- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
My guess is that it’s a relative of red algae and plants/Viridiplantae, but not quite either.
At least one source mentions it produces lignin or something similar; lignin is present in both clades I mentioned. However since it doesn’t do photosynthesis we can rule out belonging to those clades, I genuinely don’t think evolution would favour ditching phycoerythrin or chlorophyll, so odds are it never developed either.
However since it doesn’t do photosynthesis we can rule out belonging to those clades,
There are plants and algae that don’t do photosynthesis (although I think they still have vestigial chloroplast?)
Non-photosynthetic plants (like ghost pipes) are typically rather small parasites of other plants, that for some reason lost access to good sunlight (such as being so deep in a forest that other plants call dibs on those yummy photons). I don’t see how it would be the case here, given the fossil in question is 8m tall, and apparently it predates actual (Viridiplantae) trees. And I think the same reasoning applies to a potential Rhodophyta = red alga.
Because of that I think it’s way more likely the taxon in question is related to both, but part of neither. And the reason it’s heterotrophic (as per Wiki article) is because it never developed something similar to photosynthesis on first place.
In fact the size is bugging me. Why did it grow so big? Plants usually do this because they’re trying to outcompete other plants, but that doesn’t make sense here.
Wiki has a breakdown of the debate and how it’s evolved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototaxites
Neat stuff
One of the linked papers thinks it’s actually horizontal rather vertical, as people have guessed originally.
This has absolutely blown my mind!
This looks exactly like the kind of whose ancestors would, over millions of years, eventually mutate to become a tree.
The polished fossil in the Wikipedia article looks a shocking amount like wood!
Dude; I think you’re absolutely correct.
It looks like a proto-tree
Also: Trees aren’t a uniform genus, but this goes to show, on any planet that has photosynthesis, trees will eventually evolve spontaneously
there were “trees” before actual trees evolved. in the carbiniferous, mostly from lycophytes,
Spooky phallus.
That doesn’t narrow it down.
But new research from the University of Edinburgh and National Museums Scotland has shown the fossil is neither fungus nor plant, but a new lifeform that became extinct around 370 million years ago.
Sandy Hetherington, the lead co-author and research associate at National Museums Scotland, said: “They are life, but not as we now know it, displaying anatomical and chemical characteristics distinct from fungal or plant life, and therefore belonging to an entirely extinct evolutionary branch of life.”
It’s life Jim, but not as we know it
There’s Klingons on the starboard bow
Starboard bow, Jim!
‘They are life’ wtf? LoL
…because it’s multiple lifeforms making a single structure. The plural is correct.
Sounds kinda like coral
an entirely extinct evolutionary branch of life
Pardon my ignorance, I seem to have misunderstood the meaning of “extinct” (?).
It’s a fossil. Really should be part of the headline.
Oooh, okay yeah.
Man, what I wouldn’t give to time travel back millions of years and just have a glance through the window of a pod, to see what it would be like to live here for a day back then.
@Innerworld “Sandy Hetherington, the lead co-author and research associate at National Museums Scotland, said: “They are life, but not as we now know it”
