3095: Archaea
| Archaea |
 Title text: Under the two-domain system, anyone who punches you is technically an Archaean pathogen. |
Explanation[edit]
|
This explanation is incomplete: This page was created by an Archean pathogen. Don't remove this notice too soon. If you can fix this issue, edit the page! |
The bacterial and eukaryotic domains each contain numerous species that cause human disease (are pathogens). However, to date, no species of Archaea has been unequivocally shown to be a human pathogen. Whether such pathogens exist, and if they do, why they are rare and have low impact, are matters of debate.
The joke in this comic is that one or more strains of Archaea, being cultivated in a laboratory, overheard a conversation among three human scientists (represented by Cueball, Megan, and White Hat). Perhaps taking offense at Megan's disparaging comments, perhaps considering it as a challenge, the eavesdropping culture resolves to become a human pathogen.
The caption reports this as "bad news" for humanity. It may turn out that they always had the potential to harm humans, but had never tried to (for any number of reasons).
Most of the species of Archaea that were known, at the time that the domain was recognized and for some time thereafter, were methanogens, cells that require anaerobic conditions for life and emit methane as a byproduct, or methanotrophs, cells that use methane (also anaerobically) as a carbon source ("food"). Methanogens and methanotrophs are common in the guts of humans and other animals, therefore have proximity to human cells and opportunity to infect them — hence (the inappropriate anthropomorphism aside) their indignance at Megan's comment, especially since neither group contains methane "breathers". Archaea are now known from many different environments, including aerobic ones, so do not have the limited metabolic options that one might assume that they do from Megan's statement. Megan calls them ”gross methane breathers” and believes they are too weird and incompetent. If the Archaea could actually understand this, no wonder they became offended and would like to prove what they could do to us.
"Archaea has" in the caption is a debatable grammar, as it denotes that a lineage (a branch of a phylogenetic tree) has become pathogenic. "Archaeans have" could have been better, but contrast with statements using "humanity is", compared with "humanity are" for the linguistic and contextual complications involved.
The title text alludes to the hypothesis that the domain Eukaryota arose from within the domain Archaea, allowing for a two-domain system which classifies everything into Bacteria and Archaea, with Eukaryota being included as a sub-division of Archaea. Since humans belong within Eukaryota (i.e. being not Bacteria), by extension they would belong to the Archaea split. A human attacker of another human could therefore be considered both a pathogen and an archaeon. The same would be true of an attack by any other animal.
Transcript[edit]
- [Cueball, Megan, and White Hat are standing in a lab in front of a root-like phylogeny diagram, looking at it. Behind them is a desk with a microscope on it. There is a pile of items behind it and one item in front. From the plate on the microscope where the sample is, there is a star burst and a line going up to the text said by the sample.]
- Cueball: It's weird how, despite being one of the main branches of the tree of life, no Archaea species are known to cause disease in humans.
- Megan: Personally, I think it's because those gross methane breathers are too weird and incompetent to figure out how to hurt us even if they wanted to.
- Archaea sample: Hey!
- [Caption below the panel:]
- Bad news: After overhearing a conversation in our lab, Archaea has finally started harming humans.
Add comment 
Create topic (use sparingly) 
Refresh Discussion
great, next time I get a disease caused by archea, I'll know who to blame 172.70.111.123 23:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- After ruling out absolutely everything else (primarly that being sunshine, moon light and good times), I'm gonna suggest that it's "the boogie". 162.158.216.115 23:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
"Archaea has" in the caption is unfortunate, as it denotes that a lineage (a branch of a phylogenetic tree) has become pathogenic. Pathogens are living cells, not lines on a page. "Archaeans have" would have been better. I'm not 100% sure on the way Archaea is used grammatically in English, but isn't Archaea the plural of Archaeon, so it should be Archaea have? Is the word Archaeans normally used?162.158.233.117 07:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- In math(s), the original latin and greek has remained kinda pristine in modern english. In medicine and taxonomy, it's a dumpster fire of vagary and inconsistency comparable to the US tax code. As far as I'm concerned, use whatever pluralisation you want, you won't degrade the language any further. --DW 162.158.187.177 15:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- 'Archaea' is indeed the plural of 'archaeon', and congratulations for getting this correct! In an English-speaking world in which 'bacteria/bacterias' (bacterium/bacteria), 'algae/algaes' (alga/algae), and, for that matter, 'stadium/stadiums' (stadium/stadia) have become commonplace even in scientific publications [see dumpster fire, above], knowledge of how to handle the singulars and plurals of Latin and latinized Greek loanwords is increasingly rare. The domain name 'Archaea' is in the plural, because it stands for a group of organisms. The same is generally true for the names of taxonomic groups above genus. However, because the name stands for one group of organisms, it is possible to treat the name as a collective noun which takes a singular verb form. Thus, [the domain name] Archaea has and Archaea [in the specimen/culture collection] have are both correct, with context the determining factor. Replacing Archaea with Archaean ducks the Latin and places singulars and plurals more in line with common English constructions (archaean/archaeans). Therefore, Archaea have and Archaeans have are both appropriate for the caption, whereas Archaea has is not. Confused yet? 162.158.41.36 15:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- It all depends if you think Latin and Greek words (and others) used in English are visitors, or have become English words. The former gives Octopus and Octopodes (it's Greek) or latter Octopuses. For non-academic use I think it's the latter. Remember, English (all varieties UK, USA, CDN, AUS, NZ st al) doesn't have an academy ruling over it, but is a rouge language responding to its speakers constantly evolving use. RIIW - Ponder it (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that "Archaea has" is, in fact, grammatically correct here. Because it is grammatically singular (even though others have pointed out that the word "Archaea" is a plural). I read it as a shorter version of "The Archaea Domain has finally started harming humans." There could be other contexts where you would see "Archaea have." For example, "Our culture has bacteria and Archaea cells in it. The Archaea have finally started harming humans." But in the examples I can think of, that would shorten to "The Archaea have finally started harming humans," not "Archaea have..." without the "The." I can come up with other sentences where "Archaea have" (no "The") would work, but in this context, I don't think it works. So, I think the grammar is correct as is, assuming that Randall is referring to "the Domain Archaea" which makes sense to me in this context. Mootstrap (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- We come full circle. "The domain Archaea has" is grammatically correct. But "the domain Archaea" is a label. The label contains no organisms (one hopes; and even if some sort of contamination were to occur, the organisms would be highly unlikely to be archaeans). If labels on phylogenetic trees start harming humans, we can only hope that the relative rarity of phylogenetic trees as a mode of communication is sufficient to save humanity. If the intended sense is that "organisms within the domain Archaea" have become human pathogens, then "Archaea have" is correct. Yes, this is pedantic, and prescriptivist. But Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty is already in charge of our politics, here in these Untied States in North America, and if he gains mastery of our language as well, we may as well all go full I/O error.172.71.150.47 23:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- By that reckoning, you couldn't say something like "the human race has colonised every continent on Earth", because "the human race" is 'just a label' and 'contains no organisms'. In fact, you couldn't say anything much at all, because all words are 'just labels' (signifiers) and don't contain the things they signify.172.70.160.234 11:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- "Letters"... ;) 172.69.224.60 16:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- By that reckoning, you couldn't say something like "the human race has colonised every continent on Earth", because "the human race" is 'just a label' and 'contains no organisms'. In fact, you couldn't say anything much at all, because all words are 'just labels' (signifiers) and don't contain the things they signify.172.70.160.234 11:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- We come full circle. "The domain Archaea has" is grammatically correct. But "the domain Archaea" is a label. The label contains no organisms (one hopes; and even if some sort of contamination were to occur, the organisms would be highly unlikely to be archaeans). If labels on phylogenetic trees start harming humans, we can only hope that the relative rarity of phylogenetic trees as a mode of communication is sufficient to save humanity. If the intended sense is that "organisms within the domain Archaea" have become human pathogens, then "Archaea have" is correct. Yes, this is pedantic, and prescriptivist. But Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty is already in charge of our politics, here in these Untied States in North America, and if he gains mastery of our language as well, we may as well all go full I/O error.172.71.150.47 23:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that "Archaea has" is, in fact, grammatically correct here. Because it is grammatically singular (even though others have pointed out that the word "Archaea" is a plural). I read it as a shorter version of "The Archaea Domain has finally started harming humans." There could be other contexts where you would see "Archaea have." For example, "Our culture has bacteria and Archaea cells in it. The Archaea have finally started harming humans." But in the examples I can think of, that would shorten to "The Archaea have finally started harming humans," not "Archaea have..." without the "The." I can come up with other sentences where "Archaea have" (no "The") would work, but in this context, I don't think it works. So, I think the grammar is correct as is, assuming that Randall is referring to "the Domain Archaea" which makes sense to me in this context. Mootstrap (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- It all depends if you think Latin and Greek words (and others) used in English are visitors, or have become English words. The former gives Octopus and Octopodes (it's Greek) or latter Octopuses. For non-academic use I think it's the latter. Remember, English (all varieties UK, USA, CDN, AUS, NZ st al) doesn't have an academy ruling over it, but is a rouge language responding to its speakers constantly evolving use. RIIW - Ponder it (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- That's always been a problem, a la [Self Driving Issues]. Those of us who use language to accomplish things will eventually (hopefully) outcompete those of the above Humpty Dumpty/monkey tacos persuasion. --DW 172.69.135.109 15:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps they've risen up en masse, forming a state of Archaea, with a war cabinet and army to take on the humans.172.71.241.51 10:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Be careful what you wish for ... 162.158.41.36 15:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Add comment
- Be careful what you wish for ... 162.158.41.36 15:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
