Talk:Domain (biology)

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biology Mid‑importance Domain (biology) is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. tree of life 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.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The

Prokaryota . . . , Eukaryota and the more recently^{[clarification needed]} discovered Archaea empires.^{[citation needed}

]

None of the three systems currently include non-cellular life.^{[citation needed]}

This contradicts the linked "

What is a domain? (In a few sentences somebody-please!)--DJackD (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please use a descriptive title in future questions. I have added one for you.

This page now has a link to Domain (disambiguation), which lists many different uses of the word "domain", including Protein domain. Thank you for pointing out the lack. --ColinFine (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nasir, A.; Kim, K. M.; Caetano-Anolles, G. (2012). "Giant viruses coexisted with the cellular ancestors and represent a distinct supergroup along with superkingdoms Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 12: 156.

PMID 22920653.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Is this honestly notable enough to include? One study is one study in millions - has there been any further developments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.82.250 (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, viruses in general are quite controversial in the debate about whether they should even be called life. Since they are generally not accepted as "life", and domains are to classify "life", I really don't think that it should be in this article. There should also be more reliable studies/sources confirming this. Devinthepeng (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's probably better so as to only have one organism representing each domain. Two and people might get confused, especially because it's hard to see what tree the frog is on and people might think that Plantae and Animalia are two different domains. Devinthepeng (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The image with caption that begins "A speculatively rooted tree" doesn't magnify when I put my cursor on it and click. Can this be fixed? Attic Salt (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Oh, I see that someone else already commented on this above. Attic Salt (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having a figure that is some kind of interactive nonsense which can not be zoomed in on is really useful with microscopic unreadable letters, ingenious!--84.209.8.208 (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC) EDIT: I just noticed the previous comment was about it, and the one before that too. So I am merging them under the first title, hope no one gets mad.[reply]

I commented out an ostensible error at the end of a paragraph in the introduction:

... The first two are all

prokaryotic microorganisms, or mostly single-celled organisms whose cells have a distorted or non-membrane bound nucleus. All life that has a cell nucleus and eukaryotic membrane-bound organelles

is included in Eukarya.

... The first two are all

prokaryotic microorganisms, or mostly single-celled organisms whose cells have no membrane-bound nucleus.<!--{{dubious span|date=September 2022|reason=Articles on prokariotes say no nucleus; if there are exceptions, it needs a citation|text=a distorted or non-membrane bound nucleus.}}--> All life that has a cell nucleus and eukaryotic membrane-bound organelles

is included in Eukarya.

... The first two are all

prokaryotic microorganisms, or mostly single-celled organisms whose cells have no membrane-bound nucleus. All life that has a cell nucleus and eukaryotic membrane-bound organelles

is included in Eukarya.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]