Re: Article: Is the Term 'Prokaryote' Obsolete?
- From: dk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (DK)
- Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 01:10:40 -0400 (EDT)
In article <e5kkbl$1215$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <rstonjek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is the Term 'Prokaryote' Obsolete?
No, it is not. There is still a useful distinction to be made between
organisms that have nucleus and those that don't.
The following points are made by Norman R. Pace (Nature 2006 441:289):....
4) The lessons of the three-domains tree are profound. Instead of two kinds
of organism, prokaryotes and eukaryotes, there are three: bacteria, eukarya
(eukaryotes) and archaea. The root, or origin, of this universal tree,
cannot be determined from ribosomal RNA sequences, but other phylogenetic
results and biochemical correlates show that the genetic lines of eukarya
and archaea have a common ancestral branch that is independent of that
giving rise to the bacteria. That is, eukaryotes and archaea are more
closely related to one another than either is to bacteria. [1-3]
Why would anyone want to proclaim this in 2006? This was pretty obvious
and almost universally accepted ~ 20 years ago.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Article: Is the Term 'Prokaryote' Obsolete?
- From: Larry Moran
- Re: Article: Is the Term 'Prokaryote' Obsolete?
- Prev by Date: RE: Fw: Edward O. Wilson's "bombshell" on the reality of group
- Next by Date: Re: Cooperation Is Not Altruism It Is Mutualism
- Previous by thread: Re: Article: Is the Term 'Prokaryote' Obsolete?
- Next by thread: Re: Article: Is the Term 'Prokaryote' Obsolete?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|