Talk:Neomura

Variations of the Theory

"The current mainstream system of classification is the three-domain system. The common consensus is that Archaea and Eukaryota evolved on a seperate branch from Bacteria, with the root of life lying somewhere in between. This branch is Neomura. However, Cavalier-Smith has postulated that Bacteria is in fact paraphyletic to Neomura, meaning that Neomura evolved from Bacteria. According to this theory, Neomura is a group which evolved from Gram-positive bacteria, this transition being marked by twenty evolutionary adaptions, which accompanied, or derived from, two other important adaptions: the development of histones to replace DNA gyrase, and the loss of peptidoglycan cell walls to be replaced by other glycoproteins."

This is confusing because it's worded too technically. Rather than seeming to contradict what has just been said, you should start out by simply saying that Cavalier-Smith theorizes that the Archaebacteria and Eukaryotia arose from the Neomura which arose from the gram positive bacteria bacteria. You can then go on to say that the Bacteria are paraphyletic without the Neomura, but this phrasing used is rather awkward. I can't correct it without the article handy. I just can't seem to see what the second sentence is saying, so it's impossible to correct. I would simply like to see this clarified first, inserted into the article later. I don't have the article handy, but will try my best to read and understand as much as possible. KP Botany 19:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not correct to say the Archaea and Eukaryota arose from the Neomura; they each are part of Neomura. (It's like saying that Primata evolved from Mammalia.) If the hypothesis that Archaea and Eukaryota form a clade is correct then there are three alternative sub-hypotheses: either both evolved from stem Neomura (Cavalier-Smith's hypothesis, but there may be others), or Eukaryota evolved from Archaea (making Archaea paraphyletic), or Archaea evolved from Eukaryota (making Eukaryota paraphyletic). (The last doesn't seem very likely.) Lavateraguy 21:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not debating what is the current hypothesis, I'm debating whether or not you've said or presented them. What you just said here does not in any way come through from this paragraph in the article, as there is no mention whatsoever that there are three alternative sub-hypotheses! I'm not actually getting what is being said here at all by this paragraph, so there's no point in debating any substantive issues--it has to be written so the reader can undertand what is being said, regardless of what is being said.

So, what is C-S saying about Archaea and Eukaryota? That they belong in clade together, called Neomure, that evolved from the gram-positive bacteria, which, together with the rest of the bacteria form a crown group? Is that all? Who offers the latter two hypotheses, the alternatives to both evoving from Neomura? Are these dismissed or discussed by C-S or by someone else (does Woess mention any of this)?

Please don't debate the issues of various theories with me, although I'm not sure that's what you're doing, but rather clarify this text to get across what C-S is saying in his paper. KP Botany 21:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And now we're left with less than we started with. Hmmm. I think we need a professional. Werothegreat 18:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not less if what was there was difficult for the reader to follow. An encyclopedia is written for its readers--if it's wrong, it's not more, if it's not written for the general audience, it's not more, if it can't be followed accurately, it's not more. We always need the assistance of professionals on articles, particularly in areas outside of the multicellular eukaryotes when it comes to organisms. You, Werothegreat, however, read enough T C-S to rewrite this one little section--give it a try. KP Botany 19:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikispecies link?

Why is there a wikispecies link? They're still mucking about in 4-eukaryote-kingdom-land. There is no Neomura article in wikispecies. Werothegreat 01:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

They have both Cetartiodactyla and Artiodactyla articles. They don't explain that only let write articles from one source. If a taxon exists it must have an article for explaining what it is. 83.45.216.23 17:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What? Artiodactyls are mammals. We're talking about the supergroup that contains Archaea and Eukarya. There is no page on wikispecies for it, so there is no need for a wikispecies link at this time. Werothegreat 01:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between having two incompatible proposed clades at ordo level and at superdomain level. 80.30.232.210 18:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't incompatible. There just ISN'T A PAGE FOR IT ON WIKISPECIES YET. So there is no point to have a wikispecies link to a page that does not exist. Werothegreat 17:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Origin of eucaryotes

The section "History of Taxon" implies that the first stage in the evolution of eucaryotes was the incorporation of aerobic bacteria into some species of archea to form mitochondria. AFAIK it is generally agreed that the first stage was the incorporation of spirochetes into some species of archea to form micro-tubules. Sorry, can't give a ref (most annoying as I was looking at one earleir today). Philcha (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There's more than one hypothesis about the origin of eukaryotes. You might be thinking of Margulis'. (Margulis et al, The chimeric eukaryote: Origin of the nucleus from the karyomastigont in amitochondriate protists, PNAS 97(13): 6954-6959 (2000). This has the problem that there are no living primitively amitochondriate eukaryotes - the earlier opinion that there were arose from overlooking vestigal mitochondria in some taxa, combined with long branch artefacts in 18S RNA cladograms.) Cavalier-Smith proposes the existence of non-mitochondriate stem eukaryotes, but, IIRC, he doesn't postulate a symbiotic origin from these. (The problem with his hypothesis is that he has Neomura as a relatively young clade deeply nested in Eubacteria, as shown in the tree in the article, and has to explain the apparent existence of older red algae. Eukaryotes arising from symbiosis of an Archaean and a Proteobacteria is, I think, Woese's hypothesis.

It was not my impression that symbiotic origin of organelles other than mitochondria and plastids (and the "cyanelle" of Paulinella) was generally accepted. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The spirochete hypothesis has been pretty much discredited. The actiniobacterial absorption of an alpha-proteobacteria is the industry standard. Werothegreat (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Image concern

Is there any specific reason that an image of a leech is what represents this clade? It seems rather silly to simply place a picture of any arbitrary organism simply for illustrative purposes. Tan | 39 02:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I myself was wondering why, of all possible members of Archea and Eukarya to carry the torch, the honor falls to the almighty leech. The choice really sucks. - 96.255.251.122 (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Question about Neomura as a Taxon Superdomain

Hi. I think this article should explicitly specify whether the Neomura taxon is simply an artificial\conventional taxon, or, contrarily, it is based on a natural (real) taxon as well. --Faus (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Integration of sources

Looking at this article in 2017, it is striking that comments from 5 or more years ago above remain valid issues for the article. Is Neomura valid? What is the evidence? Who (if anyone) other than Cavalier-Smith is for it, and why? Who is against it, and on what evidence? The list of "Further reading" needs to be integrated into the text, to answer all these questions as well as possible. The inclusion of Cavalier-Smith's own work in that sad afterthought of a list is frankly absurd—if the article isn't going to explain C-S's views on the Neomura, what is its purpose? At the very least, the article needs to discuss the key viewpoints against C-S. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This paper from 2014 is the latest I've found so far. They say that "[w]e also provide evidence that eukaryotes branch close to the last archaeal common ancestor." So while not specifically supporting Neomura as a taxon, they do argue that Archaea and Eukaryota are much more closely related than either is to Bacteria. But to sort out the article properly, more papers need to be found and looked at. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is a widespread consensus that Neomura is a clade (with some recent work having Eukarya nested with Archaea), but little acceptance of Cavalier-Smith's proposal that Neomura is deeply nested within (Eu)Bacteria. The problem with Cavalier-Smith's proposal is that it relies on a limited number of traits (even if a case for a high weighting can be made) and has to account for branch lengths within Neomura being comparable to branch lengths in (Eu)Bacteria. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This review article from late 2015 is paywalled, but this abstract suggests that it contains relevant information. A recent presentation of Cavalier-SMith's hypothesis can be found (open access) here. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like good progress; and the arguments against or for partial acceptance need to be stated and cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I can access the 2015 review. It defines Neomura as a "hypothetic clade composed by Archaea + Eucarya that would have evolved from single-membrane-bound, Gram-positive bacteria." So as Lavateraguy says above, there is pretty strong support for a clade combining Eukarya and at least some Archaea (perhaps not all), but no enthusiasm for Cavalier-Smith's idea that it is nested within Bacteria. The most popular view right now seems to be something like this:

	Bacteria C1 C2 Eukarya Archaea 2 (Lokiarchaeota or clade including Lokiarchaeota) Archaea 1

In addition the mitochondrion goes across from Bacteria to Eukarya. I guess C1 could be called "Neomura" although its origin is different from Cavalier-Smith's hypothesis, but C2 is the more interesting clade on this view as it's where eukaryogenesis occurred. Note that Archaea are paraphyletic w.r.t. Eukarya on this view. One of many open questions is the nature of the last common ancestor of Bacteria and Archaea/Eukarya. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Good stuff! Looking forward to seeing it in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

On my to-do list there are about 90 spider articles that Plantdrew found that need taxobox fixes, so if you wait for me you'll be looking forward for some time. :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

A question is how tied the name Neomura is to Cavalier-Smith's hypothesis. I'm quite happy to use the name even if the etymology turns out to misleading - compare Basilosaurus (a whale), and various other taxa whose names reflect previous misinterpretations, but others might disagree?

I'm sure it needs more work (such as addition of references), but I've restructured the article so it's not so closely tied to the derived bacterial origin hypothesis. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's pretty clear now that Neomura is a failed hypothesis. I've revised the article accordingly, and removed the taxobox – we only use these for taxa with a reasonable degree of acceptance. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

T C-S's 2020 defence and elaboration of neomura hypothesis

An article published online January 2, 2020 is a recent defense and extensive elaboration of the neomura hypothesis.

• Cavalier-Smith, T.; Chao, Ema E-Yung (2 January 2020). "Multidomain ribosomal protein trees and the planctobacterial origin of neomura (eukaryotes, archaebacteria)". Protoplasma. doi:10.1007/s00709-018-01442-7.

HTH. DCDuring (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

"DOI not found" (a search for the title finds a copy on ResearchGate, which I grabbed rather the seeing whether the publisher's copy was paywalled or not). Lavateraguy (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

One-domain hypothesis

There's yet another variant of the hypothesis I can think of: that the eukaryotes emerged from within the archaeans (which seems to be the consensus now), and that the archaeans in turn emerged from within the bacteria, making the traditional taxa Archaea and Bacteria both paraphyletic. Neomura would simply be a synonym of Archaea (including the eukaryotes) in this view. (Admittedly, I really like this idea aesthetically.) Is this possibility still a viable hypothesis? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

In fact, Archaea §§ Relationship to bacteria​ and Relation to eukaryotes does suggest that this proposal could be correct. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Neomura the taxon vs neomuran hypothesis

I feel that this article wrongly conflates the taxon Neomura, which is accepted as a clade by most experts, with the neomuran hypothesis, which is generally rejected. So I think the taxobox should be added back, and perhaps we should limit information about the neomuran hypothesis to a single section. --Grey Clownfish (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The terms Neomura, neomurans, etc. have been widely used, but with different meanings. In one usage (Cavalier-Smith's original), Archaea and Eukaryota were seen as clades/taxa, with Neomura being the clade/taxon comprising both. This seems to be discredited now. In another usage, Neomura can be treated a synonym of Archaea, with eukaryotes having evolved within Archaea, so the remaining archaeans form a paraphyletic group. (Both ideas are discussed and sourced in the article.) More recently, the sister archaeans to eukaryotes have been identified. Where is Neomura in the 28 April 2023 cladogram at Archaea#Cladogram? Or the cladogram at Asgard (archaea)#Phylogeny? What would be the subordinate taxa listed or referred to in a Neomura taxobox? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

In that case, should Neomura be merged into Archaea? Because if prokaryote archaea are paraphyletic, so Archaea is redefined to include eukaryotes, then Neomura is a synonym of Archaea.

However, it appears that Wikipedia tends to follow the three-domain hypothesis. Archaea does not include eukaryotes in this scheme. So merging Neomura into Archaea would contradict this. So I don't see why Neomura can't be a clade consisting of Archaea and Eukaryota in Wikipedia's taxonomy.

Yes, I think prokaryote archaea are probably paraphyletic. But at the moment, Wikipedia's taxonomy doesn't reflect that for whatever reason. --Grey Clownfish (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the taxobox again, pending further discussion – it's been absent since 2017. The taxobox claims that Neomura is a superdomain (via Template:Taxonomy/Neomura. What are the currently accepted reliable sources for this claim?

@Grey Clownfish: you wrote above "it appears that Wikipedia tends to follow the three-domain hypothesis". Wikipedia should not be following any hypothesis, rather reporting the consensus view with due weight given to minority views. Thomas Cavalier-Smith's 2002 original view of the taxon should of course be mentioned, but is only of historical interest now. The question is not whether it is possible to define a clade Neomura within the two domain view in which Archaea is paraphyletic w.r.t. Eukaryota, but whether reliable sources use the taxon in this way. Do they? If so, the taxonomy template should be changed to show the rank as clade and one or more reliable sources used to support this rank. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Neomura is sometimes unranked, and sometimes a superdomain. I don't see what's the big deal about showing it as a superdomain. I don't understand why there was a hatnote about it, for heaven's sake. Taxonomic ranks are arbitrary. And if Neomura isn't a superdomain, it's hard to imagine what is. At the same time, it seems that Neomura is typically unranked, so maybe we can change it to show as unranked, then can we add the taxobox back? Grey Clownfish (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The current consensus is that Neomura is a junior synonym of Archaea. As such Neomura is not notable as a clade. (Junior synonyms are rarely notable.) However it is notable as a phylogenetic hypothesis (or hypotheses). (Wikipedia has articles on a variety of no longer recognised taxa/clades, e.g. Category:Historically recognized angiosperm orders, Archonta, Phytodinosauria, ...)

I would treat Neomura as representing the taxonomic hypothesis that Archaea and Eukaryota are sister groups; this is a subhypothesis of more than one broader hypothesis, including Woese's 3-domain model (in which it may be referred to as a superdomain) and Cavalier-Smith's hypothesis of archaea and eukaryotes being jointly nested within Bacteria. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Lavateraguy. Neomura is only notable as a historical taxonomic hypothesis. Typically we don't include taxoboxes for historically recognized taxa.

@Grey Clownfish: the deal about showing Neomura as a superdomain in a taxobox is that at best it's only one of a number of views, which is now basically an obsolete view. Putting it the taxobox gives it undue prominence. The key point is that taxoboxes should show the best current consensus view of a classification, and I simply don't think there is one for Neomura.

What would be the purpose of a taxobox showing "unranked"? There's no taxon above Neomura, and no clear taxa below either, given that as per the taxobox at Archaea, in one treatment Neomura is a synonym of Archaea.

Peter coxhead (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

"Typically we don't include taxoboxes for historically recognized taxa." I'm not sure that is true; Guttiferales, Archonta, Phytodinosauria, Dicotyledoneae, Chromalveolata, Pongidae, Pteridospermatophyta and even Articulata have taxoboxes, Quadrumana/Bimana, Myriochelata and Vermes don't. Psychozoa is not even mentioned in Wikipedia. (But Neomura is always going to be a special case; I can't see any value in giving it a taxobox under the current taxonomic consensus. Other historical taxa, , usually have clear parent taxa, and showing were they fitted in, e.g. Archonta as a subdivision of Placentalia, is helpful.)

I wondering if there is any value on having a discussion as to criteria for notability for taxonomic hypotheses, for taxonomic hypotheses formalised as published ranked taxa, and for other types of obsolete taxa (such as grades and wastebasket taxons), and on if and how they should be represented in taxoboxes. Discussion (if any) at WT:TOL? Lavateraguy (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

In that case, merge into Archaea, no? The article called Neomura must be about the taxon Neomura. Not any kind of hypothesis, like that of bacterial paraphyly or Archaea being the sister clade to Eukaryota. If it's about such a hypothesis, it ought to be moved, and Neomura should be made a redirect to Archaea.

Now obviously an article about a hypothesis rather than a taxon shouldn't have a taxobox. But such an article shouldn't be called Neomura, it should be called something like Neomuran hypothesis. Grey Clownfish (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

At the moment though, I wouldn't support merging into Archaea, as that article implies that only prokaryote archaea are included in the domain Archaea. Yes, I reckon that Neomura is a junior synonym of Archaea, as prokaryote archaea are paraphyletic, but the article Archaea currently treats this paraphyletic group as a domain. Note however, that the principle of priority does not apply to such high-level taxa as Archaea/Neomura. In fact, there are plenty of senior synonyms that have been replaced like that. The order containing waterfowl was originally called Anseres, now it is Anseriformes. But I digress.

The fact that the Archaea article excludes eukaryotes from Archaea implies that Neomura is not a synonym of Archaea, because Neomura includes eukaryotes. As such, Neomura should have a taxobox, as it's a separate taxon, not synonym of Archaea in the way the article Archaea defines Archaea.

If you think Neomura shouldn't have a taxobox as it's a synonym of Archaea, then update Archaea to include eukaryotes, and merge Neomura into Archaea. Grey Clownfish (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lavateraguy: I agree there is inconsistency over taxoboxes for historically recognized taxa, but the default position seems to be that we don't have them.

@Grey Clownfish: how can we discuss the taxon Neomura independently of its phylogeny and hence the so-called "Neomuran hypothesis" – whatever that is now, since Cavalier-Smith's 2002 and 2020 views are significantly different. If we did have a taxobox for Neomura, what would its parent be? If we followed Devos, it should probably be Bacteria: his view is a "1D scenario" in which Bacteria are the ancestral domain and "traditional Bacteria" is paraphyletic w.r.t. Neomura. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Come on. A taxon is not the origin of its name. A taxon is the group of organisms it includes. Neomura is not the neomuran hypothesis, it is Archaea (if Archaea includes Eukaryota). And if Archaea doesn't include Eukaryota, Neomura is then Archaea + Eukaryota.

If the Neomura article is to be about the neomuran hypothesis, then I guess Insecta should be about Linnaeus's classification of arthropods in Systema Naturae. Instead, it redirects to Insect, a narrower concept. Grey Clownfish (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Grey Clownfish: sure, we can all agree that "a taxon is the group of organisms it includes". However an article about a taxon always has more than a statement of its subdivisions and an over-arching description of it. A taxon article includes the systematics/taxonomy of the taxon, which firmly includes its taxonomic history and phylogeny (in the same way as Insect#Phylogeny and evolution). Only those approaches which accept the "neomuran hypothesis", whether in the original 2002 form or the 2020 form, use the taxon (e.g. it doesn't appear in either of the large cladograms in Archaea). It's entirely different to Insecta; sure, the modern circumscription differs considerably from Linnaeus's, but there's no doubt as to the acceptance and use of the taxon. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Neomura should either redirect to Archaea or have a taxobox. Being a separate article with no taxobox makes no sense. You pointed out that having Neomura as a separate taxon from Archaea is incorrect, and that's why it shouldn't have a taxobox. Then that's also why it shouldn't be a separate article, right?

Neomura vs Archaea is rather like Sauropsida vs Reptilia, Pancrustacea vs Crustacea, Cetartiodactyla vs Artiodactyla, Euteleostomi vs Osteichthyes, or Angiospermae vs Magnoliopsida. For what it's worth, these pairs are all separate articles except for both Cetartiodactyla and Artiodactyla both redirecting to Artiodactyl. Grey Clownfish (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Grey Clownfish: part of the logic of no taxobox is that it is a historically recognized taxon, and so doesn't need one. However, I agree that it's not quite like, say, Cryptogamae, because at the time of writing, although most workers don't recognize Neomura as a taxon, Cavalier-Smith still does (at least up to the 2020 paper) – although I note that in that paper, he seems to use the lower-case "neomura" informally.

The other part is that to create a taxobox you need a well sourced parent taxon. What would you use? Using "Life" is only consistent with the cladogram in Neomura#Three-domain view. In the Neomura#One domain view, the parent would be the clade comprising PVC bacteria and Neomura (=Archaea + Eukaryota), which does not seem to have a name. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Most workers do accept Neomura as a taxon. They just call it Archaea. Or possibly Arkarya. It's not so much a historically-used taxon as a historically-used synonym of a current taxon, namely Archaea. Hence it should be merged with Archaea then. Wikipedia typically doesn't have separate articles for synonyms. Eoaves redirected to Palaeognathae, until I saw that it included Galloanserae too, so was not a synonym of Palaeognathae.

Except that the Archaea article still heavily implies that eukaryotes are not included, for example, describing Archaea as a domain of single-celled organisms. Unless this is changed, Neomura should have a taxobox.

By the way, I don't think we should be omitting taxoboxes from articles for obsolete taxa. We should use Template:Paraphyletic group. Why else does it exist? And I find that most obsolete taxon articles have taxoboxes. In fact, they show the obsolete taxon as a taxon. Grey Clownfish (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

What we often have is a clear clade, with 2 or 3 or more daughter clades, where the relationships between daughter clades is unclear. Hypotheses as to relationships between daughter clades are often represented by putative clade names. (If you look for example at Spiralia and Xenambulacraria, one finds articles for many such hypotheses at the animal supraphylum level. One also finds them for major protist groups, and for Atlantogenata/Epitheria/Notolegia, etc.) With the exception of Articulata hypothesis all of them lack hypothesis in the title; Articulata is probably an exception because of the need for disambiguation. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Those articles are about the taxa, not the hypotheses. They have taxoboxes. By the way Articulata hypothesis should be moved, as the title wrongly implies that its subject is the hypothesis rather than the taxon. Neomura is about the taxon. Which is monophyletic. It should either have a taxobox or redirect to Archaea. Grey Clownfish (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Grey Clownfish: you repeat the statement that Neomura is monophyletic. But this is precisely what is at issue. You also don't answer my question as to what the parent should be in the taxonomy template and hence taxobox. So we are just going round in circles. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Same parent as Bacteria. Life. And what do you mean "this is precisely what is at issue"? Are you seriously arguing that Neomura is paraphyletic or polyphyletic? Isn't the controversy whether Archaea without eukaryotes is monophyletic or paraphyletic? And if it's paraphyletic, it makes Neomura a synonym of Archaea. By the way, Eukaryota and Archaea also have their parent as Life. Maybe this should be changed to Neomura. And the rank has been changed to clade. So can we add the taxobox again? Grey Clownfish (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

We're going round in circles again, and I'm just repeating myself.

1. In the view taken in Archaea and the cladograms in the article, "Neomura" does not consist of Eukaryota and Archaea, it's simply a synonym for Archaea. On this view, the Neomura sensu Cavalier-Smith is not accepted, and is merely of interest for historical reasons and because Cavalier-Smith still supports it as a taxon (at least as the informal "neomurans"). It should not have a taxobox because we don't have taxoboxes for synonyms.
2. In the view taken in the 2020 Cavalier-Smith paper, Neomura does consist of Eukaryota and Archaea (as summarized in the cladogram in Neomura#One domain view), but (as I said above) its parent is not "Life" but the clade consisting of the PVC superphylum and Neomura, which I don't think has been named, and even if it had, it should not be used in a taxobox because this is not the current consensus view.
3. You suggest that "Life" should be the parent, but this only makes sense given the cladogram in Neomura#Three-domain view, which has no support now, and should certainly not be in a taxobox.

In summary, there's no consensus view which supports the use of Neomura as an independent taxon with Life as its parent, so there should not be a taxobox which implies that there is. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

So just merge with Archaea then. And change Archaea to remove all implications that eukaryotes aren't included. You say we don't have taxoboxes for synonyms. That's right, because we don't have separate articles for synonyms.

Meanwhile, what about the fact that we still have Eukaryota as a domain? Grey Clownfish (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The point I was obviously vainly trying to make above is that there's no consensus for any one view (including that Neomura is a synonym of Archaea), so there shouldn't be a taxobox that implies there is. The possible taxon is sufficiently notable at present because of Cavalier-Smith's views, not least the very detailed 2020 paper (have you even looked at it?), so that there should be an article. You have not established consensus otherwise. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I've asked for comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology#Neomura. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

And guess what, the synonym Crocodylia for Crocodilia is also notable. Why doesn't it have its own article then? Because synonyms don't have their own articles. Shouldn't we add Cavalier-Smith's views to the Archaea article rather than having a separate article for it, called Neomura? I don't think it's notable enough to have its own article, even if Cavalier-Smith doesn't think Neomura is a synonym of Archaea because he thinks prokaryotic archaea form a clade.

And you said the three-domain view has no support now. Given that the consensus is the two-domain view, doesn't Cavalier-Smith's hypothesis deviate more from the consensus than the three-domain view?

In Google, a search for "neomura" returns about 38,800 results. And I might add that many of these sources do not align with Cavalier-Smith's hypothesis, but with the three-domain hypothesis.

Once again, Neomura must either be about the taxon Neomura, or redirect to Archaea. It cannot be about any kind of hypothesis. If the reason for keeping Neomura as a separate article from Archaea is that it's about the neomuran hypothesis, it should be moved. Grey Clownfish (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, let's see if any other editor has views on this. I continue to think that Neomura as a taxon is of significant historical (and indeed contemporary) interest, despite the lack of consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)