SAR is not a kingdom, it is a supergroup, and it is supposed to be all capitals. There is a kingdom of Chromista that was first suggested in 1981 as a taxon and was first included in a seven kingdoms model in 2015, and it includes most of the SAR group, but that is different than SAR being a kingdom. The state of science education is in shambles, please at least check Wikipedia about sensational science posts.
I reblogged that one without checking largely because I've seen @quark-nova talk about biology in the past, and they seem genuinely well-informed, knowledgeable, and diligent when it comes to these kinds of things.
That said, sure, it's always a good idea to double-check!
The first thing I did was look at the notes of that post, to see if this had been brought up and addressed already. And, in fact, it looks like there was already some chatter that might help clear this up:
I am not knowledgeable enough this topic to know exactly how accurate this is, but I can definitely look for some context. I checked Wikipedia next, and found that "Sar" is in fact referred to as "SAR Supergroup" there.
It is also, however, noted near the bottom of the page: "As a formal taxon, "Sar" has only its first letter capitalized, while the earlier abbreviation, SAR, retains all uppercase letters. Both names denote the same group of organisms, unless further taxonomic revisions deem otherwise." It seems the two are pretty interchangeable, so I'm not sure why there'd be any reason to criticize someone's use of "Sar" vs. "SAR", at least in this context.
I also checked the "Supergroup" page to try to better understand the difference between it and a "kingdom" in biology, and found that a supergroup is both fairly arbitrary, and "often considered larger than a phylum or kingdom". Again, I am not not sure why the exact term here would be an issue, in that case.
Your claims around Chromista seem accurate to the "Chromista" Wikipedia page, and I can 100% see how that would imply that Sar itself cannot be a kingdom. And also, like, at this point there is just a lot going on here that I am trying to understand through Wikipedia pages (looking at the "Kingdom" page has only muddied this more for me, lmao) and I'm not sure how much better this is than where I started, at a certain point.
I don't have enough context here to know how many people ascribe to which theories & what's considered outdated in the field, but I do have enough experience with academia to guess that either a Wikipedia page is out of date, a theory is out of date, and/or that someone is operating on information given to them in a class that may also have been out of date, niche, inaccurate, or just incorrectly remembered.
Idk yall, I think perhaps the "sensationalist" accusation might be unwarranted here. I think this is, at worst, an honest and fairly harmless mistake in the context of educating the general public. Or maybe it's just a misunderstanding of terminology & theoretical context between the two of you. 🤷♂️
That said, I do think this has been an interesting exercise in "fact-checking" and demonstration of how nuanced that topic actually is, so thanks for that! Turns out not every claim can be neatly fact-checked, especially by people who don't know much about the relevant field to begin with.
28 notes
·
View notes
Hello! I am really enjoying your Thistle the Show analysis posts, there are some really interesting ideas in that show! (and also from a goncharov-ing a story perspective they are so much fun to read)
eyy I'm so glad! I love that show, I love the heavy atmosphere and the overwrought symbolism and the 'power of the land' magic that's never fully explained and the tragedy of it all, god this show is so good at tragedy for something that does technically earn a happy ending. if KILLING OFF YOUR EPONYMOUS PROTAGONIST can count as a happy ending, god, I never recovered, even if he did come back to life afterward that still just MURDERED me.
it's so thematically satisfying is the thing T.T he dies and I'm just sitting there like....the themes......we're breaking the cycles of trauma and vengeance.......
11 notes
·
View notes
i'm really enjoying pathologic 2, actually. i mean, i didn't think i wouldn't enjoy it as much as i was worried it would just, i don't know, muddy the water. and maybe it will, but i'm not really bothered by that anymore. that said, i do think patho 2 took a fairly unsubtle game and increased its unsubtlety by about tenfold.
well. calling og pathologic 'unsubtle' doesn't feel quite right, but i'm not sure what word would feel right. maybe it's 'distinct in its sensibilities'. I think og patho felt more obtuse, whereas patho 2 is like. here. take it. do you get it. here is the information. do you see the themes. i am announcing them to you in such a way that you know that i am saying something thematic. i'm not far enough into the main story of 2 to be able to say that there's less reading between the lines, but it feels very much so far like there's less reading between the lines. whereas the original had a somewhat different... i don't know, affect? it felt like a hostile workplace where everyone recited shakespeare about even the mundane. in patho 2 nothing feels mundane in the first place, everything feels loaded in a way that og patho was but didn't feel, if that makes sense.
but i think that's okay. at the very least, it feels very much like leaning into the 'theater' aspect of it, which is enjoyable. pathologic 2 feels to me more like... bonus content? not to be Stuck Up For Pathologic HD but i enjoyed the feeling of grinding my face against a cinderblock, having to tease out information and conclusions. it felt like a game that you had to figure out, but you actually weren't really doing any ground-level figuring out of much; you're not a doctor, your character is, so the puzzle of Solving the Plague belongs to The Story, whereas the question of What the FUCK is This Town's Deal is your job. it's a very linear game in most respects, but all three playthroughs come through as a thematic package deal.
i so far get the impression that pathologic 2 can be played on its own and be enjoyed in its own right! however it exists to me as like. director's commentary. i'm really liking the playing with different character relationships and alternate things, the expanding of steppe language and the kin, love my worm guys, but i like it because of how it enriches my eternal mind rotation of og pathologic. sorry guys i played the original pathologic and it broke me and remade me in its image. sorry.
12 notes
·
View notes