Talk:Euglenid

Protista Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Protista, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of protists and protistology 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.ProtistaWikipedia:WikiProject ProtistaTemplate:WikiProject ProtistaProtista articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Algae High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Algae, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the photosynthetic organisms commonly called algae and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AlgaeWikipedia:WikiProject AlgaeTemplate:WikiProject AlgaeAlgae articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The article is marked as not citing any sources, but links to a Rutgers source at the bottom. This is the most common plant like protist. It is in most foods that we eta today.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BrittneyLambert, Cjrodgers. Peer reviewers: Sofiagians, Ctracy333, Burn1113, Javelez2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

I just added the genus Hemiolia to the disambiguation page Hemiolia, directing here, but it is not covered here. This leads me to two questions:

Should genera be covered here? (Since Hemiola is one of the “Genera unassigned to any subordinate taxa within Euglenida”[1], there is no better article.) But that would require adding a whole taxonomy section to this article.
While there is no taxonomy section in this article, there is a pretty extensive one at Euglenozoa. Should redirects then point to the higher taxon? That seems counterintuitive to me. If one decides for that, then the taxonomy section there would have to be blown up to include genera. ◅ Sebastian 14:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Animals? Really?

Not only is the entire paragraph that mentions why they're not considered animals completely unsourced, it also pretends that the only reason why they're not considered animals is the lack of sexual reproduction. Which I find absolutely ridiculous for a number of reasons. 1) Animals aren't the only organisms with sexual reproduction, it is literally a defining quality of almost all organisms including fungi and plants. 2) Tons of animals have no sexual reproduction. 3) If they're not considered animals because of this rule, then what are they considered? Rocks? Because you could also say they're not plants for the same reason. Bacteria, maybe? (obviously they aren't but it goes to show how ridiculous the statement is). 4) Tons of protists have no known sexual reproduction, I don't see why the lack of this trait is even relevant at all. —Snoteleks (Talk) 20:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Names

Euglenophyceae redirects here, even though it only refers to a smaller photosynthetic group that branches within Euglenida. That ought to be fixed soon. Euglenophyta itself is considered a synonym of Euglenozoa, so neither name (-phyta or -phyceae) applies to Euglenida. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]