So, a thought came up and I couldn't find all that much info online, so I thought I'd ask some professionals here!
The endosymbiont theory states that: mitochondria came to be ingested by bigger prokaryotic cells about 1.8 bYa, and by chance of luck came to a mutualistic relationship.
Now, mitochondria are said to have been archaea, right? But the mitochondria in our cells have phospholipid bilayers, with ester bonds in them, like all eukaryotes, but when you look at archaea, you see that they have monolayers because of their ether bonds, with rings and all sorts of branching, which is what gives them that extremophile-acclaimed resistance.
Question is if the endosymbiont theory is so widely accepted and mitochondria are meant to be archeae, why do they not present a monolayer with ether bonds?
Thanks for your time!