Mereschkowsky's Tree of Life

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Russian botanist Constantin Mereschkowsky (1855-1921) was first to argue for an endosymbiotic origin of the chloroplast and nucleus in a 1905 paper. He based his argument for the chloroplast on the observed fact of symbiosis and on prior work that showed the organelles reproduce themselves even when separated from the nucleus. Although his idea was taken seriously for the first two decades of the 20th century, an influential textbook writer dismissed Mereschkowsky's proposal for the nucleus after the Russian's death, plunging endosymbiotic theorizing for any part of the cell into a half-century dark age.

In the figure below, Mereschkowsky depicted life on Earth as emerging twice. First came bacteria, some of which became the nuclei of other cells, later the chloroplasts and finally spawned fungi. Second were amoeba-like cells that took in the bacterial endosymbionts and proliferated into plants and animals. This division is tantalizingly close to the split between prokaryotes and eukaryotes recognized today, botanist Bill Martin points out in his translation of Mereschkowsky's 1905 paper.¿JRM

Image: Courtesy of Bill Martin

Back to The Nuclear Family

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American