Cavalier-Smith's model no longer separates prokaryotes and eukaryotes is the statement which differs from kingdom classification.
Explanation:
Cavalier-Smith in 1998 had reduced the kingdom numbers. The were brought down from 8 to 6. These are:
Animalia
Protozoa
fungi
plantae
chromista
bacteria
He divided eukaryotes into 6 kingdoms. The kingdoms are refined for better classification.
While Carolus Linnaeus divided the organisms into two kingdoms
Animalia and plantae.
The five kingdom classification:
Monera (prpkaryotes)
Protista ( unicellular eukaryotes)
fungi (multicellular decomposers)
plantae (multicellular producers)
Animalia (multicellular consumers)
It has drawbacks like in kingdom monera both autotrophs and heterotrophs are included. Phylogeny is not explained in lower organisms of monera and protista. Virus is also in classification. Cavalier-Smith introduced a new kingdom called chromista which are single- celled or multicellular eukaryotic organisms as diatoms, algae, oomycetes and protozoans which perform photosynthesis.
Subduction Zones
lmk if right
The correct answer is C. A windstorm blew down trees in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Minnesota on July 4, 1999.
Explanation:
A weather event refers to a specific phenomenon in weather that in most cases is not common but particular and specific, which is different to weather patterns, this includes specific hurricanes, abnormal rain patterns, etc. Considering this, the one that is an example of a weather event is "A windstorm blew down trees in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Minnesota on July 4, 1999" because this is a specific phenomenon rather than a pattern in weather as int the case of hurricane seasons or permanent weather conditions.
Answer:
The commensal relationship between the sharks and remoras can be described as although remoras consume parasites, sharks with remoras show no better health or growth than sharks without remoras.
Explanation:
A commensal relationship refers to a relationship where two or more organisms in a habitat neither benefit or harm each other.
- The second option infers that the remoras harm the sharks. This is a parasitic relationship.
- The third option infers that the sharks are harmed by the remoras because the sharks depend on something that the remoras are limiting. This is also a parasitic relationship.
- The fourth option infers a commensal relationship, but falsely describes it. The relationship described by this option is a parasitic relationship (one benefits, the other does not).
Therefore, the answer is the first option: Although remoras consume parasites, sharks with remoras show no better health or growth than sharks without remoras.
