Talk:Giant virus

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Girus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140319025858/http://www.wcponline.com/pdf/June_OnTap.pdf to http://www.wcponline.com/pdf/June_OnTap.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Giant virus and NCLDV

Are there any known Giant viruses that are not NCLDVs? And which NCLDVs are not Giant viruses? --Ernsts (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Girus nomenclature

Firstly, this is amazing material :) Secondly, I like the name 'girus' which still redirects here, but where does the coinage originate? Only one 2009 article in the sources uses the term in its title, though it is quite popular on social media. – SJ + 03:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sj: Good point, I added a reference to the 2006 paper that introduced the term. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Megaklothovirus

I wonder why there's no mention of Megaklothovirus here. Ypna (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Only 2 google scholar hits, plus this paper: https://hal.laas.fr/I2M-2014-/hal-02010229 . Discovery/proposal (2019) is in there, for the interested. Maybe it's too new. I'm confused trying to generate reference for this paper, though published in Virology: Current Research, it doesn't seem to have a DOI and I can't find it on the publishers website.

We do have mention of its content at Chaetognatha, without citation. CyreJ (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Megaviricetes with Giant virus

Synonymous save for future cases (WP:CRYSTAL). All the biological commonalities presented in GV article are due to a common descent described by the M taxon. Also, both currently use the same taxobox. Artoria2e5 🌉 16:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding. Megaviricetes is a taxonomic group (class) of viruses. Giant virus is not a taxonomic group, and should not have a taxobox. "Giant viruses" refers to viruses that share certain properties; they also happened to be taxonomically related. A taxon is not synonymous with a biological entity. Curt99 01:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

i would say merge it with (see new section) Nucleocytoviricota,

1. "Megaviricetes is a taxonomic group (class) of viruses." - Nucleocytoviricota is a phylum of viruses
2. "Giant virus is not a taxonomic group,, and should not have a taxobox." - therefore could be part of the Nucleocytoviricota page
3. " "Giant viruses" refers to viruses that share certain properties; they also happened to be taxonomically related." - They are all part of the same phylum
4. "A taxon is not synonymous with a biological entity." - at this point it is
5. All known giant viruses belong to the phylum Nucleocytoviricota.

>>> Webclouddat (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

"Hair Cover"?

I think this article should explain what the "hair cover" column in the first table means w/r/t viruses and why its notable/significant. TotesNeato (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

merge

merge with Nucleocytoviricota, they are the same thing,

"All known giant viruses belong to the phylum Nucleocytoviricota."

>>> Webclouddat (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Respectively, a taxon is not the same thing as an "organism", even though they are often confounded on Wikipedia and in the literature. One can write about the taxonomy of Giant Viruses, but Giant Viruses are not a taxonomic group. Much as cabbage, bears and fish are organisms that have a taxonomic assignment. It may seem pedantic, but it actually is an important distinction. As well, taxonomy changes, such as the relatively newly created Nucleocytoviricota and Megaviricetes; whereas, a Giant Virus, will always be a Giant Virus, and a bear will still be a bear, even if it is decided that the family Ursidae is no longer valid. I hope these words help to clarify that a taxon and a group of biological entities are not the same thing. Curt99 03:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)