Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Nature Network)   A weird subterranean plant not seen in 150 years re-emerges from the underworld. Ridley Scott spotted securing the movie rights   ( mnn.com) divider line
    More: Cool, Plant, Crop Research Institution, larger sample size, Photosynthesis, entire life underground, Thismia neptunis, Flower, Italian botanist  
•       •       •

2989 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Mar 2018 at 1:05 PM (33 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



22 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-03-05 10:48:46 AM  
Yes, but can you smoke it?
 
2018-03-05 01:01:34 PM  
Feed me Seymour!
 
2018-03-05 01:23:49 PM  
I just watched the latest Alien movie. There will be another movie because the aliens were never completely eradicated......
 
2018-03-05 01:24:46 PM  

TommyDeuce: Feed me Seymour!


Sure, after I finish talking to the strippers, Joseph Stalin and Jack Kennedy.
 
2018-03-05 01:38:31 PM  
Maybe my reading comprehension is failing me but there appears to be a few confusing things in this article.

1. The headline: Weird subterranean plant
    Caption under the photo: Fungus-like organism might not look like a plant, but it is one.

   So is it a plant or a fungus?

2. Discovered in 1866 then never seen again until last year when it was rediscovered. FTA: Blooms only appear a few weeks at a time, and likely not even every year. How do they know it might not bloom every year if it was only rediscovered last year?
 
2018-03-05 01:47:17 PM  

Slypork: Maybe my reading comprehension is failing me but there appears to be a few confusing things in this article.

1. The headline: Weird subterranean plant
    Caption under the photo: Fungus-like organism might not look like a plant, but it is one.

   So is it a plant or a fungus?

2. Discovered in 1866 then never seen again until last year when it was rediscovered. FTA: Blooms only appear a few weeks at a time, and likely not even every year. How do they know it might not bloom every year if it was only rediscovered last year?


It's the mother nature network. I'd be surprised if they actually got the details right.

What I want to know is who among the mods decided these guys and Forbes should be the go to Fark sources on scientific news?
 
2018-03-05 02:03:01 PM  
I don't normally NOPE plants, but I'm going to NOPE this one.
 
2018-03-05 02:17:36 PM  
Don't look at the Comet
 
2018-03-05 02:17:43 PM  

Copperbelly watersnake: Slypork: Maybe my reading comprehension is failing me but there appears to be a few confusing things in this article.

1. The headline: Weird subterranean plant
    Caption under the photo: Fungus-like organism might not look like a plant, but it is one.

   So is it a plant or a fungus?

2. Discovered in 1866 then never seen again until last year when it was rediscovered. FTA: Blooms only appear a few weeks at a time, and likely not even every year. How do they know it might not bloom every year if it was only rediscovered last year?

It's the mother nature network. I'd be surprised if they actually got the details right.

What I want to know is who among the mods decided these guys and Forbes should be the go to Fark sources on scientific news?


Would you prefer Breitbart or Infowars for your science and technology news. At least with Forbes you'll be in the same galactic quadrant of the facts as opposed to the ones I mentioned which aren't even in the same dimension.
 
2018-03-05 02:19:20 PM  
I'm sure all the scientists examining it will get killed in the stupidest way possible.
 
2018-03-05 02:21:59 PM  
 
2018-03-05 02:23:09 PM  
So, the back story of this plant will be that it was created to destroy humanity by a pissed off android?
 
2018-03-05 02:25:16 PM  

Slypork: Maybe my reading comprehension is failing me but there appears to be a few confusing things in this article.

1. The headline: Weird subterranean plant
    Caption under the photo: Fungus-like organism might not look like a plant, but it is one.

   So is it a plant or a fungus?


Fungus-like point to it not being a fungus, and "not look like a plant, but it is one" says it is a plant.

img.fark.netView Full Size

Cat-like thing might not look like a car, but it is one.
 
2018-03-05 02:29:25 PM  
Wow.  I'm having Annihilation flashbacks, (yeah I took a shroom mini-dose)
media.mnn.comView Full Size

The funny thing about our rigic phylogenetic tree is that we don't account for the true outliers. Where is the bridging point between plants and fungi I wonder.
 
2018-03-05 02:44:49 PM  

Slypork: 1. The headline: Weird subterranean plant
    Caption under the photo: Fungus-like organism might not look like a plant, but it is one.

   So is it a plant or a fungus?


It's a plant. It parasitizes a fungus. Orchids work similarly.
 
2018-03-05 02:50:19 PM  

berylman: The funny thing about our rigic phylogenetic tree is that we don't account for the true outliers. Where is the bridging point between plants and fungi I wonder.


Cellulosic (plants) versus chitinous (fungi) cell walls. Animals are motile, heterotrophic, and lack cell walls.

Algae are autotrophic.
Protists are unicellular.
Bacteria are prokaryotic.

That's the difference.
 
2018-03-05 02:58:47 PM  
Slypork:

2. Discovered in 1866 then never seen again until last year when it was rediscovered. FTA: Blooms only appear a few weeks at a time, and likely not even every year. How do they know it might not bloom every year if it was only rediscovered last year?

Discoverer worked in that area 1865-1868. I guess they assume it, because he didn't observe it in 1667 and maybe 1968
 34857-124463-1-PB.pdf
 
2018-03-05 04:50:49 PM  

TommyDeuce: Feed me Seymour!


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-03-05 05:00:51 PM  
Come at me, Bro!
 
2018-03-05 05:04:58 PM  

This text is now purple: Slypork: 1. The headline: Weird subterranean plant
    Caption under the photo: Fungus-like organism might not look like a plant, but it is one.

   So is it a plant or a fungus?

It's a plant. It parasitizes a fungus. Orchids work similarly.


And the fungus gets its nourishment from a mycorrhizal relationship with trees.
 
2018-03-05 05:40:43 PM  

Slypork: Copperbelly watersnake: Slypork: Maybe my reading comprehension is failing me but there appears to be a few confusing things in this article.

1. The headline: Weird subterranean plant
    Caption under the photo: Fungus-like organism might not look like a plant, but it is one.

   So is it a plant or a fungus?

2. Discovered in 1866 then never seen again until last year when it was rediscovered. FTA: Blooms only appear a few weeks at a time, and likely not even every year. How do they know it might not bloom every year if it was only rediscovered last year?

It's the mother nature network. I'd be surprised if they actually got the details right.

What I want to know is who among the mods decided these guys and Forbes should be the go to Fark sources on scientific news?

Would you prefer Breitbart or Infowars for your science and technology news. At least with Forbes you'll be in the same galactic quadrant of the facts as opposed to the ones I mentioned which aren't even in the same dimension.


I guess we live in a world where those are the only two options.  There are by no means any other sources of science and technology news available.
 
2018-03-06 09:09:39 AM  

Craw Fu: Slypork: Copperbelly watersnake: Slypork: Maybe my reading comprehension is failing me but there appears to be a few confusing things in this article.

1. The headline: Weird subterranean plant
    Caption under the photo: Fungus-like organism might not look like a plant, but it is one.

   So is it a plant or a fungus?

2. Discovered in 1866 then never seen again until last year when it was rediscovered. FTA: Blooms only appear a few weeks at a time, and likely not even every year. How do they know it might not bloom every year if it was only rediscovered last year?

It's the mother nature network. I'd be surprised if they actually got the details right.

What I want to know is who among the mods decided these guys and Forbes should be the go to Fark sources on scientific news?

Would you prefer Breitbart or Infowars for your science and technology news. At least with Forbes you'll be in the same galactic quadrant of the facts as opposed to the ones I mentioned which aren't even in the same dimension.

I guess we live in a world where those are the only two options.  There are by no means any other sources of science and technology news available.


I know there are many other, reputable sources. I was just alluding to some of the more "popular" sources we see here on Fark. Believe me, I love seeing articles from phys.org. In fact, here is their article about this same plant.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report