This is as huge as the discovery of the neutron was for the atomic model. Wasn't that merely redefining the number of elementary particles from two (electron, proton) to three?

If you actually read the article you'll find out that the properties of the lichen could not be explained by the two known elements alone, that there was some other factor that nobody could describe. The careful work done here uncovered a third element that was the important difference, that there's a three way symbiosis. Now they have a complete model of what's going on after an initial hypothesis put forward 150 years ago.

Considering someone's finally explained how these types of organisms work, and it's a large branch of life, this is a pretty major breakthrough.

Well, saying this is as huge as the discovery of the neutron for the atomic model is stretching it, IMO. Atoms make up everything, understanding how atomic nuclei are made up has paved the road for huge breakthroughs in not just nuclear physics but also in medicine, energy production, materials physics, etc. Lichen, on the other hand, are, well lichen. If we'd been throwing money on lichen research like we have on nuclear physics, we would have known this a century ago.

> Atoms make up everything

And that's why you can't trust them. (cue rimshot SFX)

But lichen... You know, now that we have a functional understanding of their biology, I'm quite excited to see what this new knowledge will yield when applied. Pharmacology, materials, food production/processing — "We don't know what we don't know," but having more data helps us to learn what questions we can ask.

I most certainly did not say this wasn't huge. However, to extend your analogy, discovering neutrons doesn't overturn the existence of atoms, nor does it overturn the idea that atoms are made up of smaller components.

Anyhow, thats just my perspective. No offense is intended here. This is solid, important work. I'm just quibbling over the headline.

We all learn this story in school, and people have been looking at these guys for a long time. What did you want, a human/algae symbiosis to make this an overturn?

I think its very exciting work and he clearly made an important finding in lichen biology. But, overturning would be if he found that it wasn't 2 organisms but just 1. The previous 2 organisms are still there, there just happens to also be another one that people missed. Everyone else wasn't wrong and the previous work hasn't been overturned, simply added to. This is the basis of most modern science. This doesn't take away from the importance of the work, simply that the headline is a bit click-baity.

The previous understanding of these organisms was fundamentally wrong (although partially right). I think it's very odd to be sawing on this idea that 'overturning' a scientific theory requires a complete negation of it.

(If your argument is that "overturning" should never be used to describe a scientific breakthrough you may have a point, albeit a rather uninteresting one.)

Did you read the entire article? The end of it goes into how many things we thought we knew about the previously-known fungus and algae may not be true after all, there's a lot of work that's going to have to be reevaluated.