This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Tree of Life High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life 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.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. 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 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

According to the German Wikipedia, this term is outdated and has been replaced by Amorphea, which is listed here as a synonym. --Espoo (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially since Apusozoa are included which actually have two flagella --kupirijo (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether there are reliable secondary sources that support the view that Amorphea is now the accepted name. If the sources are good enough, the article should be moved. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Although the term "unikont" is outdated there is no generally accepted term to replace it. The term Amorphea is used in 15 articles in pubmed and it is used by several groups. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=amorphea&sort=date . I personally think the article title should be replaced by the term Amorphea. --kupirijo (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References to these high-level groups in secondary sources are fairly rare (indeed, references in the article itself seem to be mostly primary). Here's one, from The Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Biology, ed. Kliman, 2016, p. 354: "The Amorphea supergroup (previously known as 'unikonts') unites Amoebozoa and Obazoa, two major taxa that are examined individually below." Another from the book Evolutionary Transitions to Multicellular Life, Ruiz-Trillo & Nedelcu, p. 5: "the major division Amorphea...roughly equivalent to 'unikonts' of Stechmann and Cavalier-Smith." See also Biological Innovations that Built the World, Roberto Ligrone, 2019, p. 192, and The Handbook of Protists, ed. Archibald, 2019, p. 13. A search in Google Scholar returns 126 results for "Unikonta", since 2016, and 301 for "Amorphea". Deuterostome (Talk) 16:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems pretty convincing to me. I support moving the article, adding these refs. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone object to the move? The article will need a few adaptations, and refs will have to be added. I suppose taxonomy templates will need to be updated, too. Deuterostome (Talk) 20:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said previously, I am in favour of the move to Amorphea. Thank you Deuterostome for finding those key references. kupirijo (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this clade is now known as "Amorphea", should that term be used throughout the article? The last section still uses the label "unikonts". -- llywrch (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the first paragraph of the article, Amorphea does contain the whole Obazoa clade. The third paragraph states instead that this is not sure, but only a possibility. Which is correct (as of 2023)? Alfa-ketosav (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apusomonads are explicitly part of Obazoa, a name formed from the acronym OBA (opisthokonts, breviates and apusomonads). I've adjusted the text in the third paragraph. Deuterostome (Talk) 12:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The french page Unikonta is linked with the english redirection page Unikont, which redirects to Amorphea.

I tried to add a link between the english Amorphea page and the french Unikonta page, but it seems that it's not possible because the french Unikonta page is already linked with the english redirection Unikont page (image in thumbnail, I didn't really understand the message).

I'm not a Wikipedia pro so I don't really know what to do. I know the article needs a rewriting because the term Unikont is outdated, but I don't have time to do it and I just want to fix this interlanguage link problem. Thanks for your help ! Neoverse (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]