Chaetomorpha, a macroalgae, is classified under the Plantae kingdom. They use to think that all algae were plants because it green (mostly) and it's photosynthetic. But evidently micro algae doesn't have the same cell structure as plants--no cellular wall, etc... . They are in fact considered protists, (I'm fairly sure, but correct me if I'm wrong). So, is macro a plant, and micro a protist? plz clarify! Then there are things like cyanobacteria that looks like algae, which I think is a moneran/Prokaryote. But maybe it's not a bacteria at all but some sort of protazoa? Had a lot of conflicting research. Just curious. Anyone know about this stuff? Oh, for that matter, anyone familiar with "moss balls" (lotta folks have them in freshwater planted aquaria)? Is moss a macroalgae?
Macroalgae a plant? is microalgae a protist?
- Thread starter Tangdango
- Start date
Saltliquid
New member
No it’s not a protist, protists are best described as heterotrophs and autotrophs and marine algae as in caulerpa are related and is loosely translated as a combo of protista and bacteria, sort of?
Diatom algae is a protist.
With cyano, it is in all plant life, in marine algae it’s in the chloroplasts, that’s why plants can photosynthesis.
We need to better understand and respect cyano, it’s why we all exist!
Protozoa is the old name for protists.
Moss as in the bryophytes, not a protist at all, they are an extremely old order of plants.
Diatom algae is a protist.
With cyano, it is in all plant life, in marine algae it’s in the chloroplasts, that’s why plants can photosynthesis.
We need to better understand and respect cyano, it’s why we all exist!
Protozoa is the old name for protists.
Moss as in the bryophytes, not a protist at all, they are an extremely old order of plants.
Last edited:
Amphiprion
Premium Member
It has changed quite a bit, depending upon which particular method you choose. The term "algae" is a very polyphyletic one, as it encompasses many organisms that are not related much at all.
As of now, most green algae are considered true green plants, so it is important to show that distinction. Red algae are also now considered to be plants in terms of relatedness, though in a different group from green plants. Brown algae are not considered plants, nor really protists (another polyphyletic group), either. Many have been shown to be so unique as to belong to their own kingdom. Brown algae, which are quite complex, are considered chromalveolates--part of the kingdom Chromista--though they still retain the term "phaeophytes" as their class like in older nomenclature.
This all will probably also be subject to some level of change as time goes on. Hope that helps, though I think it may merely muddy the waters somewhat from what you were expecting.
As of now, most green algae are considered true green plants, so it is important to show that distinction. Red algae are also now considered to be plants in terms of relatedness, though in a different group from green plants. Brown algae are not considered plants, nor really protists (another polyphyletic group), either. Many have been shown to be so unique as to belong to their own kingdom. Brown algae, which are quite complex, are considered chromalveolates--part of the kingdom Chromista--though they still retain the term "phaeophytes" as their class like in older nomenclature.
This all will probably also be subject to some level of change as time goes on. Hope that helps, though I think it may merely muddy the waters somewhat from what you were expecting.
be careful using the word "true" when describing plants as it refers to plants that have a vasculature system, a feature no algae exhibits.
Amphiprion
Premium Member
True plants are not synonymous with vascular plants to begin with. There are plenty of actual plants that vascularized system. That idea harkens back to the days before green algae were considered plants to begin with--before the advent of genetic analysis.
Similar threads
