From ragnarok@pobox.com Tue Oct 30 03:40:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 30 Oct 2001 11:40:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 24571 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2001 11:40:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 30 Oct 2001 11:40:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Oct 2001 11:40:49 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A1C997D000AE; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 06:40:57 -0500 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Moss and lichen Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 06:34:15 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <0110292141520I.01133@neofelis> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" X-Yahoo-Profile: xreig X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11764 >> I'd go with Moss, since it is definable as one organism. Lichen is two in >> symbiosis, and it thus less useful for taxonomy, which I know is what you >> are using it for. >But if it is moss, what do we call lichen? And if it is lichen, what do we >call moss? Besides, lichens are classified taxonomically; they are mostly >ascomycetes, IIRR. They are classified by the fungus component. That's insane! But how about: Lichen = rokci clika; Moss = spatykai clika