Protist classification
Wikimedia list article
A protist () is any eukaryotic organism (one with cells containing a nucleus) that is not an animal, plant, or fungus. The protists do not form a natural group, or clade, since they exclude certain eukaryotes with whom they share a common ancestor; but, like algae or invertebrates, the grouping is used for convenience. In some systems of biological classification, such as the five-kingdom scheme proposed by Robert Whittaker in 1969, the protists make up a kingdom called Protista, composed of "organisms which are unicellular or unicellular-colonial and which form no tissues". In the 21st century, the classification shifted toward a phylogenetic classification of protists.
The following groups contain protists. The clade Opisthokonta also contains the animals and the fungi, and the Archaeplastida also contains plants.
Cavalier-Smith's classification
Thomas Cavalier-Smith and his collaborators use a fully rank-based classification of protists. Here is their classification, non-protists are shown in bold:
Current classification
Legend:
† Extinct, or exclusively fossil taxon.
(P) Paraphyletic or polyphyletic taxon.
(P?) Potentially paraphyletic or polyphyletic taxon.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Protist classification” is wikimedia list article. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Protist, classification and Wikimedia, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “wikimedia list article” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 20, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q3252802. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1969.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Protist classification”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Protist classification primary sources, Protist classification archive and Protist research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Protist classification”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Protist classification” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.