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
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
