User talk:Snoteleks

You are saying that Planomonadea containing Ancyromonadida is not WP:OR because Ancyromonadida is a synonym of Planomonadida, which belongs to the monotypic Planomonadea according to the Cavalier-Smith paper. How does this makes sense? Do you think that if the X taxon was placed in the monotypic Y taxon by some author, and, the Z, which is a synonym of X and more popular, should be the taxon that belongs to Y? If you still not agree with me, I'll start a discussion, so I'm asking you first. Jako96 (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 There is no Z. If you understand what a synonym is, you will understand that there is only X. Go ahead and start a discussion, but I'm sure you'll find similar replies — Snoteleks (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

The Z is Ancyromonadida, I don't think this is about understanding what a synonym is, really. And, I think that you think we should also "follow" CS for ancyromonads, but I don't think we should do this because we are already not fully (except cladistics when saying fully) following CS. Jako96 (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

C.-S. argued that the genus Ancyromonas was based on the type species ‘Ancyromonas sigmoides’ with incorrect description and so in fact not belonging to Ancyromonadida. So C.-S. together with the description of a new ordo Planomonadida and a new genus Planomonas based on the type species Planomonas micra renamed Ancyromonas melba, Ancyromonas sinistra, and Bodo cephalopora to Planomonas ..., leaving the Ancyromonadida aside. (2008; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protis.2008.06.002) Heiss two years later argued that Planomonas was not a distinct, valid genus and should be merged into Ancyromonas, Planomonas mylnikovi is a junior synonym of (valid) Ancyromonas sigmoides, and reassigned Planomonas cephalopora, Planomonas micra, Planomonas howeae and Planomonas limna to Ancyromonas, and reinstalled the higher level taxa Ancyromonadida Cavalier-Smith, 1997 and Ancyromonadidae Cavalier-Smith, 1993.(2010, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1550-7408.2010.00477.x). The split into two revised families Planomonadidae Cavalier-Smith, 2008 (Planomonas, Fabomonas) and Ancyromonadidae Cavalier-Smith, 1993 (Ancyromonas, Nutomonas) in 2013 has brought the consensus, with partially restored validity of Planomonas (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejop.2012.08.007); C.-S. uses Planomonadida again as an order (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejop.2012.06.001) in 2013. Finally in 2021 (doi: 10.1007/s00709-021-01665-7) he raises Planomonadida in rank to Planomonada (with the same diagnosis as Planomonadida), subphylum of Sulcozoa.

IMO, it has no sense to create superfluous higher taxa, either monotypic (Planomonadea, Planomonada) or without sufficient phylogenomic support (Sulcozoa). The approach in the Ancyromonadida, considering Planomonadida as junior synonym to Ancyromonadida and directly subordinated to Eukaryota, is optimal. Petr Karel (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Wow, so C.-S. being C.-S. again. Thank you @Petr Karel for summarizing the context, I now agree that Planomonadea should not be used. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Heinrichs Skuja is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Esculenta -- Esculenta (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could send me a PDF of this article? Which I guess you have acces to? Thanks, Jako96 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jako96 I emailed you through the Special:Email feature (I think two weeks ago), if you respond from your email I can attach the PDF and send it to you — Snoteleks (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I know, and I did respond to you, from my email (not from Wikipedia). Maybe I should've used the feature of Wikipedia, I don't know. Jako96 (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jako96 That's strange, I should have received your response but I didn't. Could you try again? Or email me with the Wikipedia feature instead? — Snoteleks (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I sent an email a couple days ago btw. Jako96 (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jako96 I responded two days ago with the paper, you should've received it :( I tried again just in case — Snoteleks (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, it worked both of the times I see now, thanks! Jako96 (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

No problem at all — Snoteleks (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I've left some comments on the good article review of Triangulopteris. I don't know why you weren't notified by ChristieBot. -- Reconrabbit 14:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit Thank you for letting me know, and for the review! — Snoteleks (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Triangulopteris has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reconrabbit -- Reconrabbit (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Heinrichs Skuja has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Esculenta -- Esculenta (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Heinrichs Skuja has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Esculenta -- Esculenta (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

		The Bio-star
		I would like to present this award for your extensive editing of protistology articles, including the recently created Glossary of protistology. Many thanks. I wish you much enthusiasm for further editing.

Petr Karel (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the lovely message, it definitely motivates me to go on :) — Snoteleks (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)