Talk:Bigyra

Improvements
This article needs big improvements. I'll get around to it if I have free time. For now, I can think of the following edits: ☽ Snoteleks  ☾ 06:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Half of the lead makes no sense, it is weird that it mentions the subgroups in this vague incomplete manner.
 * There needs to be a better phylogeny section.
 * A section for characteristics or morphology or description or something like that would be nice.


 * Well, yes. The same applies to numerous other articles on clades, or shall I say supposed clades. Recent analyses break up the "Bigyra". Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * BTW: "Despite the power of large-scale phylogenomic analyses, the positions of the Opalozoa and Sagenista are not consistent among published analyses, and the phylogenetic validity of the Bigyra remains uncertain (Burki et al., 2016, Derelle et al., 2016, Noguchi et al., 2016)." Thakur et al, 2019


 * and in a 2020 preprint: "In the reconstructed phylogeny of Stramenopiles, Labyrinthula and other protist species in the phylum, Bigyra formed a paraphyletic group at the base of Stramenopile". Tan et al, 2020, which is at the least, suggestive.


 * Both the lead and the phylogeny section have been improved. ☽ Snoteleks  ☾ 19:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Very much improved, but the "possibly paraphyletic" remains very much the case! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Diversity
A section about bigyran diversity or ecology would be nice, since all the content right now is about the phylogeny. ☽ Snoteleks  ☾ 19:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)