7 ms·
Fungi were plants in the west too until the early 80s. Anyone old enough to be making a speech on TV in 1991 would have probably thought of them as plants regar
by Alex3917 10y ago
Fungi were plants in the west too until the early 80s. Anyone old enough to be making a speech on TV in 1991 would have probably thought of them as plants regardless of their country.
- dchest 10y agoRussian Wikipedia has this quote from the author of hoax: "I wrote a rebuttal to this statement [that a mammal can not be a plant] in 'Smena' newspaper. In fact, we spent the whole hour proving that fungi was a separate kingdom from plants and animals."
- Bromskloss 10y ago> Fungi were plants in the west too until the early 80s. What brought about the change? Was some difference between them discovered or was it a matter of deciding that it would be more convenient to give them separate names?
- digi_owl 10y agoIirc, its because of their genome.
- dzmien 10y agoI think it has to do with the evolution of our scientific taxonomic system. It was realized that although fungi seem like plants in many ways, they have certain differences which warrant their separation from plants, phylogenically and morphologically.
- mdemare 10y agoFungi are more closely related to animals than to plants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opisthokont https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opisthokont
- gpvos 10y agoUnder "History" in that article: >The close relationship between animals and fungi was suggested by Thomas Cavalier-Smith in 1987 >Early phylogenies placed fungi near the plants [...]
- jhbadger 10y agoTaxonomy isn't an arbitrary classification for convenience akin to call numbers in a library, but a reflection of our best understanding of evolutionary history, and as such changes as we learn more. Already in the 19th century many biologists already doubted that fungi were plants based on the fact that they don't have chloroplasts or photosynthesize and thus need to feed off of other living things as do animals. However, with the development of sequencing methods, first for proteins in the 1950s and then for DNA in the 1970s, more quantitive support for the similarity of fungi to animals were obtained. And in the 1990s when whole genome sequencing became possible yet more information supporting the grouping was obtained.
- jhbadger 10y agoNon-biologists maybe. In the same sense that laypeople might not realize that neither starfish nor whales are fish.
- pc86 10y agoWhat are starfish?
- Angostura 10y agoechinoderms. Related to sea urchins, sea cucumbers etc. Fish are an entirely different kettle of Osteichthyes
- yolesaber 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish An echinoderm
- pluma 10y agoAnd here I was trying to imagine space guppies.
- gmarx 10y agoStars
- YeGoblynQueenne 10y agoSpawn of the Old Ones.
- Alex3917 10y ago> Non-biologists maybe Think of it like old astronomers who still refer to Pluto as a planet. They know it's not officially a planet anymore, but they still call it one because that's what they like calling it and they don't give a shit. Most older mycologists still use the scientific names from before DNA sequencing in casual conversation. It's not that they don't know the new ones, they do, but that's just what they like calling them and they're fine with the younger generation waiting for them to die or whatever.