• TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    21 minutes ago

    Indeed they are not. They are their own category. Their cell structure is between plant cells and animal cells. A fungi cloud works similar to a brain. They are the things that make life possible. There are fungi living in our body which keeps us alive, we use them for bread, beer and penicillin among many other uses, they break down dead plants to create food for new plants, they divide food and communicate between trees, but they are themselves not plants. The largest living organism on earth is a fungi by the way.

      • TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 minutes ago

        Largest, not oldest. In Oregon, between 2500 and 8500 years old. But fungi existed before plants did, 1.3 billion and plants 700 million years ago. So fungi are much older.

          • PattyMcB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 minutes ago

            Heh… learn something new every day

            Edit: it sounds like it’s a hot topic

            It is widely considered a fungus, but the debate is ongoing.

            • in_my_honest_opinion@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 minutes ago

              From the paper I linked, it’s really interesting. They think it might be a giant eukaryote previously undefined.

              We hypothesized that if P. taiti was a fungus, fossilization products resulting from the selective preservation or diagenetic alteration of glucan sugars would be present, derived from the original main composition of the cell walls including chitin (a polymer of N-acetyl glucosamine), or resulting from the recombination of glucan and protein into new melanoidin-like compounds, like those found in Fungi and arthropods in the Rhynie chert (39). To test this hypothesis, the previously assembled dataset of 47 samples, representing six higher taxonomic groups (39), was combined with 55 additional samples from these six groups and P. taiti (see the Supplementary Materials for full spectra for each sample, images of all sample spots, and details of taxonomic assignment). We then developed a novel analytic pipeline comprising two key steps: data exploration (step 1) and modelling (step 2) (fig. S3 and Supplementary Text Extended Methods). Step 1 aimed to show that biologically informative spectral bands correlated with taxonomic classification of specimens and that molecular fingerprints of organisms in the Rhynie chert retained information regarding their biological affinities, and to select the most relevant spectral features for further modelling. In step 2, we built classification models using supervised machine learning approaches to provide a robust statistical framework to accept or reject the taxonomic classification of each sample based on the selected spectral features.