That's true in a taxonomical context, but it's not incorrect to call algae "plants" by other definitions. Another example: many pedants overlook that a tomato is both a fruit and a vegetable.
It is incorrect. They are not plants. I am curious why you think it is correct to call protists plants? It is not just taxonomy, but ecology, life history, tissue structures, and so much more. Some plants do photosynthesis. Some algae do photosynthesis. Not all things that do photosynthesis are plants. Not all things that do not do photosynthesis are not plants.
Presumably because "plant" was a word used to describe all sessile, photosynthesizing organisms visible with the naked eye long before we developed sophisticated enough tools to scientifically separate sea-weed from other plants.
Also, I'm not an expert, and I know Wikipedia isn't the most authoritative source, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant#Alternative_concepts seems to suggest that green algae are, at least at times, scientifically considered the parent group of land plants. So there's that, too.
Well, I am an expert. And ya, the “parent group”, sure, but we all have common ancestors though. So by that line of reasoning, I guess you are a plant?
Anyway ya plants evolved from protists. What other groups of organisms do we lump together based on an 19th century understanding of the world? I am amazed by people’s ability to warp the world to their priors rather be bothered to update them.
> What other groups of organisms do we lump together based on an 19th century understanding of the world?
Ooo, I know this one! Fish! Also, trees.
People love to annoy people with the fun fact that palms aren't true trees, but are actually grasses (hell, grass probably is one too), as if tree doesn't just mean "Fairly rigid plant that will usually grow taller than humans." It's useful to have words to describe categories of organisms based on how they appear to us and their relationship to us (say, "gut flora"), even if they don't describe coherent clades.
Sometimes it's important to know that a screwdriver was developed separately from a hammer and really has a very different purpose and theory behind it, and sometimes it's important to know that they both go in the toolbox because they're both things you hold and use on other things to attach things together.
My hot take is that just because a term develops a more specific, scientific definition doesn't mean that the existing colloquial definition is wrong, it's just a different use of the word. It's ok for you to disagree with that, but it's strange that you're so very dismissive of the idea.
Your friends’ botany joke is lame. Tree was never taxonomical, only a growth form or “habit” in older parlance. Plenty of individual species grow as trees or shrubs and many genera have representatives from forb through tree. There is no true tree.
The thing is if all you know is that the screwdriver and hammer go in the toolbox, you lack a functional knowledge of those tools and therefore the skill to use them. I for one am confident that you are capable of understanding that while plants and algae are both living organisms, they are functionally, ecologically, evolutionarily, and taxonomically different. The layperson so married to their colloquialisms need not worry about too much detail, yet may benefit from the knowledge that algae are not for bashing nails and plants are not for driving screws. Alas you may wish to know which of the sea you may eat raw or which might seasonally give you a nut flour. Or you may more easily grasp the functional and ecological role of microalgae, armed with the background understanding of their distinction from trees and grasses, should you encounter those creatures. And I hope you do, since you are relying on them to live.
In any case, in my experience, the greater people’s understanding of natural history and their ability to name the organisms in their environment, the more likely they are to see, appreciate, and value the rich mosaic if life around them. The benefits of that are grand for the individual even if they don’t bother connecting the dots on the science.
Colloquialisms are great. But suggesting we all permanently adopt and maintain a state of ignorance because a certain subset of humans had a term, I dunno.
"Tetrapods are descended from fish, so in a break from the long tradition of grouping all fish into a single class (Pisces), modern phylogenetics views fish as a paraphyletic group that includes all vertebrates except tetrapods. To treat fish as a monophyletic group, one would have to classify tetrapods as a clade/subgroup of specialized fish, which would make "fish" and "vertebrates" synonyms."
Hm. I don't think there is anything wrong with having terms defining paraphyletic groups. I don't think we need to treat fish or plants for that matter as a monophyletic group necessarily in order to avoid misinformation. The group that includes algae and plants is monophyletic after all, but I don't know what that has to do with the original point.
"Are algae plants?"
"Yes."
Is incorrect. That it once stood as the best available information is interesting but not relevant to the veracity.
> For the record, psychology research has demonstrated that humans do not think in language. This was a popular myth started by someone in the 1930's or so, I think, leading to authoritarian ideas about thought control via language control
Are you describing strong linguistic relativity here? I was under the impression the weak form still held under study (e.g. names of colors being the popular example).
I haven't encountered the notion that "humans do not think in language." Is there a paper or keyword I can look up?
"Taken together, these two complementary lines of evidence provide a clear answer to the classic question: many aspects of thought engage distinct brain regions from, and do not depend on, language."
> does that imply that there is no shared american culture?
I think you might've convinced me of this just with your comment.
Also, flip "religion" and "culture" and the post still (mostly) works, though I don't think that proves anything.
The moral/preference idea is closer, but you get a lot of gray areas like sports teams and Sunday roasts (complete with threat of excommunication for non-adherence).
Buddhism as actually practiced for the last 2500 years ascribes all kinds of deity-like features and the supernatural to the Buddha – travel Asia and you’ll see people praying to Amitabha Buddha in order to be reborn in his Pure Land, and even Theravada Buddhism that doesn't go whole hog with pantheons still holds that the Buddha was divinely immune to fire, poison, and drowning. A non-supernatural Buddha is largely a feature of the twentieth-century West, which thought it could get something in tune with a more rational era by reviving, so it thought, “original Buddhism” with questionable results. Even non-revival, supernaturally charged strands of Buddhism have their converts in the West.
Sure, and there are followers of Christ who also do all the things he said not to (Catholics). I don't take a religion's followers as good examples of the founders intents.
The intent of Buddhism's founder is ultimately unknowable. The earliest source we have, the Pali canon, already contains the supernatural and the mythological. It cannot be emphasized enough just how modern attempts to reconstruct the "original" Buddhism are, and they are simply unfalsifiable.
reply