Skip to main content

Explain why viruses are difficult to classify.

Viruses are difficult to classify because while they have several characteristics of living things, they do not have several others. They currently are not considered to be living organisms, although this is being reconsidered.


Viruses are very simple organisms, usually consisting of a protein coat and either DNA or RNA. Having genetic material and the ability to produce more of themselves would seem to indicate a living thing. However, they are not involved in transforming energy (they do not perform cellular respiration or photosynthesis), and they are not capable of reproduction on their own. Viruses take over and reprogram cells of living organisms so that the host cells do not make copies of themselves--they instead are reprogrammed to make more viruses.


Because they are not living, viruses are difficult to classify. The classification of living things generally involves assigning organisms to a specific place in one kingdom or another and giving the organism a genus/species name. Viruses instead are usually classified on what they look like, whether they contain DNA or RNA, or what organism they infect.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more