Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 21:49:54 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg652$foo@default> Subject: Re: Carnivorous Sponges
Dear Wolfram,
> this is meant to end the "Carnivorous Sponges" and the "Carnivorous Fungi"
> threads!
Any contribution to these threads is just that, not their end!
Please do not understand the following message as mere criticism. I
do in fact appreciate these discussions even if they are rather
remote from our beloved cps. They show how unique and unusual these
plant monsters are. This is sytematics, and systematics is always
interesting. (don t smile!)
> Today most biologists divide all living creatures up into 5 kingdoms:
Please exclude me from your list of "most biologists".
> Monera (all single celled species without a true nucleus, e.g. bacteria),
Your Monera as defined above (i.e. several years ago) are higly
polyphyletic. There is at least one really BIG division which
separates all archaebacteria from the Eubacteria. In fact,
Archaea are apparently closer to Eucaryota than to Eubacteria, so
they should constitute at least one separate kingdom (perhaps even
several kingdoms).
All the following groups are much closer to each other (genetically
and physiologically) than the (at least) two discussed above.
> Protista (or sometimes Protoctista, all singled celled organisms
> with nucleus and colonies build by them),
A very complex group, and probably paraphyletic (a trash can for all
organisms which do not fit into another kingdom). Some organisms
placed here could equally well be placed in one of the following
groups (or better into kingdoms of their own).
> Fungi (toadstools, mushrooms etc.),
> Plantae (multicellular organisms who can do photosynthesis),
Some of the Algae sometimes placed here (following your defintion)
would perhaps better fit to Protista or derivatives thereof.
> Animalia (multicellular organisms who can do no photosynthesis and are no
> fungi).
So _Rafflesia_ (usually regarded a holoparasitic flowering *plant*) is
in fact an animal?
> I know, these definitions are too short and could need a more detailed
> explanation....
Certainly.
> A carnivorous plant is a member of the regnum plantae who feeds on a member
> of the regnum animalia!
If you appended "sensu stricto" to the kingdoms mentioned in the last
sentence I would agree with this definition.
> In this strict sense a member of the regnum fungi who catches nematodes
> is no CP!
Correct.
> There is no doubt that sponges belong to the regnum animalia.
Yes, usually.
> P.S.: At the time of writing I'm infested by some nasty flu viruses. These
> are no living creatures at all, just tiny crystals of protein with genes.
This depends on your definition of "living creatures". In fact,
modern science does not offer any simple definition (or even an
explanation) of these strange beasts. However, there are numerous
other dicussion groups on the internet feeding on these and related
questions. We should indeed return to our initial topic of plantae
feeding on our own kingdom.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:30:59 PST