Valonia ventricosa
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
https://biology.stackexchange.com/a/28480/3871
Sure, topologically that's the same, but biology isn't topology. There are lots of organisms like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coenocyte
I don't know this species specifically, but functionally, organisms like this work much the same as multicellular organisms, with the domain round a nucleus equipped with protein synthesis machinery and other organelles running mostly independently, and coordinating with the other ones via chemical signals. It's just that the signals can move around without having to cross a cell membrane.
EDIT: And if you count this as a single cell, then presumably you'll count a muscle fibre, which is also many nuclei inside a single cell membrane, in which case there are larger single cells inside your own body:
https://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/37/8528
Well, longer at least.
> if you count this as a single cell, then presumably you'll count a muscle fibre, which is also many nuclei inside a single cell membrane, in which case there are larger single cells inside your own body:
Certainly. Human muscle fibres and nerve axons are single-celled, but they aren't organisms.
This is amazing for me. Sometimes it seems that everything is already discovered and if not we just need to put some tech into it to analyze the mystery and get an answer.
The reality is that we are still far away from that. And that any discovery involves dedication, investment and serendipity.
Just like most of us dont interact with sharks and tigers
Or should we just change the URL to the larger one?
Edit: Not NoScript.
Example: the recent discussion of a very long Cocoa identifier for a Chinese kinship term (I don’t remember the exact one) was changed to a slightly different one that was two characters longer. Making a bunch of the existing discussion confusing was not worth the value of changing the URL, in that case.
Unicellular organisms have zero or one nucleus. If they have two or more nucleus is multicellular
Hmm, is that true? Looks like there are unicellular organisms with multiple nuclei:
Valonia vesicles are able to hold several smaller bubbles attached. They differenciate from the larger bubble by a process similar to gemation and quickly replace it when is too old or damaged and it bursts. If a bubble equals a cell in function and looks, an organism able to have rhizoids and other smaller cells glued to its main cell, is clearly pluricellular.
The internals of cells are mostly water, protein, and DNA, which don't really taste like anything to our tongues. Most sugars are stored as glycogen, so you wouldn't get much sweetness. There also wouldn't be much texture, as it's lacking any sort of bone or shell.
Amylase, the thing in the mouth, breaks down starches, like in rice or bread. Glycogen is different from these though, as it has different linkages, and can't be broken down by amylase.
I suspect that this alga has some interesting and perhaps surprising defences, in line with its relatives. (And, that these may well impact on its taste)
For example, spirulina is said to be spiral because this allows it to spontaneously flee from approaching water fleas, with no active energy use: primarily depending on the laws of physics.
Probably edible in a strict sense (if growing in clean waters), as Codium and other similar algae are, but the experience wouldn't be pleasant.
Mind: Blown
Bird eggs increase its cells by division and sometimes a single egg can produce two twin animals. Are they reproducting?. Well, in some sense, yes.