Comment

Comment on Scientists have confirmed that a 26ft tall, tree-trunk-shaped organism, first discovered in Scotland in 1843, isn't a fungus or plant, but an entirely distinct evolutionary branch of life

lvxferre@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

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?)

source
- lvxferre@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  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.
  
  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 the Wikipedia article about the taxon suggests it was heterotrophic.
  
  source