Did the earliest animals resemble plants and vice versa?

Why would anyone think early plants and animals looked alike?

The question makes sense because the first land organisms were small, structurally simple, and often preserved poorly. Early vascular plants from the Silurian were among the first to grow upright on land, and their fossils show simple branching forms rather than the leaves and flowers we know today [1]. Early land plants more broadly, including bryophytes and other basal groups, are studied precisely because their body plans and reproduction reveal how life adapted to dry land [2]. Early terrestrial arthropods, meanwhile, are known from a fragmentary record, which makes them easy to lump into a vague picture of "early land life" [3].

But simplicity is not the same as similarity. A simple branching plant and a small crawling arthropod are both simple in the sense of having few specialized parts, yet they are built on entirely different body plans. The papers here describe plants as plants and arthropods as arthropods; none of them reports a creature that blurs the line between the two.

What the fossils actually show

The Silurian plant flora from Victoria, Australia, includes vascular land plants preserved alongside a graptolite, Monograptus, which is a colonial marine animal [1]. That association is geological, not anatomical: the plants and the graptolite were preserved in the same rocks, but the paper describes the plants themselves as early vascular land plants, not as anything animal-like [1].

Early land plants such as bryophytes are studied for their morphological and reproductive innovations, meaning the ways they built bodies and reproduced outside water [2]. Those innovations are plant solutions to a plant problem. Early terrestrial arthropods are described as having their own evolutionary history and ecological roles, including interactions with early land plants [3]. The record is fragmentary, so the picture is incomplete, but what is preserved points to two separate lineages sharing a habitat rather than one lineage mimicking the other.

They lived together, and that is the real story

The most useful finding is not resemblance but co-occurrence. Early terrestrial arthropods are discussed alongside early land plants, and the paper notes the earliest direct evidence of a plant-animal relationship in that early terrestrial setting [3]. In other words, the interesting connection is ecological: animals and plants were already sharing land and affecting each other, even though they looked nothing alike.

This matters for how we picture the first land ecosystems. Instead of a world where plants and animals were interchangeable simple things, the evidence supports a world where distinct plant and animal lineages were establishing themselves together [2][3]. The Silurian plants from Victoria add a further piece: vascular land plants were already present in that landscape, alongside a marine animal preserved in the same rocks [1]. The overall picture is of separate forms of life occupying the same ancient places, not of one form turning into a look-alike of the other.

Sources used in this answer

Related research questions