▲ 528 ▼ Some even crave the spice (thelemmy.club) submitted 3 days ago by time2lose@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.world 54 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] DrStanleyGoodspeed@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 days ago (2 children) You’re right. Mushrooms aren’t plants. I stand corrected permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jama211@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (1 child) Knowledge is knowing they're not a plant. Wisdom is still putting them in the plant section in the grocery store. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago There are at least two plant sections in the grocery store! And more if you consider that the shelves have plants as well. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children) Indeed they are not. They are their own category. Their cell structure is between plant cells and animal cells. A fungi cloud works similar to a brain. They are the things that make life possible. There are fungi living in our body which keeps us alive, we use them for bread, beer and penicillin among many other uses, they break down dead plants to create food for new plants, they divide food and communicate between trees, but they are themselves not plants. The largest living organism on earth is a fungi by the way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DrStanleyGoodspeed@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago (2 children) I did not know that about the oldest living organism thing. where is this ancient fungi? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 days ago Largest, not oldest. In Oregon, between 2500 and 8500 years old. But fungi existed before plants did, 1.3 billion and plants 700 million years ago. So fungi are much older. permalink fedilink source parent [–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 1 point 3 days ago (2 children) Gone, but there used to be giant fungus "trees" called prototaxites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototaxites permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] arctanthrope@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago* (1 child) there's actually new research saying prototaxites may not have been fungi, but belonged to an entirely separate kingdom that's now extinct. one of the defining characteristics of fungi are that their cell walls contain chitin, the same stuff that makes arthropod shells. prototaxites was found not to contain any chitin, while other ancient fungi of the same age as prototaxites already did, so it's not a feature of fungi that was adapted later. prototaxites was also found to contain microscopic structures that don't exist in any known fungus species edit: damn, someone beat me to it while I was trying to find the details permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world -5 points 3 days ago (1 child) Yeah... be sure to read the replies first next time permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] arctanthrope@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago the other reply didn't exist yet when I started writing mine. sorry that I took longer because I tried to provide more detail about the thing you seemed interested in permalink fedilink source parent [–] in_my_honest_opinion@piefed.social 2 points 3 days ago* (1 child) From your link. In 2026, research comparing fossils of a prototaxite species with other eukaryotic fossils in the same location found it to be structurally and chemically distinct, suggesting that Prototaxites is not a fungus and instead belongs to an extinct, previously undescribed kingdom of eukaryotic life.[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12822639/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 1 point 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child) Heh... learn something new every day Edit: it sounds like it's a hot topic It is widely considered a fungus, but the debate is ongoing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] in_my_honest_opinion@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago* (1 child) From the paper I linked, it's really interesting. They think it might be a giant eukaryote previously undefined. We hypothesized that if P. taiti was a fungus, fossilization products resulting from the selective preservation or diagenetic alteration of glucan sugars would be present, derived from the original main composition of the cell walls including chitin (a polymer of N-acetyl glucosamine), or resulting from the recombination of glucan and protein into new melanoidin-like compounds, like those found in Fungi and arthropods in the Rhynie chert (39). To test this hypothesis, the previously assembled dataset of 47 samples, representing six higher taxonomic groups (39), was combined with 55 additional samples from these six groups and P. taiti (see the Supplementary Materials for full spectra for each sample, images of all sample spots, and details of taxonomic assignment). We then developed a novel analytic pipeline comprising two key steps: data exploration (step 1) and modelling (step 2) (fig. S3 and Supplementary Text Extended Methods). Step 1 aimed to show that biologically informative spectral bands correlated with taxonomic classification of specimens and that molecular fingerprints of organisms in the Rhynie chert retained information regarding their biological affinities, and to select the most relevant spectral features for further modelling. In step 2, we built classification models using supervised machine learning approaches to provide a robust statistical framework to accept or reject the taxonomic classification of each sample based on the selected spectral features. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago Cool. I'll have to go back and read that tomorrow. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 point 3 days ago* And then there are sponges. They are plant animals, not animal plants. Most of them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jama211@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (1 child) Knowledge is knowing they're not a plant. Wisdom is still putting them in the plant section in the grocery store. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago There are at least two plant sections in the grocery store! And more if you consider that the shelves have plants as well. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago There are at least two plant sections in the grocery store! And more if you consider that the shelves have plants as well. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children) Indeed they are not. They are their own category. Their cell structure is between plant cells and animal cells. A fungi cloud works similar to a brain. They are the things that make life possible. There are fungi living in our body which keeps us alive, we use them for bread, beer and penicillin among many other uses, they break down dead plants to create food for new plants, they divide food and communicate between trees, but they are themselves not plants. The largest living organism on earth is a fungi by the way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DrStanleyGoodspeed@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago (2 children) I did not know that about the oldest living organism thing. where is this ancient fungi? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 days ago Largest, not oldest. In Oregon, between 2500 and 8500 years old. But fungi existed before plants did, 1.3 billion and plants 700 million years ago. So fungi are much older. permalink fedilink source parent [–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 1 point 3 days ago (2 children) Gone, but there used to be giant fungus "trees" called prototaxites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototaxites permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] arctanthrope@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago* (1 child) there's actually new research saying prototaxites may not have been fungi, but belonged to an entirely separate kingdom that's now extinct. one of the defining characteristics of fungi are that their cell walls contain chitin, the same stuff that makes arthropod shells. prototaxites was found not to contain any chitin, while other ancient fungi of the same age as prototaxites already did, so it's not a feature of fungi that was adapted later. prototaxites was also found to contain microscopic structures that don't exist in any known fungus species edit: damn, someone beat me to it while I was trying to find the details permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world -5 points 3 days ago (1 child) Yeah... be sure to read the replies first next time permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] arctanthrope@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago the other reply didn't exist yet when I started writing mine. sorry that I took longer because I tried to provide more detail about the thing you seemed interested in permalink fedilink source parent [–] in_my_honest_opinion@piefed.social 2 points 3 days ago* (1 child) From your link. In 2026, research comparing fossils of a prototaxite species with other eukaryotic fossils in the same location found it to be structurally and chemically distinct, suggesting that Prototaxites is not a fungus and instead belongs to an extinct, previously undescribed kingdom of eukaryotic life.[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12822639/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 1 point 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child) Heh... learn something new every day Edit: it sounds like it's a hot topic It is widely considered a fungus, but the debate is ongoing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] in_my_honest_opinion@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago* (1 child) From the paper I linked, it's really interesting. They think it might be a giant eukaryote previously undefined. We hypothesized that if P. taiti was a fungus, fossilization products resulting from the selective preservation or diagenetic alteration of glucan sugars would be present, derived from the original main composition of the cell walls including chitin (a polymer of N-acetyl glucosamine), or resulting from the recombination of glucan and protein into new melanoidin-like compounds, like those found in Fungi and arthropods in the Rhynie chert (39). To test this hypothesis, the previously assembled dataset of 47 samples, representing six higher taxonomic groups (39), was combined with 55 additional samples from these six groups and P. taiti (see the Supplementary Materials for full spectra for each sample, images of all sample spots, and details of taxonomic assignment). We then developed a novel analytic pipeline comprising two key steps: data exploration (step 1) and modelling (step 2) (fig. S3 and Supplementary Text Extended Methods). Step 1 aimed to show that biologically informative spectral bands correlated with taxonomic classification of specimens and that molecular fingerprints of organisms in the Rhynie chert retained information regarding their biological affinities, and to select the most relevant spectral features for further modelling. In step 2, we built classification models using supervised machine learning approaches to provide a robust statistical framework to accept or reject the taxonomic classification of each sample based on the selected spectral features. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago Cool. I'll have to go back and read that tomorrow. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 point 3 days ago* And then there are sponges. They are plant animals, not animal plants. Most of them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DrStanleyGoodspeed@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago (2 children) I did not know that about the oldest living organism thing. where is this ancient fungi? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 days ago Largest, not oldest. In Oregon, between 2500 and 8500 years old. But fungi existed before plants did, 1.3 billion and plants 700 million years ago. So fungi are much older. permalink fedilink source parent [–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 1 point 3 days ago (2 children) Gone, but there used to be giant fungus "trees" called prototaxites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototaxites permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] arctanthrope@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago* (1 child) there's actually new research saying prototaxites may not have been fungi, but belonged to an entirely separate kingdom that's now extinct. one of the defining characteristics of fungi are that their cell walls contain chitin, the same stuff that makes arthropod shells. prototaxites was found not to contain any chitin, while other ancient fungi of the same age as prototaxites already did, so it's not a feature of fungi that was adapted later. prototaxites was also found to contain microscopic structures that don't exist in any known fungus species edit: damn, someone beat me to it while I was trying to find the details permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world -5 points 3 days ago (1 child) Yeah... be sure to read the replies first next time permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] arctanthrope@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago the other reply didn't exist yet when I started writing mine. sorry that I took longer because I tried to provide more detail about the thing you seemed interested in permalink fedilink source parent [–] in_my_honest_opinion@piefed.social 2 points 3 days ago* (1 child) From your link. In 2026, research comparing fossils of a prototaxite species with other eukaryotic fossils in the same location found it to be structurally and chemically distinct, suggesting that Prototaxites is not a fungus and instead belongs to an extinct, previously undescribed kingdom of eukaryotic life.[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12822639/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 1 point 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child) Heh... learn something new every day Edit: it sounds like it's a hot topic It is widely considered a fungus, but the debate is ongoing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] in_my_honest_opinion@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago* (1 child) From the paper I linked, it's really interesting. They think it might be a giant eukaryote previously undefined. We hypothesized that if P. taiti was a fungus, fossilization products resulting from the selective preservation or diagenetic alteration of glucan sugars would be present, derived from the original main composition of the cell walls including chitin (a polymer of N-acetyl glucosamine), or resulting from the recombination of glucan and protein into new melanoidin-like compounds, like those found in Fungi and arthropods in the Rhynie chert (39). To test this hypothesis, the previously assembled dataset of 47 samples, representing six higher taxonomic groups (39), was combined with 55 additional samples from these six groups and P. taiti (see the Supplementary Materials for full spectra for each sample, images of all sample spots, and details of taxonomic assignment). We then developed a novel analytic pipeline comprising two key steps: data exploration (step 1) and modelling (step 2) (fig. S3 and Supplementary Text Extended Methods). Step 1 aimed to show that biologically informative spectral bands correlated with taxonomic classification of specimens and that molecular fingerprints of organisms in the Rhynie chert retained information regarding their biological affinities, and to select the most relevant spectral features for further modelling. In step 2, we built classification models using supervised machine learning approaches to provide a robust statistical framework to accept or reject the taxonomic classification of each sample based on the selected spectral features. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago Cool. I'll have to go back and read that tomorrow. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 days ago Largest, not oldest. In Oregon, between 2500 and 8500 years old. But fungi existed before plants did, 1.3 billion and plants 700 million years ago. So fungi are much older. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 1 point 3 days ago (2 children) Gone, but there used to be giant fungus "trees" called prototaxites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototaxites permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] arctanthrope@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago* (1 child) there's actually new research saying prototaxites may not have been fungi, but belonged to an entirely separate kingdom that's now extinct. one of the defining characteristics of fungi are that their cell walls contain chitin, the same stuff that makes arthropod shells. prototaxites was found not to contain any chitin, while other ancient fungi of the same age as prototaxites already did, so it's not a feature of fungi that was adapted later. prototaxites was also found to contain microscopic structures that don't exist in any known fungus species edit: damn, someone beat me to it while I was trying to find the details permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world -5 points 3 days ago (1 child) Yeah... be sure to read the replies first next time permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] arctanthrope@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago the other reply didn't exist yet when I started writing mine. sorry that I took longer because I tried to provide more detail about the thing you seemed interested in permalink fedilink source parent [–] in_my_honest_opinion@piefed.social 2 points 3 days ago* (1 child) From your link. In 2026, research comparing fossils of a prototaxite species with other eukaryotic fossils in the same location found it to be structurally and chemically distinct, suggesting that Prototaxites is not a fungus and instead belongs to an extinct, previously undescribed kingdom of eukaryotic life.[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12822639/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 1 point 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child) Heh... learn something new every day Edit: it sounds like it's a hot topic It is widely considered a fungus, but the debate is ongoing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] in_my_honest_opinion@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago* (1 child) From the paper I linked, it's really interesting. They think it might be a giant eukaryote previously undefined. We hypothesized that if P. taiti was a fungus, fossilization products resulting from the selective preservation or diagenetic alteration of glucan sugars would be present, derived from the original main composition of the cell walls including chitin (a polymer of N-acetyl glucosamine), or resulting from the recombination of glucan and protein into new melanoidin-like compounds, like those found in Fungi and arthropods in the Rhynie chert (39). To test this hypothesis, the previously assembled dataset of 47 samples, representing six higher taxonomic groups (39), was combined with 55 additional samples from these six groups and P. taiti (see the Supplementary Materials for full spectra for each sample, images of all sample spots, and details of taxonomic assignment). We then developed a novel analytic pipeline comprising two key steps: data exploration (step 1) and modelling (step 2) (fig. S3 and Supplementary Text Extended Methods). Step 1 aimed to show that biologically informative spectral bands correlated with taxonomic classification of specimens and that molecular fingerprints of organisms in the Rhynie chert retained information regarding their biological affinities, and to select the most relevant spectral features for further modelling. In step 2, we built classification models using supervised machine learning approaches to provide a robust statistical framework to accept or reject the taxonomic classification of each sample based on the selected spectral features. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago Cool. I'll have to go back and read that tomorrow. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] arctanthrope@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago* (1 child) there's actually new research saying prototaxites may not have been fungi, but belonged to an entirely separate kingdom that's now extinct. one of the defining characteristics of fungi are that their cell walls contain chitin, the same stuff that makes arthropod shells. prototaxites was found not to contain any chitin, while other ancient fungi of the same age as prototaxites already did, so it's not a feature of fungi that was adapted later. prototaxites was also found to contain microscopic structures that don't exist in any known fungus species edit: damn, someone beat me to it while I was trying to find the details permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world -5 points 3 days ago (1 child) Yeah... be sure to read the replies first next time permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] arctanthrope@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago the other reply didn't exist yet when I started writing mine. sorry that I took longer because I tried to provide more detail about the thing you seemed interested in permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world -5 points 3 days ago (1 child) Yeah... be sure to read the replies first next time permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] arctanthrope@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago the other reply didn't exist yet when I started writing mine. sorry that I took longer because I tried to provide more detail about the thing you seemed interested in permalink fedilink source parent
[–] arctanthrope@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago the other reply didn't exist yet when I started writing mine. sorry that I took longer because I tried to provide more detail about the thing you seemed interested in permalink fedilink source parent
[–] in_my_honest_opinion@piefed.social 2 points 3 days ago* (1 child) From your link. In 2026, research comparing fossils of a prototaxite species with other eukaryotic fossils in the same location found it to be structurally and chemically distinct, suggesting that Prototaxites is not a fungus and instead belongs to an extinct, previously undescribed kingdom of eukaryotic life.[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12822639/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 1 point 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child) Heh... learn something new every day Edit: it sounds like it's a hot topic It is widely considered a fungus, but the debate is ongoing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] in_my_honest_opinion@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago* (1 child) From the paper I linked, it's really interesting. They think it might be a giant eukaryote previously undefined. We hypothesized that if P. taiti was a fungus, fossilization products resulting from the selective preservation or diagenetic alteration of glucan sugars would be present, derived from the original main composition of the cell walls including chitin (a polymer of N-acetyl glucosamine), or resulting from the recombination of glucan and protein into new melanoidin-like compounds, like those found in Fungi and arthropods in the Rhynie chert (39). To test this hypothesis, the previously assembled dataset of 47 samples, representing six higher taxonomic groups (39), was combined with 55 additional samples from these six groups and P. taiti (see the Supplementary Materials for full spectra for each sample, images of all sample spots, and details of taxonomic assignment). We then developed a novel analytic pipeline comprising two key steps: data exploration (step 1) and modelling (step 2) (fig. S3 and Supplementary Text Extended Methods). Step 1 aimed to show that biologically informative spectral bands correlated with taxonomic classification of specimens and that molecular fingerprints of organisms in the Rhynie chert retained information regarding their biological affinities, and to select the most relevant spectral features for further modelling. In step 2, we built classification models using supervised machine learning approaches to provide a robust statistical framework to accept or reject the taxonomic classification of each sample based on the selected spectral features. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago Cool. I'll have to go back and read that tomorrow. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 1 point 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child) Heh... learn something new every day Edit: it sounds like it's a hot topic It is widely considered a fungus, but the debate is ongoing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] in_my_honest_opinion@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago* (1 child) From the paper I linked, it's really interesting. They think it might be a giant eukaryote previously undefined. We hypothesized that if P. taiti was a fungus, fossilization products resulting from the selective preservation or diagenetic alteration of glucan sugars would be present, derived from the original main composition of the cell walls including chitin (a polymer of N-acetyl glucosamine), or resulting from the recombination of glucan and protein into new melanoidin-like compounds, like those found in Fungi and arthropods in the Rhynie chert (39). To test this hypothesis, the previously assembled dataset of 47 samples, representing six higher taxonomic groups (39), was combined with 55 additional samples from these six groups and P. taiti (see the Supplementary Materials for full spectra for each sample, images of all sample spots, and details of taxonomic assignment). We then developed a novel analytic pipeline comprising two key steps: data exploration (step 1) and modelling (step 2) (fig. S3 and Supplementary Text Extended Methods). Step 1 aimed to show that biologically informative spectral bands correlated with taxonomic classification of specimens and that molecular fingerprints of organisms in the Rhynie chert retained information regarding their biological affinities, and to select the most relevant spectral features for further modelling. In step 2, we built classification models using supervised machine learning approaches to provide a robust statistical framework to accept or reject the taxonomic classification of each sample based on the selected spectral features. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago Cool. I'll have to go back and read that tomorrow. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] in_my_honest_opinion@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago* (1 child) From the paper I linked, it's really interesting. They think it might be a giant eukaryote previously undefined. We hypothesized that if P. taiti was a fungus, fossilization products resulting from the selective preservation or diagenetic alteration of glucan sugars would be present, derived from the original main composition of the cell walls including chitin (a polymer of N-acetyl glucosamine), or resulting from the recombination of glucan and protein into new melanoidin-like compounds, like those found in Fungi and arthropods in the Rhynie chert (39). To test this hypothesis, the previously assembled dataset of 47 samples, representing six higher taxonomic groups (39), was combined with 55 additional samples from these six groups and P. taiti (see the Supplementary Materials for full spectra for each sample, images of all sample spots, and details of taxonomic assignment). We then developed a novel analytic pipeline comprising two key steps: data exploration (step 1) and modelling (step 2) (fig. S3 and Supplementary Text Extended Methods). Step 1 aimed to show that biologically informative spectral bands correlated with taxonomic classification of specimens and that molecular fingerprints of organisms in the Rhynie chert retained information regarding their biological affinities, and to select the most relevant spectral features for further modelling. In step 2, we built classification models using supervised machine learning approaches to provide a robust statistical framework to accept or reject the taxonomic classification of each sample based on the selected spectral features. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago Cool. I'll have to go back and read that tomorrow. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago Cool. I'll have to go back and read that tomorrow. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 point 3 days ago* And then there are sponges. They are plant animals, not animal plants. Most of them. permalink fedilink source parent