Well you can lead a horse to water...

yes ya can think your leading a horse to water
but the pond is so poluted..only those loving their ignorances
would call it water..

""What is "genus mean"?

""Perhaps you could tell me the "genus mean"..of Arabidopsis,
one of most commonly studied organisms""

Definition for arabidopsis:
Web definitions:

a genus of the mustard family
having white or yellow or purplish flowers;

thus the genus mean..
[+]wildtype=..will look as defined abouve

it will breed fertile offspring
as long as fertile offspring result..its still arabidopsis genus

Currently the genus Arabidopsis..has nine species
and a further eight subspecies recognised.

these should usually be fertile..in crossbreedng

This delimitation is quite recent,
and is based on morphological and molecular phylogenies

Reclassified species

The following species
previously placed in Arabidopsis
are not currently considered part of the genus....LOL*

A. bactriana= Dielsiocharis bactriana
A. brevicaulis= Crucihimalaya himalaica
A. bursifolia= Beringia bursifolia
A. campestris= Crucihimalaya wallichii
A. dentata= Murbeckiella pinnatifida
A. drassiana=
A. erysimoides= Erysimum hedgeanum
A. eseptata= Olimarabidopsis umbrosa
A. gamosepala= Neotorularia gamosepala
A. glauca= Thellungiella salsuginea
A. griffithiana= Olimarabidopsis pumila
A. himalaica= Crucihimalaya himalaica
A. huetii= Murbeckiella huetii
A. kneuckeri= Crucihimalaya kneuckeri
A. korshinskyi= Olimarabidopsis cabulica
A. lasiocarpa= Crucihimalaya lasiocarpa
A. minutiflora= Ianhedgea minutiflora
A. mollis= Beringia bursifolia
A. mollissima= Crucihimalaya mollissima
A. monachorum= Crucihimalaya lasiocarpa
A. mongolica= Crucihimalaya mongolica
A. multicaulis= Arabis tibetica
A. novae-anglicae= Neotorularia humilis
A. nuda= Drabopsis nuda
A. ovczinnikovii= Crucihimalaya mollissima
A. parvula= Thellungiella parvula
A. pinnatifida= Murbeckiella pinnatifida
A. pumila= Olimarabidopsis pumila
A. qiranica= Sisymbriopsis mollipila
A. richardsonii= Neotorularia humilis
A. russeliana= Crucihimalaya wallichii
A. salsugineum= Eutrema salsugineum
A. sarbalica= Crucihimalaya wallichii
A. schimperi= Robeschia schimperi
A. stenocarpa= Beringia bursifolia
A. stewartiana= Olimarabidopsis pumila
A. stricta= Crucihimalaya stricta
A. taraxacifolia= Crucihimalaya wallichii
A. tenuisiliqua= Arabis tenuisiliqua
A. tibetica= Crucihimalaya himalaica
A. tibetica= Arabis tibetica
A. toxophylla= Pseudoarabidopsis toxophylla
A. trichocarpa= Neotorularia humilis
A. trichopoda= Beringia bursifolia
A. tschuktschorum= Beringia bursifolia
A. tuemurnica= Neotorularia humilis
A. verna= Drabopsis nuda
A. virgata= Beringia bursifolia
A. wallichii= Crucihimalaya wallichii
A. yadungensis
http://www.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/Haseloff/teaching/PDFlists/2002_PDFs/AlShehbaz2002.pdf

... but you cannot make her think.

I think it's best if we just leave one under god to her strange rants. She is either a couple of chasers short of a quidditch team or an unusual breed of troll. Like some horrid festering sore from the days of yore before antibiotics she won't just go away: but picking at her is really not going to help.

Cheers,

Tony

I have been following this exchange with some amusement, but now I think you guys are just being mean to OUG. It's obvious that he doesn't know how to use the BLAST tool, or how it is supposed to be interpreted. I am not sure that a simple web blast tool is the most appropriate tool for the job you described anyway Stezza, even if you knew how to use it and interpret it. I have noticed that even though species is supposed to be the basic unit of taxonomy, and that generally they aren't supposed to breed, i.e. they are reproductively isolated (Mayr), it has been pointed out to him that some species can and they are generally closely related, which is why he has switched the usual argument for species up a level to 'genus'. Which is why he talks about a 'genus mean' and thinking that species within genera can somehow interbreed. I do not know what OUG means by 'genus mean', but I gather it has something to do with genetic or phenotypic variability, which is measurable. I also note that OUG has listed about 50 species that were formerly classified as Arabidopsis, but now are not. What happened OUG? Did they evolve out of their genus? If so, this refutes your theory. If they were merely misclassified, this shows us that the genus level name is a taxonomic construct, useful for scientific purposes, but with no real world meaning. Which would refute your theory and reduce your calling for 'naming the first life' etc. to jibberish to anyone who has done first year biology.

The only problem is that for anything he writes to get traction, OUG will have to educate himself in actual theory, rather than just autodidactic stoner speculation. It aint gonna happen, so I usually ignore his posts as internet grafitti. I guess every now and then someone thinks that they have caught the dude with the spraycan and tries to put the boot in, but that doesn't work, he always comes back.

thanks bugsy/quote..""I am not sure..that a simple web blast tool..is the most appropriate tool...for the job you described anyway Stezza,""

yes..maybe if i had the sequence
but clearly no one here has..any claim

its not the proof some want to believe
validates out of genus/fertile offspring

i been waiting for the 'mule'
[the *non breeding horse/donkey]
the gave to settlers[so they couldnt breed anything

but lets return to what you said to teazer
""even if you knew..how to use it and interpret it.""

im gratfull

"" I have noticed..that even though species..
is supposed to be the basic unit..of taxonomy""

I THINK..the links reveal..
[those deleted from genus..DECIEVED BY LOOKS LIKE*
ie like phenotype fossils look like[yet arnt]

want proof looks like is dECEPTIVE,,TO THE EXTREEM

""Reclassified species

The following species
previously placed in Arabidopsis
are not currently considered part of the genus....LOL*"""

""and that generally..they aren't supposed to breed,
i.e. they are reproductively isolated(Mayr),""

like mules?

""it has been pointed out..??..Mayer?
that some species can..and they are generally closely related,
which is why he..[me]has switched..the usual argument for species
up a level to 'genus'.""

which he is me?
neither

i talk in genus..cause its formed..under taxonomic lie

the true limit of genus..is viable young surviving
that breed..*like..after their own kind!

micro evolving between..the mean..of its genus
within the limites of its genes gernomics

the genomic quotant..of its parental genus limits

tell me..if your so clever
how non sexual evolution..changes its genus

it cant
only our man measures...can be in error

mendelism//mendelic inhertors
that alone refutes genus evolving
look at a mendelic ratio chart!

continues

Hey come on guys. If you want to engage with OUG, then engage with his arguments, don't insult him. I must admit to having trouble following him a lot of the time, but that doesn't mean he should be censored on the forum. I wish he wouldn't put so many line breaks into his posts.

Moderator