Kelp

This is one of the many joys of PN, I learned the very same here not more than a year ago.

Thank you for the correction chesterbperry. I stand corrected. I sure learned a lot. Here is some of what I learned a long with some Project Noah Ranger commentary: "There is actually good reason for this. One of the defining characteristics of the Protista is that, unlike animals or plants, its members do not contain more than one clearly differentiated functional tissues. Kelp, for all their outward complexity and internal structure, are not considered to possess more than one clearly defined tissue type. This being the case, they cannot be considered plants, and for this and other reasons they clearly arent animals or fungi either. This leads to what is perhaps a more cynical, but frequently argued, view (or even complaint): Protists are a group of organisms that are defined not as much by commonality but as by exclusion: a protist is simply something that is not an animal, or a plant, or a fungus, or a prokaryote. So, much as it was in its first conception, the kingdom Protista in many regards may still represent the scrap pile of taxonomy-- it is where all of the misfits are thrown. Of course, that can change." From ranger Scott - "The plant kingdom, one of Linnaeus’s original two, occupies a fairly solid place in modern taxonomy. The only major debate, right now, is on whether the charophytes, the algal ancestors of plants, should be classified in the plant kingdom. They share many similar features, but all algae are currently recognized in the Kingdom Protista."

Hi Larry, kelp are brown algae and would go in the "other" category.

Nice spotting! I moved this to the plants category.