IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Brain-Mind: Know Thyself!

RoyBoy aphycho at usa.net
Mon Jun 25 20:53:32 EST 2001

> 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 up forever.

I don't want to disappoint.

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.

When did this happen?  5,6,7 years ago?
I guess with analysing DNA?  Or did some other
new examination techniques come to light?

Main Entry: pro.to.zo.an
Pronunciation: -'zO-&n
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin Protozoa, from prot- + -zoa
Date: circa 1864
: any of a phylum or subkingdom (Protozoa) of chiefly motile
and heterotrophic unicellular protists (as amoebas, trypanosomes,
sporozoans, and paramecia) that are represented in almost every
kind of habitat and include some pathogenic parasites of humans
and domestic animals
- protozoan adjective

They have a lot of variety...but aren't they still relatively simple?
But something at the back of my mind is telling me that we have
a large proportion of matching DNA with bacteria and such.

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.

You have done a good job.  And by that, I by no
means mean to presume a complete one.
Hehehe...means mean.

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.

My apologies, I did brush you off in my previous post...
but I do wish to learn.
I also do not wish to limit myself to what I know,
or what I think I know.

However, I do not learn effectively by reading
verbatim...I like context in my learning.

Also, I do not alter the NG's of posts.  They
are there for a reason of which I am not usually
privvy to.  So I keep it as is.

"Smiles free.  Do you want fries with that?"

"If the Truth is dynamic; how will it ever be found?" - RoyBoy


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net