Re: Re: TB: (Photo) Timewarp
- Subject: Re: [iris-photos] Re: TB: (Photo) Timewarp
- From: Walter Pickett email@example.com
- Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:14:11 -0800 (PST)
Neil A Mogensen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote
The issue is a semantic one. Do "plicata" and "amoena" refer to pigments or do they describe patterns?
One can go on. Do "plicata" and "amoena" refer to pigments or do they describe patterns or do they name genes?
At one time no one made such a distinction, nor recognised a distinction.
Now we name genes, generally with a letter or two with subscripts where aplicable. And we name patterns, and we name pigments.
And when we get into trouble is when we don't state which we are naming.
It seems from the litterature that ,generally, anthocyanin and carotenoids are switched on and off independantly. It is what I would expect. But it is not necessarily so. I have been suprised before and may be suprised again. I hope so.
I have been gone and I am just catching up to here. There has been a lot of good discussion and explaination going on.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
Yahoo! Groups Links
Other Mailing lists |
Author Index |
Date Index |
Subject Index |