> Esther G. McLaughlin said:
> I believe the nomenclatorial (nomenclatural?) powers-that-be dumped
> "division" (thank heavens) some time ago, admitting that, the lower you get
> (phylogenetically, not morally), the less any distinction between
> plant-like and animal-like organisms gets; therefore, such naming
> distinctions have little logic. So it's "phylum" for all, and all for
> phylum.
>
When did this happen? Most botany books retain the division
catagory. I agree with the concept but if division was dumped why
does it persist in the latest texts? I wish everyone could get
together and AGREE on some of this classification and terminology
stuff. Text authors don't use the same spellings and terminology ,
ie. ascoma or ascocarp? prokaryotic or procaryotic? Protista or
Protoctista ? If a peptide is 2 or more amino acids joined by a
peptide bond whats a dipeptide? Its not the big problems its the
little ones ! I' m not paranoid I KNOW everyone is out
to get me. :-)
d haas
