In response to a comment in this issue on our proposal of new terminology to distinguish red algal parasites, we clarify a few key issues. The terms adelphoparasite and alloparasite were previously used to identify parasites that infected close or distant relatives. However, most red algal parasites have only been studied morphologically, and molecular tools have shown that these binary terms do a poor job at representing the range of parasite–host relationships. We recognize the need to clarify inferred misconceptions that appear to be drawing from historical terminology to contaminate our new definitions. We did not intend to replace the term adelphoparasite with neoplastic parasites and the term alloparasites with archaeplastic parasites. Rather, we seek to establish new terms for discussing red algal parasites, based on the retention of a native plastid, a binary biological trait that is relatively easy to identify using modern methods and has biological implications for the interactions between a parasite and its host. The new terminology can better account for the spectrum of relationships and developmental patterns found among the many independently evolved red algal parasites, and it is intended to inspire new research, particularly the role of plastids in the survival and evolution of red algal parasites.

中文翻译：

---

对Preuss和Zuccarello（2020）的回应：可以明确应用于红色藻类寄生虫的生物学定义。

针对此问题中有关区分红藻寄生虫的新术语提案的评论，我们澄清了一些关键问题。以前，术语“ Adelphoparasite”和“ alsoparasite”用于识别感染近亲或远亲的寄生虫。但是，大多数红色藻类寄生虫仅在形态上进行了研究，分子工具表明，这些二元术语在表示寄生虫-宿主关系的范围方面做得很差。我们认识到有必要澄清似乎来自历史术语的推断错误观念，以污染我们的新定义。我们无意用赘生性寄生虫代替术语阿德磷寄生虫，而用古生性寄生虫代替术语同种异虫。相反，我们寻求为讨论红色藻类寄生虫建立新的术语，基于天然质体的保留，这是一种二进制生物学特性，使用现代方法相对容易识别，并且对寄生虫与其宿主之间的相互作用具有生物学意义。新术语可以更好地说明在许多独立进化的红藻寄生虫之间发现的关系和发育模式，它旨在激发新的研究，特别是质体在红藻寄生虫的生存和进化中的作用。