This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
"The current mainstream system of classification is the three-domain system. The common consensus is that Archaea and Eukaryota evolved on a seperate branch from Bacteria, with the root of life lying somewhere in between. This branch is Neomura. However, Cavalier-Smith has postulated that Bacteria is in fact paraphyletic to Neomura, meaning that Neomura evolved from Bacteria. According to this theory, Neomura is a group which evolved from Gram-positive bacteria, this transition being marked by twenty evolutionary adaptions, which accompanied, or derived from, two other important adaptions: the development of histones to replace DNA gyrase, and the loss of peptidoglycan cell walls to be replaced by other glycoproteins."
This is confusing because it's worded too technically. Rather than seeming to contradict what has just been said, you should start out by simply saying that Cavalier-Smith theorizes that the Archaebacteria and Eukaryotia arose from the Neomura which arose from the gram positive bacteria bacteria. You can then go on to say that the Bacteria are paraphyletic without the Neomura, but this phrasing used is rather awkward. I can't correct it without the article handy. I just can't seem to see what the second sentence is saying, so it's impossible to correct. I would simply like to see this clarified first, inserted into the article later. I don't have the article handy, but will try my best to read and understand as much as possible. KP Botany 19:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a wikispecies link? They're still mucking about in 4-eukaryote-kingdom-land. There is no Neomura article in wikispecies. Werothegreat 01:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The section "History of Taxon" implies that the first stage in the evolution of eucaryotes was the incorporation of aerobic bacteria into some species of archea to form mitochondria. AFAIK it is generally agreed that the first stage was the incorporation of spirochetes into some species of archea to form micro-tubules. Sorry, can't give a ref (most annoying as I was looking at one earleir today). Philcha ( talk) 23:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The spirochete hypothesis has been pretty much discredited. The actiniobacterial absorption of an alpha-proteobacteria is the industry standard. Werothegreat ( talk) 12:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any specific reason that an image of a leech is what represents this clade? It seems rather silly to simply place a picture of any arbitrary organism simply for illustrative purposes. Tan | 39 02:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I think this article should explicitly specify whether the Neomura taxon is simply an artificial\conventional taxon, or, contrarily, it is based on a natural (real) taxon as well. -- Faus ( talk) 13:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking at this article in 2017, it is striking that comments from 5 or more years ago above remain valid issues for the article. Is Neomura valid? What is the evidence? Who (if anyone) other than Cavalier-Smith is for it, and why? Who is against it, and on what evidence? The list of "Further reading" needs to be integrated into the text, to answer all these questions as well as possible. The inclusion of Cavalier-Smith's own work in that sad afterthought of a list is frankly absurd—if the article isn't going to explain C-S's views on the Neomura, what is its purpose? At the very least, the article needs to discuss the key viewpoints against C-S. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||||||
A question is how tied the name Neomura is to Cavalier-Smith's hypothesis. I'm quite happy to use the name even if the etymology turns out to misleading - compare Basilosaurus (a whale), and various other taxa whose names reflect previous misinterpretations, but others might disagree?
I'm sure it needs more work (such as addition of references), but I've restructured the article so it's not so closely tied to the derived bacterial origin hypothesis. Lavateraguy ( talk) 22:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
An article published online January 2, 2020 is a recent defense and extensive elaboration of the neomura hypothesis.
HTH. DCDuring ( talk) 16:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
There's yet another variant of the hypothesis I can think of: that the eukaryotes emerged from within the archaeans (which seems to be the consensus now), and that the archaeans in turn emerged from within the bacteria, making the traditional taxa Archaea and Bacteria both paraphyletic. Neomura would simply be a synonym of Archaea (including the eukaryotes) in this view. (Admittedly, I really like this idea aesthetically.) Is this possibility still a viable hypothesis? -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 00:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
In fact, Archaea §§ Relationship to bacteria and Relation to eukaryotes does suggest that this proposal could be correct. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 00:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I feel that this article wrongly conflates the taxon Neomura, which is accepted as a clade by most experts, with the neomuran hypothesis, which is generally rejected. So I think the taxobox should be added back, and perhaps we should limit information about the neomuran hypothesis to a single section. -- Grey Clownfish ( talk) 07:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
"The current mainstream system of classification is the three-domain system. The common consensus is that Archaea and Eukaryota evolved on a seperate branch from Bacteria, with the root of life lying somewhere in between. This branch is Neomura. However, Cavalier-Smith has postulated that Bacteria is in fact paraphyletic to Neomura, meaning that Neomura evolved from Bacteria. According to this theory, Neomura is a group which evolved from Gram-positive bacteria, this transition being marked by twenty evolutionary adaptions, which accompanied, or derived from, two other important adaptions: the development of histones to replace DNA gyrase, and the loss of peptidoglycan cell walls to be replaced by other glycoproteins."
This is confusing because it's worded too technically. Rather than seeming to contradict what has just been said, you should start out by simply saying that Cavalier-Smith theorizes that the Archaebacteria and Eukaryotia arose from the Neomura which arose from the gram positive bacteria bacteria. You can then go on to say that the Bacteria are paraphyletic without the Neomura, but this phrasing used is rather awkward. I can't correct it without the article handy. I just can't seem to see what the second sentence is saying, so it's impossible to correct. I would simply like to see this clarified first, inserted into the article later. I don't have the article handy, but will try my best to read and understand as much as possible. KP Botany 19:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a wikispecies link? They're still mucking about in 4-eukaryote-kingdom-land. There is no Neomura article in wikispecies. Werothegreat 01:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The section "History of Taxon" implies that the first stage in the evolution of eucaryotes was the incorporation of aerobic bacteria into some species of archea to form mitochondria. AFAIK it is generally agreed that the first stage was the incorporation of spirochetes into some species of archea to form micro-tubules. Sorry, can't give a ref (most annoying as I was looking at one earleir today). Philcha ( talk) 23:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The spirochete hypothesis has been pretty much discredited. The actiniobacterial absorption of an alpha-proteobacteria is the industry standard. Werothegreat ( talk) 12:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any specific reason that an image of a leech is what represents this clade? It seems rather silly to simply place a picture of any arbitrary organism simply for illustrative purposes. Tan | 39 02:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I think this article should explicitly specify whether the Neomura taxon is simply an artificial\conventional taxon, or, contrarily, it is based on a natural (real) taxon as well. -- Faus ( talk) 13:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking at this article in 2017, it is striking that comments from 5 or more years ago above remain valid issues for the article. Is Neomura valid? What is the evidence? Who (if anyone) other than Cavalier-Smith is for it, and why? Who is against it, and on what evidence? The list of "Further reading" needs to be integrated into the text, to answer all these questions as well as possible. The inclusion of Cavalier-Smith's own work in that sad afterthought of a list is frankly absurd—if the article isn't going to explain C-S's views on the Neomura, what is its purpose? At the very least, the article needs to discuss the key viewpoints against C-S. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||||||
A question is how tied the name Neomura is to Cavalier-Smith's hypothesis. I'm quite happy to use the name even if the etymology turns out to misleading - compare Basilosaurus (a whale), and various other taxa whose names reflect previous misinterpretations, but others might disagree?
I'm sure it needs more work (such as addition of references), but I've restructured the article so it's not so closely tied to the derived bacterial origin hypothesis. Lavateraguy ( talk) 22:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
An article published online January 2, 2020 is a recent defense and extensive elaboration of the neomura hypothesis.
HTH. DCDuring ( talk) 16:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
There's yet another variant of the hypothesis I can think of: that the eukaryotes emerged from within the archaeans (which seems to be the consensus now), and that the archaeans in turn emerged from within the bacteria, making the traditional taxa Archaea and Bacteria both paraphyletic. Neomura would simply be a synonym of Archaea (including the eukaryotes) in this view. (Admittedly, I really like this idea aesthetically.) Is this possibility still a viable hypothesis? -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 00:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
In fact, Archaea §§ Relationship to bacteria and Relation to eukaryotes does suggest that this proposal could be correct. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 00:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I feel that this article wrongly conflates the taxon Neomura, which is accepted as a clade by most experts, with the neomuran hypothesis, which is generally rejected. So I think the taxobox should be added back, and perhaps we should limit information about the neomuran hypothesis to a single section. -- Grey Clownfish ( talk) 07:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)