Scientists baffled at mysterious ancient creature that doesn't fit on the tree of life as we know it:
A bizarre ancient life-form, considered to be the first giant organism to live on land, may belong to a totally unknown branch of the tree of life, scientists say.
These organisms were massive, with some species growing up to 26 feet (8 meters) tall and 3 feet (1 m) wide. Named Prototaxites, they lived around 420 million to 375 million years ago during the Devonian period and resembled branchless, cylindrical tree trunks.
Since the first Prototaxites fossil was discovered in 1843, scientists haven't been sure whether they were a plant, fungus or even a type of algae. However, chemical analyses of Prototaxites fossils in 2007 suggested they were likely a giant ancient fungus.
Now, according to a study published Wednesday (Jan. 21) in the journal Science Advances, Prototaxites might not have been a humongous fungus after all — rather, it may have been an entirely different and previously unknown — and now extinct — life-form.
"They are life, but not as we now know it, displaying anatomical and chemical characteristics distinct from fungal or plant life, and therefore belonging to an entirely extinct evolutionary branch of life," study lead co-author Sandy Hetherington, a research associate at the National Museums Scotland and senior lecturer from the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, said in a statement.
All life on Earth is classified within three domains — bacteria, archaea and eukarya — with eukarya containing all multicellular organisms within the four kingdoms of fungi, animals, plants and protists. Bacteria and archaea contain only single-celled organisms.
[...] However, according to this new research, Prototaxites may actually have been part of a totally different kingdom of life, separate from fungi, plants, animals and protists.
[...] Upon examining the internal structure of the fossilized Prototaxites, the researchers found that its interior was made up of a series of tubes, similar to those within a fungus. But these tubes branched off and reconnected in ways very unlike those seen in modern fungi.
"We report that fossils of Prototaxites taiti from the 407-million-year-old Rhynie chert were chemically distinct from contemporaneous Fungi and structurally distinct from all known Fungi," the researchers wrote in the study. "This finding casts doubt upon the fungal affinity of Prototaxites, instead suggesting that this enigmatic organism is best assigned to an entirely extinct eukaryotic lineage."
[...] Kevin Boyce, a professor at Stanford University, led the 2007 study that posited Prototaxites is a giant fungus and was not involved in this new research. However, he told New Scientist that he agreed with the study's findings.
"Given the phylogenetic information we have now, there is no good place to put Prototaxites in the fungal phylogeny," Boyce said. "So maybe it is a fungus, but whether a fungus or something else entirely, it represents a novel experiment with complex multicellularity that is now extinct and does not share a multicellular common ancestor with anything alive today."
Journal Reference: Corentin C. Loron, Laura M. Cooper, Seán F. Jordan, et al., Prototaxites fossils are structurally and chemically distinct from extinct and extant Fungi, Science Advances, 21 Jan 2026, Vol 12, Issue 4 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aec6277
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Monday February 02, @10:47AM (4 children)
Seems likely that there are some weird ancient lifeforms given the huge variety of atmospheric chemical composition and thermodynamic conditions in ancient times.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 02, @01:31PM (2 children)
Also seems likely that some early forms of life wouldn't fossilize particularly well, particularly across billions of years...
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Username on Monday February 02, @03:49PM (1 child)
Yeah, I wonder how these giant mushrooms were fossilized. Were they aquatic, and silt buried them over time?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 02, @05:03PM
> aquatic, and silt buried them over time?
That's the easiest way to get long term preservation, according to the latest Jurassic Park movie...
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by ese002 on Wednesday February 04, @03:47AM
It's not *THAT* long ago. These fossils are from the Devonian Period (Age of Fish). This is long after hydrocarbon haze, The Great Oxygen Catastrophe, and the Snowball Earth. While some variation in oxygen and CO2 levels, the atmosphere was pretty similar to what it is today. Temperatures were a bit warmer so no icecaps but nothing that would open the door for unusual life chemistry. This was a time when life was first colonising land. With little to no competition from existing species, some strange evolutionary experiments are to be expected. Macroscopic "plants" not part of the plant kingdom is still a surprise, though. I would have expected that level to be sorted out in the seas many millions of years before.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by shrewdsheep on Monday February 02, @12:57PM (2 children)
Naturally, the analysis is based on fossilized material alone, making inference on molecular composition and organismic organization indirect, basically making as many assumptions as required to achieve a conclusion. Their main analysis is conducted on a single specimen and the conclusion is based on a canonical correlation analysis, a method that is prone to overfitting. In this analysis, the new specimen appears to be distinct from all other known species.
At the very least this analysis is questionable as it, first, only uses a single sample, second, does not provide a measure of uncertainty, and third does not take into account the disparate means of acquiring the different sample in the CCA.
Color me skeptical.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 02, @01:03PM
Are you in general agreement with the last paragraph, the quote from Kevin Boyce?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 02, @01:39PM
>Color me skeptical.
Color me skeptical of the specifics of their analysis - of course it's even more flimsy than the usual analysis of things found buried in the dirt.
Color me very skeptical of the concept that there is only "one tree of life" in the history of the Earth. The concept that there are not just failed branches, but entire failed trees starting from inorganic chemicals combining to self-replicating and evolving life seems much more likely than not.
Is this find just over-fitting of the data to the overwhelmingly likely concept? Maybe...
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by Revek on Monday February 02, @02:13PM
Sounds like they are working on it but in no way do they sound baffled.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 02, @03:44PM (2 children)
Possibly if planets get seeded, intentionally or unintentionally, a planet with a huge ecosystem will wipe out whatever lands on it, but a planet that empty might boot up with whatever lands on it, or whatever lands on it might thrive for awhile, enough for fossils to be found a long time later, until the locals learn to eat it and wipe it out.
The odds of planets getting struck by parts of planets that were struck seems very low, but its known that some meteors come from mars. Surely there are earth bacteria spores on mars right now if there are almost 300 cataloged meteors from mars that have been discovered, its plausible a similar level of effort would find 300 earth meteors on mars and earth being covered with life I'm sure there's earth bacterial spores and stuff on mars.
It doesn't happen often but the universe is old.
Not implausible that this thing grew from spores/seeds/wtf from mars or venus. As for venus, this plant not-fungus thing's weird physical structure might have been survivable on a brighter planet like venus but it failed here on the dimmer earth. It seems a little overcomplicated like it can afford overcomplication if it came from a brighter planet more photosynthesis floating around both in this weird thing and stuff floating around to eat. I don't see an obvious reason why some weird plant-like thing that lived on mars would not thrive on earth the point of maybe outcompeting the locals in some areas, although possibly, for awhile, it did, until the locals evolved to eat it and it got wiped out, so maybe its from mars. If there were "tons of fossil records" of this thing, which is seems there are not, a statistical analysis of growth and decay over however long it existed, would probably imply which planet its from, if its extraterrestrial.
Another interesting analysis would be a plausible engineering study. If this things wood-like-guts evolved to be vaguely mechanically stable at 0.3 g and not so stable at 1.0 g or 0.9 g that would have certain obvious implications. If this weird tube network thing is totally strong enough to grow at 0.3 g in some mechanical engineering model and that happens to be Mars gravity but its not strong enough to compete with 1.0 g locals... Would it be more plausible for something with gloopy innards like this to evolve to be optimized at 1.0g, 0.9g, or 0.3g? I'd bet on Mars as a source and thats why this entire microstructural strategy eventually died out here on earth.
Yet another question is the climate where it was found. I bet a "plant like thing" from mars would kick ass if it landed on earth in arctic mountains above the local conifer tree-line there's not much competition and not much to eat them. A shitty cold winter on earth must have been like the peak of summer for mars plant-like-things. OTOH if it needs venus like light and heat you'd expect to find fossils on earth in hot tropical areas, the only locations it would stand a chance on earth. Maybe an isolated tropical island would help enough venus-not-really-plant-things to survive long enough for us to find fossils.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 02, @04:04PM
As a follow up:
The tallest earth tree wins the photosynthesis battle against the shorter trees. If there's any photosynthesis going on with this not-fungi at all, even if its just eating algae that dies on its surface...
On earth trees have a max size because they're kinda shit at pumping water at 1G beyond that height and overcomplicated strategies to pump better than trees pump doesn't seem to work.
Assuming earth gravity. It would be super interesting to scale it to 0.3G or 0.9G and see if it THEN matches something on earth. Possibly these weird tubes are the ideal mushroom matrix in mars or venus gravity. Or somewhere else.
(Score: 2) by liar on Monday February 02, @05:57PM
"I bet a "plant like thing" from mars would kick ass if it landed on earth in arctic mountains above the local conifer tree-line there's not much competition and not much to eat them."
nuh uhh! :
Ned "Scotty" Scott: All right, fellas, here's your story: North Pole, November Third, Ned Scott reporting. One of the world's greatest battles was fought and won today by the human race. Here at the top of the world a handful of American soldiers and civilians met the first invasion from another planet. A man by the name of Noah once saved our world with an ark of wood. Here at the North Pole, a few men performed a similar service with an arc of electricity. The flying saucer which landed here and its pilot have been destroyed, but not without causalities among our own meager forces. I would like to bring to the microphone some of the men responsible for our success... but as Senior Air force officer Captain Hendry is attending to demands over and above the call of duty... Doctor Carrington, the leader of the scientific expedition, is recovering from wounds received in the battle.
Eddie: [Softly] Good for you, Scotty.
Ned "Scotty" Scott: And now before giving you the details of the battle, I bring you a warning: Everyone of you listening to my voice, tell the world, tell this to everybody wherever they are. Watch the skies. Everywhere. Keep looking. Keep watching the skies.
Noli nothis permittere te terere.