Talk:Apicomplexa

Protista High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microbiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology 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.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[parasitism#types|endoparasite]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Apical complex / Apicoplast

The first sentence might mislead to the conclusion that the apical complex is the same as the apicoplast. This should be clarified.--131.152.195.24 (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Species

This page should say how many species are found in the phylum. --Savant13 20:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is we dont know. The best estimates that I know of suggest > 5000 species. DrMicro.

Motility

The article deceptively suggests that Apicomplexa is nonmotile, which is untrue...most are motile...Anyone up for changing it?...If not I'll pull out a few papers to refresh my memory when I have time Jarwulf 05:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Based on this glossary entry, I'd say nonmotility is definitive...? --Renice 19:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

apicomplexan: A sporozoan protist that lacks special locomotor organelles but has an apical complex and a spore-forming stage. It is either an intra- or extracellular parasite of animals; a member of the phylum Apicomplexa.

Ah, but this suggests otherwise. --Renice 19:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoptries: The osmiophilic rhoptries – as well as the micronemes – are characteristic cytoplasmic inclusions of the motile stages of sporozoans.

Cryptosporidium

For the record, the sources I'm finding say Cryptosporidium is a coccidia; for example, see:

Toxoplasmosis: A Comprehensive Clinical Guide (Excerpt) (PDF). Cambridge University Press. 2005-09-08. ISBN 0521019427. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Stuart A. West, Todd G. Smith and Andrew F. Read (1999-09-14). "Sex allocation and population structure in apicomplexan (protozoa) parasites" (PDF). The Royal Society, London. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
"The Taxonomicon & Systema Naturae" (Website database). Taxon: Genus Cryptosporidium. Universal Taxonomic Services, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2000. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Upton, Steve J. (2003-09-12). "Basic Biology of Cryptosporidium" (Website). Kansas State University: Parasitology Laboratory. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Blastocystea

Are Blastocystea Apicomplexa or Chromista? --Kupirijo 10:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stramenopile, it seems pretty clear from the refs at Blastocystis (Chromista doesn't seem to be monophyletic, so I wouldn't use that term, per refs at Chromalveolate). If anyone knows of something we are missing, please provide specifics. I've updated this article accordingly. Kingdon (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title

This page should be moved to Sporozoan. --Aruseusu (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apicomplexa seems to be a much more common term these days (I tried a google scholar search). Unless there is something I'm missing, it looks like a case where wikipedia needs to follow existing usage. Kingdon (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

This area is a mess. I am finding multiple contradictory references on this. I am working to resolve this. DrMicro (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subclasses taxonomy - mess, this entire article needs in-line citations!

This article had a subclasses section that says there are four, and the taxobox is divided into different classes and subclasses.

Taxonomy

"The phylum is currently divided into four subclasses:"

Taxobox:

"subdivision_ranks = Classes & Subclasses"
"subdivision ="
Aconoidasida
- Haemosporasina
- Piroplasmasina
Conoidasida
- Coccidiasina
- Gregarinasina

I've removed the taxonomy section, but left the taxobox, until it is corrected. Both should also have citations attached before replacing anything. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]