Re: Why are there no phosynthetic animals?
- From: Lorentz <drosen0000@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 13:55:18 -0400 (EDT)
On Sep 5, 2:02 pm, Erland Gadde <erl...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If we (perhaps somewhat improperly) define "animal" a mobile,
macroscopic organism, then why are there no photosynthetic animals?
All photosynthetic orgamisms I know of are either immobile plants or
(possibly mobile) microorganisms?
Do you count vitamins in "photosynthesis?"
Although animals don't make energetic materials by photosynthesis,
they do sometime use light to make important nutrients. In humans, for
example, light turns skin cholesterol into vitamin D. That is why a
little sunshine helps prevent rickets.
There are animals that live in close symbiosis with microscopic
plants. I am talking about microscopic plants that live inside the
animals, not plants animals grow on a farm. Some hard corals don't
need to eat because they can live off their plants. I notice, though,
that these animals tend to be close to immobile.
.
- References:
- Why are there no phosynthetic animals?
- From: Erland Gadde
- Why are there no phosynthetic animals?
- Prev by Date: Paper: Adaptive Evolution of Conserved Noncoding Elements in Mammals
- Next by Date: Re: Paper: Adaptive Evolution of Conserved Noncoding Elements in Mammals
- Previous by thread: Re: Why are there no phosynthetic animals?
- Next by thread: Conference on Nematode Evolution --- Survey
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
