Field of Science

This might actually be a good class...

Shamelessly stolen from the course notes:

Actually, he's wrong, it goes:
Dirt --> lipid glop --> angels --> deities --> eobacteria --> mesobacteria* --> megabacteria* --> negibacteria --> Higher Bacteria
(*I made those up. I hope...)

Of course, there's a bit of an annoying semi-tragic element to having intro invert biol taught by a protistologist. Can we cut the metazoa and go out and enjoy REAL diversity instead?

Still, I'm quite excited -- I actually 'don't mind'* invert metazoa. I tend to gravitate towards spineless things, apparently.

*Reads: 'have a side interest in'

Speaking of which, spineless Sunday(lol.) Protist is definitely on its way. Sort of.

Meanwhile, quick question:
[metazoan, vertebrate-focused] Gene Regulation in Development or Sociolinguistics?
Gene Reg Dev would be much harder, but potentially interesting/relevant; socioling would help my breadth requirements and be easier, though very prof-dependent, and I haven't gone to check out the prof yet...

Other than that, who else here is enraged/stunned/irritated/perplexed by Tom's new 'Eozoa' obsession?

PS: "Protozoa" -- Drop. That. Term. Already. It's the 21st century, for fuck's sake. STOP. RESURRECTING. DEAD. TAXA. Grrrr....


  1. Other than that, who else here is enraged/stunned/irritated/perplexed by Tom's new 'Eozoa' obsession?

    Do I even need to comment? It's a name that he (and only he) employed himself for the grand total of about three months over ten years ago (it was introduced in Cavalier-Smith 1997 and had been abandoned by Cavalier-Smith 1998). The use of the name Excavata for Cavalier-Smith's "Eozoa" has become pretty generally accepted; it doesn't seem to offer any help to change the name.

    Seriously, while Cavalier-Smith's phylogenetic proposals are still well worth paying attention to (be they correct or not), someone really should get a court order put out to stop him publishing classifications. Supporters of the use of Linnean ranks and paraphyletic taxa often claim that one of their main advantages is maintaining supposed stability of taxon concept. My advice to you, should anyone make this argument in your presence, is to print out copies of each of Cavalier-Smith's successive classification schemes, roll them into a baton, and use it to beat the arguer mercilessly.

  2. ha - I saw the word 'eozoa' and thought " idea what that is, will leave that paper for when I can think properly". In terms of C-S making terms up, I do tend to get a little lost among his phylogenies, even 'posibacteria' and 'negibacteria' I've never heard of outside of his papers, although they work quite well as a contraction to save having to write out 'gram positive bacteria' in full.

    I love how your system puts bacteria above angels. :D


Markup Key:
- <b>bold</b> = bold
- <i>italic</i> = italic
- <a href="">FoS</a> = FoS