Stars and Clowns and Anemones, Oh My.

"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message
nk.net...
Also a brittle star has a better ability to carry pieces of food to it's
mouth with it's arms via conveyor-line like method.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets


Yes, this and the other differences you mention do distinguish one genera
from another. They are still brittle stars.

George


Wayne Sallee wrote on 12/23/2006 4:43 PM:
One is behavior that we were discussing, but also look a the visible
difference. A serpent star is smooth, and a brittle star has lot's of
appendages, and a "green brittle/serpent" is smooth with *some*
appendages, but not nearly as much as a brittle star.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



George wrote on 12/23/2006 4:36 PM:
"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message
nk.net...
There is a difference between the "green brittle", and what we all
call a brittle star.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets


And that would be? Come on. Out with it, already. :-)

George

And why and how do you think things are classified? Were
the creatures created for the classification, or were the
classifications created for the creatures?

Should we say "It's already been classified, no sense
reclassifying it"?

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



George wrote on 12/23/2006 7:48 PM:
"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message
nk.net...
Also a brittle star has a better ability to carry pieces of food to it's
mouth with it's arms via conveyor-line like method.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets


Yes, this and the other differences you mention do distinguish one genera
from another. They are still brittle stars.

George

Wayne Sallee wrote on 12/23/2006 4:43 PM:
One is behavior that we were discussing, but also look a the visible
difference. A serpent star is smooth, and a brittle star has lot's of
appendages, and a "green brittle/serpent" is smooth with *some*
appendages, but not nearly as much as a brittle star.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



George wrote on 12/23/2006 4:36 PM:
"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message
nk.net...
There is a difference between the "green brittle", and what we all
call a brittle star.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

And that would be? Come on. Out with it, already. :-)

George

"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message
nk.net...
And why and how do you think things are classified? Were the creatures
created for the classification, or were the classifications created for
the creatures?

Should we say "It's already been classified, no sense reclassifying it"?

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets


The point, Wayne, is that britte stars are considered to be in the class
Ophiuroidea, while starfish are in the class Asteroidea. They are
different classes of echinoderms that likely shared a common ancestry in
the Ordovician. As such, declaring a brittle star and/or a serpent star to
be a type of starfish is like declaring an echinoid to be a sea cucumber,
which, of course, is absurd. Even worse, brittle stars and serpent stars
are in the exact same class. They are simply different genera (akin to the
difference between a chimpanzee and an Orangutan). That said, you are, of
course, free to classify them any way you choose. However, good luck
getting your new classification past peer review.

George

George wrote on 12/24/2006 3:48 AM:
However, good luck
getting your new classification past peer review.

George



Peer review would be this newsgroup:-)
And scientist are reclassifying stuff all the time :-)
And scientists were not the first people to classify :-)

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message
ink.net...
George wrote on 12/24/2006 3:48 AM:
However, good luck getting your new classification past peer review.

George

Peer review would be this newsgroup:-)

Peer review? Of a generic reclassification? This newsgroup? Shirley you
jest.

And scientist are reclassifying stuff all the time :-)

Not at that level, not all the time. Not with these critters. They are
too well known. It would take an extraordinary paper to do it.

And scientists were not the first people to classify :-)

Farmer Bob doesn't count.

George