Mushroom-Like Deep Sea Organism May Be New Branch of Life 64
jones_supa writes: During a scientific cruise in 1986, scientists collected organisms at water depths of 400m and 1,000m on the south-east Australian continental slope, near Tasmania. But the two types of mushroom-shaped organisms were recognized only recently, after sorting of the bulk samples collected during the expedition. A team of scientists at the University of Copenhagen says the tiny organism does not fit into any of the known subdivisions of the animal kingdom. The organisms are described in the academic journal PLOS ONE. The authors of the paper recognise two new species of mushroom-shaped animal: Dendrogramma enigmatica and Dendrogramma discoides. Measuring only a few millimeters in size, the animals consist of a flattened disc and a stalk with a mouth on the end. One way to resolve the question surrounding Dendrogramma's affinities would be to examine its DNA, but new specimens will need to be found. The team's paper calls for researchers around the world to keep an eye out for other examples.
Re: (Score:2)
My bet is they'll end up being a form of Sea Cucumber or Acorn Worm.
Re:Is it really a mouth? (Score:4, Funny)
Could be a penis.
"Measuring only a few millimeters in size," Did you lose yours?
Recipe? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Okay
First you cover it in oil. Then lightly toss it in spices, and swallow it whole. Then you discover that it's actually an intestinal parasite.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect! There aren't any mammals, but at least a few vertebrates, which, if I recall my phylums correctly, all have intestinal tracts of some kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we sorta do. Mammals have lungs, not gills. Which means that 1k(up and down) of distance needs to be traversed every breath. And not only that, but they'd have to suffer the bends as the pressure difference sets in.
While it's possible to imagine evolutionary adaptations that might help with that, it's not a niche that a mammal would be a good candidate to out-compete.
Not to mention we'd already have seen them and have documented them because they'd have to surface.
(This is not to say we haven't see
Re:Recipe? (Score:5, Funny)
First you cover it in oil
Does BP even drill in those parts of the ocean?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mario Brothers did it first. clearly these are goombas.
Re: (Score:1)
We are the Mycon. You are the Non. This is a special place, filled with Juffo-Wup.
Re: (Score:2)
NO WAI, this is one of those mushrooms grown in diapers. That's why it's so f*cked up, obviously.
It's life ... (Score:4, Funny)
Jim but not as we know it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure, maybe the author should spend a few more pages describing it.
Re: (Score:2)
"New" as in "newly discovered"....
Re: (Score:2)
...in 1986. I suppose it could have gone almost 30 years without being discovered after being collected. The question is why.
Re: (Score:2)
It is on the front page of WIkipedia. There you can read up on why it took almost 30 years to recognize it as a new specied.
Pacman is real ! (Score:1)
It's even slightly yellow in the middle.
Re: (Score:3)
From the wikipedia article, it was partially because a return expedition in 1988 failed to turn up any further samples. I think I have an explanation for that, just from the evidence of the original expedition. From the Wikipedia Article "using a sled that was dragged over the sea floor to collect bottom-dwelling animals.". What if their study process wiped out the whole phylum?
New specimens need to be found (Score:2)
And what if these were the last two specimens ?
Re: (Score:3)
And what if these were the last two specimens ?
Then we won't find any more specimens.
Re: (Score:2)
And what if these were the last two specimens ?
The authors did say these might be a "failed experiment in multicellular life".
Re: (Score:2)
hmm. (Score:2)
That's where .... (Score:4, Funny)
Another notable nonconformist (Score:2)
They don't seem to be related.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/p... [berkeley.edu]
Animalia, Metazoa incertae sedis NOT "New Branch" (Score:1)
These creatures are described by the author as Animalia, Metazoa incertae sedis, that means, they are members of the animal kingdom, but of of uncertain placement within that kingdom.
They are NOT a "new branch of life".
The six kingdoms of life will not be adding a new kingdom on the discovery of these 2.
Popplers? (Score:1)
taxonomy (Score:4, Insightful)
taxonomy (Score:1)
I disagree. I think we should have both taxonomic schemes, one based on morphology and one based on genetics, each cross-linked to each other. I think there is an interesting picture to be portrayed when you have both and can start making connections between morphology and genetics.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, when botany gives up latin.
Re: (Score:2)
Which will work fine right up until the point that one person is genetically un-human and then we'll have no end of arguments (and maybe even bloodshed) on our hands.
DNA is also a bit of a problem - are you talking mitochondrial DNA, etc? Because you don't have "one" DNA in your body. You have several thousand, minimum. Thus you are instantly several thousand species in a single individual and actually your largest amount of DNA probably isn't "you", as such.
Re: (Score:2)
DNA is also a bit of a problem - are you talking mitochondrial DNA, etc?
Valid point.
Because you don't have "one" DNA in your body. You have several thousand, minimum.
True.
Thus you are instantly several thousand species in a single individual and actually your largest amount of DNA probably isn't "you", as such.
False.
Or: that word "you" keep using does not mean what you think it means. You have for some unaccountable reason suddenly started using "you" to mean something completely different from what everyone everywhere always has meant by "you"--a genetically and morphologically human individual, the offspring of human parents--to mean "an entity that will be designated as 'hydrogen' because there are more hydrogen atoms in it than any other type."
Or something like that. It would be as silly to i
I for one welcome (Score:4, Funny)
our collected in the 80's deep sea shroom overlords and I for one look forward to getting high by licking them.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like (Score:2)
Looks like a sea pansy. I wonder how much it differs.
Mostly Non-Symmetrical? (Score:4, Insightful)
FTA:
What we can say about these organisms is that they do not belong with the bilateria.
When I look at the photos [bbcimg.co.uk], they seem to have rough bilateral symmetry.
Re: (Score:1)
Almost as important is the apparently lack of cephalization (head & nervous system at one end) and lack of a through-gut (i.e. a mouth *and* anus). It seems to have only one aperture for digestion, which is the condition in jellyfish, sea anemones, and other non-bilateria (i.e. radiata).
Re: (Score:2)
to quote Conway Morris (Score:2)
Jellyshroom (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)