Talk:Domain (biology)

Two- empire System
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? &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  02:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

The original two-empire system
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)

Two-Empire System [Episode III]
The two-empire system. . ., with top-level groupings of Prokaryota. . ., Eukaryota and the more recently discovered Archaea empires. Prokaryota, Eukaryota and Archaea &mdash; that's three, not two.

The linked "Two-empire system" page claims on the contrary that the empires are "Acytota and Cytota". (The latter contains all three of the "two" empires mentioned in the quote. Compare with Gnostrat's remark above.  There are related comments on the "Two-Empire System" discussion page; in particular Solo Owl's remarks might be helpful.)

"None of the three systems currently include non-cellular life."

This contradicts the linked "Two-empire system" page (which, as mentioned above, has an Acytota empire). &mdash; Dan337 (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Other Three Domain System Page
Should these be merged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.239.56 (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knick99 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support the merge. There is insufficient notable and sourced material here for a separate article.  Only one source is given and many of the article assertions have no source. N2e (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * yes The combination of the two articles would result in a finer article discussing both topics and each would support the other.
 * Yes The synthesized information in the resulting article would be stronger than the separate articles --Sinusoidal (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this a proposal for the merge of two articles (this and the Three-domain system), or some other also? --Biblbroks 's talk 21:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If just for the two my vote is:


 * Support the merge. --Biblbroks 's talk 22:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support the merge. The domain article is far too small, and covers the same topic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.101.46 (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No, they are totally different! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.104.247 (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you care to elaborate your opinion? Why they are different? -All the best, Biblbroks (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge The resultant article would be much better than the two are separately. Spidey 104  17:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely do not merge. They are separate issues. (December, 2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.215.150 (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't try to Merge - If the 3-domain article is merged, what about the 2-empire article, etc? It would look oddly unbalanced if one bullet-point expands into a detailed section while the others remain as mere bullets. Either we leave it as it is or we merge all of them - but that raises the problem that we'd have to merge domains, empires, kingdoms .... which won't work. Best we leave it. Suggest delete the merge/discuss tag. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Recommend not merging. Too much variability in taxonomic "rules/opinion" (sadly). Quite confusing to have it all in one article. Easier to simply search for "Biology 3 domains" and get exactly what you're being taught. Agree with above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.131.215 (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

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

A domain is a level of taxonomy higher than a kingdom.

Protein domains
Whay there is no page for Protein domains —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.246.136 (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Crystal128-fonts.svg|20px]] 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)

Citation for non-life
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)

Which Domain is the multi-cellular?
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)

Fourth domain of life?
According to a recent study 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)
 * -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

picture on the top
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)
 * 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)

Image - Phylogenic Tree of Life
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)


 * 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)


 * 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.

Commented out apparent prokariote "nucleus" error & supplied more conventional replacement
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 All life that has a cell nucleus and eukaryotic membrane-bound organelles is included in Eukarya.

and replaced it with
 * ... 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.

or more legibly
 * ... 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)

Wiki Education assignment: General Biology I Honors
— Assignment last updated by Gustavo1231 (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)