
Deep sea 'mushroom' may be new branch of life - anigbrowl
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29054889
======
irickt
To put this in perspective, there are very few animals that are not bilateral.
Look at the outline on the right side here:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal)

This new species would be in the odd subkingdoms at the top or a new
subkingdom there.

------
jccooper
Too bad the preservation killed the possibility of genetic sequencing;
phylogenetics seems a lot more useful and accurate to me than morphological
taxonomy. But in 1986 I guess genetic sequencing wasn't much of a thing
(though the history of phylogentics goes back surprisingly far.)

~~~
squidfood
Formaldehyde and alcohol are still the best way to preserve samples for
physical examination when no genetic work is expected. It's a trade-off.

If these had been stored in a genetically-safe way (say frozen, or dried),
they may not have been noticed at all, as it tends to collapse structure,
especially with gelatinous animals.

~~~
jccooper
Better that they did what they could, certainly. I expect a modern study would
take into account DNA, molecular, and even RNA analysis where possible, which
were not concerns at the time.

(Modern sample preservation techniques have to consider about half a dozen
different types of analysis. Drying, freezing, alcohol, formalin, bleach, are
all used for different things. The best all-purpose preservative is high-
percentage ethanol, which is okay for DNA for 5-10 years and also preserves
structure reasonably well. A NOAA publication on corals suggests you procure
some Everclear in an emergency.)

~~~
squidfood
Heh, I've done vodka once!

For modern shipboard collections, time is still the enemy ($20K/day to run a
ship exhausts a scientific budget quickly, not to mention weather, etc).
Surveys have multiple studies going on, so deck operations may be negotiated
by scientists down to the minute. Many of the various molecular techniques
require careful cleaning of surfaces and tools for each sample, so it's
prohibitive to do "general molecular sampling".

For unusual things - in spite of us being scientists, and loving unusual
things - the rule is still "Tag it, bag it, look at it later". The "bag it" is
usually formalin. If it looks interesting back in the lab, conduct a special
study next year to collect some genetics. Of course, we're not expecting to
find new phyla very often!

So I'm absolutely sure that 20 years from now, someone could be going through
my old bottles, find something truly weird that I missed, and wish that I'd
thought to get some $!@#$$(## DNA!

------
Flenser
I'm reminded of Dawkins talking about essentialism a few days ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8250473](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8250473)

------
nn3
Would be really cool if we discovered an Ediacaeran branch of live.

But ~30years to publish such a find? Seriously? Something is really wrong in
the way they work.

~~~
dalke
It's not uncommon. It's easier to collect than it is to classify. Eg, here's a
news report from 1988 about how "[a] 70-foot dinosaur known as Happy stood
prominently on display at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History for nearly
25 years before researchers discovered it was a new species."
[http://articles.latimes.com/1988-09-25/local/me-3747_1_natur...](http://articles.latimes.com/1988-09-25/local/me-3747_1_natural-
history)

It points out that "Museum storerooms have become rich hunting grounds for new
species because a lack of money and staff has delayed the identification of
bones excavated up to 60 years ago" and that "75% of the museum's collection
has not been examined closely."

Nor is it a recent issue. The HMS Challenger expedition of 1872–76, which was
the first real oceanographic expedition, took another 19 years to publish
everything. (See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_expedition#Findings_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_expedition#Findings_and_legacy)
).

------
MrArtichaut
"The new organisms are multicellular but mostly non-symmetrical"

So it's not really a new branch of life if it's multicellular but just non-
symmetrical ...

Maybe a new sub-division in the multicellular kingdom but not a whole new
branch at the same level as bacteria, archaea and multicellulars...

edit : bacteria, archae and EUKARYOTE not multicellular

~~~
ghshephard
What's fascinating is that finding new animal phyla is apparently something
that has happened a few times in the last century, and they aren't able to
place this creature into a phyla yet - it's close to a jellyfish and comb
jellies, but not close enough to be included in the Cnidaria or Ctenophora
phylum.

~~~
MrArtichaut
I don't deny the importance of the finding. Bilateria and non-bilateria are
huge groups in the animal kingdom and if this animal doesn't fit in one of
them is really something.

But (for now, without ADN analysis) it's just a new structure plan. I just
find the title about "a new branch of life" a little sensationalist :)

~~~
lmm
I think the article was using "branch" colloquially, rather than in some
technical sense. And it's saying "may be" rather than "is".

~~~
gus_massa
The problem is that it's an exaggeration like: "New article title may be a new
branch of linkbait art"

A better title is "Deep sea 'mushroom' may be new branch of animals" or "Deep
sea 'mushroom' may be new branch of animal kingdom".

I'm still not 100% happy with the proposed title, but it's more realistic. One
of the problems is that it's not a mushroom nor mushroom related. It's only a
weird animal with a strange shape that looks like a mushroom.

------
guard-of-terra
Finding examples of Edicarian fauna would be exciting news.

~~~
DCKing
The statements saying that this may be a sample of Edicarian fauna are pretty
speculative. From the original paper:

> We are aware that the similarities to some of the Ediacaran forms may be
> independent responses to the same environmental necessities, rather than
> being evidence of homology.

They found similarities between this and some Ediacaran fossils, but that does
not mean that they are related. There are other extant animals with
similarities to some Ediacaran specimens with no relation between them.

The speculation can be falsified by analyzing this creatures' DNA and find at
which point it diverged from other known life. I hope that is possible!

~~~
bildung
_The speculation can be falsified by analyzing this creatures ' DNA and find
at which point it diverged from other known life. I hope that is possible!_

According to the article, due to the way they were preserved that's sadly not
an option with the current samples. They would have to catch new specimen
first.

------
mebassett
this reminds me of an article I read a long time ago. paraphrasing a quote
from it for this case:

that deep sea `mushroom' is a new branch of life is not a fact of nature, but
an artifact of the way we classify nature.

[http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/interests/aaa/marksaaa99.htm](http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/interests/aaa/marksaaa99.htm)

~~~
lukeschlather
I think you're taking that article somewhat out of context. Saying that this
"mushroom" is a new branch on the tree of life has a factual, falsifiable
meaning.

There is a real thing that we can't really reconstruct in its entirety: the
family tree for all life on Earth. Saying it's a new branch means that it
diverged so long ago we can't find anything that looks like a common ancestor.

~~~
mebassett
from the bbc article:

"The researchers did find some similarities to other animal groupings, such as
the Cnidaria - the phylum that comprises corals and jellyfish - and the
Ctenophora, which includes the marine organisms known as comb jellies. But the
new organisms did not fulfil all the criteria required for inclusion in either
of those categories."

and

"One way to resolve the question surrounding Dendrogramma's affinities would
be to examine its DNA, but new specimens will need to be found. "

made me think this announcement was more about how to place it in our existing
taxonomy, and that it reminds to be scene if it really has no common ancestor
that we're aware of, as we're still waiting a DNA examination.

~~~
bjz_
> it reminds to be scene if it really has no common ancestor that we're aware
> of

Evidence for a second tree of life would be incredible. But without further
evidence it would be jumping to conclusions to entertain the idea too
seriously.

------
Thimothy
Is anyone surprised by any means to find that, when a new, strange, and
unclassifiable animal is discovered, it is in Australia?

The next news will probably mention that someone tried to taste it and that
person died in an horrible (and completely novel) way.

