User talk:Danny-Boy

Hello! I'm Danny-Boy, an oceanographer of sorts. Feel free to say "hello" or leave any comments on my posts here.
 * I did, but you deleted my welcome. For future reference, some editors have issues with deleting things on talk pages. Was there a reason you deleted it? Just wondering. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Not really. I figured it was a standard welcome message that you probably put on everyone's talk page, so served no purpose beyond supplying a bit of newbie information. If you take exception to this, then undo my changes: I really couldn't care less. Danny-Boy
 * Well it was just a general welcome, but it did contain useful information. I have no problem with you deleting it. I am only warning you that some editors don't like to see anything deleted on talk pages and may hold it against you in the future. It's not a big deal. And since you didn't like the cookie cutter welcome, how about this:
 *  Welcome to Wikipedia!  Your name inspires me to run through a meadow looking for little men in green (not to be confused with little green men). May the road rise to meet you, may the wind be always at your back. Sometimes when I hear your name sung, I get a little teary-eyed. (But don't tell anyone, it could ruin my evil image.)
 * Happy now? :) Cheers. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 13:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that was the sort of welcome I was hoping for! Thanks :o) Danny-Boy 14:22, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. I aim to please.  --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Infauna
Hi Danny-Boy. Just to say that I reverted your point about infauna always being animals. I think I'm right in saying that some benthic phytoplankton migrate into the sediment (nutrient scavenging?), and are sometimes labelled as infaunal. I suppose they should technically be called "inflora", but I've never seen that expression used. Anyway, I just wanted to explain myself. By all means revert me if you're certain though (I'm a pelagic person). Cheers, --Plumbago 15:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Plumbago. I'd argue against referring to benthic phytoplankton as "infauna", as they're not! Phytoplankton are flora and I therefore think that "inflora" is a far more appropriate term. This is a bit of a pet hate of mine, but I think it's bad form to propagate a misnomer even if it's rampant in the literature. (I must admit that I've never seen benthic phytoplankton referred to as either inflora or infauna, as they tend to be in the vicinity of the sediment-water interface and so more epi- than in-.) The point in question, I admit, is pretty pedantic, so I won't revert your changes, but I will mutter under my breath and shake my head a bit. :oP (FYI, I'm an early diagenesis sort, not a biologist.) Danny-Boy 19:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Danny-Boy. Fair point about "inflora".  I guess that one of the reasons it might not be used is because the algae that migrate into the sediment only do so on a temporary basis (for obvious photosynthetic reasons).  However, as I'm not 100% certain about these algae, I think I really need to reference them.  Certainly the vast majority of infauna really are fauna.  Anyway, I'll try to back up my assertions, and if I find concrete references, maybe we can coin the term "inflora" properly?  Cheers, --Plumbago 22:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. My cursory search of the literature turned up only information on benthic diatoms, which considered them epiflora. Presumably, as these organisms are bed sediment dwellers, often occuring in "films" or "mats", they are restricted to regions where light can be harvested, i.e. surfaces. Danny-Boy 14:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)