Eubacteria and Archaebacteria

[grayfalcon89]

I'm not sure the difference between archaebacteria and eubacteria? Also, what is the difference between those two and protista?

 

This is kind of stupid question but I have trouble on separating them from six kingdoms, which my bio book provides.

 

EDIT: The book provides six kingdoms as: eubacteria, archaebacteria, protista, fungi, plantae, and animalia.

[Iceberg_Blow]

Archaebacteria differ biochemically in the arrangement of the bases in their ribosomal RNA and in the composition of their plasma membranes and cell walls

protista i believe are eukaryotes and bacteria are prokaryotes

[AzurePhoenix]

archaeobacteria are the older, simpler form, from which derived eubacteria in one direction and more advanced non-moneran entities from the other. Archaeobacteria are more rare, but thy're usually the types that inhabit extreme environments, like sulfer vents and hotsprings.

[charmaine]

Archae are the older ones... pretty much the ones that live in extreme conditions, eg halophiles, thermophiles, acidophiles etc... They are prokaryotes- lacking membrane bound organelles and they are unicellular

 

Eubac are the more complex ones. They are found pretty much everywhere, (humans, food etc) and aren't normally found in extreme conditions...

 

Protista are the ones that don't really fit into any other category... The 3 mains types are the protozoa (Animal like protists) Alagae (Plant like protists) and slime moulds (fungus like protists)

[Sorcerer]

Protists should really be removed from the kingdoms and their phylogentic likeness used to place them in either animals plants or fungi, however detailed genetic mapping may be necessary and we might also discover how little separated these 3 kingdoms are. Perhaps even an ancestral protist gave rise to all 3 kingdoms, with animals and fungi losing the use of their chloroplasts.

 

I have been told that Eukaryotes are more similar to Archea that to Eubacter, however I have a per hypothesis that Eukaryotes were the result of a fusion between Archean cells and symbiotic eubacter proto-mitochondria/chloroplasts..... perhaps someone can point me to evidence to the contrary.... although with the majority of these organelles genetic information lost it may be inconclusive.

 

It is possible that life arose seperately twice, some people think that eubacter and archaea dont share a common ancestor and that archaea were the result of chemical evolution around deep sea vents, while eubacter were the product of inter-sellar seeding or chemical evolution on the earths crust/shallow seas.

[Skye]

Protists should really be removed from the kingdoms and their phylogentic likeness used to place them in either animals plants or fungi, however detailed genetic mapping may be necessary and we might also discover how little separated these 3 kingdoms are. Perhaps even an ancestral protist gave rise to all 3 kingdoms, with animals and fungi losing the use of their chloroplasts.

The problem is that there's probably more than three branches to the tree in the protista.

I have been told that Eukaryotes are more similar to Archea that to Eubacter, however I have a per hypothesis that Eukaryotes were the result of a fusion between Archean cells and symbiotic eubacter proto-mitochondria/chloroplasts..... perhaps someone can point me to evidence to the contrary.... although with the majority of these organelles genetic information lost it may be inconclusive.

You're perhaps right, however Lynn Margulis has already taken the honours for that idea.

 

http://www.geocities.com/jjmohn/endosymbiosis.htm

[Sorcerer]

Ahhh thanks, I learnt about endosymbiosis at uni, but we never got into it as detailed as that. I'd heard that eukaryotes were more closely related to archaea, but always doubted it because of my speculation that mitochodria were symbiotic eubacter.

 

Well now I know, thx.