking about the broadcast news report of all the US lakes filled with toxic "green algae" slime causing illness and death. A see also link at a minimum with a descriptive for this weather/pollution related problem would be appropriate, even if the green in the news should have been some other color. Better yet, a lay person's interpretation of common use of "green algae" in the intro linking someplace useful. My sincere thanks for all the great work that makes wikipedia so useful and vital... Mulp (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green algae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060921203727/http://home.arcor.de/stefan.wic/diplomarbeit.pdf to http://home.arcor.de/stefan.wic/diplomarbeit.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Mesotaeniaceae

[2] is confirming the Basal Green algae character of the Mesostigmatophyceae and the Chlorokybus, and mentions that Spirotaenia (Mesotaeniaceae) belongs there too. The article main text does not mention the faith of the rest of the Mesotaeniaceae, but the supplemental figures do. Figure AppendixS2 in the supplemental information shows Spirotaenia (Mesotaeniaceae) as sister of Chlorokybus. Of the other Mesotaeniaceae, in this figure, Mesotaenium is placed as sister of the Zygnematophyceae, while the rest is interdispersed among basal Zygnematophyceae. So the cladogram suggests Zygnematophyceae appeared as sister or in Mesotaeniaceae (and certainly not the other way around, as suggested by the use of "Zygenamatales" nomenclature. At best, one could then consider them paraphyletic stem Zygnematophyceae). The difficulty is how to represent this. Adding to the difficulty is that the article mentions Zygnematophyceae to be the sister of the Embryophytes, without mentioning their view on the position of the Mesotaeniaceae.

Currently, I have made the trees with Zygnematophyceae and Mesotaeniaceae (senso strictissimo, taking it basically corresponding to Mesotaenium) as sisters, as a proposed way of doing it, but it appears equally fair to have Zygnematophyceae emerged in Mesostigmatophyceae (senso stricto, removing Spirotaenia) (ignoring the Taxonomic ranks, which can be misleading/erroneous).

Note: finding are based on plastid genes. Then again, I have not seen a proposal of plastid tranfer WITHIN green algae.

The article further supports the Gluacophyta as sister to the green algae, for which consensus is growing.Jmv2009 (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)