Plants to Non-Plants?

I was at Acadia Park this past summer and the Ranger who was showing off the lichen's said that the fugus was a "para"site on the algae by dint of zenobiontic evidence that in the EMmicrograph one could pretty well make out the fungus (I assume there was no problem with determineing this) intering the algal CEll and thus at the site was P-A-R-A Site or "parasite" as I was taught in highschool. The Ranger justified the statement by saying that the fungus "got more" out of the relationship than the algae- but I asked an EVOLUTIONARY (or co-evolutionary Wallace) question as to if the algae might better be able to find open (dry) habitats suvivable with the assistance of the fungus it's sister clades would not have? There was no answer just answer, just a confusion about sex here. You see we get the notion of parasite BECAUSE we judged the difference in the genomes which we dont know in praxis as of yet. It seems much better to think of a fungus as a bunch of DIFFERENT genomes not just two and then we may be lead to think of divisions *additional* within the two traditional parasite"" and host"" or inanother thought on the site's ecology "predatatory and prey". Wright fully anticipated that Lotka and Volterra "different phase of matter" needed to be worked into the Mendelian genetics but not being a great scholar of this area I do not know it, this, to have been done. I dont know if plants that "resembl" fungi are to be even THOUGHT of as parasites. I guess it is a possiblity if one has a particular historical notion-axe of symbiology to grind but if the reasoning must remand these kinds of thoughts on algae EVOLUTION then since I can doubt even that it is hard to embrace FUTHER Thinking along these "phenotypic lines". Now I also think that ONLY talking about geneotype IS a MATHEMATICAL mistake of prejudice of qunatitve genetics over postionaly things that I could certainly take up in discussing plant forms so -- I think the writing of c/e is MUCH more nuanced.There is indeed much likely being and to be learned adaptively on the micro level and we can expect many more interesting designs of nature thus that we see less frequently here than on the human individual level. Thanks for contributing.

It is actually quite "liberating" as I do not think of fungi nor processes thru a lipid membrane as a war or conflict necessarily. That is all what I questioned. Buried in some of my older posts is the suggestion that polyscharrides (and this would apply to so-called "beneficial bacteria" (as if there was a difference--))may connect a dielectric ether such that all that MAY???? be occuring even in the "symbiosis" of Lichens and hence "your" plants is that ABSOLUTE space is being interred AS Darwin spoke of the POWER of MOTION in plants that we instead of all this depressing meta stuff simply relate as auxin affect. I challenge that in actual space. What IS depressing is that Mayr could write in "ONE LONG ARGUMENT" p. 147 "By no means are all current intra-Darwinian controversies remnats of the old geneticist-versus-naturalist feud." What of this IS CURRENT (judge by what is on EvC for instance) I find either in the non-repressed ideas of some DIFFERENCE from Mayr's growth of biological thought I relate and you may too.. and hence questionable as current"" except by the kind of "authority" that ruled the Provine-Johnson "debate" which was no more "current" than the 80s and Lewontin being unable to gainsay topolobiology is the same old same old in 2000... or IS carpet "remnants" at least at a most of the OLD (no so old that the youngsters often miss this) geneticist-versus-natrualist "debate". What causes you to find it"" depressing is that I am younger than BOTH generations of Gould and Mayr and yet I KNOW some of the remanants are still part of the current talk and I am still able on ALL SUBSTANTIVE POINTS that come up in c/e talk back ARE part of this "family" feud.How do I know? My Grandfather was NOT SHOWING ME remnants but his own contention with this "versus" EXCEPT HE WAS BOTH A GENETICIST AND A NATURALIST. My point of view in a way is OLDER"" than Mayrs' and that is some what impressive! At least to me!! seeing that Provine and Johnson ONLY discussed metaphysics and not the remaining "ants". My Grandfather was not "religious" but he gave me a feeling for life that I hold postively for fungus and any intering plant parts as I do his gulls of Dunkirk.

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]