In article <199607161054.GAA01959 at emlab.cb.uga.edu> farmer at EMLAB.CB.UGA.EDU writes:
>Yesterday I was delighted to open my mailbox and see protists on the
>front of a major US magazine.
>>Imagine then my dismay when I read the article inside and they
>referred to foraminiferans as "...microscopic, single-celled
>animals.." Animals?? ANIMALS!!! If the editors of one of the most
>influential magazines for educating the public about the nature of
>science was calling forams "animals", I realized that we have our
>work cut out for us.
since most biologists outside the protist community
either know nothing about or misunderstand the current debates
about protist systematics, I can hardly expect non-biologist
professional writers/editors to grasp the concepts
... unless we tell them!
besides, under some definitions, Sci. Am. is right.
(example: group contains ancestor and all descendants, ancestor is
the first mitochondrial eukaryote, first mitochondrial eukaryote
is treated as an animal, ergo all protists are animals -
of course, by this definition, coconuts are animals too :-) )
>Does someone more eloquent than I want to draft a letter to the
>Editor of Scientific American
suggestion: craft any letter in the context of a story opportunity.
"Protistologists Reshape the Trunk of the Tree of Life". or
something like that.
might get a far more sympathetic hearing than a complaint ... but
be prepared to hear a request from Sci. Am. for authors, story
outline, deadline. pack of work, but why not take the chance of
raising ye olde profile? and I'm not just addressing Mark here
:-)
best, charley
===============
Charles J. O'Kelly
Mad Protistologist
okellyc at bch.umontreal.cahttp://megasun.bch.umontreal.ca/protists/cjocv.html
