Re: Amusing typo (Was: Re: Cherokee readers)

i18n@... wrote:

>Nicholas Bodley wrote:
>
>
>
>>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:15:22 -0800, i18n@... <i18n@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Fish and birds aren't animals? I think I am going to need a
>>>not-so-instant replay onall those games of 20 questions as a kid!
>>>
>>>
>>True; thanks!
>>
>>I did think of that. ("Animal, Veg., or Mineral?"). However, in popular
>>text, it seems to me that one didn't, in the past, see references to
>>birds
>>and fish as animals.
>>
>>
>
>I know you are older then me, but not so much older that you go back to
>the time before animals included birds and fish :) Pretty sure anything
>post-Darwin would fall into that category. Slightly less sure that
>anything post-Linnaeus (sp?) would too. Were folks your age taught
>otherwise during your primary education? That would be interesting to know!
>
>

Of course, now things have gone the other way. It used to be that
anything that wasn't animal was vegetable or mineral; those were the
only choices. Biology had exactly two kingdoms: Animalia and Plantae.
So bacteria were plants and protozoa were animals... But now we've got
more choices (precisely how many depends, as usual, on whom you ask), so
bacteria and archaea have their own kingdoms, and fungi aren't plants
anymore, etc...

~mark