On 2023-04-22 04:51 (-4), jr wrote:
> 
> Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> On 2023-04-14 01:57 (-4), jr wrote:
>>> coronavirus, it'd be 'organic forms' and 'terrestrial fauna' primarily, I guess,
>>> and 'microscopic' too.
>>
>> I don't think of viruses as fauna.  I still hear dieticians referring to
>> bacteria as "flora," probably a holdover from the days when biologists
>> thought bacteria were plants; but viruses have no analogous history.
> 
> yes.  dilemma(s).  fungi too cannot be categorised, really, as is.

There is actually a neologism for fungi, "Funga," apparently coined in
the early 2000s.  Now that biologists have determined that fungi are
less closely related to plants than to animals, should we include the
category "Funga" under Organic Forms?  (One POVer regularly renders
sentient fungoid beings, though he has not contributed them to the
Collection.)  Or is it fine to group fungi under Flora?

Post a reply to this message

hi,

Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> ...
> > yes.  dilemma(s).  fungi too cannot be categorised, really, as is.
>
> There is actually a neologism for fungi, "Funga," apparently coined in
> the early 2000s.  Now that biologists have determined that fungi are
> less closely related to plants than to animals, should we include the
> category "Funga" under Organic Forms?  (One POVer regularly renders
> sentient fungoid beings, though he has not contributed them to the
> Collection.)  Or is it fine to group fungi under Flora?

Wiktionary says the "term is equivalent to the concepts of fauna and flora", so
as a third "Terrestrial" entry, I guess.  thanks.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message