Talk:Choanoflagellate

Monosiga brevicollis

ScienceDaily (July 8, 2008) — When it comes to cellular communication networks, a primitive single-celled microbe that answers to the name of Monosiga brevicollis has a leg up on animals composed of billions of cells. It commands a signaling network more elaborate and diverse than found in any multicellular organism higher up on the evolutionary tree, researchers at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies have discovered. Salk Institute (2008, July 8). Can You Hear Me Now? Primitive Single-Celled Microbe Expert In Cellular Communication Networks. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/07/080707171748.htm Pawyilee (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

The first sentence under 'Phylogenic relationship' has to be revised (is not grammatically correct). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.233.32.189 (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Dawkins?

Richard Dawkins' book is cited to date the temporal range of Choanoflagellate. While I'm sure he may be an expert on the subject, a popular science book is hardly a peer-reviewed article. Does anyone have a better source? Who does Dawkins cite in his book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.82.26 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The temporal range of choanoflagellates has now been updated to use the Wegener-Parfrey et al. 2011 reference- this is based on molecular clocks as there is no fossil record for choanoflagellates. The Dawkins book should now be removed from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.16.20 (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

The section on silicon biomineralization mentions "nudiform" ("naked shape") and "tactiform" ("protected shape") varieties of choanoflagellates. I'm not clear on the differences. -DuncanIdaho06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.204.128 (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Common ancestor?

Quote: The choanoflagellates are a group of free-living unicellular and colonial flagellate eukaryotes considered to be the closest living relatives of the animals. Should we not say: "... considered to be the closest living relatives to the common ancestor of all animals." During the cambriam explosion it looks like a flagellate is the origin of all animals, and dispute is ongoing on any link to the origin of fauna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.45.231 (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I would understand the sentence better, if it said "the closest living single-celled relatives". Maarilena (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Maarilena There are no living multi-celled relatives to animals that are closer than choanoflagellates, so the addition of "single-celled" to that sentence is unnecessary. —Snoteleks (Talk) 12:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@195.240.45.231 That sentence you proposed says the same information. The common ancestor of all animals isn't alive, but choanoflagellates are. They are the closest living relatives of all animals, because all animals descend from said common ancestor —Snoteleks (Talk) 12:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Choanoflagellate. 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://archive.is/20130414120247/http://www.choano.org/ to http://www.choano.org/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 14:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Since when is archive.is considered a suitable archive? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett Is there any reason why it shouldn't be considered suitable? —Snoteleks (Talk) 12:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Well at various times it has been offline or inaccessible. And its legality was in question. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

"Was" meaning it no longer is in question? I don't really understand. Also, most links are at various times offline. —Snoteleks (Talk) 10:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Also this particular archiving is useless. There is a contents page, but none of the subpages with actual useful content were archived. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

"SITs"

This acronym appears in Choanoflagellate#Transcriptomes without explanation. It seems to mean "Silicon Transporters", which should be abbreviated as "SiTs" since "Si", not "SI", is silicon. I will edit it to "silicon transporters" since there is no need for an abbreviation. Zaslav (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

More careful reading shows someone wrote "SIT-type silicon transporters". Apparently "SIT" and "SIT-type" need to be explained, as they are confusing to the uninitiated. Zaslav (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Dates in Lead

The date for the molecular clock esimate in the lead is unclear to me and I don't have access to the source to verify. Is "422,78 million years ago" supposed to mean 422.78Ma in the early Paleozoic or 4.2278Ga deep in the Pre-Cambrian? The use of , as a decimal separator is non-standard in English but I don't want to change it without confirmation from someone who can check the source Schiwitza et al. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It was a "." confimred from fig 5 when Salpingoeca prava separated from other Salpingoeca and Monosiga brevicollis. But this paper is about extremophiles that can take salt, heavy metals and UV radiation, and probably mutate fast. May not be good for molecular clock. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)