>Peter,
>> It might even make Dactylella or other carnivorous fungi interesting
>> to grow. Hell, there are 140 or so carnivorous Cryptograms out
>> there
>
> It is quite a lot more species than that! But I would hesitate to call
> fungi cryptogams (if you do not include animals and bacteria in this
> taxon). They are more properly classified as derived protists (probably
> closer to animals than to plants!).
I must confess to some ignorance in matters taxonomical - I had
been looking at the table in Marcel Lecoufle's book which includes
these as cryptograms (sic). As the spelling amd the 19th century
illustration hardly inspire confidence, I guess he is either out of
date or just plain wrong... or is this part of a lumpers/splitters-
type disagreement?
I'm not quite sure what a 'derived protist' is, but does this
mean fungal cells are endowed with nucleii?
Happy growing,
Peter
Peter Cole | carnivor@bunyip.demon.co.uk | a trifle confused...
Swansea, WALES | new mailbox, same account |