It's probably intentional. From skimming the paper[1] they basically sequenced the organism and failed to find traditional mitochondrial DNA protein-coding seq

It's probably intentional. From skimming the paper[1] they basically sequenced the organism and failed to find traditional mitochondrial DNA protein-coding sequences. They found a separate mechanism, but this alone doesn't prove the non-existance of a mitochondria, just that the typical machinery isn't there. As they say, "In principle, we cannot exclude the possibility that a mitochondrion exists in Monocercomonoides sp. whose protein composition has been altered entirely. However, such a hypothetical organelle could not be recognized as a mitochondrion homolog by any available means. Without any positive evidence for the latter scenario, we suggest that the complete absence of mitochondrial markers and pathways points to the bona fide absence of the organelle." Science probably could've gotten away with "First eukaryotes found without normal mitochondria" but that may be fudging a little too much. 1: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2816%2930263-9 http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2816...