Talk:Algae/Archive 1

Automated link suggester
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Alga article:

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right. Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to &mdash; LinkBot 11:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Can link fossil record: ...s one of the first groups of living things to appear in the fossil record, dating back some 3800 million years ago (Precambrian) ... (link to section)
 * Can link cell structure: ...xygen]] atmosphere. They have a prokaryotic cell structure typical of bacteria and conduct photosynthesis directly wit... (link to section)
 * Can link life cycle: ...anizational levels, more than one of which may occur in the life cycle of a species, are:... (link to section)
 * Can link partial differentiation: ...anching * Parenchymatous - cells forming a thallus with partial differentiation of tissues... (link to section)

Alga is a protyst?
I am not an expert on these matters, but my biology book says that most algae are protysts, while this article contradicts this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.223.151 (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Really? By "protysts" I assume you mean the term, Protists, a heterogeneous group of eukaryotes and a term used in classifying mostly single-celled organisms. Many protists do have chloroplasts, and therefore would be algae. I'm unclear what you find contradictory in the Wikipedia article. There is a problem in whether these are "plants", but they have been traditionally considered plants, and any contradiction there is due to some editors problem with that term (discussed under plants) and not the original concept of Protista. Or perhaps it is the grouping "algae", which is a general category and not used for classification purposes, as the article points out in the first paragraph.  - Marshman 04:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right, I did mean "protists." I always spell that wrong.  According to my biology book, "algae" is the term for plant-like protists, just as "protozoans" is the term for animal-like protists.  Plant-like protists include euglenoids (phylum euglonophyta), diatoms (also called golden algae [I think]; phylum bacillariophyta), and dinoflagellates (phylum dinoflagellata).  The more traditional algae are red algae (phylum rhodophyta), brown algae (phylum phaeophyta), and green algae (phylum chlorophyta).  The last three all have some members that are usually known as seawead.
 * That book sounds pretty dated as to the taxonomy of these organisms. Or just over-simplifying by applying "common" names. It really once depended on whether you were a botanists or a zoologists (or protozoologist) whether single-celled organisms like Euglena were protozoans or not. Anyway, all that is best cleared up by reading material on more modern systems of classification and realizing that taxonomic classification is just an expression of how we look at things, not some absolute authority on the organization of nature - Marshman 19:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Red algae are often/usually/always in seaweed form (the book isn't clear). Their red color allows them to photosynthesize using blue light, which penetrates water deeper.  They are used to make agar.  Brown algae are complex, always seaweed, and include kelp.  They have a brown pigment in addition to chlorophyll.  Green algae is a very diverse phylum, containing most of what we usually think of as algae.  Many species are also seaweed.  Green algae are thought to be the ancestors of the plant kingdom.
 * All of that is fine and not especially contradictory with modern thought.
 * According to my biology teacher, there are some plants that grow underwater and are also types of seaweed. He can sometimes get facts a little off, though, so the validity of this may be questionable.  It may be more or less common than he says.
 * Well all seaweeds grow underwater (sometimes briefly exposed by the tide), so I do not see a problem. There are also many plants (in the narrow sense of true plants, not algae) that grow underwater. But the term "seaweed" is limited to macroalgae that live in the sea. - Marshman 19:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I know there is a lot of conflict about the classification of organisms, and that may be the problem. If that is the case, there should probably be an inclusion of all the leading classifications.

The problem is the word plant. When the article says that algae are generally considered plants, it's referring to the traditional definition, which is still in popular use. However, many texts on algae specifically exclude them from the plants, meaning the Plantae. Trying to ignore this difference, especially in favor of the older term, is confusing and we should change the wording - at the very least, protists should be mentioned. Also, saying algae are separate from bacteria and protozoa is an obsolete view; they overlap with both (plus there are other photoautotrophic bacteria). I've changed the opening to try and clear this up. Josh
 * Yes, Josh is right, and the "problem" used to be discussed under the article on plants, but I'm unsure if it is still there. - Marshman 19:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Not all Rhodophyta (red algae) are seaweeds - some grow in freshwater - then they are not red! to be fair there are few. Further the word "type" should be used only to refer to a specific specimen chosen by taxonomists as a basis for describing a species. In theory it is the only specimen known to science which is "correctly" determined. All the others are matters of opinion.Osborne 16:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Protista are one vast kingdom which includes a great array of relatively simple plants. It seems this is not yet accepted by all botanists. In my opinion the variety is too vast for all to be lumped together! Blue green algae are too close to the bacteria and should be together. The Rhodophyta are quite different and should be separate from the Bacteria and Blue-greens, they show no signs of ever having flagella, this places them in a separate group to the brown and green algae. To unite these along with others (diatoms, Haptophyta, Xanthophyta etc)into one kingdom is quite misleading. Osborne 11:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Tree of Life discussion of plants and protists also has a lengthy debate about this question of which kingdom Algae belong in. My recent addition there points out that Wikispecies, ITIS, and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (europe.gbif.net) all agree that Chlorophyta and Rhodophyta are within the Kingdom Plantae and not Protista.  GBIF puts Phaeophyta in Kingdom Chromista, but both Wikispecies and ITIS put them within Plantae instead.  I would like to see wikipedians adopt as a general rule using primarily these three sources for determining taxonomic classifications in the taxoboxes and referring to contrary opinions from journal articles or textbooks only as footnotes or subsections within their articles.  My reasoning for these three sources is that they are well-established associations of very large numbers of governmental and private scienctists (and everyone else, too, in the case of wikispecies) from around the world.   Is there a way to get that promoted as a general policy for taxoboxes here at Wikipedia?  Peter 03:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

One problem that we run into, though is that in the Plantae article, the protists that we consider plant-like are explicitly defined as being protists. So I think that we need to make a distinction in the article, if we leave the article as information on the common identities of them, then saying Algae are plants is acceptable, but if we are looking at it from a Taxonomic perspective, then this is fallacious. Beat Buddha (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

ALGAE ARE PROTISTS. The kingdom PROTISTA is divided into: Protozoans, protists animal like; and Algae, that look more like plants because they make photosynthesis. Also Protists are multicellular and unicellular. CAN ANYBODY CHANGE THE ARTICLE? IT IS WRONG! When people see these cases, they don't trust more in WIKIPEDIA! Baxargyu (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, yes and no.  Some algae are bacteria (e.g. Cyanobacteria); some are plants (e.g. Chlorophyta); some are chromalveolates (e.g. Brown algae); and many other groups are now recognized.  The kingdom Protista is used in most textbooks, but it had been determined to be paraphyletic.  The phylogeny of the "protists" is very complicated, and the information is constantly changing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to algae
Page title was alga but article was about algae. Made no sense. Apparently some holdover from the old days when "singular" was preferred. Alga is a dictionary term, this article is about algae, far the more popular and widely used of the two, certainly in biology - Marshman 05:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC) No one uses "Alga" - Marshman 04:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Well, 'alga' is the singular of 'algae' - AJ Smit 10:10, 15 June 2006


 * Compare your reasoning to the following:

Page title was dinosaur but article was about dinosaurs. Made no sense.


 * Wikipedia's manual of style recommends that pages are named according to the singular, not the plural. This should not be an exception to the rule just because its pluralisation is non-standard, any more than the "radius" article should be named "radii".
 * Not that it matters, I guess. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  16:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * But there are some exceptions (e.g. Bacteria), used especially when the choice of a singular title is likely to be a surprise to the user. The singular "alga" is almost never used, and the average person usually doesn't know that word, and like wise for "bacterium".  The principle of not surprising the user is (I think) correctly applied here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Algal cultivation for the production of biodiesel
Moved to Talk:Biodiesel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshman (talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Biodiesel Additions
The considerable effort and contributions to this article regarding algae and biodiesel production are valuable, but not really appropriate here. I think either a separate article or (first) a section in the article on biodiesel is far more appropriate, since the subject is biodiesel production (from whatever), not algae focused. I am also concerned that the many links to outside web sites for biodiesel is starting to get beyond the Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia is not a collection of web links. Please consider reorganizing this material to better fit your intent - Marshman 22:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Algal Culture Article
Hi Marshman, I was going to leave a message here to ask about starting a link page for "algal cultures available for purchase", when i read this message about biodiesel. I'm not familiar with wikipedias format, to keep web links out of articles, do they have specially dedicated "link" pages, where all the links could be put, and then a single link could be put in the article to that page, or is wikipedia just trying to have as few web links as possible.
 * I'm not entirely clear on your question, but the first rule to consider is that Wikipedia is not a collection of web links, so the idea to create a web links page may not be a good one. In general, web links should either be part of the references (information used to write the article) or external links to "further reading" material. Links to commercial websites that sell algal cultures would likely be removed, as commercial sites are very much frowned upon unless they provide information in a non-commercial way that can not be obtained elsewhere. - Marshman 18:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My interest in posting the biodiesel section was more on the cultivation of algae for biodiesel production, and the current developments towards that end. The biodiesel aspect is trivial, thats just the transesterification of an oil. But the efficient production of the base oil from algae is what i was getting at. The majority of land-based oil crops produce between 50 and 200 gallons of vegetable oil per acre, per year, Palm oil is an exception at 635 gal per acre, which is currently the best land crop. Algae can produce between 5,000 and 20,000 gal per acre, per year, and can remediate waste in the process. Algae is somewhat stand alone and that is why i tried to focus on the algal aspect of biodiesel production.

The title, Algal cultivation for the production of biodiesel might be more appropriate for now.

I didn't think that I had enough information to start a seperate page for biodiesel production from algae, I think there's only about a paragraph right now, but if you include the algal cultivation section, that takes up much more space.

What areas are you interested in moving from the algae page?, just Biodiesel.., or Uses, Cultivation, etc.


 * I think a good start would be a separate article on algal culture in general, as that is aquaculture oriented, whereas this article is more taxonomy oriented. - Marshman 18:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved stuff over to Algae culture as proposed - Marshman 19:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Eukaryotic algae
I´ve copied and pasted a section about eukaryotic algae from an earlier version of the article. I hope that it was just cut accidentally or by vandalism, and not that no algae is regarded as eukaryotic anymore... --Extremophile 00:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

intro is too long
the introduction of this article is way too long. cant we incorporate some of the introduction part into the article? Suleyman Habeeb 14:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)- or split it, just a thought, I will not do it! --Osborne 09:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Symbiosis with sponges
The fact was rather new for me (and not mentioned in Sponge article!) so I did some googling and finally came up to some explanation that was missing since the very starting point. However I'm in doubt whether the source is reliable enough; have some suitable biology book, anyone? Saimhe 18:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Article structure
This article needs some cleaning up... The references should be moved towards the end, etc.... --Daniel Vaulot 08:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The very nice development about the history of Phycology should be moved to a new article with a link from here. --Daniel Vaulot 09:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The "History" could be expanded as a separate article on all botany? If there is not already one! However at least a shortened resumé of The History of ALGAL research is worthwhile. Osborne 10:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC) There is a separate article on the History Of Botany - but very short. Could be espanded, mutch stuff from History of Algae could be transferred....I suppose. Osborne A balance is needed between the history of "British", European, American, Australian and other areas. They do interconnect but a balance is needed. I think it best to keek it ad an "Algal History" cross-referenced with "Botanic History". Help is needed whatever is done.81.144.158.195 11:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Osborne 11:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a very well researched section, but rather long at this stage. It's also still seemingly well short of it's endevoured length, which may be a bit long for an encyclopedia article especially as a section in the algae article - a separate article would probably be the best idea with a condensed version here. For the unfinished parts, moving to the talk page and moving the references to the bottom of the page would be tidier. I must commend the editor though for such well referenced work. Richard001 08:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. A separate article would be best, with a short résumé under algae. Completing this article is becomming a bigger job than I presumed! - and needs more info' from other areas of the world. I cannot move the section to form an article (I just don't know how). However I think what would be best. So Help - someone! Osborne 08:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is best for the resume to go under Phycology --Kupirijo 16:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I just did the move to answer Osborne query... see History of phycology I also reorgranized things a bit so that for example references are at the end and not halphazardly in the text. I am not sure about the paragraph concerning biological exposure scales.  I think it should be either expanded or removed --Daniel Vaulot 21:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes that's best. I have already found a little more and have added it in. Whether ther ref should be given in the text or at the end- well I will have to look again. My thanks to Dr D.Vaulot. Osborne 11:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Algae/History/Harvey
How much of these notes about Harvey are also in the link to Harvey? I am considering editting out some detail which is also in the Link.Osborne

Collecting and preserving specimens
This section reads a bit like a how to - I'm not sure if the article should go into instructions on preserving algae, or at least not in the way it is written in this section. Perhaps just rephrasing (and perhaps slightly shortening) the section would be appropriate. See What Wikipedia is not for reference. Richard001 08:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm new to this, I have much to learn. Do you think I should scrap the whole think then? Osborne 10:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK perhaps yopu are right. I have scrapped and reduced it. What do you think? One other thought! How do I make a piped link please? Will be grateful for help. Osborne 11:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Uses of...
frying "little kids" ?? What are "little Kids"? Osborne 15:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I decided to track it down (huh, appears fairly recent). Well, characteristic activity of the submitter (look at diffs) explains it. saimhe 18:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Further: I have created a subheading for "uses..." and transferred one ref to "References"- but how best should I have entered it?Osborne
 * Reference numbers are meant to appear in the text, instead of being listed somewhere alone. And this separate "===References===" I do not understand at all. Please look at this attempt, and feel free to revert if I missed something important. saimhe 17:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC).

Thanks, I have not yet mastered the way to note references. However, The section:"Chemical analysis...(dry weight)". came from:Irvine, L.M. and Chamberlain, Y.M.1994. Seaweeds of the British Isles. The Natural History Museum, London. and "Maerl is still harvested... organic gardening." is a quote from Blunden et al (1981) in Irvine & Chamberlain, 1994 (p183). The "CaCO3" should show the "3" as a small "3" as - which I can't reproduce here! - Oh yes I can :- "COэ". I can correct this but if you can sort out the other refs I will be most grateful. Advice will be welcome.--Osborne 08:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A general practice: If we have read source 1, and source 2 is cited there, and we also need to cite 2 as it appears in 1 -- credits must go to 1 because it's not the original text (it is perhaps already rephrased and repetitive rephrasing may yield unnoticed distortion). Of course, after we also read 2 and confirm contents, we can do it either way. -- So I believe that Irvine & Chamberlain can be simply referenced instead of listing them in '===Identification==='; Blunden et al. do not need a reference at all because if someone needs that data, it can be found in Irvine & Chamberlain. saimhe 17:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * For these small numbers (subscripts), there is the  HTML tag. There are some Unicode equivalents but they are messy, less portable and readable (just look at these and especially their source: x ₁ x ₂ x ₃ x ₄ ) so not worth trying. saimhe 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For Osborne, although I am very new to Wikipedia, I really tried to read first some of the basics. In particular citations are critical.  Here is a quick explanation how to cite references and proper formatting Citing_sources/example_style. Formatting is here Help:Wikitext
 * --Daniel Vaulot 19:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Line 194
This is vandalism! I leave it to am administrator to correct it.--Osborne 08:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

wikification
This article seems to have a lot of bulleted information. I propose that it be marked for wikification. G.bargsnaffle 14:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Jolly good! Look forward to see what happens. May have a request for you then!!Osborne 09:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Would be grateful if you would advise on what wikification is required - I'm ignorant! 81.144.158.195 10:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)81.144.158.195 10:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC) 81.144.158.19581.144.158.195 10:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Damn! four waves should give name etc Osborne 10:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC) - Ah - I had not signed in!Osborne 10:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

viruses??
line 223: "giraffe" had bee incerted. I removed it & restored; "L.M. 1977." to give; "Dixon, P.S. and Irvine, L.M. 1977..."Osborne 14:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Line 10 (I think) "buttones like you" entered on the 19th January 2007 at:"00.15". Now deleted. Osborne 14:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the average size of algae?
(No text posted other than the header)


 * That's not a meaningful quesion, since some are unicellular and some are many meters long. It's like asking what the average size of an animal is.  The average size of animals is probably less than a centimeter, considering that most animals are insects, especially beetles and ants.  Animals vary from the microscopic to the huge, and so do algae. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Size of Kelp
70m or even 50m seems a bit long to me - will have to look into this! Osborne 15:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC) "...grow as fast as half a metre a day to tower 30 - 50 m (98 - 164 ft) above the seabed." - Ref Thomas, "Seaweeds." 2002. Seems correct! Osborne

References//External links
It seems to me these two are in the one list - I think they should not be. If I am correct will someone please correct it - I am not experienced enough & would do more harm than good.Osborne 09:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Examples
Should "Examples" be kept. One day there could be a very long list - too long. Any ideas? Osborne 09:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC) A full list of Examples would be too long - I will consider a "truncated" list: a few greens, a few browns and a few reds. Does anyone agree/disagree? Osborne 11:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fitzpatrick
Noted near the top. Who is "Fitzpatrick"? Is there any point in keeping the name here. ? or indeed what is the "*" for? Osborne 09:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted"* Fitzpatrick ...and the ref to the external website, replaced it as is the way in Wikipedia - I think. Hope this is OK Osborne 09:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Classification
It is stated in this section that “the term "algae" refers to any aquatic organisms capable of photosynthesis”. This comment is accurately referenced to UCMP, but is it correct? I'm no phycologist, but seagrasses are clearly “aquatic organisms capable of photosynthesis”, yet are angiosperms. As, indeed, are water-lilies and their ilk. Or am I missing a trick here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lacrymalis (talk • contribs) 21:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC). Lacrymalis 21:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Forms of algae
"In three &mdash lines even higher levels of organization have been reached, leading to organisms with full tissue differentiation. ..." What does this "&mdash" mean!!!Osborne 15:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a SGML entity whose complete syntax is "&amp;mdash;" and which therefore translates to "—". However the sentence is difficult to read even without that extra em dash. --saimhe 16:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Distribution
The "distruibution" as shown gives no text and as such is not good, however possibly someone will write it up! I might, if I find the time. These are just a few refs perhaps worth keeping note of. Osborne 13:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have further refs - however refs do not make an article - they need to be drawn together somehow! Any advice? (before 4th July) Osborne 13:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Poop?
The first section in this article is "Poop". Looks like vandalism..

P97
Someone has entered some words of rubbish. Presumed vandalism. Vandal not identified: "71 75 128 149 at 21.03 on the 7th." I am not confident to correct this.Osborne 08:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed, now. Thanks for bringing that up! If you're curious, you can find more information at WP:REVERT. – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference 4
Reference 4 does contain the figures of the statement 'It is estimated that algae produce about 73 to 87 percent of the net global production of oxygen'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.82.245 (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

ADVICE
This article copied from TIME magazine - is it permitted? See "ALGAE" http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1616252,00.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Osborne (talk • contribs) 11:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Algae (programming language)
Is this - see title- a separate article from Algae it is confusing the articles. I will check again.Osborne 20:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are separate. This article is about the plant algae, and the article you mentioned is about a programming language. We already have a disambiguation link at the top of the page, so I'm not sure what else you want us to do. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 20:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Cyanobacteria as 'Plants' or 'Protists' or 'Algae'
Someone is using very out of date sources, since Cyanobacteria are no longer considered protists, nor certainly plants, and they are no longer called Cyanophyta since this seems to suggest that they are plants. According to Introduction to Botany by Murray W. Nabors (2004), page 386, the algal phyla are Euglenophyta, Dinophyta, Baccillariophyta, Xanthophyta, Chrysophyta, Cryptophyta, Prymnesiophyta, Phaeophyta, Rhodophyta, and Chlorophyta. This source recognizes the close relation between the plants and Chlorophyta, and Biology 8th ed. (Raven, McGraw-Hill, 2007) places Chlorophyta in the Viridiplantae. However, the cyanobacteria are excluded from the algae in the first source and placed specifically in the bacteria, and the second source also calls them bacteria.

The "algae" are of course an artificial group, but I think every effort should be made to communicate that Cyanobacteria don't simply have "bacterial characteristics" as will be found in decades old sources, but are certainly bacteria. Also, the name Cyanophyta should be avoided. Finally, many modern sources define algae as eukaryotic, so I think the blue-green algae material may need to be moved to cyanobacteria. --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed this problem yesterday. This is one very important article for WP:PLANTS and it has not gotten the attention it deserves.  Please, if you have good resources (you certainly have knowledge) and time, then be BOLD and begin updating and improving the article.  Since "blue-green algae" is still common in textbooks, some information should remain here, but prehaps not so prominently at the outset of the article.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm working on the introduction, but I'm struggling with the formatting. I some how managed to make a couple of paragraphs disappear! Any help is welcome. --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This material is better placed in Cyanobacteria:

Cyanobacteria are some of the oldest organisms to appear in the fossil record dating back to the Precambrian, possibly as far as about 3.5 billion years. Ancient cyanobacteria likely produced much of the oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere.

Cyanobacteria can be unicellular, colonial, or filamentous. They have a prokaryotic cell structure typical of bacteria and conduct photosynthesis on specialized cytoplasmic membranes called thylakoid membranes, rather than in organelles. Some filamentous blue-green algae have specialized cells, termed heterocysts, in which nitrogen fixation occurs. The perfect prokaryotic cell consist of miscalgnous sheath covering cell wall that consist of pectinic substance and saccharide while the cell wall consist of 4 layers, an outer and inner layer and a middle layer while the fourth layer is attached to plasma membrane and the protoplast consist of a 2 part peripheral coloured part known as chromatoplasm which contain the pigments in case of algae and contain photothynsis product e.g. in cyanobacteria it contains chlorophylla, b-carotein and c-phycocyanin and c-phycoerthyrin.

--♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) NicDumZ ~  13:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "IntroBot" :
 * Nabors, Murray W., 2004. Introduction to Botany. Pearson Education, Inc., San Francisco, CA.
 * Round, F.E. 1981. The Ecology of Algae. Cambridge University Press, London. ISBN 0 521 22583 3
 * "Mondragon 03" :
 * Mondragon, J. and Mondragon, J. 2003. Seaweeds of the Pacific Coast. Sea Challengers Publications, Monterey, California. ISBN 0-930118-29-4
 * Mondragon, J. and Mondragon, J. 2003. Seaweeds of the Pacific Coast. Sea Challengers Publications, Monterey. ISBN 0-930118-29-4
 * "Huisman 00" :
 * Huisman, J.M. 2000. Marine Plants of Australia. University of Western Australian Press, Australian Biological Resources Study. ISBN 1 876268 33 6
 * Huisman, J.M. 2000. Marine Plants of Australia. University of Western Australia Press, Nedlands, Western Australia. ISBN 1 876268 33 6


 * Thanks; fixed. Kingdon (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Orthography
Should have a redirect for algæ. —DIV (128.250.80.15 (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC))
 * Why? Modern English does not use the æ, and most people don't have a key for that character on their keyboards. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Vulgar edits
Luckee1234  ---Please do not enter vulgar notes, there is no point.Osborne 19:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See . I've left a note at the talk page, but if there are a few more vandalism edits, and nothing constructive, the account will likely be disabled (see for example WP:AIV or WP:Vandalism). Kingdon (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Algae are prokaryotes not eukaryotes.
what the headlines say. also, some articles include some algae as plants but not all. someone should research this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.137.162 (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What headlines? Where?  Most algal cells contain nuclei, and any introductory botany textbook will attest to this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The .. alga, the ... alga
One alga, an alga, the alga, refer to an individual specimen: you pick it up and say, "look, here is an alga." If you should gather one alga after another and have a collection of them, you would say, "look, I have some algae", or "look at the algae" or "I have algae in my collection." If now you abstract from all the possible algae you might collect and conceive a class of objects, you would express your concept with the name of the class, Algae, which in philosphy partakes of the unity problem or the problem of the one and the many: it is many algae and yet shares such a unity that it is one Algae. One Algae, an Algae, the Algae, refer to any subclass of this class, which has the same problem, it is one Algae being many algae. What you can never do, and sounds very strange if you try it, is to call the Red Algae an alga, or refer to the ingestion of an alga. What, only one alga? In all the evolution of the cell, only one alga was ingested? The reason you are reading such an explanation is that you have encountered what in traditional philosophy is called the unity problem, which can take the form of the one and the many as you have just seen (or should have seen) or the parts and the whole. Just when did the symbiont lose its independently existing status as a whole and become a part of something else? Is a part or is it not a whole of its own? It seems we have parts that are wholes and wholes that though united as one and the same are not the same. Ciao, and don't try to solve it in this article, and stop refering to a class as an alga.Dave (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well for goodness sake, I have made a mistake here. I still can't believe it. I'm reeling from the shock. This is the first one, I think. I realized it in reading the article on lichens, which has a request for a clean-up. I may actually have to go there. The use of a singular of a class to mean one subclass of the class is allowed and is natural to the language. For example, one plant is not only an individual plant but is one species of the plants (even though said species has many individuals). Similarly, a moss is a species of the mosses, a lichen is a species of the lichens and an alga is a species (or higher) of the Algae. So, I am going to make sure none of my efforts to clean up this article introduced any more errors along those lines and allow the term where appropriate here and elsewhere. We are not out of the woods on this however. There are some instances of the inappropriate choice of alga (or lichen). The wrong word here can result in a very confusing sentence or two. One never encounters alga in ordinary English but as I look through the botanical Internet I see many persons struggling with the choice of words. This is the old technical writing problem. If you leave the writing up to the specialist he often cannot make himself understood in ordinary English but if you use an English writer he typically can't get the details right without serious coaching. So I may add a word or phrase here and there to try to make the thing clearer to the non-botanist, and if you look at the lichens article you will see that is exactly what it needs (but more extensively).


 * While I am on the subject of total confusion let me ask you not to use botanical abbreviations of literature in your biblio items. While such things if done rightly in botanical literature are a concise tool for botanists they are a language from Mars here and most Wikipedia editors are only copying someone else's citations and moreover doing it wrongly. A wrong abbreviation is gobbledeygook. Please. We don't use APA, Harvard (not any more), Turabian or what not, we use Wikipedia, which is specified by cite book, Citation, cite journal, etc., which can be used to approximate those others but is not identical to them. We need full names of authors or editors if available with links to any Wikipedia articles on them and titles along with page numbers. Furthermore, if possible try to select works that are actually accessible somewhere and not totally rare and expensive.Dave (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Last half of article
I've been working on this thing and the first half seem to be coming together pretty good thanks to the previous efforts of someone obviously trained in this field. The last half isn't so good, so beware. From distribution on down the thing is contradictory and suspect and makes all sorts of unwarranted generalizations and assumptions. Also the the exposure scale does not belong in this article at all, it belongs under Ballantine Scale and the intent of the scale here is obscure. Algae are only incidental. But I do not feel I can go on to correct it until I get a passable article here. Also a lot of those "refs" can be combined - we don't need a separate entry for each volume. I will be on this a bit further until it seems organized and readable and as concise as I can reasonably make it.Dave (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Didn't have a chance to review all your changes over the last week or so, but on the whole, it looks good. I don't really understand this edit - is there some text which would be unclear without the two paragraph discussion of philosophy?  Is there some way to stick closer to the facts?  As for some of the others, thanks for cleaning up those references and external links.  And I agree about moving the material to Ballantine Scale which you did. Kingdon (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This section about relationship to other plants reads like an overly-hedged philosophical essay. I would like to see it removed now, be rewritten, then reinserted if necessary.
 * This sentence, isn't readable, cannot be comprehended, and if it says what I think it is trying to say, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, especially in the Algae article:
 * "Regardless of how evolution may be currently philosophically viewed or may have been viewed in the past (see under history of evolutionary thought) and regardless of whether the scientist is scientifically justified in expecting that any largest-scale trends in evolution exist or have existed, from an empirical point of view the combined evidence from phylogenetics and the study of fossils demonstrate that in the geologic time scale the chronological succession of periods is noteworthy for a partial succession, especially in the earlier periods, from chemically less complex to chemically more complex forms deriving from the less complex."
 * --KP Botany (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I've removed it. If there is a desire to put something back, I'd like to hear more about what problems this text was trying to address. I too found it hard to understand. Kingdon (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, that is what I get for not finishing it right away. What I am trying to say is, where do the Algae stand in relation to the higher plants? Why, they are intermediary between the Procaryotes and higher plants. They are steps on the way to the evolution of the plants. I was going to launch from there into the fossil evidence but I got off onto some of the more needy aspects of the article. The reason I got into this is, somebody might jump up and say, no, there are no steps and the Algae are not steps on the way to anything. There is no evolutionary progress and certainly none toward any "higher" plants. I was led to think this by encountering the linked articles. So, I was trying to head that off. I personally think those points of view are certainly answered by the fossil evidence. I'm not especially attached to the philosophic approach and if it were not for the cynical articles on Wikipedia - probably promulgated by anti-evolutionists - I never would have got into it. As this is to a large degree a cooperative effort, if you don't see a need to get philosophic, then let's wait and see if the issue comes up. Or, if you see what I mean and would like to give a try, go right ahead. I thought the material there before was too scanty and not on target to the heading as it was. It only makes sense to talk about the start of the plants if we are synchronizing it with the start of the Algae. I like the way the first half of the article is written and presume that the author(s) know something about it. I would like to see that style and level of content extended into that section so that we can know when the Algae started, from where, how some of them became plants. I can't see how the position is not "intermediate" at least for the line leading to the plants, can you? I'm still trying to fix the article from the bottom. I would like to see something in that relation to higher plants section when I get there. I'm glad you are taking an interest as the Algae are at least as numerous as the plants and this article ought to be on a par with the plants article (of course I haven't looked closely at it but from here it looks good). I got into this through the shorelines. How long is a coast? Hah! So it will be back to Ballantine scale for me, then to shorelines. Meanwhile you fellows ought to note that all the spin-off articles from this are often highly repetitive - someone copied the same writing over and over - argh.Dave (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not really a question you have to write an essay to address, though, as this is just supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Just do searches on the issue, find out what reputable authors have to say, get enough information from enough resources to understand the issue, then go for it.  I'm interested in the evolutionary history of the "algae," also.  --KP Botany (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The encyclopedia is not the discussion so whatever essay I have written above does not have any impact on the length of the article. Is it an essay? I don't know. Am I long-winded? Maybe, maybe not. Is the issue important? Well, yes, I think so. We are tossing the ball back and forth. I invited you to do it, now you invite me to do it. That's all right. I don't mind, when I get to it. I doubt I will say more than a few paras. Much of the info is in the sources given anyway. If there is source material of fossil taxa I may add a section in the box listing fossil groups. I prefer concise writing myself but I hate not to be understood for lack of words. People do assume you know - I know I do. First I want to condense that awful bibiography if I can. What is this, the library of congress?Dave (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'd say "intermediary between the Procaryotes and higher plants". You could make that argument for one particular line of green algae but the vast majority of heterokont algae, for example, branched off from the lineage that led to the higher plants a very long time ago.  Sounds like we are content to not tackle this section right now, although the raw material for a wider discussion of the evolutionary history is largely there in the "Classification" section and in some other articles .  As for the bibiography, one solution would be to just dump it in a "further reading" section and not worry too much.  But I agree that wikipedia isn't particularly well-suited to this kind of content, and wouldn't really object to deleting the whole thing either (with the exception of anything used as a reference, if we can ascertain that). Adding information on fossils would be great; that's quite lacking in both plant and algae articles, for the most part. Kingdon (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is Dave on a different system. Maybe you're right. Maybe it needs a more knowlegeable hand. You seem to be suggesting fossils be a distinct section. Perhaps so, after all, very few fossil species if any can actually be tied to a phylogenetic line. It is all guess-work. Why don't we put off the plants relationship to last. All I would do at this point is check the two refs and maybe put a little more of that in there. But, I do feel on shaky ground. For the biblio many of the books not used as refs can be combined into a series spec. I have to look at the tags. One more thing. I like the Plantae box picture arrangement. It represents the Plantae much better than one shot. I was thinking of doing that for Algae. The current pic appears in Red Algae as well. I originally only wanted to see a "clean" article here but it is taking quite a lot to clean it up. Can't be helped - there has been an algal bloom of articles here. Dave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.27.248 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Cladogram
I haven't said anything yet as I've been mulling it over, but the cladogram (added yesterday) bugs me. The biggest reason is that I really don't think the research is very conclusive about what is related to what. Perhaps it is slightly more clear if you are talking about plastid phylogeny rather than nuclear phylogeny but sources don't always clearly separate the two (perhaps because organisms don't clearly separate them, with genes moving from plastids to nucleuses). There are more tactical reasons (for example, it is kind of confusing to have a cladogram whose terminology is of plastids when the article mostly uses organism names, and it is slightly strange to show cyanobacteria when the rest of the article makes a point of saying that it is talking about eukaryotes), but the key thing is whether such a diagram is going beyond the available evidence. Given papers like Parfrey et al (2006), Burki et al (2007), and Kim and Graham (2008) (all cited at Chromalveolate), I'd say the relationships between the various groups are far from clear, and some aspects especially so (e.g. just what the glaucophytes are related to - for one thing they haven't been studied as much as the other groups). So, what would people think about just deleting the cladogram and going back to what we had (which describes some of these issues in text, where there is more opportunity for adding weasel-words), or some other solution? Kingdon (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Photosynthesis
"Some unicellular species rely entirely on external energy sources and have limited or no photosynthetic apparatus.

All algae have photosynthetic machinery ultimately derived from the Cyanobacteria, and so produce oxygen as a by-product of photosynthesis, unlike other photosynthetic bacteria such as purple and green sulfur bacteria." - a quote from the article. The first sentence says that some algae ay have no Photosynthetic apparatus. The second says all algae ave photosynthetis machenery.!!! One of these is wrong. --Osborne 09:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Genetically modified algae
There should perhaps be an article on the topic of genetically modified algae, since these have been cited in studies on how to produce environmentally-friendly biofuels. ADM (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nutrition section
The section has no mention on toxicity in algae designated for human consumption e.g. from heavy metals around the seas of Japan. Zanze123 (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of the term "chloroplast"
I've edited the leading paragraph to replace its previous use of "chloroplast" by the more general "plastid" – some of the statements are incorrect (or perhaps 'less correct') when "chloroplast" is used. There is a general issue about the meaning of this term in current usage. It can mean:
 * all photosynthetic plastids as opposed to non-photosynthetic plastids
 * photosynthetic plastids except those found in glaucophytes
 * photosynthetic plastids found in the Viridiplantae, as per the plastid article: "plastids are named differently: chloroplasts in green algae and plants, rhodoplasts in red algae and cyanelles in the glaucophytes".

The article currently varies in its usage and should, in my view, be made consistent. But which usage should be followed? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Algae produce most of the oxygen sentence
I have attempted to remove this unsourced section, but my deletion of it and another's deletion of it have now been reverted 3 times in an edit war by User:Alacante45. This topic, algae's contribution to earth's extant and dynamic oxygen budget is somewhat controversial and requires sourcing and development of the sentence. In addition, what many people are discussing when they say this is cyanobacteria, an organism rightly excluded from this topic, as it is a bacterium, and, although called algae in the vernacular, is not even remotely related the eukaryotic organisms known as "algae."

To prevent a continuance of this edit war, I request discussion of the issue here. Thanks. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have redone that sentence and deleted the controversial statements,as well as citing a reference.2.97.73.116 (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been removed again. The reference you provided doesn't actually say anything about "most of Earth's oxygen" being "fuelled by algae", I asked for references at the reference desk (here). So far, we got an article from Greentech Media stating that " [Algae] account for approximately 60% of the oxygen production on Earth" (no source for this figure in the article)---Sluzzelin  talk  08:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In truth, it's not well know the contributions of different forms of organisms to the current global oxygen budget. If you decide to add something, I would like it to be from a credible, well sourced, secondary or tertiary source. I will look at the your links. Thanks. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not consider the link reliable enough to post that information in the WP article. The Greentech article isn't peer-reviewed, doesn't make it clear which algae are being discussed, and, like I said, the figure isn't sourced. We have no idea where it is from. ---Sluzzelin talk  10:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I reported the link because that is all I had received at the desks so far (and nothing forthcoming since, I had hoped for more replies). I too tried searching for data pertaining to Algae as defined in this article's lede, but as 184.99 pointed out, these particular figures seem to be very hard to find. A reference commenting on the lack of data, or impossibility to make a meaningful estimate would be welcome as well. I agree that this statement of Algae producing the lion's share of oxygen should not be included until we have at least one reliable source. Preferably more than one. ---Sluzzelin talk  10:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We're in agreement then. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have redone the sentence with the better reference. Please see here. The old website also had malware stuck to it.86.173.33.234 (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't accept spamvertisements, either. If you want to advertise, find some other place to do it. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You've definitely misunderstood what I meant. I just meant about the malware thing was on the website that I have no responsibility over. (There you go,disclaimer!) Also (since I'm Alacante45/Unclebert11;whatever) on another computer, I would just like to say I copied the original text from a QI Book of General Ignorance. 86.173.33.234 (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Plantae vs. Protista
Are algae considered plants or protists? Or maybe some are plants and others are protists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexGu100 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Protista" is no longer used as a taxon by biologists, so algae are not protists. However, "algae" themselves are not a taxonomic group; it is an artificial grouping of organisms that have chlorophyll, even though some are bacteria, some are related to plants, some are flagellates, and some belong to other groups.  Only some algae are considered plants--those that are closely related to plants and share the same cell chemistry.  Other "algae" (such as kelp and diatoms) are not related to plants.  They belong to another kingdom Chromalveolata (although the definition of this kingdom is still under investigation). --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Filtration
Why is Filtration not a suitable section under "Other uses" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SantaMonicaMale (talk • contribs) 02:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

More on fuel source?
In Western Australia a German company was going to expand their pilot plant to produce bio diesel and a pilot plant in Adelaide, South Australia was established a few seasons ago. That one was supposed to be good enough for producing even aviation fuel. I am not an expert, but we probably ought to know more about it.

Alternative fuel production is becoming more urgent before fracking spreads even more. If anybody has knowledge about this specific use of algae, that would be good to know, either as an enlarged segment or a separate article. 121.209.53.9 (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Notable effects on earth
Algae is an big factor of the oxygen levels of earth, as it is the biggest producer of oxygen in earth, as a waste product of photosynthesis.

I moved this here for now. This is not what most scientific texts have in it, so I would just like to find one scientific source or technical source in the literature to support this website, or establish the scientific credentials of this website first. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes...I found it in some trivia book...but I can't remember it's name. Special Cases LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!! 07:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What about this one? Special Cases LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!! 07:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How about a technical journal or book, rather than a website? This astounding statistic should be readily available in any textbook or journal. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha! I can remember it's name. The book is called The QI Book of General Ignorance. May sound a silly book to find such fact, but yes that's where I got it from. Special Cases LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!! 06:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Game shows are not considered relialbe sources of information. They got their science from somewhere, or they got it wrong. Why not find the technical source of the information? --Kleopatra (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I'm stuck. Special Cases LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!! 16:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand why the article published in the journal Science is not considered acceptable here as a source. In any case, the statistics I recall pertain to diatoms as the primary modern producers, responsible for 20-25% of primary productivity on the planet (D. Werner. (1977) The Biology of Diations, Introductory chapter), and cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) as the primary (and original) oxygen producers of the Precambrian. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * An article by Schopf in Science would certainly be acceptable for almost anything, and it would be cited all over the place. However, there is only one of the three above references, the third one, tied to this discussion. The Schopf reference arises from a discussion in a thread above this one. Special Cases is just a blocked sock puppet. --Kleopatra (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Then you might follow the lead in the introduction I cited above. I unfortunately do not currently have access to a decent library, and so can't follow the citation trails the way I'd like to do.  I'm limited to the books on my shelves and whatever bits the internet is willing to share for free.  Most of my algal publications deal with fossils, plastid evolution, and general morphology.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by I "might follow the lead in the introduction you cited above?" What introduction did you cite above? What do you mean by I might follow the lead? --Kleopatra (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean you might look up the source I cited (D. Werner. (1977) The Biology of Diatoms, Introductory chapter) and see if a specific paper is cited within that source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can check it as a starting point. Theories about the evolution of earth's atmosphere have changed since that time, but it would be a start. --Kleopatra (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would expect that article to cover current oxygen production, not ancient production, particularly since the diatoms don't show up in the fossil record until about 120 mya. If you are looking for information about Precambrian oxygen production, I can provide a lot of information just from what I have at hand, but that would be better treated in detail on the Cyanobacteria article.  I had assumed until now that the question in this thread dealt primarily with the modern replenishment of atmospheric oxygen (as part of the oxygen cycle) by primary producers.  The books in my personal library discuss carbon production, and autecological rates of oxygen production, but provide nothing on global oxygen production (that I can find). --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I said "evolution of the earth's atmosphere," but this covers recent, also. If diatoms are considered primary contributors to today's oxygen levels, and they only appeared about 120 Mya, they are considered part of the evolution, not just recent, as oxygen levels were about the same 120 Mya. The evaluation of extensive evidence of the fossil record of marine photosynthetic organisms and modeling on super computers is part of what has changed ideas about how the earth's oxygen levels have evolved through time and the relative contributions of various organisms and processes to the ancient and current levels, so an article from the late 70s could only be a starting point, not sufficient. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Algae release oxygen, but it cannot really be called production as it is more of a recycling process. They grow by taking CO2 from the air, keep the C, and release the oxygen back into the air. Forrests do the same; when they decay or burn, the CO2 goes back into the air as it does when algae are turned into fuel and burnt. By contrast, oil, gas, and coal combustion have not (in our time) taken CO2 from the air. When these are burnt they take up oxygen and release it into the air as CO2, which is additional CO2 at the expense of the oxygen content of the air. That's my understanding - non-scientist. Quantifying the effect on the earth is for scientists. 121.209.53.9 (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Old page history
Some old page history that used to be at the title "Algae" can now be found at Talk:Algae/Old history. Graham 87 06:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Prokaryotic algae
"Algae" are an ecological group of simple organisms capable of oxygenic photosynthesis. This definition allows for closely related organisms without plastids, while excluding groups of bacteria that do not produce oxygen during photosynthesis and eukaryotic organisms that evolved without relation to oxygen evolving organisms. "Protist" is a valid word for this article.

I would like to expand the introduction. The dictionary definition should be low for the article compared to how different textbooks on algae and botany treat the ecological group. Cyanobacteria are studied by phycologists, they are routinely called algae due to their ecological niches. Scientists have known they are bacteria for long time while still considering them algae, this article seems to raise the possibility that researchers, one day recent, woke up to find they are bacteria. No, it was more about a better name most recently, not their true nature as prokaryot

Eau (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question or comment. You say that you want to change the introduction, but it's not clear what changes you want to make. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to include prokaryotic organims (hence the title of this thread), and I want to use a definition and grouping more akin to what is found in introductory phycology textbooks (my first sentence, in part), that the algae are an ecological group, not a taxonomic one, and their primary characteristic is organizational simplicity versus the derivations that allowed the colonization of the land, and oxygenic photosynthesis, not autotrophy, although vice versa on the order. Eau (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I understood and agreed with evertyhing you said until "their primary characteristic is organizational simplicity". Many algae are organizationally very complex, so it's not true to say otherwise.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Tissue. Eau (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your response implies two things that I can't agree with: (1) It implies that a single-celled organism cannot be structurally complex. Many scientists would disagree with that. (2) It imples that no algae have tissues, which is also incorrect.  Kelps are just one example of algae with differentiated tissues. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Tissues in kelp and other seaweeds are relatively undifferentiated compared to the evolutionary complexities evolved by land plants to survive on land. I take no credit for this as original research, but leave it to authorities on algae. I cannot agree that the differentiation of tissues in a kelp is similar to the tissue differentiation of a land plant, and I will not be able to find any authorities that state that. My only intention was to develop this article more along the lines of textbooks, solid tertiary sources, on phycology, and I cannot create anything unique to satisfy individual editors in another way. I can edit elsewhere. Eau (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Phycologists disagree with you concerning the tissues in kelps, and I can provide numerous published references in that regard (e.g., Bold & Wynne, Prescott). It's one reason I started rewriting brown algae.  I would argue that many kelps are at least as structurally differentiated and complex as mosses.  I know of no modern phycology text that defines algae on the basis of relative undifferentiation of tissues. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Bold and Wynne 1985 (PCR developed in 1983) differentiated algae from plants by their modes of sexual reproduction, and their primacy in the plant kingdom as indicated by 1. their antiquity (fossil record of cyanobacteria or blue-green algae as the authors call them, and eukaryotic algae in the Precambrian) and 2. “the relative simplicity of organization of most algal plant bodies, as compared with other groups of plants, especially vascular plants, although in this respect the kelps seem to be exceptions But they continue about the plant body, "relative simplicity of the single cell to the more striking complexity exhibited by the giant kelps and the rockweeds" the kelps contain "highly differentiated bladelike, rootlike, stemlike, leaflike organs … lacking in vascular tissue, although phloemlike conducting cells occur in some kelps." While meristematic tissue and cellular differentiation of the most complex of the brown algae, the giant kelps, is discussed on pages 354-355, it does not establish they have the complexity, multiplicity of meristematic or conducting tissue types of a land plant.

Graham, Wilcox and Graham, 2008, say brown algae are the most complex of the algae, and algae are defined as cyanobacteria and oxygenate photosynthetic "protists", protists, from UCMP "defined on the absence of characters (i.e. no complex development from embryos, no extensive cell differentiation, etc.), which is considered poor form." The most complex of the protists, and protists being simpler than land plants.

Falkowski and Raven 2007 describe multiple divisions of eukaryotic algae and one division of prokaryotic, so back to the title, lacking prokaryotic algae.

South & Whittick, 1987 describe “both prokaryotic and eukaryotic forms” “algae are simply constructed” “Even the most complex multicellular forms show a low level of differentiation compared with other groups of plants, with only the most advanced [cringe] possessing elementary conducting tissues'. The range of morphology is, however, extremely diverse, …. Yet the relative simplicity of the algae is misleading, because even the smallest may exhibit, at the cellular level, a high degree of complexity.” According to Faklowski and Raven an area for this complexity ‘‘at the cellular level'' is their photosynthetic pathways, and, according to Bold and Wynne it is their sexual reproduction (other authors repeat both, photosynthetic pathways and sexual reproductive diversity and uniqueness).

Lee, 1999, "The algae are thallophytes (plants lacking roots, stems, and leaves) that have chlorophyll a as their primary photosynthetic pigment and lack a sterile covering of cells around the reproductive cells," and including the cyanobacteria. The Laminariales have an intercalary meristem and differentiation into holdfast, stipe, and blade, sieve cells, etc., and a relatively recent evolution.

I was trying to bring this article in line with basic phycology textbooks, including the older ones, such as Bold and Wynne.

The article already describes most algae as "photosynthetic like plants, and "simple" because their tissues are not organized into the many distinct organs found in land plants," and I just wanted to rewrite this to accord with the phycology textbooks and make it clear what phycologists mean by simplicity in tissues and structure. However, my primary concerns were the use of "autotrophic" and the exclusion of the cyanobacteria.

You have provided a source that agrees with me, ignored that the article already says what you have focused on, and ignored the most important points that I raised. I think I am going to quote another editor here, Curtis Clark on the tree article, "I've decided I don't give a fuck." Eau (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed Algae from my watch list. Eau (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

" Algae are photosynthetic eukaryotes with a wide variety of shapes and both sexual and asexual reproductive forms. The algae of interest to microbiologists are usually unicellular. The cell walls of many algae, are composed of a carbohydrate called cellulose. Algae are mostly found in salt water, soil, and in association with plants. As photosynthesizers, algae need light, water, and carbon dioxide for food production and growth, but they do not generally require organic compounds from the enviorment. As a result of photosynthesis, algae produce oxygen and carbohydrates that are then utilized by other organisms, including animals. Thus, they play an important role in the balance of nature." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylervold (talk • contribs)


 * Phycology textbooks (e.g. C. Van Den Hoek et al. "Algae: An Introduction to Phycology") explicitly include cyanobacteria ("blue-green algae") within the definition of "algae". Microbiology textbooks (such as Brock & Maddigan) that limit "algae" to eukaryotic forms, typically also divide the "Protista" into algae, fungi, and protozoa, which is an obviously non-phylogenetic and outdated method of dividing non-plant-non-animal-eukaryotes. You cannot pull just one group from a textbook's classification and wave it around; you must look at the entire classification. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Algal pigment
Create a new article Sandra Jayaraj (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

"Most" algae are autotrophic, but 100% of algae are photosynthetic?
Wikipedia now says:

"Algae = photosynthetic eukaryotic organism. . . . Most are aquatic and autotrophic".

So 100% of algae are photosynthetic? How is it then that only "most" are autotrophic? Why not 100% of algae? Are 100% of algae really photosynthetic? If not, why are the non-photosynthetic algae still algae?

--ee1518 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. What's meant is that in evolutionary terms, ancestral algae were photosynthetic, but sme have secondarily lost this ability (it's like saying that birds are feathered flying organisms, even though there are flightless birds). It's tricky to word both accurately and simply. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion illustrates precisely what is wrong with WP in 2019. Too many "experts" are interested in hearing themselves talk, but not thinking for a moment what all this might mean to a "lay" person.  A non-expert.  Come on folks.  Check your ego at the door and make Wikipedia a place that everyone can enjoy.  Save your overly-technical arguments and discussions for symposia and papers within your field of expertise.  The rest of us don't want to know.  73.6.96.168 (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

This article serves no one.
This article serves no one. Sorry, but it just doesn't.  Maybe if you're a scientist or something that works with Algae, OK - maybe then it's interesting. But for the rest of us, it just doesn't serve any purpose. Has everyone forgotten the purpose of an encyclopedia? It's supposed to be a place (or a book) that "folks" can use and learn about something. Casually, even. My dad was a HUGE reader and proponent of education, even though he only got through the 8th grade. He used to read the World Book (pick a letter) - every night. He loved learning, but he was not "learned" by any definition. Thanks to the World Book, he could learn a little about Tigers and Cells and Atoms and stuff like that. He didn't want to learn everything - he was just looking for a clue. This place has lost my support, financial and otherwise, because it has lost its focus. Go back to being an online encyclopedia and I will be first in line to support this site, 100% 73.6.96.168 (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are indeed real problems with this article. They seem to me to have two causes. Firstly, the perennial problem in Wikipedia with important topics, namely that many different editors have made smallish contributions, so that the article is very "bitty" and doesn't have an overall thread. It needs someone with good writing skills to completely overhaul it. Secondly, it deals with a group of organisms that has radically changed its status. "Algae" were once a scientifically respectable group; now the word is just an umbrella term for a collection of organisms that are, as the article says, "not necessarily closely related". This makes it difficult to write about. It might perhaps be better to shorten it drastically, with cross-references to the separate groups (e.g. as listed under "Groups included" in the taxobox). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)