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 articles
This article is part of WikiProject Algae, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the photosynthetic organisms commonly called algae and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AlgaeWikipedia:WikiProject AlgaeTemplate:WikiProject AlgaeAlgae articles
Shouldn't Chlorophyta belong either to Kingdom Protista or the new Kingdom Viridiplantae?
Read the referenced article and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive11#Algae. Basically we decided that it is not Protista, and yes maybe should be Viridiplantae, but there is no consensus amongst scientists yet. So rather that change every single plant taxbox, we have stuck with Plantae. Onco_p53 3 July 2005 01:38 (UTC)
But if the text says "Chlorophyta are today classified under the Kingdom Protocista, Under the Phylum Viridiplantae, often called Phylum Algae.", I think it's best to change plantae to protisa. Now it's really hard to try understand which one this is. — linnea (<3) 18:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that text, which is simply wrong - Viridiplantae is not the same as the algae, and is never treated as a protist phylum. Nor are the Chlorophyceae a family, nor are they the only subdivision used today. Josh
That's not wrong per se, but it's following a different standard then the one we agreed on. Josh
Where can I find the standard you agree on?
According to the NCBI Taxonomy server at [1] the division Chlorophyta belongs - together with the Streptophyta - to the phylum Viridiplantae. Is this wrong? --Tom15:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This material was added at the same time as the incorrect classification, so I'm reverting the previous version. Josh
Dit stukje hierboven klopt dus niet zo goed he. Eigenlijk niets. Ik wil meeeeeer info!! Ik weet er ook geen drol over. Ik weet wel dat de fochels HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL lief zijn :)
OK I added protist and plant stubs to this category, as well as a link to my barebones article on Viridiplantae. Hopefully more people would add things in about the taxonomical debate.
This information and page needs merged into the Green algae page. It looks complex. Is there someone comfortable doing it? I'll do it later on in the week if no one else jumps to it. KP Botany17:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly I should not have added to the Chlorophyta! I added the classification to be found in Hoek,Mann & Jahns 1995.
Perhaps they should be merged, However under "Chlorophyta" rather than "Green algae" - it could be redirected!
Too big a job for me! I don't know how to copy & paste an image for a start. Osborne11:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah Ah!! The article "Green algae" is concerned with MICROSCOPIC green algae - or so the first line says! Can I move it to an article entitled "Microscipic green algae"? and move the Chlorophyta to "Green Algae"? There are "Brown Algae" and "Red Algae" articles, so this (i.e.Chlorophyta) should be moved to "Green Algae" - I think! Please advise, I am not confident to make such a move. Osborne13:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC){{help me}}[reply]
The name "Chlorophyta" has been used in a number of different senses, two of which are confused in this article. Firstly it can be used to mean all green algae in what is called Viridiplantae or Chlorobionta or Chloroplastida or even just Plantae. This seems to be, for example, how it is used in the Encarta reference [2], which is why the total number of species is given there as 8,000. Secondly it can be used to mean only one of the two clades which make up Viridiplantae. If you go to [3] you'll see that in this sense Chlorophyta has only 4,300 odd species. The two uses of the name are muddled up in the current version of the article, which thus contains inconsistent information. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now re-structured the article to distinguish between the two senses. There is some material which is commented out, which can be restored if someone works out which of the two senses it applies to (perhaps both, perhaps only one). Peter coxhead (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article classification is missing the orders Zygnematales (in Chlorophyta) and Charales (in Charophyta). I find the summary of the book in the site of a German library ([4]).Zorahia (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
