![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The link labeled "Two-empire system" actually points to a page about the political meaning of "two empire system". And that page does not have a disambiguation paragraph.
How is the five-empire system different from the old five-kingdom system that was used before monera was divied up into archaebacteria and eubacteria? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Anonymous, the page you linked to does not have a political meaning. It is about the biological meaning of "two-empire system". Charizardmewtwo ( talk) 16:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Should the Empire be listed as an equivalent term for Domain? I believe that the Empire was originally conceived as a top-level rank encompassing all living things (Empire Organisata) as distinct from non-living things (Empire Inorganisata), and is therefore superordinate to what are now called Domains. Gnostrat 13:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The two-empire system . . . , with top-level groupings of Prokaryota . . . , Eukaryota and the more recently clarification needed discovered Archaea empires. citation needed
Prokaryota, Eukaryota and Archaea — that's three, not two.
The linked " Two-empire system" page claims on the contrary that the empires are " Acytota and Cytota". (The latter contains all three of the "two" empires mentioned in the quote. Compare with Gnostrat's remark above. There are related comments on the "Two-Empire System" discussion page; in particular Solo Owl's remarks might be helpful.)
None of the three systems currently include non-cellular life. citation needed
This contradicts the linked " Two-empire system" page (which, as mentioned above, has an Acytota empire). — Dan337 ( talk) 15:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Should these be merged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.239.56 ( talk) 22:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
No, they are totally different! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.104.247 ( talk) 20:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Merge The resultant article would be much better than the two are separately. Spidey 104 17:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Definitely do not merge. They are separate issues. (December, 2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.215.150 ( talk) 15:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't try to Merge - If the 3-domain article is merged, what about the 2-empire article, etc? It would look oddly unbalanced if one bullet-point expands into a detailed section while the others remain as mere bullets. Either we leave it as it is or we merge all of them - but that raises the problem that we'd have to merge domains, empires, kingdoms .... which won't work. Best we leave it. Suggest delete the merge/discuss tag. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Recommend not merging. Too much variability in taxonomic "rules/opinion" (sadly). Quite confusing to have it all in one article. Easier to simply search for "Biology 3 domains" and get exactly what you're being taught. Agree with above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.131.215 ( talk) 22:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
What is a domain? (In a few sentences somebody-please!)-- DJackD ( talk) 08:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
A domain is a level of taxonomy higher than a kingdom.
Whay there is no page for Protein domains —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.246.136 ( talk) 02:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
In the last sentence, it says a citation is needed for the phrase stating that non-life is not currently grouped with domains. I don't think it needs a citation, for it is obvious, in my opinion. Heritagefarm ( talk) 20:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I forgot my notes in my classroom!! Can someone please tell me which Domain is the multi-cellular one. You know, the one all the animals and plants go under. Someone is bound to know something!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.86.79 ( talk) 23:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
According to a recent study [1] [2] giant viruses may represent a fourth "supergroup" of life, along side archaea, bacteria, and eukarya. Should this be added? -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 13:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link) --
76.65.131.248 (
talk)
13:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
hey, there is a frog on the picture, but there is also a tree under it. that's also eukarya :D what's more the animal is actually called tree frog! wouldn't it be better to show just a tree or just a frog, or mentioning each? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.72.252 ( talk) 11:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The image provided is not static, but rather is dynamically linked to the full set of sub-topics that are represented within the image. This seems counter to all other images represented in Wikipedia, in which clicking on an image provides a zoomed version to the image. A separate article or sub-article should provide all of the sub-topic links, rather than within this thumbnail sized image. SquashEngineer ( talk) 13:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I commented out an ostensible error at the end of a paragraph in the introduction:
and replaced it with
or more legibly
I am not a histologist, so there easily could be an exotic exception that I don't know about. The original writer, for example, may have been thinking of a nucleoid and was perhaps confused by the similar name. However, the standard line given in the linked article ( cell nucleus) and prokaryote & eukaryote articles, is that prokaryotes have no nucleus at all. This postulate / definition is so thoroughly embedded in the articles I consulted, that the remarkable discovery of exceptions (which I, personally, would suspect are actually unusual eukaryotes that have drastically reduced or discarded their earlier nuclear membrane) there needs to be a citation to safeguard / validate the extrordinary claim. Lacking that, I'm going to suppose that it's an outright error. 107.115.33.14 ( talk) 22:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Smildmo (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Gustavo1231,
JR524.
— Assignment last updated by Gustavo1231 ( talk) 17:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The link labeled "Two-empire system" actually points to a page about the political meaning of "two empire system". And that page does not have a disambiguation paragraph.
How is the five-empire system different from the old five-kingdom system that was used before monera was divied up into archaebacteria and eubacteria? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Anonymous, the page you linked to does not have a political meaning. It is about the biological meaning of "two-empire system". Charizardmewtwo ( talk) 16:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Should the Empire be listed as an equivalent term for Domain? I believe that the Empire was originally conceived as a top-level rank encompassing all living things (Empire Organisata) as distinct from non-living things (Empire Inorganisata), and is therefore superordinate to what are now called Domains. Gnostrat 13:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The two-empire system . . . , with top-level groupings of Prokaryota . . . , Eukaryota and the more recently clarification needed discovered Archaea empires. citation needed
Prokaryota, Eukaryota and Archaea — that's three, not two.
The linked " Two-empire system" page claims on the contrary that the empires are " Acytota and Cytota". (The latter contains all three of the "two" empires mentioned in the quote. Compare with Gnostrat's remark above. There are related comments on the "Two-Empire System" discussion page; in particular Solo Owl's remarks might be helpful.)
None of the three systems currently include non-cellular life. citation needed
This contradicts the linked " Two-empire system" page (which, as mentioned above, has an Acytota empire). — Dan337 ( talk) 15:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Should these be merged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.239.56 ( talk) 22:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
No, they are totally different! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.104.247 ( talk) 20:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Merge The resultant article would be much better than the two are separately. Spidey 104 17:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Definitely do not merge. They are separate issues. (December, 2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.215.150 ( talk) 15:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't try to Merge - If the 3-domain article is merged, what about the 2-empire article, etc? It would look oddly unbalanced if one bullet-point expands into a detailed section while the others remain as mere bullets. Either we leave it as it is or we merge all of them - but that raises the problem that we'd have to merge domains, empires, kingdoms .... which won't work. Best we leave it. Suggest delete the merge/discuss tag. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Recommend not merging. Too much variability in taxonomic "rules/opinion" (sadly). Quite confusing to have it all in one article. Easier to simply search for "Biology 3 domains" and get exactly what you're being taught. Agree with above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.131.215 ( talk) 22:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
What is a domain? (In a few sentences somebody-please!)-- DJackD ( talk) 08:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
A domain is a level of taxonomy higher than a kingdom.
Whay there is no page for Protein domains —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.246.136 ( talk) 02:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
In the last sentence, it says a citation is needed for the phrase stating that non-life is not currently grouped with domains. I don't think it needs a citation, for it is obvious, in my opinion. Heritagefarm ( talk) 20:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I forgot my notes in my classroom!! Can someone please tell me which Domain is the multi-cellular one. You know, the one all the animals and plants go under. Someone is bound to know something!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.86.79 ( talk) 23:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
According to a recent study [1] [2] giant viruses may represent a fourth "supergroup" of life, along side archaea, bacteria, and eukarya. Should this be added? -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 13:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link) --
76.65.131.248 (
talk)
13:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
hey, there is a frog on the picture, but there is also a tree under it. that's also eukarya :D what's more the animal is actually called tree frog! wouldn't it be better to show just a tree or just a frog, or mentioning each? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.72.252 ( talk) 11:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The image provided is not static, but rather is dynamically linked to the full set of sub-topics that are represented within the image. This seems counter to all other images represented in Wikipedia, in which clicking on an image provides a zoomed version to the image. A separate article or sub-article should provide all of the sub-topic links, rather than within this thumbnail sized image. SquashEngineer ( talk) 13:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I commented out an ostensible error at the end of a paragraph in the introduction:
and replaced it with
or more legibly
I am not a histologist, so there easily could be an exotic exception that I don't know about. The original writer, for example, may have been thinking of a nucleoid and was perhaps confused by the similar name. However, the standard line given in the linked article ( cell nucleus) and prokaryote & eukaryote articles, is that prokaryotes have no nucleus at all. This postulate / definition is so thoroughly embedded in the articles I consulted, that the remarkable discovery of exceptions (which I, personally, would suspect are actually unusual eukaryotes that have drastically reduced or discarded their earlier nuclear membrane) there needs to be a citation to safeguard / validate the extrordinary claim. Lacking that, I'm going to suppose that it's an outright error. 107.115.33.14 ( talk) 22:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Smildmo (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Gustavo1231,
JR524.
— Assignment last updated by Gustavo1231 ( talk) 17:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)