Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically)

eukaryotewritesblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 137 posts

Re: There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically)

#111

Post by jakear »

lordgrenville wrote: post #90
jakear wrote: post #6

I’ve become increasingly interested in what I think would be called “computational botany” if it were to be fleshed out. In looking at this and articles like it, and speaking with both trained and amateur botanists, a common thread is that the appearance of a plant has become increasingly detached from its scientific classification. A frequent refrain in nature hikes I’ve been a part of goes along the lines of: “this…

Weird use of the term "computational". More like "visual", maybe.

True, though I’ve explained it a bit backwards here. The true goal is to find algorithms that produce meshes which visually mimic plants. The thinking above is that doing so would result in a new visual classification phylogeny. Such a classification is not the goal, just a happy result.

Re: There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically)

#113

Post by btilly »

derbOac wrote: post #98
medstrom wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, you're a fish. When people talk about fish, they mean "fish that aren't tetrapods", because cladistically speaking, tetrapods (birds, reptiles, mammals) are fish too.

... except when people talk about fish, they mean "gnathostomata that aren't tetrapodomorpha". It's still cladistically meaningful to a very informative extent.

And yet, we usually count hagfish as fish.

Re: There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically)

#114

Post by jmuhlich »

rob74 wrote: post #71

Fascinating article, but I think it could benefit from some more examples. Since it mentions "a tree evolving into a dandelion (or vice-versa)" and then a paper about wood evolving independently at least 38 times in the Canary Islands, the perfect example is Sonchus Canariensis ( https://www.smgrowers.com/products/plants/plantdisplay.asp?p... , better picture: https://garden.org/pics/2014-03-30/Kelli/5ef4db.jpg ). I…

That species of moth doesn’t exist on the American continent but other similar and related ones do, whose range does overlap with that of hummingbirds. For example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemaris_thysbe

Re: There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically)

#115

Post by agumonkey »

jvanderbot wrote: post #103
bradrn wrote: post #88

This is one of my favourite articles! But as someone who has recently become interested in botany, what I find really crazy about this is that there are so many different ways for plants to become trees. A listing (surely incomplete): • Normal trees, like what you see every day, with bark and wood and so on • Monocots like yucca and aloe and Draecena , which have no bark and become woody through ‘abnormal secondary g…

I bet this is crazy common, where vastly different species have similar characteristics. What animal characteristics exhibit convergent evolution? * Wings in bats / birds, for one. * Tails and fins in swimming mammals vs fish. * Eyes? Cephalopods?

That's one big question I have. Instead of inheritance tree it's more like curved space tissue where anything that lives in a similar pit will evolve similar trait.

Re: There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically)

#116

Post by airstrike »

williamdclt wrote: post #79
medstrom wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how the culinary definition of fish is related to cladistics. Even if they were, I don't see what you dispute, because they agree on this point; if "vegetarian" means "avoid meat" and "meat" means "flesh of animal", then vegetarian also means to avoid fish. Come to think of it, eggs would also be included in that definition.

I don't think eggs are the flesh of an animal? That would seem to stretch the definition of "flesh" quite a bit, wouldn't it?

potential flesh?

Re: There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically)

#117

Post by [deleted] »

jvanderbot wrote: post #103
bradrn wrote: post #88

This is one of my favourite articles! But as someone who has recently become interested in botany, what I find really crazy about this is that there are so many different ways for plants to become trees. A listing (surely incomplete): • Normal trees, like what you see every day, with bark and wood and so on • Monocots like yucca and aloe and Draecena , which have no bark and become woody through ‘abnormal secondary g…

I bet this is crazy common, where vastly different species have similar characteristics. What animal characteristics exhibit convergent evolution? * Wings in bats / birds, for one. * Tails and fins in swimming mammals vs fish. * Eyes? Cephalopods?

[deleted]

Re: There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically)

#118

Post by jakear »

scott_s wrote: post #100
jakear wrote: post #6

I’ve become increasingly interested in what I think would be called “computational botany” if it were to be fleshed out. In looking at this and articles like it, and speaking with both trained and amateur botanists, a common thread is that the appearance of a plant has become increasingly detached from its scientific classification. A frequent refrain in nature hikes I’ve been a part of goes along the lines of: “this…

If your primary concern is that of the physical characteristics of the plant, then you don't need to use the classification system based on the phylogenetic tree. You can choose different classification systems based on need!

Any suggestions?

Re: There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically)

#119

Post by agumonkey »

ajuc wrote: post #53
yesenadam wrote: post #13

Well, I thought this was a fascinating and well-written article. p.s. I learnt not long ago that there's no such 'thing' as an antelope: "The term antelope is used to refer to many species of even-toed ruminant that are indigenous to various regions in Africa and Eurasia. Antelope comprise a wastebasket taxon (miscellaneous group) within the family Bovidae, encompassing all Old World ruminants that are not bovines, c…

Biology is what happens when you try to decompile code written in assembler into OO language.

And publish a uml diagram of species

Re: There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically)

#120

Post by hinkley »

lproven wrote: post #70
hinkley wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Epiphytic. They are freeloaders instead of parasites. Although there is some though that for instance moss high up in some very tall trees helps them overcome their hydraulic limitations by allowing them to absorb some water from their limbs instead of just the roots.

An epiphyte is a plant that grows entirely on another plant – in other words, has no roots in the ground. Vines and creepers are not epiphytes, because they have conventional roots in the same soil as the larger plant (or other structure) that they cling to. I can't parse your 2nd sentence so I can't comment, but moss is not vascular and does not have roots or any mechanism to transport water internally. It just move…

Typo. Too late to edit now.

Studies of temperate rain forests suggest strongly that water storage of mosses in particular allows the tree to absorb moisture directly through the bark, or in some cases form adventitious root hairs into the moss. One of the main limits to tree height is how high they can pump water through a combination of pressure and capillary action. Sequoioideae in particular have adaptations that let them push water a little higher than other trees. IIRC some of those are common to Cupressaceae (thuja plicata being the apex tree in the PNW).

We have conservationists here that have lamented the industry that has formed around harvesting moss from temperate rainforest trees. Some of these are sneaking into public lands and mass harvesting. The growth rate of these mosses barely keeps up with the rate of growth of the trees. A fully denuded tree may be dead before it's covered in mosses again.

Post reply on HN