"RoyBoy" <aphycho at usa.net> wrote in message
news:CYMZ6.115879$r7.15529233 at news1.busy1.on.home.com...
> First, there really is no such thing as a "protozoan". The
> word describes a tremendously diverse subgroup of protists
> that really don't have much in common including evolutionary
>> I appreciate the clarification...but I knew that.
> I was using it as the singular to Protozoa...
> but then I realized that it is an inflection of the
> true singular...Protozoan.
I know it is silly to discuss with you guys -- you can keep it
But the point is that the whole notion of "protozoa" -- singular
or plural, no matter how you spell it or latinize or Englishify
it -- there is no such thing.
There used to be a group of organisms with that name. But
the more we learned about them, the more we realized that
the grouping was entirely artificial. It is like talking about
"macrolife: all organisms larger than a bread box" which
includes adult humans and mature trees and some fungi
but not newborn babies (I have a big bread box) and
seedlings and most fungi. Except that the idea of "protozoa"
is even less tenable than the idea of "macrolife".
For more details, see any good college-level introductory
biology text written in the last five years.
And if you do wish to cross post to bionet, you should
use biology correctly. If you limit your postings to
philosophy or consciousness or psychology, then
what you discuss doesn't bother me.