Talk:Algae

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 January 2022 and 4 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Osad3840 (article contribs).

Algae are protists or plantae

Can anybody please mention clearly which one is more applicable Rituraj6868nnun (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Neither really, it is awfully complicated and you would be best off reading and understanding the three relevant articles. Since land plants arose from within the green algae and share a common ancestor with them, many now argue that land plants are in fact green algae, though there is still an inconveniently contrasting point of view that green algae are not plants, and that Plantae started with the Embryophyte's transition to land. Algae are not all related. Certainly there are groups of algae (e.g. brown algae) that are not related either to green algae or to plants. Protists don't form a clade with plants or green algae either, so it is no longer regarded as useful as a formal grouping.Plantsurfer 15:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, it depends. Since algae are an artificial polyphyletic group, it is indeed impossible to classify ALL of them in the Plantae kingdom. But, the most monophyletic group that contains different varieties of algae, being this variations red algae and green algae (plus glaucophytes) is Archaeplastida. Yes, we could call Archaeplastida the synonym of Plantae kingdom. But and the others? Well, the TSAR supergroup isn't what we could call "true algae". First, the photosyntetic members of this group have plastids of more than 2 membranes! This is what we call secondary endosymbiosis, or basically, "plastid thiefs". So, yeah, those kelps are fake algae. They evoluted on the Jurassic period! Other "plastid thiefs" are some dinoflagellates, that aren't "true algae" too. They do kleptoplasty instead, so the TSAR supergroup are actually more of "pacific plastid thiefs that do endosymbiosis and do not kill the plastids in the process".

Conclusion: it depends of what is "algae". We could create a term: Algae sensu stricto for algae that did primary endosymbiosis, that is a synonym for Archaeplastida. This newly-coined group could be considered plants, but the whole Algae sensu lato wouldn't be. Th36000 (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 11 June 2022

A protected redirect, Alga, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

• from this:

#REDIRECT [[Algae]]

• to this:

#REDIRECT [[Algae]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from move}}
{{R to plural|printworthy}}
{{R mentioned in hatnote}}
{{R printworthy}}
}}

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 11:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done however I reduced the protection so you can edit it directly now @Paine Ellsworth:. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, xaosflux! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 20:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Change to: "most lichen are comprised of 3 organismd"

Specifically two fungal one bacterial,archea, or algel. This is new information. Easy to find.

The current article states this is "rare", but that's not true, its most common. 78.54.132.122 (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)talonxpool

Source? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead I believe they mean sources such as this one [1]. It appears that more now than ever it's becoming evident that fungi and algae aren't the only members of this symbiotic relationship, but that bacteria are a major component as well. —Snoteleks (Talk) 16:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the bacteria component more akin the the human microbiome? —  Jts1882 | talk  16:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

That's how I interpret this paper: "More than 800 types of bacteria can contribute to the bacterial microbiome of a single lichen individual." There are also, as the paper says, tripartite lichens which have a nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria in addition to the main algal photobiont. But both of these are different from the original claim by the IP editor, which was that most lichens are composed of two fungal species plus a photosynthetic organism, for which no source has been provided. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead Oh you are right. I misread the original claim. They do say "two fungal" which I have no idea about. —Snoteleks (Talk) 10:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Words

"Photosynthetic," to me, denotes artificiality. I think the sentences employing such semantics should be restructured to adequately and accurately inclusive concepts. 2600:1012:B106:3A59:845E:3AC5:EAA4:CB4 (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

"Photosynthetic" is the adjective formed from "photosynthesis" (see e.g. here, so means "relating to photosynthesis". A "photosynthetic organism" is one that is capable of photosynthesis. So it does not have anything to do with "artificiality". Peter coxhead (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@2600:1012:B106:3A59:845E:3AC5:EAA4:CB4 Art thou jesting? —Snoteleks (Talk) 15:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

ref 114

The below statement might need revision, or at least newer reference. "The break-even point for algae-based biofuels is estimated to occur by 2025." 85.247.220.142 (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)