Even further back:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsob.200359
"How animals evolved from a single-celled ancestor, transitioning from a unicellular lifestyle to a coordinated multicellular entity, remains a fascinat-
ing question. Key events in this transition involved the emergence of processes related to cell adhesion, cell–cell communication and gene regulation. To understand how these capacities evolved, we need to recon- struct the features of both the last common multicellular ancestor of
animals and the last unicellular ancestor of animals. In this review, we sum-
marize recent advances in the characterization of these ancestors, inferred by
comparative genomic analyses between the earliest branching animals and
those radiating later, and between animals and their closest unicellular rela-
tives. We also provide an updated hypothesis regarding the transition to animal multicellularity, which was likely gradual and involved the use of gene regulatory mechanisms in the emergence of early developmental and morphogenetic plans. Finally, we discuss some new avenues of research
that will complement these studies in the coming years."
On 9/16/2021 8:05 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Even further back:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsob.200359
"How animals evolved from a single-celled ancestor, transitioning from a unicellular lifestyle to a coordinated multicellular entity, remains a fascinat-
ing question. Key events in this transition involved the emergence of processes related to cell adhesion, cell–cell communication and gene regulation. To understand how these capacities evolved, we need to recon- struct the features of both the last common multicellular ancestor of animals and the last unicellular ancestor of animals. In this review, we sum-
marize recent advances in the characterization of these ancestors, inferred by
comparative genomic analyses between the earliest branching animals and those radiating later, and between animals and their closest unicellular rela-
tives. We also provide an updated hypothesis regarding the transition to animal multicellularity, which was likely gradual and involved the use of gene regulatory mechanisms in the emergence of early developmental and morphogenetic plans. Finally, we discuss some new avenues of research
that will complement these studies in the coming years."
I think another good avenue to research further into is how slime molds work. Organisms that aren't quite multicellular but also aren't really unicellular either, they are a perfect example of a transitional
morphotype between unicellular and multicellular taxa.
On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 5:41:10 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
On 9/16/2021 8:05 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Even further back:I think another good avenue to research further into is how slime molds
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsob.200359
"How animals evolved from a single-celled ancestor, transitioning from a >> > unicellular lifestyle to a coordinated multicellular entity, remains a fascinat-
ing question. Key events in this transition involved the emergence of
processes related to cell adhesion, cell–cell communication and gene
regulation. To understand how these capacities evolved, we need to recon- >> > struct the features of both the last common multicellular ancestor of
animals and the last unicellular ancestor of animals. In this review, we sum-
marize recent advances in the characterization of these ancestors, inferred by
comparative genomic analyses between the earliest branching animals and >> > those radiating later, and between animals and their closest unicellular rela-
tives. We also provide an updated hypothesis regarding the transition to >> > animal multicellularity, which was likely gradual and involved the use of >> > gene regulatory mechanisms in the emergence of early developmental and
morphogenetic plans. Finally, we discuss some new avenues of research
that will complement these studies in the coming years."
work. Organisms that aren't quite multicellular but also aren't really
unicellular either, they are a perfect example of a transitional
morphotype between unicellular and multicellular taxa.
Slime molds are fascinating "organisms" in their own right. Even the term "organism" seems
awkward, since the non-aggregated state is unicellular. They aren't even necessarily closely related,
and are not monophyletic. No near connection to the unicellular organisms most closely related
to metazoa. Pretty mysterious "non-critters".
Even further back:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsob.200359
"How animals evolved from a single-celled ancestor, transitioning from a unicellular lifestyle to a coordinated multicellular entity, remains a fascinating question.
Key events in this transition involved the emergence of
processes related to cell adhesion, cell–cell communication and gene regulation. To understand how these capacities evolved, we need to reconstruct
the features of both the last common multicellular ancestor of
animals and the last unicellular ancestor of animals. In this review, we summarize
recent advances in the characterization of these ancestors, inferred by comparative genomic analyses between the earliest branching animals and those radiating later, and between animals and their closest unicellular relatives.
We also provide an updated hypothesis regarding the transition to
animal multicellularity, which was likely gradual and involved the use of gene regulatory mechanisms in the emergence of early developmental and morphogenetic plans. Finally, we discuss some new avenues of research
that will complement these studies in the coming years."
On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 8:05:32 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
Even further back:Than what? The last part of the title could be misleading, because the original unicellular-to- multicellular transition was "even further back" than the unicellular-to- multicellular transition that the authors talk about.
In fact, unless we restrict our attention to eukaryotes, it was MUCH further back,
although multicellular prokaryotes are most unlikely to be in our past.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsob.200359
"How animals evolved from a single-celled ancestor, transitioning from a unicellular lifestyle to a coordinated multicellular entity, remains a fascinating question.
Key events in this transition involved the emergence of
processes related to cell adhesion, cell–cell communication and gene regulation. To understand how these capacities evolved, we need to reconstruct
the features of both the last common multicellular ancestor of
animals and the last unicellular ancestor of animals. In this review, we summarize
recent advances in the characterization of these ancestors, inferred by comparative genomic analyses between the earliest branching animals and those radiating later, and between animals and their closest unicellular relatives.
Something not made explicit here but provided in the article: the closest unicellular relatives of animals are assumed to be closer than the closest multicellular relatives.
This being sci.bio.paleontology, it needs to be pointed out that it is extant close relatives that are considered here. If we turn our attention
to fossils, there are some "wild cards" that could upset this assumption, including one we talked about earlier this year:
"A possible billion-year-old holozoan with differentiated multicellularity," by Paul K. Strother, Martin D. Brasier, David Wacey, Leslie Timpe,
Martin Saunders, Charles H. Wellman,
Current Biology 31, 1--8 June 21, 2021
https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2821%2900424-3
Erik, you and John and I commented on it in several posts, and Glenn [I hear you going "hiss" :) ]
and Trolidous ["yay!" I say, and you can too] each doing one post. I did the OP:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/2KXAzM6x-q4/m/Nc8Q2U5jAQAJ
Billion year old fossils of an exciting new sort
May 28, 2021, 10:07:55 PM
[Yeah, almost a month before the putative date of the article. I haven't tried to figure that one out.]
For those who missed that earlier thread: "holozoans" are all eukaryotes closer to
animals than to fungi, cladistically speaking. Most holozoans are unicellular, but
* Proterospongia* is a colonial choanoflagellate, and may even be an extant exception
to the authors' assumption: a multicellular [just barely] holozoan that is closer to
animals than any unicellular one.
However, the colonies are less differentiated than those of the gigayear-old extinct species, and it might well be the closest-to-animal non-animal holozoan known.
Of course, unless we find some way to include them in the genomic analysis [gigayear old DNA may be nonexistent anywhere]
these "possible holozoans" are not likely to of any use to the main research in the article:
We also provide an updated hypothesis regarding the transition toLooks to be well worth reading. Good catch, Erik.
animal multicellularity, which was likely gradual and involved the use of gene regulatory mechanisms in the emergence of early developmental and morphogenetic plans. Finally, we discuss some new avenues of research
that will complement these studies in the coming years."
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 12:03:06 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 8:05:32 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
Even further back:
Than what? The last part of the title could be misleading, because the original unicellular-to- multicellular transition was "even further back" than the unicellular-to- multicellular transition that the authors talk about.
Such thoughts immediately came to my mind, after reading the OP. So I should assume that others have as well, and some more extensively,
and with more knowledge of the current claims of science than I. But I wasn't surprised to find the up front claim "How animals evolved from a single-celled ancestor..."
In a brief exchange with Ron a month or so ago, he claimed that first life would not have been encapsulated (for lack of a better or more technical term) by a membrane, but free "swimming" so to speak.
And he could be right.
Of course, if I claimed that first life would have been multicellular in the same sense of lacking individual membranes in "cells", I'd be labelled a kook.
I think it is a fact that we don't have a clue as to what first life was or what happened early in the "tree" of life, which as I understand is turning into something of a bramble bush.
And I suspect that we will never, until and if OOL research actually produces something besides rhetoric.
In fact, unless we restrict our attention to eukaryotes, it was MUCH further back,
although multicellular prokaryotes are most unlikely to be in our past.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsob.200359
"How animals evolved from a single-celled ancestor, transitioning from a unicellular lifestyle to a coordinated multicellular entity, remains a fascinating question.
Key events in this transition involved the emergence of
processes related to cell adhesion, cell–cell communication and gene regulation. To understand how these capacities evolved, we need to reconstruct
the features of both the last common multicellular ancestor of
animals and the last unicellular ancestor of animals. In this review, we summarize
recent advances in the characterization of these ancestors, inferred by comparative genomic analyses between the earliest branching animals and those radiating later, and between animals and their closest unicellular relatives.
Something not made explicit here but provided in the article: the closest unicellular relatives of animals are assumed to be closer than the closest multicellular relatives.
This being sci.bio.paleontology, it needs to be pointed out that it is extant close relatives that are considered here. If we turn our attention to fossils, there are some "wild cards" that could upset this assumption, including one we talked about earlier this year:
"A possible billion-year-old holozoan with differentiated multicellularity,"
by Paul K. Strother, Martin D. Brasier, David Wacey, Leslie Timpe,
Martin Saunders, Charles H. Wellman,
Current Biology 31, 1--8 June 21, 2021
https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2821%2900424-3
Erik, you and John and I commented on it in several posts, and Glenn [I hear you going "hiss" :) ]
and Trolidous ["yay!" I say, and you can too] each doing one post. I did the OP:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/2KXAzM6x-q4/m/Nc8Q2U5jAQAJ
Billion year old fossils of an exciting new sort
May 28, 2021, 10:07:55 PM
[Yeah, almost a month before the putative date of the article. I haven't tried to figure that one out.]
For those who missed that earlier thread: "holozoans" are all eukaryotes closer to
animals than to fungi, cladistically speaking. Most holozoans are unicellular, but
* Proterospongia* is a colonial choanoflagellate, and may even be an extant exception
to the authors' assumption: a multicellular [just barely] holozoan that is closer to
animals than any unicellular one.
However, the colonies are less differentiated than those of the gigayear-old
extinct species, and it might well be the closest-to-animal non-animal holozoan known.
Of course, unless we find some way to include them in the genomic analysis [gigayear old DNA may be nonexistent anywhere]
these "possible holozoans" are not likely to of any use to the main research in the article:
We also provide an updated hypothesis regarding the transition toLooks to be well worth reading. Good catch, Erik.
animal multicellularity, which was likely gradual and involved the use of
gene regulatory mechanisms in the emergence of early developmental and morphogenetic plans. Finally, we discuss some new avenues of research that will complement these studies in the coming years."
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 8:05:32 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
Even further back:Than what? The last part of the title could be misleading, because the original unicellular-to- multicellular transition was "even further back" than the unicellular-to- multicellular transition that the authors talk about.
Yeah, you aren't Ron O, who is much more popular than you [just ask Hemidactylus], and
who could probably get away with it.
Since you are Glenn, your theory would be lampooned as a throwback to 19th century
hypotheses about something (I forget the name, but it would have been one big mass of
"protoplasm") covering the bottoms of the oceans.
On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 4:12:34 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 12:03:06 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 8:05:32 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
Even further back:
Than what? The last part of the title could be misleading, because the original unicellular-to- multicellular transition was "even further back"
than the unicellular-to- multicellular transition that the authors talk about.
Such thoughts immediately came to my mind, after reading the OP. So I should assume that others have as well, and some more extensively,Which is true in a sense, but with the screwy definitions that cladistic classification
and with more knowledge of the current claims of science than I. But I wasn't surprised to find the up front claim "How animals evolved from a single-celled ancestor..."
has produced, the default assumption is "last single-celled ancestor of all living animals".
The movers and shakers of present day systematics are no more respectful of fossils than the average creationist.
And so, that elusive entity might have been the last common ancestor of animals and
fungi, or even further back, with all living animals evolving from a multicellular
entity that may have already been well on the way to solving the
"cell adhesion, cell–cell communication and gene regulation"
problems that the abstract talks about.
Note, however, that many different groups of fungi have also solved these problems.
So the big question is whether that elusive "last single-celled ancestor of all living animals"
was a lot further back than the first (multicellular, by this scenario) fungus, or
whether fungi solved all these problems independently of animals. My vote goes
for this second alternative.
In a brief exchange with Ron a month or so ago, he claimed that first life would not have been encapsulated (for lack of a better or more technical term) by a membrane, but free "swimming" so to speak.Ron O is an immovable dogmatist on many things, so it wouldn't surprise me if he
was as unequivocal as you make him sound. But it's stupid to say that the first
efficient replicator had no outer membrane, because then every chunk of RNA, or whatever, that preceded it was at the mercy of a bewildering variety of other
organic compounds that it would have been shielded from by a properly permeable [not too little and not too much] membrane.
And he could be right.I'm not ruling it out. His scenario also has advantages. This is one debate that
OOL theorists have had for over half a century, perhaps over a century in various forms.
Of course, if I claimed that first life would have been multicellular in the same sense of lacking individual membranes in "cells", I'd be labelled a kook.Yeah, you aren't Ron O, who is much more popular than you [just ask Hemidactylus], and
who could probably get away with it.
Since you are Glenn, your theory would be lampooned as a throwback to 19th century
hypotheses about something (I forget the name, but it would have been one big mass of
"protoplasm") covering the bottoms of the oceans.
You'd have to distance yourself from that sneer by hypothesizing big chunks, no bigger than the biggest living thing today
[some titanic fungus millions of years old, in Oregon IIRC]
with various centers of active genomic reproduction to whatever degree of fidelity
was possible.
I think it is a fact that we don't have a clue as to what first life was or what happened early in the "tree" of life, which as I understand is turning into something of a bramble bush."mycelium" is the term I use. Strands merging and splitting in an intricate web,
until lateral transfer has "cooled" to where a number of trunks emerge from the
ground, each a portion of the tree of life. And perhaps all but one of the trunks
died out to produce the Tree of Life that is "visible" today.
Or perhaps two: eubacteria and archae. The dominant theory now is that eukaryotes came about when (1) an archaebacterium went into symbiosis with one or more kinds of (2) eubacteria. (1) went on to become the nucleus as more and more of the (2) surrendered their genetic material to it.
In fact, the "supradominant" theory is that we "know" what kind of eubacterium (2) was.
I forget the name, but I could easily look it up, and so can you, because Minnich
was mercilessly raked over the coals a month or so ago in talk.origins for daring to question
the precise identification that this "supradominant" (2) at Dover, 2005.
As far as the Overdogs of talk.origins are concerned, it is all settled science, just like
"Birds are dinosaurs. The debate is over."
And I suspect that we will never, until and if OOL research actually produces something besides rhetoric.Agreed.
PS I've left in the rest below, because it segues reasonably well with what I wrote above.
In fact, unless we restrict our attention to eukaryotes, it was MUCH further back,
although multicellular prokaryotes are most unlikely to be in our past.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsob.200359
"How animals evolved from a single-celled ancestor, transitioning from a
unicellular lifestyle to a coordinated multicellular entity, remains a fascinating question.
Key events in this transition involved the emergence of
processes related to cell adhesion, cell–cell communication and gene regulation. To understand how these capacities evolved, we need to reconstruct
the features of both the last common multicellular ancestor of
animals and the last unicellular ancestor of animals. In this review, we summarize
recent advances in the characterization of these ancestors, inferred by
comparative genomic analyses between the earliest branching animals and
those radiating later, and between animals and their closest unicellular relatives.
Something not made explicit here but provided in the article: the closest
unicellular relatives of animals are assumed to be closer than the closest
multicellular relatives.
This being sci.bio.paleontology, it needs to be pointed out that it is extant close relatives that are considered here. If we turn our attention
to fossils, there are some "wild cards" that could upset this assumption,
including one we talked about earlier this year:
"A possible billion-year-old holozoan with differentiated multicellularity,"
by Paul K. Strother, Martin D. Brasier, David Wacey, Leslie Timpe, Martin Saunders, Charles H. Wellman,
Current Biology 31, 1--8 June 21, 2021
https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2821%2900424-3
Erik, you and John and I commented on it in several posts, and Glenn [I hear you going "hiss" :) ]
and Trolidous ["yay!" I say, and you can too] each doing one post. I did the OP:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/2KXAzM6x-q4/m/Nc8Q2U5jAQAJ
Billion year old fossils of an exciting new sort
May 28, 2021, 10:07:55 PM
[Yeah, almost a month before the putative date of the article. I haven't tried to figure that one out.]
For those who missed that earlier thread: "holozoans" are all eukaryotes closer to
animals than to fungi, cladistically speaking. Most holozoans are unicellular, but
* Proterospongia* is a colonial choanoflagellate, and may even be an extant exception
to the authors' assumption: a multicellular [just barely] holozoan that is closer to
animals than any unicellular one.
However, the colonies are less differentiated than those of the gigayear-old
extinct species, and it might well be the closest-to-animal non-animal holozoan known.
Of course, unless we find some way to include them in the genomic analysis
[gigayear old DNA may be nonexistent anywhere]
these "possible holozoans" are not likely to of any use to the main research in the article:
We also provide an updated hypothesis regarding the transition toLooks to be well worth reading. Good catch, Erik.
animal multicellularity, which was likely gradual and involved the use of
gene regulatory mechanisms in the emergence of early developmental and morphogenetic plans. Finally, we discuss some new avenues of research that will complement these studies in the coming years."
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Yeah, you aren't Ron O, who is much more popular than you [just ask Hemidactylus], and
who could probably get away with it.
You rang? Wait did anyone email me about this passing mention?
Since you are Glenn, your theory would be lampooned as a throwback to 19th century
hypotheses about something (I forget the name, but it would have been one big mass of
"protoplasm") covering the bottoms of the oceans.
I wouldn’t give him that much credit. Or time of day. It was the Bulldog’s
brainfart:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathybius_haeckelii
Huxley wasn’t known to troll usenet. He had better things to do with his time.
Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Yeah, you aren't Ron O, who is much more popular than you [just ask Hemidactylus], and
who could probably get away with it.
You rang? Wait did anyone email me about this passing mention?
Since you are Glenn, your theory would be lampooned
as a throwback to 19th century
hypotheses about something (I forget the name, but it would have been one big mass of
"protoplasm") covering the bottoms of the oceans.
I wouldn’t give him that much credit. Or time of day.
It was the Bulldog’s brainfart:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathybius_haeckelii
Huxley wasn’t known to troll usenet. He had better things to do with his time.
On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 7:08:44 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
You rang? Wait did anyone email me about this passing mention?
Yeah, you aren't Ron O, who is much more popular than you [just ask Hemidactylus], and
who could probably get away with it.
It doesn't tell you anything you don't know, and there is no harm in letting others
know about it, is there?
I wouldn't go down that "email" rabbit hole if I were in your shoes.
Remember how Harshman completely discredited his use of the word "paranoid" as a talisman?
He thought it was paranoid of me to even wonder whether you had emailed
him about a thread where he was being disparaged, by myself but even more by one of the others, to your face.
On the contrary: you would have saved me the trouble of letting him know myself.
I have nothing to hide. Mark that well.
There is nothing I say behind a person's back on the internet
that I wouldn't say to his/her face if I easily could. It's just that so many people
clamor for my attention, I can't get around to a lot of things I would like to do.
Since you are Glenn, your theory would be lampooned
Note that word, lampooned, Hemi. A lampoon of the thing Glenn wrote and
you, Hemi, snipped. True, Glenn didn't rule it out. But Ron O went to the opposite extreme more unequivocally, and you snipped that too.
as a throwback to 19th centuryI wouldn’t give him that much credit. Or time of day.
hypotheses about something (I forget the name, but it would have been one big mass of
"protoplasm") covering the bottoms of the oceans.
I know. Your anti-Glenn fanaticism is second only to Oxyaena's anti-Peter fanaticism in all the talk.origins/sci.bio.paleontology individual-oriented fanaticisms.
Even Ron O's anti-Peter fanaticism doesn't come up to those titanic standards.
But jillery has begun to approach it. It's already surpassed Ron O's.
It was the Bulldog’s brainfart:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathybius_haeckelii
Huxley wasn’t known to troll usenet. He had better things to do with his >> time.
Too bad you don't, the great majority of the time. Your on-topic contributions
have fallen somewhat behind Glenn's these days.
But thanks for the identification of that protoplasm whose name [and originator, I must confess]
slipped my mind. It's exactly the sort of "un-original" reference that
you give Glenn no credit for.
Your problem is the sickness of Elite Whites (mostly male, I believe),
in a particularly virulent form: originality counts for far more than
truth or justice or beauty.
[Not that you devalue the latter three to nothing.]
For the ordinary form, see another thread on which I participated today:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/D3Y_95Ifbk0/m/Sd9mSM9kAwAJ Re: CO2, end-Permain extinction and PETM
Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 7:08:44 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
You rang? Wait did anyone email me about this passing mention?
Yeah, you aren't Ron O, who is much more popular than you [just ask Hemidactylus], and
who could probably get away with it.
It doesn't tell you anything you don't know, and there is no harm in letting others
know about it, is there?
I wouldn't go down that "email" rabbit hole if I were in your shoes. Remember how Harshman completely discredited his use of the word "paranoid" as a talisman?
He thought it was paranoid of me to even wonder whether you had emailed him about a thread where he was being disparaged, by myself but even more by
one of the others, to your face.
On the contrary: you would have saved me the trouble of letting him know myself.
I have nothing to hide. Mark that well.
There is nothing I say behind a person's back on the internet
that I wouldn't say to his/her face if I easily could. It's just that so many people
clamor for my attention, I can't get around to a lot of things I would like to do.
Since you are Glenn, your theory would be lampooned
Note that word, lampooned, Hemi. A lampoon of the thing Glenn wrote and you, Hemi, snipped. True, Glenn didn't rule it out. But Ron O went to the opposite extreme more unequivocally, and you snipped that too.
as a throwback to 19th centuryI wouldn’t give him that much credit. Or time of day.
hypotheses about something (I forget the name, but it would have been one big mass of
"protoplasm") covering the bottoms of the oceans.
I know. Your anti-Glenn fanaticism is second only to Oxyaena's anti-Peter fanaticism in all the talk.origins/sci.bio.paleontology individual-oriented fanaticisms.
Even Ron O's anti-Peter fanaticism doesn't come up to those titanic standards.
But jillery has begun to approach it. It's already surpassed Ron O's.
It was the Bulldog’s brainfart:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathybius_haeckelii
Huxley wasn’t known to troll usenet. He had better things to do with his
time.
Too bad you don't, the great majority of the time. Your on-topic contributions
have fallen somewhat behind Glenn's these days.
But thanks for the identification of that protoplasm whose name [and originator, I must confess]
slipped my mind. It's exactly the sort of "un-original" reference that
you give Glenn no credit for.
Your problem is the sickness of Elite Whites (mostly male, I believe),
in a particularly virulent form: originality counts for far more than truth or justice or beauty.
[Not that you devalue the latter three to nothing.]
For the ordinary form, see another thread on which I participated today:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/D3Y_95Ifbk0/m/Sd9mSM9kAwAJ
Re: CO2, end-Permain extinction and PETM
All that to thank me for a Huxley reference. I’m flattered.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 33:28:43 |
| Calls: | 6,648 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,193 |
| Messages: | 5,328,715 |