Wonder if biology is going to experience the same transition from inheritance to composition that computer science went through those last two decades, and stop building trees of classes, but rather favor describing species by a composition of elementary attributes.
Biologists have long known that most microbes are "dark matter" in the sense that we don't know how to culture them independently.<p>There are all sorts of strange things such as huge rod bacteria that have lots of little rod bacteria living on their surface.<p>Many unknown organisms make themselves visible through their DNA, but without the ability to culture them independently we can't tell which are which.
The 'scoreboard' at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote#Classification" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote#Classification</a> makes for fascinating reading.
I have to mention this (linked from the OP) <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/artful-amoeba/surprise-discovered-inside-shaggy-shimmying-protists-video/" rel="nofollow">https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/artful-amoeba/surprise-...</a><p>Not to spoil it but there's a <i>rotating</i> organelle(?)! (Among other things.)<p>And these rocket-propelled harpoons:<p><a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/artful-amoeba/marine-microbes-exchange-fire-with-elaborate-subcellular-weapons-video/" rel="nofollow">https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/artful-amoeba/marine-mi...</a><p>Just wow.
Archaea are interesting and often overlooked because they aren't numerous relative to bacteria. The domain Archaea always struck me as more of a "junk drawer" than a genuine grouping.