I still do not understand why prototaxites had to be three to nine meters tall.
-
I still do not understand why prototaxites had to be three to nine meters tall. Nothing was tall back then. Plants are tall to avoid the shade of other plants. Prototaxites (probably) didn't "need" sunlight.
Spore dispersal isn't a good reason to be tall IMO.
If Prototaxites were just the stalk of a "fruiting body" of a fungus the network of mycelium must have been massive. Some prototaxites fossils show evidence of creatures/fungi colonizing them.
But we don't really know. Drives me nuts.
-
I still do not understand why prototaxites had to be three to nine meters tall. Nothing was tall back then. Plants are tall to avoid the shade of other plants. Prototaxites (probably) didn't "need" sunlight.
Spore dispersal isn't a good reason to be tall IMO.
If Prototaxites were just the stalk of a "fruiting body" of a fungus the network of mycelium must have been massive. Some prototaxites fossils show evidence of creatures/fungi colonizing them.
But we don't really know. Drives me nuts.
@futurebird weren't these the object of a 2022 study concluding "What tree? They had to be on their sides, they are means of moving nutrients and water between places"? https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/cjm-2021-0358
It really does put a question mark on those and on so many other things we assume have a correct taxonomy from the 1800 forward. -
F myrmepropagandist shared this topic
-
I still do not understand why prototaxites had to be three to nine meters tall. Nothing was tall back then. Plants are tall to avoid the shade of other plants. Prototaxites (probably) didn't "need" sunlight.
Spore dispersal isn't a good reason to be tall IMO.
If Prototaxites were just the stalk of a "fruiting body" of a fungus the network of mycelium must have been massive. Some prototaxites fossils show evidence of creatures/fungi colonizing them.
But we don't really know. Drives me nuts.
@futurebird it's worthwhile to remember that evolution isn't maximizing, especially back then. It's always been a good enough function. The only thing that drives things into efficiency is competition. If there wasn't anything to stop them growing, why would they stop growing?
-
@futurebird it's worthwhile to remember that evolution isn't maximizing, especially back then. It's always been a good enough function. The only thing that drives things into efficiency is competition. If there wasn't anything to stop them growing, why would they stop growing?
@quinn Gravity?
-
@futurebird it's worthwhile to remember that evolution isn't maximizing, especially back then. It's always been a good enough function. The only thing that drives things into efficiency is competition. If there wasn't anything to stop them growing, why would they stop growing?
I have heard of, and even deployed the notion that there were fewer evolutionary pressures in the deep past, and therefore things could exist then would never survive today. But, I also worry this kind of thinking can be a trap, especially when attempting to understand the ecological role of ubiquitous organisms. If something is common it will be exploited. We assume that if we attempted to grow prototaxities today it could not compete— but what if, instead it took over?
-
I still do not understand why prototaxites had to be three to nine meters tall. Nothing was tall back then. Plants are tall to avoid the shade of other plants. Prototaxites (probably) didn't "need" sunlight.
Spore dispersal isn't a good reason to be tall IMO.
If Prototaxites were just the stalk of a "fruiting body" of a fungus the network of mycelium must have been massive. Some prototaxites fossils show evidence of creatures/fungi colonizing them.
But we don't really know. Drives me nuts.
@futurebird my favorite hypothesis is that Prototaxites was adapated to survive at high paleolatitudes, where most of the light comes in a t low angles, and is thus better absorbed by a nearly vertical surface. But it's not clear to me what portion of Prototaxites fossils are actually from sites with high paleolatitude. This hypothesis also depends on the hypothesis that Prototaxites was doing photosynthesis, which comes in several forms, but the best form is probably the lichen hypothesis.
-
I have heard of, and even deployed the notion that there were fewer evolutionary pressures in the deep past, and therefore things could exist then would never survive today. But, I also worry this kind of thinking can be a trap, especially when attempting to understand the ecological role of ubiquitous organisms. If something is common it will be exploited. We assume that if we attempted to grow prototaxities today it could not compete— but what if, instead it took over?
Things capable of thriving, given the right conditions. Sometimes something makes a temporary bottleneck like a meteor that blocks out the sun for few years, or less spectacularly, humans, and a whole bunch of plants that don’t have some seeds that can wait two years to germinate gets wiped out.
Then everyone is left wondering why all the creatures on earth are immune to microplastics even though they are very rare or descendants of cockroaches etc etc.
-
I still do not understand why prototaxites had to be three to nine meters tall. Nothing was tall back then. Plants are tall to avoid the shade of other plants. Prototaxites (probably) didn't "need" sunlight.
Spore dispersal isn't a good reason to be tall IMO.
If Prototaxites were just the stalk of a "fruiting body" of a fungus the network of mycelium must have been massive. Some prototaxites fossils show evidence of creatures/fungi colonizing them.
But we don't really know. Drives me nuts.
@futurebird Could it be a similar reason to why termite mounds are so tall? I think one reason termite mounds are tall is to maintain internal temperature/humidity conditions suitable for fungi growth. And Prototaxites are thought to be fungi, right?
-
@futurebird Could it be a similar reason to why termite mounds are so tall? I think one reason termite mounds are tall is to maintain internal temperature/humidity conditions suitable for fungi growth. And Prototaxites are thought to be fungi, right?
Yes, but termite mounds are like smoke stacks, hollow so the pull down cool air to circulate in the nest. Most of the termites aren't even up in the stacks, they live just above and below ground, but use the soil they excavate to make their nest to make chimneys to bring in air.
-
Things capable of thriving, given the right conditions. Sometimes something makes a temporary bottleneck like a meteor that blocks out the sun for few years, or less spectacularly, humans, and a whole bunch of plants that don’t have some seeds that can wait two years to germinate gets wiped out.
Then everyone is left wondering why all the creatures on earth are immune to microplastics even though they are very rare or descendants of cockroaches etc etc.
1/3
personally, I am skeptical of the notion that there were "fewer evolutionary pressures" in the deep past. To me it seems unlikely that "evolutionary pressures" are a one dimensional thing where all evolutionary pressures can measured and combined on a single metric. -
1/3
personally, I am skeptical of the notion that there were "fewer evolutionary pressures" in the deep past. To me it seems unlikely that "evolutionary pressures" are a one dimensional thing where all evolutionary pressures can measured and combined on a single metric.I read somewhere that very early life, long before the Cambrian explosion, was more sloppy in how it translated DNA to phenotypes.
If true, this would mean more of a disconnect between genetics and who wins at natural selection. So 'tightening up' DNA interpretation would speed up advantageous genetic change.
Evolution itself does seem to evolve. And don't get me started about sex!
-
I read somewhere that very early life, long before the Cambrian explosion, was more sloppy in how it translated DNA to phenotypes.
If true, this would mean more of a disconnect between genetics and who wins at natural selection. So 'tightening up' DNA interpretation would speed up advantageous genetic change.
Evolution itself does seem to evolve. And don't get me started about sex!
Any chance you could find that paper? I’m curious how seriously it was taken—
-
1/3
personally, I am skeptical of the notion that there were "fewer evolutionary pressures" in the deep past. To me it seems unlikely that "evolutionary pressures" are a one dimensional thing where all evolutionary pressures can measured and combined on a single metric.There is this very quaint idea that in the Eidiacarian life was simple and basic— because it was the beginning of some journey in mounting complexity. And this is true in the sense that ecosystems seemed to have fewer layers. But is that because they were somehow less refined by evolutionary pressures and time? Or was it just a function of a less rich environment with fewer niches— but the creatures were every bit as sophisticated at what they did as us today?
-
There is this very quaint idea that in the Eidiacarian life was simple and basic— because it was the beginning of some journey in mounting complexity. And this is true in the sense that ecosystems seemed to have fewer layers. But is that because they were somehow less refined by evolutionary pressures and time? Or was it just a function of a less rich environment with fewer niches— but the creatures were every bit as sophisticated at what they did as us today?
-
@futurebird @llewelly @quinn also evolution isn't a ladder to complexity, plenty of organisms lose complexity when it isn't needed any more.
-
@futurebird @llewelly @quinn also evolution isn't a ladder to complexity, plenty of organisms lose complexity when it isn't needed any more.
@econads @futurebird @llewelly that is true! and sometimes something can nail it fast and keep it forever. i'm looking at you, horseshoe crab.
-
@econads @futurebird @llewelly that is true! and sometimes something can nail it fast and keep it forever. i'm looking at you, horseshoe crab.
@quinn @econads @futurebird
oh, I love horseshoe crabs, and I admire their stability ... but ... if you're not already aware of it, this introduction to their much greater past diversity in the Triassic and Carboniferous is wonderful:
