Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Unicellular "Enigma" Changes From Predator To Plant and Back

Posted by Soulskill on from the i-don't-eat-greens,-food-eats-greens dept.

SilverEar writes "Imagine a creature that swims and preys on others, but once it eats a certain kind of plant, that plant grows inside it, causing the predator to lose its ability to prey and start using sunlight to make its food. Its preying mouth is replaced by an eye that is needed to find sunlight. This is the Hatena ('enigma' in Japanese). The kicker: when Hatena reproduces, one offspring is a peaceful photosynthesizer with the sun-seeking eye, while the other is yet again a predator with a voracious mouth."

8 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. PETA will be confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Plant or animal! Prepare the soft padded cells.

    1. Re:PETA will be confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Easy solution: they will demand that plants possess the same rights as animals. Since they already demand that animals possess the same rights as humans, it will then follow that they will choose not to eat plant-based food just as they refuse to eat animal-based food (i.e., meat). This will leave them without a source of food, and the smart ones will abandon the cause while the dumb ones will die off.

    2. Re:PETA will be confused by rpillala · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, not the same rights as humans, just the same rights as pets. Even this is an oversimplification but I think it gets the point across.

      The point being that it is not appropriate to speak of animals having all the same rights as humans. I think this is well understood. The right to vote, for example, does not make sense since it presupposes knowledge of language, politics, issues etc. The rights that PETA members ascribe to animals, most basically, are the rights not to suffer and die at the hands of humans. These aren't that far out, when you consider the "arguments" in favor of the suffering and dying.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
  2. Re:Interesting find... by porcupine8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At least they called it a "hypothesis" instead of forcing us to accept it as verified fact.

    You say this as though "hypothesis" were some kind of weasel word, as though they actually do consider it a fact but are just calling it something else to avoid criticism.

    Did it ever occur to you that this is precisely what a hypothesis is, and that the correlation =/= causation thing is the very reason that it is considered a hypothesis? I'm sure that these biologists have some vague idea what they're doing. If they thought that they had hard and fast proof they'd be moving this on to the "theory" stage. The very fact that they call it a hypothesis means that they agree with you.

    --
    Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
  3. Memeaholic by senorpoco · · Score: 5, Funny

    I for one welcome our new single celled predatory overlords, but deride their single celled hippy photosynthesizing cousins.

  4. What happens when chloroplasts are removed? by az-saguaro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Biology is full of promoter-inhibitor relationships, and this seems like an interesting one. When the algae is inside the protist, the host's "animal" behaviors and anatomy are suppressed, but they clearly remain in a latent state, ready to reactivate after fission. It makes one wonder to what extent chloroplasts remain as endosymbionts versus organelles in genuine plant species. So . . .
    . . .
    Does anyone know of any research where chloroplasts were removed from plant cells in culture, to see if the remaining cells revert to some atavistic animal-like exogenous-food-seeking state?

  5. Scientific American by deAtog · · Score: 5, Informative

    For all those interested, Scientific American has the story.

  6. OT, but just FYI by Shin-LaC · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Hatena" doesn't really mean "enigma". It's actually an interjection, and a more accurate translation would be something like "Weird!" or "Oh man!".