Terraformed Ecosystem Peculiarities

[Flyndaran]

Okay, as long as it's acknowledged that plant does not really cover all photosynthesizing earth life.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Okay, as long as it's acknowledged that plant does not really cover all photosynthesizing earth life.

The technical term Plantae does not, but the ordinary English word "plant" does. In English, kelp is a plant. And so is that filamentous green alga that grows on submerged rocks. So are mushrooms. And things that eat them are in English herbivores (or omnivores, etc.).

Recent drastic revisions of taxonomy can't be depended on to drastically change the meanings of words in English parlance.

[Flyndaran]

Confusing obvious fungi for plants is plain lack of education, not English vagueness. It's on par with confusing chimps for monkeys and lowers my opinion of their intelligence.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Confusing obvious fungi for plants is plain lack of education, not English vagueness.

Not at all. When I was doing biology in high school fungi were classified as plants. And a butcher, a greengrocer, and a chef would agree that they still are. Probably a legislator, too.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Eukaryotic Plantae do, but I and (I suspect) Anthony date from an epoch in which algae and even blue-green bacteria (we called them "blue-green algae") were classified as plants (and protozoa and even amoebae as "animals").

In the context of a wholly artificial biology on another planet I think it is okay to let "plants" stand for "photosynthesising sedentary autotrophs".

Oh, terminology revisions . . . Gone are the familiar days . . .
(I know them as 'blue-green algae' too, and I''ve been born in 1984, which is not that long ago on an evolutionary timescale . . .).

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Not at all. When I was doing biology in high school fungi were classified as plants. And a butcher, a greengrocer, and a chef would agree that they still are. Probably a legislator, too.

???? is all I can say to that.
I know that cooks loves to misname things like calling tetrapod meat protein as if plants aren't full of protein.

Calling a mushroom a plant is less accurate than calling a baboon a plant.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

???? is all I can say to that.
I know that cooks loves to misname things like calling tetrapod meat protein as if plants aren't full of protein.

Calling a mushroom a plant is less accurate than calling a baboon a plant.

Words having more than one meaning is not all that rare or strange. The recent taxonomic meaning of "plantae" is not the only valid meaning of "plant". Cooks have been counting mushrooms as plants for thousands of years, and the usage is unambiguous and useful in its context. There is no reason why they should adapt their speech to taxonomists' convenience.

And by the way, fungi and baboons are both opisthokonts and plantae aren't, so calling either of them a plant is the same degree of error, taxonomically.

[ericthered]

So I'm actually not clear on this, but are we looking at this ecosystem when its in progress, or when its finished but not inhabited yet? Or is this aliens messing around, seeing if they can invent a form of life that isn't silicon based? because all three will certainly change what the world looks like.

Originally Posted by Agemegos

And by the way, fungi and baboons are both opisthokonts and plantae aren't, so calling either of them a plant is the same degree of error, taxonomically.

Cladistically, yes. If you consider the current system alone, yes. If you pull history into things-- I learned five kingdoms, not two, but grew up with a doctor (biology major) in the house, and for him, fungi were something that botanists studied (and thus plants). History is not insignificant, and the current cladistic system is still settling from a lot of recent upheaval. Anatomically, Fungi are closer to plants. Physiologically, a case can be made for both, though they still tend to land on the plant side of things. Cladisticly, yes, they are closer to animals. So its really only the same level of mistake if you are a strict cladist.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by ericthered

So I'm actually not clear on this, but are we looking at this ecosystem when its in progress, or when its finished but not inhabited yet?

What it looks like while in progress has some effect on what it looks like when finished, but mostly in terms of fossils and the like. What it looks like when finished probably has more to do with the preferences of the people doing terraforming than with any specific requirements (it looks terraformed because all the local lifeforms are actually native to some other planet...).

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Cladistically, yes.

I'm pretty sure that that's the standard Flyndaran means to apply. Besides, anatomically and historically fungi, not baboons, are the ones closer to plants.