Author Topic: seaweed = not a plant  (Read 4816 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rafonly

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • fpc=811
    • View Profile
seaweed = not a plant
« on: January 30, 2009, 08:13:53 am »

the following is from margulis & sagan, what is sex?, 1997:

"all protoctists evolved from integrated permanent symbioses between different kinds of bacteria ... about 250,000 species are extant. protoctists are the organisms in which mitotic cell reproduction & fertilization sex evolved. protoctists do not form embryos or fungal spores. all are eukaryotic i.e. all have membrane-bounded nuclei" (p.240)

shelled & naked amebas
large deep sea protoctists
slime molds
'red tide' algae
cell piercing parasites
limestone-forming plankton
golden yellow algae
yellow green algae
brown algae, kelp
slime nets
multinucleate plant parasites
egg molds
water molds
fish parasites
red algae
green algae plant ancestors
fungal ancestors
animal ancestors

"protoctists are a miscellany of 'large' microorganisms & their descendants ranging from tiny single-celled amebas & algae to large slime molds & giant kelp. although some protoctists are plant-like & others resemble animals or fungi in their nutritional modes, members of this kingdom of water dwellers are neither plants nor animals, both of which grow from embryos. nor are they fungi, land beings which grow from fungal spores ... because they have membrane-bounded nuclei (& for many other reasons), protoctists are not bacteria either. protoctists are nucleated organisms that evolved from bacterial mergers. they do not belong to the other 3 living kingdoms (plant, animal, fungi) that also have merged from bacteria for ancestors" (p.229)

"time & gradient precede existence", me

Offline rafonly

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • fpc=811
    • View Profile
spirulina
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2009, 08:28:10 am »

spirulina = not an algae

spirulina = bacteria


"time & gradient precede existence", me

Satya

  • Guest
Re: seaweed = not a plant
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2009, 11:46:42 pm »
Wow, who knew?  Also:

http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/protoc.html
    Kingdom Protoctista is defined by exclusion: its members are neither animals (which develop from a blastula), plants (which develop from an embryo), fungi (which lack undulipodia and develop from spores), nor prokaryotes. They comprise the eukaryotic microorganisms and their immediate descendants: all nucleated algae (including the sea-weeds), undulipodiated (flagellated) water molds, the slime molds and slime nets, and the protozoa. Protoctist cells have nuclei and other characteristically eukaryotic properties; most have aerobiosis and respiration in mitochondria and 9+2 undulipodia at some stage of the life cycle.

    Why "protoctist" rather than "protist?" Since the nineteenth century, the word protist, whether used informally or formally, has come to connote a single celled organism. In the last two decades, however, the basis for classifying single-celled organisms separately from multicellular ones has weakened. It has become evident that multicellularity evolved many times from unicellular forms - many multicellular organisms are far more closely related to certain unicells than they are to any other multicellular organisms. For example, the ciliates, which are unicellular microbes, include at least one species that forms a sorocarp, a multicellular spore-bearing structure; euglenoids, chrysophytes, and diatoms also have multicellular derivatives.

    Protoctists are aquatic: some primarily marine, some primarily freshwater, and some in watery tissues of other organisms. Nearly every animal, fungus and plant - perhaps every species - has protoctist associates. Some protoctist phyla include hundreds of species, all of which are parasitic on other organisms.

    No one knows how many species of protoctists there really are; thousands have been described in the biological literature. Water molds and plant parasites have traditionally been dealt with by the mycological literature, parasitic protozoa by the medical literature, algae by the botanical literature, free-living protozoa by the zoological literature, and so forth. Inconsistent practices of describing, naming, and defining species has led to a great deal of confusion regarding these organisms. Another reason for ignorance is that the group of eukaryotic microbes is large, with much diversity in tropical regions, whereas protozoologists are scarce and concentrated in the north temperate zones. Furthermore, distinguishing species of free-living protoctists often requires time-consuming genetic and ultrastructural studies. Funding for such studies is limited because most protoctists are not sources of food and cause no diseases; thus, they are of no direct economic importance.


So, if I eat only meat and seaweed, am I a carnivore?  Just a hypothetical question.  I have reduced my plant consumption dramatically, and I feel great.  Plant foods are so expensive for the water, fiber and limited vitamins and minerals they contain.  Seaweed rocks, and as I buy it dried, it never spoils in the frig.

Offline rafonly

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • fpc=811
    • View Profile
the triple biotic pyramid
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2009, 02:23:00 pm »

"if I eat only meat and seaweed, am I a carnivore?"

the way i look at it, yes -- that's my opinion
actually, if some1 eats bacteria, protoctists & land or sea meat i consider it all (raw) animal food

see:
in the grand scheme of evolution, animals (incl. humans) evolved from bacteria & protoctists -- & so did both plants & fungi > animals, plants, fungi are on the same evolutionary level like the crests of a triple pyramid

animals did not evolve from plants or fungi; animals & fungi may be, in evolutionary biology, closer to each other than animals are to plants
(see margulis & sagan, what is sex? plate 7 on p. 52)


"time & gradient precede existence", me

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk