Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mushroom-Like Deep Sea Organism May Be New Branch of Life

Posted by Soulskill on from the tasty-on-a-salad dept.

jones_supa writes: During a scientific cruise in 1986, scientists collected organisms at water depths of 400m and 1,000m on the south-east Australian continental slope, near Tasmania. But the two types of mushroom-shaped organisms were recognized only recently, after sorting of the bulk samples collected during the expedition. A team of scientists at the University of Copenhagen says the tiny organism does not fit into any of the known subdivisions of the animal kingdom. The organisms are described in the academic journal PLOS ONE. The authors of the paper recognise two new species of mushroom-shaped animal: Dendrogramma enigmatica and Dendrogramma discoides. Measuring only a few millimeters in size, the animals consist of a flattened disc and a stalk with a mouth on the end. One way to resolve the question surrounding Dendrogramma's affinities would be to examine its DNA, but new specimens will need to be found. The team's paper calls for researchers around the world to keep an eye out for other examples.

42 of 64 comments (clear)

  1. Recipe? by ambisinistral · · Score: 1

    I'm hungry. Anybody have good recipe for one of these critters?

    --

    deserve's got nothing to do with it...

    1. Re:Recipe? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2, Funny

      Okay
      First you cover it in oil. Then lightly toss it in spices, and swallow it whole. Then you discover that it's actually an intestinal parasite.

    2. Re:Recipe? by slashmydots · · Score: 2

      They're mushrooms with mouths! You'll need a +4 magic dagger or level 3 or better fireball spell just to kill them.

    3. Re:Recipe? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      There aren't a lot of intestines down there at 1000m below the surface.

    4. Re:Recipe? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Mario Brothers did it first. clearly these are goombas.

    5. Re:Recipe? by khr · · Score: 5, Funny

      First you cover it in oil

      Does BP even drill in those parts of the ocean?

    6. Re:Recipe? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Incorrect! There aren't any mammals, but at least a few vertebrates, which, if I recall my phylums correctly, all have intestinal tracts of some kind.

    7. Re:Recipe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We are the Mycon. You are the Non. This is a special place, filled with Juffo-Wup.

    8. Re:Recipe? by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      NO WAI, this is one of those mushrooms grown in diapers. That's why it's so f*cked up, obviously.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    9. Re:Recipe? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we sorta do. Mammals have lungs, not gills. Which means that 1k(up and down) of distance needs to be traversed every breath. And not only that, but they'd have to suffer the bends as the pressure difference sets in.

      While it's possible to imagine evolutionary adaptations that might help with that, it's not a niche that a mammal would be a good candidate to out-compete.

      Not to mention we'd already have seen them and have documented them because they'd have to surface.

      (This is not to say we haven't seen whales and dolphins occasionally visiting unexpected depths, but it's not their natural habitat).

  2. It's life ... by Minter92 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Jim but not as we know it.

  3. Pacman is real ! by Oasiz · · Score: 1

    It's even slightly yellow in the middle.

  4. New specimens need to be found by eulernet · · Score: 1

    And what if these were the last two specimens ?

    1. Re:New specimens need to be found by praxis · · Score: 2

      And what if these were the last two specimens ?

      Then we won't find any more specimens.

    2. Re:New specimens need to be found by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

      And what if these were the last two specimens ?

      The authors did say these might be a "failed experiment in multicellular life".

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    3. Re:New specimens need to be found by biodata · · Score: 1

      I wonder how they managed to fail to extract DNA.

      --
      Korma: Good
  5. Re:New branch of life? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure, maybe the author should spend a few more pages describing it.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  6. hmm. by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    Aliens.

  7. That's where .... by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    .... the Australians dumped their dirty diapers

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  8. Another notable nonconformist by somepunk · · Score: 1

    They don't seem to be related.
    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/p...

    --
    Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. (Isaac Asimov)
  9. Re:New branch of life? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    "New" as in "newly discovered"....

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  10. Re:New branch of life? by omnichad · · Score: 1

    ...in 1986. I suppose it could have gone almost 30 years without being discovered after being collected. The question is why.

  11. Re:New branch of life? by chthon · · Score: 1

    It is on the front page of WIkipedia. There you can read up on why it took almost 30 years to recognize it as a new specied.

  12. Animalia, Metazoa incertae sedis NOT "New Branch" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    These creatures are described by the author as Animalia, Metazoa incertae sedis, that means, they are members of the animal kingdom, but of of uncertain placement within that kingdom.

    They are NOT a "new branch of life".

    The six kingdoms of life will not be adding a new kingdom on the discovery of these 2.

  13. Popplers? by NCG_Mike · · Score: 1

    Let's hope not.

  14. taxonomy by OrugTor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a reminder that the current taxonomy should be retired and replaced with a DNA-driven scheme. This will happen when the US goes metric and FEMA sends blankets to Hades.

    1. Re:taxonomy by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 1

      Yeah, when botany gives up latin.

    2. Re:taxonomy by ledow · · Score: 1

      Which will work fine right up until the point that one person is genetically un-human and then we'll have no end of arguments (and maybe even bloodshed) on our hands.

      DNA is also a bit of a problem - are you talking mitochondrial DNA, etc? Because you don't have "one" DNA in your body. You have several thousand, minimum. Thus you are instantly several thousand species in a single individual and actually your largest amount of DNA probably isn't "you", as such.

    3. Re:taxonomy by radtea · · Score: 1

      DNA is also a bit of a problem - are you talking mitochondrial DNA, etc?

      Valid point.

      Because you don't have "one" DNA in your body. You have several thousand, minimum.

      True.

      Thus you are instantly several thousand species in a single individual and actually your largest amount of DNA probably isn't "you", as such.

      False.

      Or: that word "you" keep using does not mean what you think it means. You have for some unaccountable reason suddenly started using "you" to mean something completely different from what everyone everywhere always has meant by "you"--a genetically and morphologically human individual, the offspring of human parents--to mean "an entity that will be designated as 'hydrogen' because there are more hydrogen atoms in it than any other type."

      Or something like that. It would be as silly to insist on calling people hydrogen because it is our most common constituent as it would be to start calling people non-human because they happen to contain more bacterial cells than human cells. Yet studying and even classifying some aspects of our physical being based on our chemistry can still be useful.

      The biological species concept, and therefore taxonomy as such, is pretty sketchy. But there is likely a lot more value in genetic taxonomy than morphological taxonomy, which is barely above folk taxonomy in many respects. Similar structures don't tell us much about evolutionary history, which is what we mostly care about as biologists.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  15. taxonomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I disagree. I think we should have both taxonomic schemes, one based on morphology and one based on genetics, each cross-linked to each other. I think there is an interesting picture to be portrayed when you have both and can start making connections between morphology and genetics.

  16. I for one welcome by future+assassin · · Score: 3, Funny

    our collected in the 80's deep sea shroom overlords and I for one look forward to getting high by licking them.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:I for one welcome by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      Unless, of course, they turn out to be Cnidarians with a truly spectacular neurotoxin in their stinging cells.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  17. Re:Why tell us now? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2

    From the wikipedia article, it was partially because a return expedition in 1988 failed to turn up any further samples. I think I have an explanation for that, just from the evidence of the original expedition. From the Wikipedia Article "using a sled that was dragged over the sea floor to collect bottom-dwelling animals.". What if their study process wiped out the whole phylum?

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  18. Re:So.... by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

    My bet is they'll end up being a form of Sea Cucumber or Acorn Worm.

  19. Looks like by Xacid · · Score: 1

    Looks like a sea pansy. I wonder how much it differs.

  20. Re:Is it really a mouth? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 3, Funny

    Could be a penis.

    "Measuring only a few millimeters in size," Did you lose yours?

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  21. Mostly Non-Symmetrical? by nuckfuts · · Score: 3, Insightful

    FTA:

    What we can say about these organisms is that they do not belong with the bilateria.

    When I look at the photos, they seem to have rough bilateral symmetry.

    1. Re:Mostly Non-Symmetrical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Almost as important is the apparently lack of cephalization (head & nervous system at one end) and lack of a through-gut (i.e. a mouth *and* anus). It seems to have only one aperture for digestion, which is the condition in jellyfish, sea anemones, and other non-bilateria (i.e. radiata).

    2. Re:Mostly Non-Symmetrical? by rizole · · Score: 1

      There are other features of bilateria that they might not have. Most bilateria are also triploblasts although the article is scant on detail and IANAMB of course.

  22. to quote Conway Morris by hooiberg · · Score: 1

    "Oh fuck, not another phylum!"

  23. Jellyshroom by Stardner · · Score: 1

    Can we cultivate it on diapers?

  24. Did anyone already DNA-check them? by YoungManKlaus · · Score: 1

    I am still astonished that biologist seemingly mostly are like "jeah, that somehow looks like a bird, lets put it in the same tree" instead of rigorously DNA-testing the shit out of everything.