3 ms·
> We essentially have only two lineages of macroscopic organisms that are actually fundamentally different: Plants and animals. That's not true, we also have f
by depressedpanda 5y ago
> We essentially have only two lineages of macroscopic organisms that are actually fundamentally different: Plants and animals.
That's not true, we also have fungi as a macroscopic lineage.
Or maybe you put them in the plant group? If so, that's a mistake, as they are more closely related to animals than they are to plants.
- uh_uh 5y agoI think it's fine to lump fungi together with plants for the spirit of this discussion. The distinction between plants and fungi are made on the basis of metabolism but in this thread people are clearly talking about external behaviours observable with the naked eye.
- godelski 5y agoMetabolism influences external attributes (I think behavior isn't the right word you're looking for). A larger creature requires higher caloric intake than a smaller creature (and this process isn't linear). A larger creature has different thermal regulations than smaller creatures because surface doesn't scale with volume linearly. The bigger the creature the more it calories it has to expend on the body vs the mind. There are equilibriums here that are physics based. And then consider the selective pressures from plants vs fungi. A fungi gets its environment. Plants do some, but also need to perform photosynthesis. These have very different selective pressures for these lifeforms.
- hoseja 5y agoIf you're talking about lineages you should actually lump Fungi with animals. Also, how are fungi behaviours comparable to plants?
- uh_uh 5y agoIf their behaviours are not comparable, then why were fungi lumped together with plants up until the 1960s?