Ok once I do I will edit the species specific response in here. I am not OFF anything Cornell wise. I had no idea Gould HAD cheapened the notion of evolution by seperating LAMARKIAN differences FROM biological change in our (human) lineage. Croizat does something for the biologist that IS NOT in our best schools as of yet. I have idea about water in plants that I got by reading against Darwin which I will use when looking up the species you mentioned but I have tried on my own to be positive rather than starting out negative. But since you gave me some homework
I have not even SEEn these species in print yet I can expect that I will be addressing a more nuance "model" than Gould's bricks vs columns vision for any stair case the thread could step.
As I said, I did not think that the notion of "parasite" exists. I was sick with MONO-nucleosis in high school as was "taugt" this notion while I was sick "in bed". That's how I first "heard" about it and "symbiosis". Gould is willing to think of a "bag with reproductive tissues" instead for the soft parts of any "volume" this intering plant association associates.
so I am doing this in public on a longer time scale.
Gould does understand "the logic" of convergence and parallelism and I suspect that when attempting to see plant processes inside other plants (not merely different kinds of algae) one may be *actually* observing the "logical" difference of parallelism IN convergence"" (as a concept) and NOT the other way around, at least that is how I will approach looking at the kinds of plants you suggested. Whether I will be able to dicern an alternative in this chemistry of what Gould did and we all need to desginate by the bricks vs columns I dont know
quote:
I do not know how to ordain hard and fast rules for breaking this smooth continuum into sharp domains of bricks that permit interpretations of convergence vs(italics) columns that imply parallelism - but I trust that the analogy
"logy will clarify the issues involved"( I had introduced the discussion of biological closed electric circuit truth in this sense on the board in a prior time)", which must then be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis." Gould TSOETp1138beforehand.
But it may be that Creationism IS going to suprise some core Gouldian neo-stepist as there WAS not a notion of biological time but only DNA replication and Cell Cycling (when I looked in 1992)(see also Gould TSOET p921 "Of course I would be shocked if either extreme (EVOLUTIONISTS') eventually prevailed, or if a future consensus (CREATIONIST'S)simply melded aspects of both proposals into harmony (my paraentheses)). I now understand that I WAS thinking correctly when discusing Lenski's work with Mammy as Gould was pointing out IN THE TITLE ONLY the disparity this way in levels of causation. We will be able to aviod that difference of opnion (Which i doubted at that time was the way to "divide" different kinds of biologists, but I may not so doubt in this discussion on plants inside others, whether also fungi or any other population genetics of xenobionts, for that matter.)
We will have to wade-
It is time for me to read.
At least the "para" will not the be the "tism" of this "melding" no matter how many minds work on it.
I will put it in here and erase this line once I get more time than usual. Best Brad. You were only seeing the difference of not having the comforts of home posting.
Perhaps you only want the results not the method of my reading and writing- feel free to say so-Also if you want a better English proofred output, it is best for you to speak up before I move onto posting next.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-03-2003]