3 ms·

I _think_ what they mean is it's not typically listed as a "life form" in its own right, i.e., there's no Domain under which one would classify Mitochondria -

I _think_ what they mean is it's not typically listed as a "life form" in its own right, i.e., there's no Domain under which one would classify Mitochondria - maybe just calling them bacteria would capture the article's intent? So, the modification would be that we are living in symbiosis with mitochondrial bacteria, similar to how we live in symbiosis with our gut bacteria, rather than them being classified as "organelles" of eukaryote cells.

pleurotus 2y ago
That's more a flaw of classification systems though. Because even if they comprise a distinct life form does not mean they need to have a unique species. Consider lichen, which comprise two (or more!) separate "species" which becomes a meaningless distinction when they cannot survive on their own, or even if they could, not in a form recognizable in any wayas they were when they were a part of the symbiotic system
- hughesjj 2y ago
  I mean at that point what do we consider multicellular organisms? Did you see what was going on with those frog skin cells and "xenobots"? Also, our gut bacteria kinda makes us a symbiote at a larger scale.
pishpash 2y ago
Of course it is classified. In Wikipedia itself there is a phylogenetic tree listing its closest relative the alphaproteobacteria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion#Origin_and_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion#Origin_and_evolu...
- twothreeone 2y ago
  Yeah, the wikipedia entry is actually a good example.. it starts with > A mitochondrion (pl. mitochondria) is an organelle found in the cells of most eukaryotes, such as animals, plants and fungi. and the "classification" is introduced with > There are two hypotheses about the origin of mitochondria: endosymbiotic and autogenous.
adastra22 2y ago
As others note, it is classified in the tree of life. We know approximately what kind of bacteria it evolved from, and mitochondria themselves constitute their own divergent branch of the tree of life (there are many longitudinal studies of mitochondria across species). But if you wanted classify them based on functionality rather than evolutionary history, I'd say they're more like viruses. They have only a handful of genes themselves, and exploits the nucleus' genetic material for all the other proteins it needs to function.

pleurotus 2y ago

That's more a flaw of classification systems though. Because even if they comprise a distinct life form does not mean they need to have a unique species. Consider lichen, which comprise two (or more!) separate "species" which becomes a meaningless distinction when they cannot survive on their own, or even if they could, not in a form recognizable in any wayas they were when they were a part of the symbiotic system

hughesjj 2y ago
I mean at that point what do we consider multicellular organisms? Did you see what was going on with those frog skin cells and "xenobots"? Also, our gut bacteria kinda makes us a symbiote at a larger scale.

pishpash 2y ago

Of course it is classified. In Wikipedia itself there is a phylogenetic tree listing its closest relative the alphaproteobacteria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion#Origin_and_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion#Origin_and_evolu...

twothreeone 2y ago
Yeah, the wikipedia entry is actually a good example.. it starts with > A mitochondrion (pl. mitochondria) is an organelle found in the cells of most eukaryotes, such as animals, plants and fungi. and the "classification" is introduced with > There are two hypotheses about the origin of mitochondria: endosymbiotic and autogenous.

adastra22 2y ago

As others note, it is classified in the tree of life. We know approximately what kind of bacteria it evolved from, and mitochondria themselves constitute their own divergent branch of the tree of life (there are many longitudinal studies of mitochondria across species). But if you wanted classify them based on functionality rather than evolutionary history, I'd say they're more like viruses. They have only a handful of genes themselves, and exploits the nucleus' genetic material for all the other proteins it needs to function.