sexuality & Trees of Life

[Don McAllister]

"B. J. Tindall" wrote:

> Ken Kinman wrote:
>
> ">     However, I think it is **extremely** misleading to say that sexual
> >reproduction is limited to a "small section of organisms".  In terms of
> >species diversity, far more species are sexual than are asexual, and far
> >more biologists study sexual organisms than study asexual ones."
>
> I thought someone might say this. This is an arguement based solely on the
> fact that zoologists and botanist have a vast list of species which have
> accumulated since primitive man first started to recognise the differences
> in different animals and plants. Even Linneaus had a wealth of data to work
> on. The study of prokaryotes is rather recent, lets say 100 years. If one
> takes a walk through a tropical rain forest then one quickly picks up all
> the plants, birds, insects etc living there with the naked eye, but
> everyone misses the diversity of prokaryotes present.

I had assumed that Ken was talking about an extended definition of sexuality. A
number of microbiota exchange genetic material, from time to time.  That
performs the same function as the more rigid structuring into males and females
- mixing and matching genes, increasing genetic diversity, and making for new
combinations of genetic material which can then undergo selection processes.
Presumably one could then extend the BSC into the realm of those microorganism
entering into this kind of genetic exchange.  I have no idea how much this
would enlarge the realm of "sexually" reproducing organisms.

But perhaps I was wrong about Ken's intent.  Ken, was this what you meant?

don
Don McAllister