A riddle

[Gość: Sphinx]

As we probably feel dissapointed and aimless after the "Disco Polo" has been
turned down, I thought that a little mind-bending would do us good.
So, here is the riddle.....
Listed below are five Latin names of botanical, zoological and fungal species
(italic ignored) with their (commonly accepted) English translations in
brackets:
Mus Musculus (the mouse)
Drosophila melanogaster (the fruit fly)
Saccharomyces cerevisiae (baker's yeast)
Caenorhabditis elegans (a nematode)
Arabidopsis thaliana (a plant)

Who cares to explain the differences among the deteminers (a,the,-) ?
You may need some biology background but not too much of it.

Maggie7's assistance required

[Gość: Bert]

The definite article usually precedes the name of a
species. It took me a while to figure out what a species
really is; biology is all Greek to me. My learned
colleagues tell me the representatives of the same
species are eager and willing to breed with each other
but not with other groups. (Are they pulling my leg?)
It seems that lovemaking is a key here. A fruit fly may
be fond of another fruit fly so the fruit fly is a
species. So is the mouse. Would a nematode chase any
other nematode? I guess not, (because they know they are
ugly) so a nematode is not up to the task and must be
satisfied with the indefinite article. Plants know
nothing about lovemaking (have you ever heard of a rose
being interested in crab grass?) Besides, they need
heavy-duty helpers and there are too many species within
them. Yeast wouldn?t know sex from gemmation or fission
(which one? both?), because cells are too small and would
need a magnifying glass to find partners, not to mention
to count them, for their curricular activities - they are
doomed.
In summation, Maggie7 should help us here. I have no idea
what I am talking about.

you are almost there !

[Gość: Sphinx]

Dear Bert
First of all, you English is thrilling. Second, you got the mouse and the fruit
fly straight ! They are definitely species and thus, unable to exchange genes
in nature with other species. As such, they certainly deserve definite article.
Sadly, I can not agree with your arguments about ugly nematodes and making out
by the rose, and crab grass. Whether a nematode is ugly….I will give you the
benefit of doubt here because, on the contrary, I could say that it
is…..sleek :)))) (as ironically as it sounds). As far as plants go, here the
species is less of an entity than in animals, and some cases of cross-breeding
are documented. Most importantly however, the English names that I used for A.
thaliana and C. elegans (that is: a plant and a nematode) are not species at
all !
I could have mentioned it before but it would have made my riddle too easy to
solve. Plantae is one of the Kingdoms, Nematoda is a Phylum that has two
Classes and several Orders, each with numerous species.
Why then bother with not calling A. thaliana and C. elegans by their English
names ? Simply because they do not have ones ! These two VERY important for
biologists species, are by some kind of agreement between scientists called by
their Latin names. Thus, the best thing you can do while referring to them, is
to mention higher Taxa, and this is why indefinite article (for you are
referring to thousands of organisms by saying „a nematode”).
I told you all this because, I realize that without any biological background
it would be hard for you to figure out (even with your marvellous English :)) ).
However, we are still left with S. cerevisiae (baker’s yeast) which IS the name
for species. By definition it should be preceded by definite article, why then,
it is not ???
In this case, it is not about biology so I am leaving you with this one…

Take care
Sphinx

Am I doing better?

[Gość: Bert]

Hi Sphinx,
Oops, I am in trouble; it turns out I do not have a clue
about the species thing. To make things worse, my
romantic theory does not have a yeast leg to stand on.
The problem must be the baker. Is it because 'the baker's
yeast'would make the baker the owner of the yeast? Some
bakers might be upset about the misfortune, I suppose.The
same reasoning would apply to winemaker's yeast and
brewer's yeast, wouldn't it?

P.S. Since advanced flirting does not work in the flora
department, what makes a given plant a species?

[Gość: Sphinx]

Hi Sphinx,
> Oops, I am in trouble; it turns out I do not have a clue
> about the species thing. To make things worse, my
> romantic theory does not have a yeast leg to stand on.
> The problem must be the baker. Is it because 'the baker's
> yeast'would make the baker the owner of the yeast? Some
> bakers might be upset about the misfortune, I suppose.The
> same reasoning would apply to winemaker's yeast and
> brewer's yeast, wouldn't it?

Well, about baker's yeast, I have thought myself for a while, and I have a
theory, but correct me if I am wrong.
Perhaps, people had known about different yeast species or even had named them,
long before the taxonomy has developed (after all, they knew how to bake bread
or brew beer). The taxonomists had then used that very common name (same they
will probably do when someone gets that idea to classify Sphinx fellow )
Additionally, baker's yeast is one of key ingredients in food industry so
perhaps, they just use it (the name) the same way they use sugar, salt etc. ??

> P.S. Since advanced flirting does not work in the flora
> department, what makes a given plant a species?
It does work there. It is just that plants are less puritan than animals, and
there is a lot of misalliance and incest among them. By the way, the cross-
breeding is usually very beneficial. Imagine that you can cross with a hawk, a
whale and a cheetah. You would rock, man !

[Gość: Bert]

Dear Sphinx,

>The taxonomists had then used that very common name
(same they will probably do when someone gets that idea
to classify Sphinx fellow )

OK, lets classify the Sphinx (fellow?)

gender: female
age: twenty...ish
education: a biology major (that was easy)
hair: Sahara blond
temperament: shy, introvert
other virtues: gentle, honest,engaging, fun to be with

I bet I am right on all counts.


> Additionally, baker's yeast is one of key ingredients
in food industry so
> perhaps, they just use it (the name) the same way they
use sugar, salt etc. ??

No doubt yeast is an uncountable noun. However, as any
other rule, it begs to be broken. 'Yeasts are fungi'
sounds fine to me. On the other hand, species have their
rights, too. Apparently the biologists decided not to
overrule the practice of accepting 'the' as a kind of
adjective. As such 'the' is associated with the noun that
follows it. In 'The baker has yeast' the article is
'fused' to the person ? the baker, and particularizes the
baker. 'The baker's yeast is not active any more' means
that some yeast in the possession of the specific (known
or implied) baker is no good. A headword in a Latin -
English dictionary reading: 'Saccharomyces cerevisiae -
the baker's yeast' might be puzzling. The reader would
probably ask himself: what baker do they mean? The cook
at the Hilton? My mom?


> breeding is usually very beneficial.

Agreed! Not with a porcupine...

[Gość: krecha]

"The" and "a" follow the usual English language rules - "the" means that we know what is
meant, while "a" means that we don't. In this case:

(1) "the" refers to a particular species - we know exactly which one is being described (e.g., the mouse
means that particular animal species that we all know, for example from biology experiments in which
we cut them open and do other things with them)

(2) "a" refers to one from a group of many species - we don't know which one (a nematode means one of
the many species within the nematode group)

(3) "no article" is associated with a noun that is not countable - we don't say "two yeasts," we just say
"yeast," similarly, "milk" and not "two milks" (however, we can say "two milks" if we mean, for example,
"two glasses of milk")