Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!umn-d-ub!cs.umn.edu!hougen
From: hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: marine bio newsnet
Summary: sci.bio.aquatic
Keywords: science, biology, marine, aquatic, fresh-water
Message-ID: <1990Feb11.214922.9555@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu>
Date: 11 Feb 90 21:49:22 GMT
References: <74961@tiger.oxy.edu>
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis - CSCI Dept.
Lines: 54


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