At 3:00 AM -0400 4/7/98, Jeffrey Kirby wrote:
>Ross Koning (koning at ECSUC.CTSTATEU.EDU) wrote:
>: The Krebs Cycle does not respond to light...neither
>: does the Calvin Cycle. The light reactions, which
>>We really must stop calling them the light reactions since that implies
>that the Calvin cycle contains the dark reactions.
I don't think plant physiologists will go from "light
reactions" to "them". If we want to change the name
of the light reactions we will need an alternative
The name "dark reactions", I agree, should be replaced
with Calvin Cycle, carbon-fixation pathway, or whatever...
and you will notice that I never used "dark reactions."
I wish all textbooks and faculty would stop using the
wrong-idea terms "dark reactions." The Calvin cycle
cannot and does not occur in the dark for any significant
duration. Yes, yes, yes! However...
I don't agree that using "light reactions" forces one
to think of the Calvin Cycle as "dark reactions"
(which is completely wrong-headed!). That argument
is very much like the one that our students use...
"if you say that plants do photosynthesis then that
implies plants do not do respiration!" Such arguments
are inherently flawed...one premise cannot validate a
second premise. Taken to the field of sociology the
argument works like this: you have two suspects in
a criminal case; the first is found innocent therefore
the second is guilty. Preposterous!
Ross Koning | koning at ecsu.ctstateu.edu
Biology Department | http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/
Eastern CT State University | phone: 860-465-5327
Willimantic, CT 06226 USA | fax: 860-465-4479
Electronic services composed and served from =95Macintosh hardware.