Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 08:54:31 +0800 (HKT) From: clarke@hkstar.com (Charles Clarke) To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg3461$foo@default> Subject: Re: sub carnivores
Hello list,
I think I must be losing it if I'm letting myself get drawn into this
debate, but here goes...
Anyone who feels beleaguered by all this sub-CP business, do not worry: you
don't have to accept Jan's definition of plant carnivory if you don't want
to. I don't and the fact that some CP species don't produce their own
digestive enzymes doesn't trouble me at all! :-)
This is not to say that Jan's definition is invalid: it is entirely
legitimate. However, it is simply one definition among several, each of
which are accepted to varying degrees by different groups of people. For
instance, most ecologists that I know prefer a broader definition to Jan's.
No doubt Jan and many of his colleagues do not. That's fine - it is OK to
agree to disagree.
However, I do have one complaint about your approach to this argument, Jan:
the fact that other, equally legitimate views exist is never acknowledged
by you in this list or on the CP database. With particular reference to the
database, the implication behind this is that your views are not disputed,
whereas in reality they are. This is misleading to readers who are unaware
of all the differing opinions in this field. A simple qualifying remark
here or there could remedy this, with the result that far fewer noses would
be put out of joint!
Party on, Dudes,
Charles.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:38 PST