max_jedroom@oxy.edu (Jedidiah Jon Palosaari) (02/08/90)
It appears that I have accidently not followed *exact* procedure. I hereby
request, therefore, that we have the 2 week discussion period for a new
newsnet, devoted to marine bio discussion, considering subjects such as
cetacian biology, invertebrate and fish biology, the ecology of marine life
as a whole, etc. Possible names for the group include sci.bio.marine and
sci.marine.bio. It has been suggested that job opportunities in marine bio
be included as well.
The reason I propose this net is that the other nets dealing with
similar subjects (sci.bio, alt.aquaria, sci.aquaria, alt.fishing,
alt.boating, scuba) do not cover on a regular basis the marine life of the
ocean, dealing with life as a whole (as in the case of sci.bio), or with
the more technical aspects of caring for fish, capturing fish, or observing
fish. I therefore propose a net to discuss the actual life in the oceans.sartin@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Rob Sartin) (02/09/90)
I'd be interested in reading a group on marine biology, but probably wouldn't have much to say (think of it as my contribution to improvement of the signal to noise ratio). Since sci.bio already exists, it seems logical to have sci.bio.marine. Rob Sartin uucp: hplabs!sartin "Some may say that I have gone astray. internet: sartin@hplabs.hp.com How would they know? They never follow."
hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) (02/12/90)
In article <74961@tiger.oxy.edu>, max_jedroom@oxy.edu (Jedidiah Jon Palosaari) writes: > I hereby >request, therefore, that we have the 2 week discussion period for a new >newsnet, devoted to marine bio discussion, considering subjects such as >cetacian biology, invertebrate and fish biology, the ecology of marine life >as a whole, etc. Possible names for the group include sci.bio.marine and >sci.marine.bio. It has been suggested that job opportunities in marine bio >be included as well. I think restricting the subject matter to marine biology only is too severe and somewhat arbitrary. There is, obviously, a great overlap between marine and fresh-water biology. Who doesn't know that there are both fresh-water and marine fish? And then there are fish which begin life in fresh-water but live most of their life in the ocean, and others which live primarily in fresh-water but go out to feed on occasion in the sea, etc. What about fish that live in brackish waters where streams meet the sea and travel freely from one body of water to another? And why should a discussion of cetacean biology exclude the residents of the Amazon River Drainage, simply because the Amazon flows with fresh-water? And why should the jelly-fish and sponges of Lake Tanganyica be excluded from the discussion of invertebrates simply because the lake is 600 miles from the nearest salt-water? IMHO, these animals are some of the most interesting aquatic life forms, from a bio- logical standpoint. I think the new group should be sci.bio.aquatic. If we do go for the marine only newsgroup, sci.bio.marine fits the namespace better than sci.marine.bio. > The reason I propose this net is that the other nets dealing with >similar subjects (sci.bio, alt.aquaria, sci.aquaria, alt.fishing, >alt.boating, scuba) do not cover on a regular basis the marine life of the >ocean, dealing with life as a whole (as in the case of sci.bio), or with >the more technical aspects of caring for fish, capturing fish, or observing >fish. I therefore propose a net to discuss the actual life in the oceans. I can see where the discussion in sci.bio might be high enough volume to drown out (pun intended, sorry) discussion of "marine life of the ocean" (as opposed to marine life in the military?). I'm sure the volume of sci.bio.aquatic would be significantly lower for those only interested in marine life, would not arbitrarily restict the natural flow (sorry again) of discussions which might go from marine- to fresh-water (or vice versa), and would not leave those primarily interested in fresh-water biology high and dry (I'll stop, I promise). And so no one thinks of this group as a cross-posting group for those groups which already exist, I think that when the charter of the group is drawn up it should explicitly forbid articles about aquaria maintenance, fish capturing/killing methods, or boating/scuba equipment/ gear/techniques/laws/etc. Dean Hougen -- "The news groups are not concerned, With what there is to be learned." - the Clash
emrozek@ncextb.ncsu.edu (emrozek) (02/14/90)
In regards to the call for discussion for development of a group for marine science, fisheries biology, estuarine and marine ecology, etc., a recent article suggested this as a discussion group was too narrow. I disagree. I do suggest that a good starting point is sci.marine and as discussions evolve, additional hierarchies can be added. I disagree that a single news group could possibly do justice to all aquatic systems. If you have followed this call for discussion, it has so far covered organisms, physical/chemical characteristics and ecology of bodies of water. If a marine "type" group were established, it would need to cover the inter-tidal wetlands and the inner and outer coastal plains. Additionally, it should also cover coastal plains and mid-ocean meteorology. In reference to other comments in this continuing discussion, I suggest that another group might be considered for fresh water systems to include discussion of the items listed by others and include limnological and hydrological discussions as well. Yes, I agree that the study of aquatic and marine systems have many similarities. However, students of the sciences of these environments tend to specialize into one or the other and if the news group is to be truely useful, it also should be specialized. There is no penalty for subscribing to, or posting to different and appropriate news groups.