Phylogenetic Crash Course podcast

<v Speaker 1>All right, let's try this again. All right, let's try
<v Speaker 1>this again. We're gonna do a screen sharing. I'm using
<v Speaker 1>one of these apps to record, now, what is it,
<v Speaker 1>panopto loom. They've all got different names, these weird startups. Anyway,
<v Speaker 1>I'm also recording a backup, just on a normal mic recorder.
<v Speaker 2>So that was nice.
<v Speaker 1>I ended up recording last night hour and twenty minute lecture.
<v Speaker 1>It went great, and then there was no sound YouTube
<v Speaker 1>just shit the sound out, So we'll try this instead anyway. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>so last last class, we were talking about flower parts,
<v Speaker 1>flower morphology, plant identification, how you need to know the
<v Speaker 1>parts of a flower. This this recording came up. Fine,
<v Speaker 1>it's still up there on the YouTube is unlisted. You
<v Speaker 1>need a link to it. We go through all this stuff.
<v Speaker 1>We're talking about Snapa morphis of angiosperms. We're focusing on
<v Speaker 1>angiosperms primarily because that's eighty percent of living plants. Eighty
<v Speaker 1>percent of living plants you're gonna encounter in the world
<v Speaker 1>are angiosperms. Let me just make sure that this is
<v Speaker 1>still is this still work?
<v Speaker 2>Yeah?
<v Speaker 1>Okay, I steal a little wavy lines. We're just gonna
<v Speaker 1>make sure you see those wavy lines to indicate that
<v Speaker 1>you're getting good sounds. So eighty percent of the plants
<v Speaker 1>you're gonna encounter in the world are angiosperms. Okay, Any
<v Speaker 1>plant you see is either gonna be one of five
<v Speaker 1>major lineages, one of five major taxonomic groups evolutionary groups
<v Speaker 1>as well monophyletic evolutionary groups. It's they're either gonna be
<v Speaker 1>the bryophytes, well, briofhyts isn't really even monophyletically, don't worry
<v Speaker 1>about that, either one of five major groups, the bryophytes,
<v Speaker 1>the non vascular plants, okay, the mosses, liverwarts, hornwarts, Okay,
<v Speaker 1>everyone knows what a moss is. Liverwarts maybe not. They're
<v Speaker 1>also kind of weird. They're pretty cool. We talked about
<v Speaker 1>that of alternation to generations. Remember the bryophytes, especially if
<v Speaker 1>a weird they got that weird gametophyte stage, that haploid
<v Speaker 1>only one copy of the chromosome or one copy of
<v Speaker 1>the genome. Excuse me, only one set of chromosomes, that is,
<v Speaker 1>one copy of the genome. Haploid gametophyte stage. It's either
<v Speaker 1>going to be a bryophyte or it's going to be
<v Speaker 1>a alycophyte like the spike mosses, which aren't a true moss.
<v Speaker 1>They have a vascular system. The lycophytes Selaginella is that stuff.
<v Speaker 1>You know, that stuff it looks like you see the
<v Speaker 1>desert licophytes sometimes and they look like someone throughout an
<v Speaker 1>old shag carpeting. You know, it's like a decomposing rug.
<v Speaker 1>I've literally seen it, and I remember it was in
<v Speaker 1>the Baja Desert once and I saw a Selaginella species
<v Speaker 1>out there that was all dried. It looked like someone
<v Speaker 1>throw out a shag carpeting. But they can also there's
<v Speaker 1>also another group of Selaginella that grows in you know,
<v Speaker 1>tropical shady forests and jungles and stuff. Okay, so you
<v Speaker 1>got the bryophytes that's one one lineage, the spike mosses
<v Speaker 1>and lycophytes that's another lineage. And you have the ferns
<v Speaker 1>it's another lineage. Another that's a monophyletic group. And then
<v Speaker 1>you've got the gymno sperms like the pines, the redwoods,
<v Speaker 1>the ephedraa aka Mormon t well, Witchy Ginko's psychads. It's gymnosperms,
<v Speaker 1>and then you've also got the angiosperms. Right, So angiosperms
<v Speaker 1>comprise eighty percent of living plants of extant plants. And
<v Speaker 1>so that's what we're gonna be focusing on today. We're
<v Speaker 1>going to be focusing on classification of angrosperms, but also
<v Speaker 1>how life is classified. And this is a really cool
<v Speaker 1>This is a really this will affect the way you
<v Speaker 1>think about everything around you, okay, all the life around you,
<v Speaker 1>all right, And it's most of what we're talking about
<v Speaker 1>today is taken out of chapter four in this book
<v Speaker 1>Evolution by Carl Zimmer. You should be able to download it.
<v Speaker 1>There's a Google drive folder attached to the video description
<v Speaker 1>and there was also one I put in the drive
<v Speaker 1>folder for the class. Great book. It's in PDF form.
<v Speaker 1>I suggest getting a hard copy if you really want
<v Speaker 1>to go into it. But but you know the PDF.
<v Speaker 1>Of course, it's like an eighty dollars book, So PDF.
<v Speaker 2>Is available if not. So this is what we covered
<v Speaker 2>last class.
<v Speaker 1>We're talking about flower parts, flower sex, what it means
<v Speaker 1>to be unisexual, how most flowers are bisexual. The vast
<v Speaker 1>majority of flowers are bisexual. They've got both the stamen
<v Speaker 1>and the pistol on it. Sometimes they oftentimes they mature
<v Speaker 1>at different times to avoid self pollinating, because self pollinating,
<v Speaker 1>you know, means low genetic diversity. It means they're going
<v Speaker 1>to be stacking up recessive alleles. Higher likelihood of stacking
<v Speaker 1>up recessive alleles. Okay, recessive dominant, that whole thing being diploid.
<v Speaker 2>Et cetera. Okay, So this is all.
<v Speaker 1>This is all in plant systematics, all these these diagrams
<v Speaker 1>of flowers, what it means to have over superior, over inferior.
<v Speaker 1>This is all important stuff to know so that when
<v Speaker 1>you look at a and we grew plants by flowers,
<v Speaker 1>when you look at a plant, you know what you
<v Speaker 1>look you know what to look for to identify it
<v Speaker 1>these traits. Knowing these traits and what all these different
<v Speaker 1>traits mean will mean that you can go and look
<v Speaker 1>at a plant and say, oh it's got a raceme
<v Speaker 1>or oh no, it's got a spike. The flowers are
<v Speaker 1>sessile and that inflorescence. And then you can when you
<v Speaker 1>read a description of a plant and something like a
<v Speaker 1>flora or you know that might be a having a
<v Speaker 1>spike versus a raceme. Two species in the same genus
<v Speaker 1>might have similar flowers, but one produces a raceme, one
<v Speaker 1>produces a spike. Okay, that like some of the agaves
<v Speaker 1>produce panicles over here on the right, and some produce
<v Speaker 1>spicate inflorescences. Spike inflorescences. That's a big diagnostic factor for
<v Speaker 1>figuring out what species you're looking at. If there's any confusion, Okay,
<v Speaker 1>you need to know the terms in order to discuss
<v Speaker 1>the differences. So that's what all this stuff is, right,
<v Speaker 1>Patterns of the mustard family went into this. Those those
<v Speaker 1>traits that define what family a plant is in are
<v Speaker 1>called sinapo morphis. That's a keyword. You got to remember
<v Speaker 1>that Sinapa morphis shared traits that are a result of
<v Speaker 1>shared ancestry, of being evolutionarily related. Okay, that's a keyword.
<v Speaker 1>That's how that's how we group plants in the families.
<v Speaker 1>Anytime you meet a new plant, okay, well, first off,
<v Speaker 1>you should know which of those five major lineages it is.
<v Speaker 1>The bryophytes, the lycophytes, the ferns, the conifers, slash gymnosperms,
<v Speaker 1>or the angiosperms. Okay, naked seed gymnosperms, Angiosperms seed in
<v Speaker 1>a vessel, seed in a fruit. That's what an angiosperm is. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>should figure out what any plant you look at in
<v Speaker 1>the world is going to be in one of those
<v Speaker 1>five major lineages, one of those five major groups. Uh.
<v Speaker 1>And once you do that, if it's an angiosperm, you should,
<v Speaker 1>I mean, any plant you look at, you should figure
<v Speaker 1>try to figure out what family is in, especially if
<v Speaker 1>it's a flowering plant, what family is in? First thing,
<v Speaker 1>you ask what family is it in, because that's going
<v Speaker 1>to help you deduce what genus it's in and what species. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>we also went through let's see where was it taxonomic levels? Okay, domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species.
<v Speaker 1>Well we're mostly concerned about all right, for beginner bodanists,
<v Speaker 1>for beginner plant people, is family, genus and species maybe
<v Speaker 1>order a little bit. You'll start to see similarities among
<v Speaker 1>things that are in the same order, like members of
<v Speaker 1>the English ivy and ginseng family and members of the
<v Speaker 1>carrot family. They're both in the same order apa Lea's
<v Speaker 1>different families the same order. You'll start to see similarities
<v Speaker 1>in their flower structure and inflorescent structure. And that's what
<v Speaker 1>we look at We don't look at leaves, we look
<v Speaker 1>at flowers, etc. Some plants you look at leaves. Leaves
<v Speaker 1>can certainly help diagnose what you're looking at, what species
<v Speaker 1>you're looking at, And there are certain plant families that
<v Speaker 1>have traits among the leaves. But overall you are looking
<v Speaker 1>at flowers and fruits. Okay, flowers and fruits are basically
<v Speaker 1>the same thing, the reproductive structure of a plant. Every flower,
<v Speaker 1>if it's pollinated, produces a fruit. Amazing how many people
<v Speaker 1>don't know that? Okay, So we talked about Linnaeus and
<v Speaker 1>his fucking tights and you know, the seventeen hundreds and
<v Speaker 1>how he was grouping plants by flower structures, and how
<v Speaker 1>that turned out to be mostly right because that is
<v Speaker 1>that's an evolutionarily conserved trait where his leaves can shift.
<v Speaker 2>Throughout a lineage.
<v Speaker 1>And are you know a plant can change its leaves
<v Speaker 1>without there being many evolutionary repercussions. Say a plant is
<v Speaker 1>growing in a place. In that place, it's a relatively
<v Speaker 1>you know, music place, it gets adequate amount of rainfall,
<v Speaker 1>and then the climate changes over thousands of years in
<v Speaker 1>that place starts to dry out.
<v Speaker 2>A plant can change its.
<v Speaker 1>Leaves get produced, narrower leaves, start producing hairs in the
<v Speaker 1>leaves and response to the drying climate without there being
<v Speaker 1>many evolutionary repercussions. If it starts messing around too much
<v Speaker 1>with its flower morphology, okay, it's going to have trouble reproducing.
<v Speaker 1>So that's it's the flowers stay relatively similar, but the
<v Speaker 1>leaves can shift. That's why we look at flowers so Faisaria, Fendleeri, straftandis.
<v Speaker 1>These are all members of the Nebraska family. Again, this
<v Speaker 1>is all last last class. Okay, So where are we today.
<v Speaker 1>We're looking at taxonomy, okay, and we're looking at how
<v Speaker 1>we group things. Let's go through all this. Okay, taxonomy,
<v Speaker 1>living things, we already talking about this. We're focusing on family,
<v Speaker 1>genius and species maybe order a little bit. Every plant
<v Speaker 1>has a binomial scientific name. The name is always italicized.
<v Speaker 1>The binomial name consists of a genus name and a
<v Speaker 1>species name. Okay, like for humans it's Homo sapiens. The
<v Speaker 1>genus is always capitalized. The species name is not. Okay.
<v Speaker 1>For example, helianthis annuis for sunflowers. Helianthus is always capitalized.
<v Speaker 2>Annuis is not.
<v Speaker 1>Okay, that's a great way to really show someone that
<v Speaker 1>you don't know what you're talking about if you start
<v Speaker 1>capitalizing species names. I was doing it when I first
<v Speaker 1>learned this stuff, and someone, of course like took me
<v Speaker 1>aside politely like, hey, we don't capitalize the species name.
<v Speaker 1>This is not how you do it generally written in
<v Speaker 1>italics too, but really just focused on not capitalizing that
<v Speaker 1>species thing. There are seventy species of sunflowers. So this
<v Speaker 1>is where it gets interesting. You start thinking about Okay,
<v Speaker 1>say you like a certain plant. Say you're interested in,
<v Speaker 1>like just the common weedy native sunflower helianthis annuus right,
<v Speaker 1>all Helianthis are native to the Americas, North America specifically,
<v Speaker 1>all right, any of that grow anywhere else? And I
<v Speaker 1>neither content were brought there by people in the last
<v Speaker 1>couple hundred years.
<v Speaker 2>This is where they evolved, all right.
<v Speaker 1>So you'd say you'ren't the one species, okay, but you're
<v Speaker 1>also curious, what are the forms that form that you
<v Speaker 1>know has taken in response to different climates and response
<v Speaker 1>to different elevations, and response to the presence of a
<v Speaker 1>different herbivore, etc. This is where stuff gets interesting. This
<v Speaker 1>is where taxonomy and cladistics and the classification of living
<v Speaker 1>things and the way that we group them by how
<v Speaker 1>evolutionarily related they are. This is where it gets really
<v Speaker 1>interesting because you can look at a plant like, say
<v Speaker 1>you like helianthis anuus. You look at a plant like
<v Speaker 1>Heliantis argophylus down here, which grows in the Texas sandsheet,
<v Speaker 1>you can see that it's been through tens of thousands
<v Speaker 1>of years of evolutionary selection pressure to produce hairy leaves,
<v Speaker 1>those wooly leaves. That hair protects the leaves against drying out.
<v Speaker 1>It prevents the stomata from losing as much moisture if
<v Speaker 1>apotranspiring as much moisture. It prevents the air, that hot,
<v Speaker 1>dry air on the South Texas sandsheet from blowing across
<v Speaker 1>the leaf and pulling moisture out of those leaf stomates. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>this thing is incredibly wooly, but it's just a variation
<v Speaker 1>on a theme. It's a variation on the theme of
<v Speaker 1>a sunflower. So it's really cool to think about, and
<v Speaker 1>you can see how evolution has sculpted these different forms
<v Speaker 1>from a form that you already know. Okay, take and
<v Speaker 1>you can do any plants. Say there's a particular tree
<v Speaker 1>you like, okay, and then you see another one that
<v Speaker 1>you know grows eight hundred miles away in a desert
<v Speaker 1>or in a swamp. Can see those different climates and
<v Speaker 1>landscapes have shaped shaped, different different forms, okay, different variations
<v Speaker 1>in the same form.
<v Speaker 2>Really cool stuff to think about for.
<v Speaker 1>Anybody who's biologically inclined, who's a biophile, who's just fascinated
<v Speaker 1>with life, all right, which most of us should be,
<v Speaker 1>because that composes the living world that surrounds us.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>So there are seventy species of sunflowers, seventy different species
<v Speaker 1>of heli anthus, each species very slightly in morphology. That's
<v Speaker 1>the way that it looks in the form that it takes,
<v Speaker 1>having different leaf shapes, growth, habits, life cycles. Annual only
<v Speaker 1>lives one season. Perennial it comes back, you know, herbaceous
<v Speaker 1>perennials like the roots stay alive, the tops grow, die
<v Speaker 1>in the fall, die after the season's over, you know,
<v Speaker 1>goes dormant for winter, but the root's still alive. Then
<v Speaker 1>it sparts again next year. Herbaceous perennial versus an annual.
<v Speaker 1>You get a lot of annuals in the deserts there's
<v Speaker 1>a lot of annual sunflowers that just produce a ton
<v Speaker 1>of seeds and then you know, come up, the come up,
<v Speaker 1>you know, the seeds that plant dies and the seeds
<v Speaker 1>germinate next spring, after the birds get into those flower
<v Speaker 1>heads and eat some, and then you know, like total slobs,
<v Speaker 1>spill a bunch of seeds all over the ground, et cetera.
<v Speaker 1>We already said this regarding plants. The taxonomic levels that
<v Speaker 1>we will we will be most concerned with will be order, family, genus,
<v Speaker 1>and species. Below the level of family, there can also
<v Speaker 1>be subfamily, tribes, subtribe, et cetera. But we're not gonna
<v Speaker 1>we're not gonna worry about that.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>Those are mostly reserved for very very populated families, very
<v Speaker 1>species rich families, families with a lot of plants in them, Okay,
<v Speaker 1>who have been very ecologically successful, like the sunflower family.
<v Speaker 1>Twenty eight thousand species. I think it's estimated that, Okay,
<v Speaker 1>all over the world, everywhere except Antarctica. Okay, if you've
<v Speaker 1>got that much species richness, that is, you have that
<v Speaker 1>many species in your family, Okay, just go on, family
<v Speaker 1>and genus isn't gonna cut it. You're gonna need subfamily,
<v Speaker 1>you're gonna need tribe. There's all these different taxonomic levels
<v Speaker 1>of classification between family and genus. All right, so uh, anyway,
<v Speaker 1>plant families always ending ace. That's another thing to remember acee.
<v Speaker 1>I used to pronounce it A C A. It doesn't matter.
<v Speaker 1>You can really pronounce it either. One works, all right.
<v Speaker 1>My friends who speak Spanish who are botanists produce it,
<v Speaker 1>produce ast ace, the sunflower family astacia. All right, I
<v Speaker 1>know what they're talking about. It doesn't matter.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>Anybody who's gonna who's gonna correct your Latin is is
<v Speaker 1>a nerd and not in a good way. Okay, just
<v Speaker 1>kind of just don't just ignore them. It doesn't matter.
<v Speaker 1>Pronunciation doesn't really matter.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>What matters is that the listener whoever you're speaking to,
<v Speaker 1>understands and knows what you're talking about. That's what matters.
<v Speaker 1>And this is universal across I mean all all uh
<v Speaker 1>all languages, right, every botanical Latin. Okay. If the Chinese
<v Speaker 1>botanists use botanical Latin, I Rain botanists use botanical Latin,
<v Speaker 1>Swiss botanists use botanical Atin. That's the beauty of the system.
<v Speaker 1>And we use Latin because it's a dead language. It's
<v Speaker 1>not subject to modern nuance. Okay, you can pronounce it
<v Speaker 1>however you want. So anyway, A C A So families
<v Speaker 1>end in A C A. Orders always end in Ali's
<v Speaker 1>A L E S Ali's uh subfamilies and in oid
<v Speaker 1>a O I D E A.
<v Speaker 2>So if you see something that.
<v Speaker 1>Ends if you see a word that ends in oid,
<v Speaker 1>you know that's a subfamily. If it's you know, a plant,
<v Speaker 1>If you know it's if it ends in Ali's, you
<v Speaker 1>know that's an order, et cetera ac family.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>There are two major means of arriving at a classification
<v Speaker 1>of life, all right, Phonetic and phylogenetic. Okay. Phonetic just
<v Speaker 1>means you're classifying something based on overall similarities, not necessarily
<v Speaker 1>and how evolutionarily related is. Remember there's this thing called
<v Speaker 1>convergent evolution where something like you, for and cacti completely
<v Speaker 1>unrelated plants, and if you go far enough back, we're
<v Speaker 1>all related, right, but for the most part they're completely unrelated.
<v Speaker 1>They're lineages diverged millions and millions of years ago. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>totally different orders of plants. Cacti in euphobia, which are
<v Speaker 1>Let's go back to them. Okay, a h looks similar
<v Speaker 1>from a distance, but they're completely unrelated. Okay, when you
<v Speaker 1>look at the flowers, you can tell they're different. But
<v Speaker 1>you know, looking at right here, you got martillo cactus
<v Speaker 1>geometrics as in the left, Euphobia engines on the right.
<v Speaker 1>Both Eupourbia engines i see referred to as a cactus
<v Speaker 1>all the time. Okay, it's not a cactus. It didn't
<v Speaker 1>evolve in the same continent as cacti. Cacti are only
<v Speaker 1>native to the Americas. If you see a cactus plant
<v Speaker 1>in Africa or in the Negev Desert or in the
<v Speaker 1>Mediterranean region, it was brought there by humans in the
<v Speaker 1>last four hundred years. Cacti are only native to the
<v Speaker 1>Americas except for one spec of Rypsalis, which was brought
<v Speaker 1>to the jungles of Africa by a bird probably five
<v Speaker 1>million years ago.
<v Speaker 2>And it's just that one.
<v Speaker 1>Species and Epiphytes, an epiphytic cactus. It doesn't look like
<v Speaker 1>this at all. Okay, so that's convergent evolution.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>Since both these plants look similar, you can look at
<v Speaker 1>their flowers and tell the difference, but also if you
<v Speaker 1>look at the spines, like the spines on the euphobia
<v Speaker 1>are stipules. The spines on cacti are just leaves, all right.
<v Speaker 1>They've modified their leaves are e. When you look close,
<v Speaker 1>you can tell even if it's not flowering. But at
<v Speaker 1>first glance to a lay person, they're going to assume
<v Speaker 1>it's the same thing. That's conversion evolution. And that's what
<v Speaker 1>phenetic classification is. Just grouping things together based on how
<v Speaker 1>they look. That's not what we want for taxonomy. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>when taxonomy first started, when Linnaeus was wearing his tights
<v Speaker 1>and he was you know, bondists, we're sending him these
<v Speaker 1>these herbarium sheets of pressed plants from all over the world,
<v Speaker 1>and he was looking at them and looking at their
<v Speaker 1>flowers and grouping things. He knew. He just had the
<v Speaker 1>intuition to group these plants together based on how their
<v Speaker 1>flowers looked. And like I said before in last class,
<v Speaker 1>that was he ended up hitting the nail on the head.
<v Speaker 1>That was pretty correct for the most part. Since leaves
<v Speaker 1>can be so plastic, they can vary so much. Flowers
<v Speaker 1>are what we look at. The reproductive structures are what
<v Speaker 1>we look at because they are the most evolutionarily conserved.
<v Speaker 1>Remember you can't You can change the leaves without there
<v Speaker 1>being many repercussions to the plant, but you can't really
<v Speaker 1>change the flowers too much. Okay, the reproductive structures have
<v Speaker 1>to stay the same for the most part. Okay, unless
<v Speaker 1>there's like a new genus evolving something that's a whole
<v Speaker 1>other thing, the whole a speciation event.
<v Speaker 2>Just just don't even worry about that.
<v Speaker 1>So phylogenetic classification is that which is based on evolutionary
<v Speaker 1>history or pattern of descent, which may or may not
<v Speaker 1>correspond to overall similarity, as we saw with cacti and euphobia.
<v Speaker 1>Cactie euphobia looks similar, but again, couldn't vergent evolution two
<v Speaker 1>things evolving to look the same because they evolved in
<v Speaker 1>similar climates. Euphobia evolved in the hot, arid climates of
<v Speaker 1>the euphobia did in Africa, okay, where it was also
<v Speaker 1>getting munched on a lot. Remember there's more herbivore pressure
<v Speaker 1>in deserts because there's not a lot on the menu.
<v Speaker 1>They're they're relatively barren compared to higher rainfall areas.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>Cacti evolved in subtropical seasonally dry forests and deserts of
<v Speaker 1>the Americas. And so because of those similar climates, they evolved,
<v Speaker 1>and they both evolutions selected for are the environment rather
<v Speaker 1>selected for plants that look the same? Armed defense storage
<v Speaker 1>succulent storage?
<v Speaker 2>Uh? And you know what else am I missing with? K? Anyway?
<v Speaker 1>You get the point, all right? Oh, and dropping their leaves,
<v Speaker 1>just succulent stems, dropping their leaves, because leaves have those
<v Speaker 1>stomata in them that leak moisture. They take in CO
<v Speaker 1>two they moisture. Okay, convergent evolution, many cases of conversion evolution.
<v Speaker 1>There's lots of there's lots of plants in the Chihuahua
<v Speaker 1>Desert that are moth pollinated and they produce similar flowers
<v Speaker 1>that smell the same, even though these plants are not
<v Speaker 1>that closely related. All right, that's because moths have been
<v Speaker 1>selecting for what they like, for what they pinizh. So
<v Speaker 1>their moths are more attractive to flowers that produce a
<v Speaker 1>certain kind of scent that they can home in on
<v Speaker 1>that smells very pleasant, very perfume, kind of like jasmine
<v Speaker 1>et cetera, Like a jasmine like perfume alcohol scent. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>So convergion evolution. Moth pollination is another example of convergent evolution. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>moth pollination being present in so many unrelated plants that
<v Speaker 1>grow in the Chihuahua Desert, like the evening primrose is
<v Speaker 1>or the mandavilla macrosciphon, or I saw a menadora which
<v Speaker 1>is in the olive an ash tree family that produces
<v Speaker 1>moth pollinated flowers, et cetera. So phylogenetic is what we want.
<v Speaker 1>When taxonomy was first invented as a system in the
<v Speaker 1>seventeen hundreds, it wasn't based around phylogenetics or evolution. Evolution
<v Speaker 1>wasn't even a theory yet, right, You would have been
<v Speaker 1>crucified for suggesting that everything wasn't just the creation again, Okay,
<v Speaker 1>but they were group of plants they already knew based
<v Speaker 1>on flowers.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>Then it turned out now basically all taxonomy is based
<v Speaker 1>around phylogenetic classification how closely related things are, which.
<v Speaker 2>Is how it should be.
<v Speaker 1>That's a really cool way to group things, and it
<v Speaker 1>gets you think about all kinds of different things. Variations
<v Speaker 1>on the theme how evolution works, how plants speciate, how
<v Speaker 1>the climate shapes and sculpts, different forms, different variations on
<v Speaker 1>a form.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>So today scientist group all living things according to how
<v Speaker 1>closely related they are. Just said that I et plants
<v Speaker 1>that are in the same family.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>Each taxonomic level represents a different level of evolutionary relatedness.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>Order is a more broad circumscription, a more broad level
<v Speaker 1>of classification than the one below it, which is family.
<v Speaker 1>So order, family, genus species. Remember that, come up with
<v Speaker 1>your own acronym four it order, family, genus species. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>only firemen gets stoned, all right, I don't know whatever works.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>Since plants were originally descriped together and how they look today,
<v Speaker 1>many plants have had to be reassigned to de genera.
<v Speaker 1>So remember that that initially phenetic classification of things, grouping
<v Speaker 1>things close based on how they looked. That all changed. Well,
<v Speaker 1>first off, that was all the information we had to
<v Speaker 1>go on back, you know, seventy eighty years ago, two
<v Speaker 1>hundred years ago, whatever.
<v Speaker 2>But with the advent of.
<v Speaker 1>DNA and polymerase chain reaction, okay, amplifying DNA so you
<v Speaker 1>can get a closer look at it, which was basically
<v Speaker 1>invented in the eighties. Carrie Molus was on acid. That
<v Speaker 1>whole story, driving down Highway one. Imagine the DNA spy
<v Speaker 1>ladder becoming unzipped and re zipping.
<v Speaker 2>I don't know.
<v Speaker 1>He was a wild man, kind of crazy, but regardless.
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I guess you'd have to be to drive
<v Speaker 1>down the coastal California Highway one on acid. But uh,
<v Speaker 1>he's credited with coming up with PCR, which is used
<v Speaker 1>in diagnostic testing today, forensic testing testing for COVID, et cetera.
<v Speaker 1>So with the advent of DNA, we were now able
<v Speaker 1>to compare genetic bar codes a right, literally looking at
<v Speaker 1>the sequences of adnine, dimine, citoscene, and guanine. Okay, the
<v Speaker 1>four DNA base pairs, and seeing how those at a
<v Speaker 1>certain section of the genome compared to that same section
<v Speaker 1>of the genome on another species, and looking at the
<v Speaker 1>different the differences between them, and seeing how much, you know,
<v Speaker 1>what gene regions they shared in common. Literally holding up
<v Speaker 1>one DNA barcode next to another DNA bard and seeing
<v Speaker 1>how closely related they are.
<v Speaker 2>Okay, so that's what that changed. That that changed a
<v Speaker 2>bunch of It.
<v Speaker 1>Turns out things that were grouped like this happened with
<v Speaker 1>a lot of things that were in the the lily family,
<v Speaker 1>like yucca's at one point were placed in the lily family.
<v Speaker 1>It turns out yuccas are not closely related to lilies
<v Speaker 1>at all. They're in the asparagus family along with the
<v Speaker 1>gaves and irises and et cetera. Actually, I think irises
<v Speaker 1>are just in the asparagus order now, but anyways, asparagailees
<v Speaker 1>and then asparagaycy but either way, uh, you know this
<v Speaker 1>this had to be shifted around.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>Usually flowers are a steadfast way to group plants, but
<v Speaker 1>with monocots, a lot of them, you know, they just
<v Speaker 1>they the flower traits for monocots are flowers generally in
<v Speaker 1>multiples of three, parallel leaf venation, et cetera. So, and
<v Speaker 1>if you look at a if you look at a
<v Speaker 1>yucca flower and some you know other uh, the flowers
<v Speaker 1>are some plant species that are in the asparagus family,
<v Speaker 1>you can kind of see like, yeah, it kind of
<v Speaker 1>looks like lily. It does kind of look like a
<v Speaker 1>lily flower, all right, So I guess I get it.
<v Speaker 2>To an extent.
<v Speaker 1>There's other little subtle differences that you can see between
<v Speaker 1>those two lineages. The plants in the lily order and
<v Speaker 1>the plants in the asparagus order. That really you know
<v Speaker 1>that really you could. You can look at them and
<v Speaker 1>you can still tell the there are different lineages when
<v Speaker 1>you look at look up close, but for the most part,
<v Speaker 1>they do look a lot alike. DNA really solved that,
<v Speaker 1>though you could see vast differences in the DNA and
<v Speaker 1>the molecular Sanapa morphis. Remember Sanapa morphis are shared traits.
<v Speaker 1>They are what you look for to to figure out
<v Speaker 1>what genus or what family something is in. Okay, So
<v Speaker 1>this is a great example. So this is why you know,
<v Speaker 1>you'll hear botanists complaining, oh they changed the name on
<v Speaker 1>that again, Well, they changed the name because it turns out, uh,
<v Speaker 1>this plant was thought to be in this genus, but
<v Speaker 1>it's actually not. Or this plant was thought to be
<v Speaker 1>in this family, but it's actually not. It's in this family,
<v Speaker 1>and the DNA proved that we got it wrong because
<v Speaker 1>we didn't have DNA, you know, one hundred and twenty
<v Speaker 1>years ago when botanists through this plant, you know, found
<v Speaker 1>this plant and described it as being a member of
<v Speaker 1>this family. Okay, a clade. This is another really important term.
<v Speaker 2>To remember.
<v Speaker 1>Okay, A clade is an evolutionary group of related organisms.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>A clade can be a formal classification like a family
<v Speaker 1>or genus or order, or it can be informal like
<v Speaker 1>some of the subunits of classification of very species rich
<v Speaker 1>families like Astoracy the sunflower family, or Phabaesi the pea family.
<v Speaker 1>There's there's an informal clade, all right, a solid group
<v Speaker 1>of things that are all related to each other more
<v Speaker 1>so than they are to anything else that's outside of
<v Speaker 1>that group. Okay, which is what monophyletic is. That's the
<v Speaker 1>meaning of monophyletic. There's a group of an informal clade
<v Speaker 1>called the rebellioid ps in Australia. Really cool. They have
<v Speaker 1>pea flowers, but they're like day glow colored. The leaves
<v Speaker 1>tend to be armed. A lot of them produce really
<v Speaker 1>toxic phytochemistry. Okay, like the compound ten to eighty, which
<v Speaker 1>is a poison that Australia the Australian government uses to
<v Speaker 1>control invasive feral cats and foxes, which are not native
<v Speaker 1>to the Australian continent and have been causing literal extinctions
<v Speaker 1>of some of those cool marsupials.
<v Speaker 2>There's a compound.
<v Speaker 1>Synthesized by Gastrolobium, which is a Merbelioid P. It's a
<v Speaker 1>genus of Morbelioid P. And they put the compound ten
<v Speaker 1>eighty in these little sausages and then literally air drop
<v Speaker 1>them into the bush into the scrub lands and the
<v Speaker 1>forests of Australia. That compound is it's synthesized by or
<v Speaker 1>the chemical the analog is synthesized by members of the
<v Speaker 1>genus Gastrolobium, which is a Merbelioid P. The I think
<v Speaker 1>it's Marbellier and Bossier, but they're there's not a solid
<v Speaker 1>like formal designation for the morbelioid ps. It's informal. It's
<v Speaker 1>just it's tribe Bossier and tribe Rebellia. I don't know
<v Speaker 1>why no one's created a solid clade for those yet,
<v Speaker 1>but either way, it's just that's an informal it's a
<v Speaker 1>good examples of an informal monophyletic clade. It's cool about that.
<v Speaker 1>Ten eighty too is the marsupials. The native Australia marsupials
<v Speaker 1>are not they don't succumb to compound ten eighty and
<v Speaker 1>it leads not very easily. I think many of them
<v Speaker 1>are resistant to it because that chemical compound. They've evolved
<v Speaker 1>with it over millions of years, and so they've evolved resistance.
<v Speaker 1>But mammals that aren't from Australia don't have any resistance
<v Speaker 1>to it.
<v Speaker 2>That's why.
<v Speaker 1>That's why it works. I'm controlling cats and foxes, and
<v Speaker 1>with the cats, I don't think it really works that well.
<v Speaker 1>The feral cat problem in Australia is terrible anyway anyway,
<v Speaker 1>So what does it mean to be monophyletic? All the
<v Speaker 1>organs in that clade have a shared inheritance. Monophyletic is
<v Speaker 1>what we that's the desirable of the three different philetic
<v Speaker 1>designations monophyletic, polyphyletic, and paraphyletic. You only want things to
<v Speaker 1>be monophyletic. When we are grouping things into a clade
<v Speaker 1>or a you know, whether it's a family or an
<v Speaker 1>order or whatever, they need to be monophyletic. We need
<v Speaker 1>to make sure that everything in that family is more
<v Speaker 1>closely related to everything else in that family than it
<v Speaker 1>is to anything else that's outside of that family designation,
<v Speaker 1>that box that we're drawing around that that group, we
<v Speaker 1>want it to be a solid monophyletic evolutionary group. Okay.
<v Speaker 1>And that means all the organisms in that clade have
<v Speaker 1>a shared inheritance. So because all life on Earth is
<v Speaker 1>related and all shares the same common ancestor, all of
<v Speaker 1>life is technically a clade. If you zoom you know,
<v Speaker 1>if you zoom out enough, if you zoom far out
<v Speaker 1>enough on that that taxonomic tree, that pyramid.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>So we can apply the grouping of clade to any
<v Speaker 1>level of taxonomic classification, okay, whether it's you know, class
<v Speaker 1>or division, or order or family or down to genus, species,
<v Speaker 1>et cetera.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>So all that is required for something to be considered
<v Speaker 1>a clade is for the grouping the imaginary box that
<v Speaker 1>you draw around a group of organisms to be monophyletic.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>I cannot stress enough how important this word is to
<v Speaker 1>an understanding of the idea of evolution and inheritance. And
<v Speaker 1>it takes a minute to get at first, it takes
<v Speaker 1>a minute to understand, but once you grasp it, and
<v Speaker 1>these diagrams I'm about to show you will help you
<v Speaker 1>grasp it. Once you grasp it, it'll shift the way
<v Speaker 1>you think about everything. It'll shift the way you think
<v Speaker 1>about your own species, the way that we evolved. It'll
<v Speaker 1>shift the way you think about how life evolves about
<v Speaker 1>you know what it means for one thing to be
<v Speaker 1>related to another. It's a really important concept to thinking
<v Speaker 1>about the living fabric that you're a part of and
<v Speaker 1>that surrounds you. Monophilely directly applies to evolution, evolution and
<v Speaker 1>natural selection. Okay, let's see another way to say it.
<v Speaker 1>Organisms that are in the same genus are more closely
<v Speaker 1>related to each other than organisms that are merely in
<v Speaker 1>the same family or order and so on. Okay, So
<v Speaker 1>those are just talking about the different levels of classification.
<v Speaker 2>So you want order to be.
<v Speaker 1>Monophyletic, You want the family to be monophyletic. You want
<v Speaker 1>right which as you go down, each is a smaller
<v Speaker 1>and more narrow unit of classification of specificity. Okay, Genus
<v Speaker 1>is more specific than family, and all the synapomorphies that
<v Speaker 1>unite something in a genus are going to be more
<v Speaker 1>specified than those snapomorphies that unite something in the same
<v Speaker 1>family or order. In order to be classified correctly as
<v Speaker 1>a clad a group of organisms needs to be monophyletic.
<v Speaker 1>Just said this, Okay, So this is what monophiley looks like.
<v Speaker 1>You're drawing a box around.
<v Speaker 2>All these things.
<v Speaker 1>Paraphyletic and polyphyletic. These exist because these are designations that, uh,
<v Speaker 1>you know, were that existed before, for example, before the
<v Speaker 1>advent of DNA really showed us how closely related things
<v Speaker 1>are and why we like when we why we had
<v Speaker 1>to move yuccas out of the lily family. Okay, this
<v Speaker 1>would be a good example of why, you know, why
<v Speaker 1>we had to move Both of these would be a
<v Speaker 1>good example of why we had to move yuccas out
<v Speaker 1>of the lily family.
<v Speaker 2>Okay, So.
<v Speaker 1>Right here, that would be polyphyletic. Okay, So paraphyletic, and
<v Speaker 1>this is the way I remember it. Paraphyletic has an
<v Speaker 1>a in it. What paraphyletic means is that you're including
<v Speaker 1>a common ancestor, but not all of the descendants.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>And this is what you'll see, uh in reference to
<v Speaker 1>you know, talking about reptiles but not including birds, right
<v Speaker 1>because birds are technically reptiles. They evolved out of reptiles.
<v Speaker 1>So if you are talking about reptiles and crocodiles, you know,
<v Speaker 1>reptiles to includ lizards and crocodiles, but you're not including birds.
<v Speaker 1>You're not including all the modern dat descendants. So paraphletic,
<v Speaker 1>it's gotten a. The meaning of paraphyletic ancestor begins with A.
<v Speaker 1>The meaning of paraphyletic means you're including the common ancestor,
<v Speaker 1>but not all the descendants.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>Polyphyletic just means your way off, like these things aren't
<v Speaker 1>related at all. You have two separate common ancestors, which
<v Speaker 1>you see here. So these are the taxa, the different organisms.
<v Speaker 1>Taxa is the plural of taxon, which taxon is a species.
<v Speaker 1>It can be a taxon, can be a family. A
<v Speaker 1>taxon can be an order, and same with this degh.
<v Speaker 1>These could be species that could be families, which would
<v Speaker 1>mean that CNF or orders whatever. It just means the
<v Speaker 1>level of classification. If you don't get it, don't worry
<v Speaker 1>about it. That's not important. What is important is understanding
<v Speaker 1>what these diagrams mean and actually putting them into play.
<v Speaker 1>And I'll show you examples here. Okay, I'll show you
<v Speaker 1>an example of a polyphyletic designation and the cactus family
<v Speaker 1>that was revealed to be polyphyletic by DNA. These two
<v Speaker 1>species or two different clades. Groups were classified as the
<v Speaker 1>same thing. It turns out they're far apart on the
<v Speaker 1>phylogeny when the DNA breaks out a family tree, okay,
<v Speaker 1>not desirable groupings, polyphyletic groupings, and paraphletic groupings. Paraphyletic group
<v Speaker 1>a group that includes the common ancestor, but not all
<v Speaker 1>descendants that derived from that ancestor. We just talked about that, Okay,
<v Speaker 1>like you know, referring to reptiles and not including birds
<v Speaker 1>in that designation. All right, it'd be like including your
<v Speaker 1>siblings and parents. Okay, for on a smaller level of specificity,
<v Speaker 1>talking about your family as an analogy, Okay, it'd be
<v Speaker 1>like including your siblings and parents and grandpa, but not
<v Speaker 1>your cousins or their parents.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>If you're talking about your own family and you're just
<v Speaker 1>talking about your parents and your siblings, that's great. If
<v Speaker 1>you're including your grandpa but not including your dad's brothers, kids,
<v Speaker 1>your cousins, or your dad's brother, that would be that's
<v Speaker 1>an example of a paraphyletic grouping.
<v Speaker 2>Okay, this is the same thing.
<v Speaker 1>When Darwin came up with all this stuff the Tree
<v Speaker 1>of Life, it was literally like a family tree can
<v Speaker 1>be applied to the way you think about a tree
<v Speaker 1>of life, same thing, but on a much smaller unit, right,
<v Speaker 1>and much more recent in terms of time. That's the
<v Speaker 1>other thing is you can generally think about these relations
<v Speaker 1>is kind of like in a span of time. We'll
<v Speaker 1>talk about that too. We'll get into that polyphyletic group
<v Speaker 1>ak way off the mark. We just said that that
<v Speaker 1>was this one way off the mark means well, we
<v Speaker 1>thought these things were way more closely related than they are.
<v Speaker 2>They're not at all.
<v Speaker 1>It's not even like we're we're just including we're including
<v Speaker 1>the common ancestor, but not all the modern descendants. It's
<v Speaker 1>like these things are so far apart in the tree
<v Speaker 1>of life that to include, to make a moment to
<v Speaker 1>draw a box around all of them, would be so
<v Speaker 1>broad that we're including things that don't look anything like
<v Speaker 1>the organisms that we're talking about, like yuccas and yucca's
<v Speaker 1>and lilies. Okay, like they are so they're so far apart,
<v Speaker 1>you know, like you'd have to and you'd have to
<v Speaker 1>for yuccas and lilies to be a mon athletic group.
<v Speaker 1>You have to zoom so far out to go so
<v Speaker 1>far back where they both diverge from those lineages both
<v Speaker 1>diverge from each other. You'd be including orchids in it,
<v Speaker 1>which don't look like lili's at all. When you get
<v Speaker 1>to the there's just so unrelated. That's kind of a
<v Speaker 1>bad example because some people think orchids do look like lilies. Anyway,
<v Speaker 1>the point is, hopefully you get what I'm talking about.
<v Speaker 1>You have to zoom so far out. Okay, So again
<v Speaker 1>two separate common ancestors, just like we see right here
<v Speaker 1>where C and F are the common ancestors and they're
<v Speaker 1>they're far apart.
<v Speaker 2>Okay. And if you if you zoomed far back out
<v Speaker 2>and drew the box around, be uh you could.
<v Speaker 1>I guess you could do that, but you know, you again,
<v Speaker 1>you're zooming so far out that now it's like you're
<v Speaker 1>including stuff that doesn't look anything, doesn't look anything like
<v Speaker 1>the taxa species you're concerned about, D or G or whatever.
<v Speaker 1>So if this is don't worry, this will sink in.
<v Speaker 1>It's got to be redundant with it, okay. In contrast
<v Speaker 1>to monophyletic, polyphyletic and paraphletic are both undesirable groupings. Why
<v Speaker 1>polyphyletic incorrect grouping species are not as closely related as thoughts.
<v Speaker 1>This designation contains two separate common ancestors, basically a reiteration
<v Speaker 1>of what I just said paraphyletic. You've circled a monophyletic
<v Speaker 1>group over here on the right, JK and I. But
<v Speaker 1>since you've also circled tax on A, and you're including
<v Speaker 1>that in this whatever family or order whatever you're referring to,
<v Speaker 1>but you haven't B and all the common descendants of B.
<v Speaker 1>That's paraphyletic. Remember, ancestor begins with A. You're including the
<v Speaker 1>common ancestor, and A is in paraphyletic, right, That's how
<v Speaker 1>I remember these paraphyletic versus polyphletic. There's no A in polyphyletic.
<v Speaker 1>Ancestor begins with A. Paraphyletic means you're including the common ancestor,
<v Speaker 1>but not all the common descendants. That's how I remember it.
<v Speaker 1>Here is the example I was talking. You know, Archissauria, Crocodilia.
<v Speaker 1>These are all reptiles, but you're not including birds. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>And this is what the DNA reveals too. Birds are reptiles,
<v Speaker 1>all right. Birds evolved out of reptiles, so the designation
<v Speaker 1>reptiles is paraphyletic because it includes crocodiles and lizards, snakes,
<v Speaker 1>that's archissauria, but not birds. You can see what a
<v Speaker 1>mammals branched off early on. It's like two hundred and
<v Speaker 1>fifty million years ago. The synapsids, I think synapsids are
<v Speaker 1>those things that you'll see in museums. Sometimes they walk
<v Speaker 1>on all fours, they're low to the ground, they got
<v Speaker 1>a big like sale on their back. They look like dinosaurs,
<v Speaker 1>but they're not. They're actually ancestors of early mammals. So
<v Speaker 1>a cladogram. Everything we've been looking at. These are all cladograms,
<v Speaker 1>right these upside on pyramids. Okay, but there's numerous ways
<v Speaker 1>to draw a cladogram. All these things on the right
<v Speaker 1>right here, these four different things are all the same thing. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>they're all cladograms. They're all the same they're all showing
<v Speaker 1>the exact same thing. Or it's a circle or an
<v Speaker 1>upside on pyramid, or a pyramid, or this little thing
<v Speaker 1>that looks like a bunch of tuning forks branching off
<v Speaker 1>of each other. A cladogram or phylogenetic tree can be
<v Speaker 1>thought of as analogous to a person's own family tree,
<v Speaker 1>like that thing I just said about you know, your grandpa,
<v Speaker 1>including your grandpa and a family looking at a literal
<v Speaker 1>family tree of your grandpa and your parents and your
<v Speaker 1>siblings and your cousins, et cetera. Okay, it's literally just
<v Speaker 1>a microcosms, a smaller example, a smaller sampling of a
<v Speaker 1>larger group. Okay, that's all a family tree is.
<v Speaker 2>You can take.
<v Speaker 1>The family tree is a perfect analogy to what we're
<v Speaker 1>talking about here.
<v Speaker 2>All right.
<v Speaker 1>The four diagrams on the right are different ways to
<v Speaker 1>display the exact same information. How closely related whatever organism
<v Speaker 1>or group of organisms represented by the letters is to
<v Speaker 1>another letter on the tree clatogram, you can see D
<v Speaker 1>is more closely related to C than it is to A.
<v Speaker 1>All right, but see this node where C and D
<v Speaker 1>branch off from each other. All right, If you were
<v Speaker 1>to flip that around d, d could be right next
<v Speaker 1>to B. Two, So it doesn't, and you can do that.
<v Speaker 1>You can give you to flip around one to eighty,
<v Speaker 1>so D and C are both equally related to B. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>just means they branched off. And that's what this shows too.
<v Speaker 1>It's like D and C both you know, one this
<v Speaker 1>thing forked. One lineage went towards B, one lineage went
<v Speaker 1>towards C, and D this circular cladogram here. But either way,
<v Speaker 1>D and C are for sure more closely related to
<v Speaker 1>B than they are to A, because A branched off
<v Speaker 1>this pyramid thing and both the circular thing much earlier.
<v Speaker 1>And you'll see that in the traits, the physical traits
<v Speaker 1>they share, and the DNA the molecular traits they share.
<v Speaker 1>When you hold the DNA barcode of taxon C and
<v Speaker 1>D up next to taxon B and taxon A, you'll
<v Speaker 1>see that they have more base pair and code the
<v Speaker 1>literal code the ATC's and g's for DNA base pairs,
<v Speaker 1>they have more of those in common. The code is
<v Speaker 1>more closely aligned with B than with A. Still not
<v Speaker 1>the same, because there are different taxons, different tax o
<v Speaker 1>the different species. But all right, any strong can clearly
<v Speaker 1>be seen that species D is more closely related to
<v Speaker 1>species C than it is to species B or A.
<v Speaker 2>Okay, just just what I said, same thing.
<v Speaker 1>Okay, Well, I was thinking it's more closely related to
<v Speaker 1>B than A, which is also true. But either way
<v Speaker 1>you can see DNC are are very closely related, so
<v Speaker 1>that would be a Monophyletically, a DNC would be a
<v Speaker 1>genus and then anyway, okay. In some ways, phylogenies and
<v Speaker 1>clatograms can even be taking to represent a literal timeline
<v Speaker 1>of how an organism likely evolved. And you can do
<v Speaker 1>this with something like how whales evolve from terrestrial mammals.
<v Speaker 1>You can see up here at the top of this diagram. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>fifty five fifty forty five those are millions of years
<v Speaker 1>y so fifty five million years ago. Okay, we know
<v Speaker 1>this from fossils. There are fossils we'll find in a
<v Speaker 1>body of rock. Will ice will date the isotopes in
<v Speaker 1>the rock, radiometrically date the isotopes of the rock and
<v Speaker 1>how what their half life is, and how they decay
<v Speaker 1>and get a solid date within the range of relatively
<v Speaker 1>small window of time, and know that this rock is
<v Speaker 1>fifty five million years old. And we'll see and then
<v Speaker 1>we'll find other fossils, another fossil over here, and another
<v Speaker 1>fossil over here, indicating how whales evolved from four legged
<v Speaker 1>mammals like you can see here, like pack acetis, there's
<v Speaker 1>a four legged terrestrial mammal that existed during the Eocene
<v Speaker 1>roughly forty five to fifty million years ago. And you
<v Speaker 1>can see looking at the bones and the similarities of
<v Speaker 1>the bones, and then how you find another fossil and
<v Speaker 1>now the bones it's this.
<v Speaker 2>It's you could tell it's related.
<v Speaker 1>The bones look a lot alike, except they're starting to change.
<v Speaker 1>This thing is starting to lose its hind legs. It's
<v Speaker 1>probably it's showing more adaptations for living in water. And
<v Speaker 1>then you find another fossil, same thing. You go, Okay,
<v Speaker 1>this is closely related. We can tell it's it's related
<v Speaker 1>to this. But now this thing is starting to lose
<v Speaker 1>its hind legs altogether and the front legs, the fore
<v Speaker 1>limbs are becoming fins. You can tell that the way
<v Speaker 1>the bones are splayed out that they're starting to evolve
<v Speaker 1>into fins. And so this is what we've done. And
<v Speaker 1>so this is really illuminating. You can see you can
<v Speaker 1>literally see how whales, over a span of probably thirty
<v Speaker 1>to forty million years, how they evolved. And all these
<v Speaker 1>pink things right here are sanapomorphis. This is a new
<v Speaker 1>sanapomorphy that evolves. This pink bar that crosses the evolutionary
<v Speaker 1>tree right there perpendicular to the lines. Those pink things
<v Speaker 1>are sanapomorphy. Something evolves and everything on down inherits that
<v Speaker 1>like in volucrum freshwater semi aquatic habit that or it
<v Speaker 1>evolves a fat pad in the jaw for hearing in
<v Speaker 1>brackish for hearing. Okay, fat pad in the jaw for
<v Speaker 1>hearing is occurring in brackish water habitat. Also, you can
<v Speaker 1>tell that from looking at the rocks, that these sedimentary rocks,
<v Speaker 1>that these things are found in salt water habitat. They
<v Speaker 1>can tell that obviously from finding different mineral deposits in
<v Speaker 1>the same in the rock that the fossils are entombed in.
<v Speaker 1>Nasal opening shifted back. Okay, like whales, their blowhole.
<v Speaker 2>Is a nose. You can see this.
<v Speaker 1>You can literally see this in the fossils. You see
<v Speaker 1>the nose start to shift further back. You know, as
<v Speaker 1>time goes on and the younger rocks, the younger fossils
<v Speaker 1>they'll quote more recent fossils still forty million years old whatever,
<v Speaker 1>but you can still see it now. They're evolving blowholes.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>The nasal passage is shifting back slowly over time. Remember,
<v Speaker 1>individuals don't evolve populations do. These are all baby steps
<v Speaker 1>occurring over millions of years, being selected for by the environment.
<v Speaker 2>Things that can blow. If their nasal.
<v Speaker 1>Passages up the top of their head, that's going to
<v Speaker 1>be easier for them to exchange air with the atmosphere
<v Speaker 1>that just got to come up to the service, rather
<v Speaker 1>than stick their whole head up above the service. You
<v Speaker 1>can obviously see why that would be adaptive. They're gonna
<v Speaker 1>do better, they're gonna thrive more, They're going to be
<v Speaker 1>more fit for that specific environment. Not necessarily strong, but
<v Speaker 1>more fit for that environment. Okay, I don't like that
<v Speaker 1>all only the strong survive because it's not correct.
<v Speaker 2>Right, What does that mean?
<v Speaker 1>Strong is a vague, It doesn't mean anything. It's fitness.
<v Speaker 1>What what is fit in a desert is not going
<v Speaker 1>to be fit in a swamp. Okay, those are completely
<v Speaker 1>different habitats. What's going to be fit at high elevations
<v Speaker 1>is not going to be fit at lower elevations.
<v Speaker 2>All right.
<v Speaker 1>The pink bars represent sanapa morphis. That's so the words
<v Speaker 1>we have to remember so far clade, sanapomorphis monophyletic. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>it's just a zoomed up cladogram of that of that whale.
<v Speaker 1>That evolutionary transition from terrestrial mammals to whales. Really cool
<v Speaker 1>shit to think about. Okay. The method that groups organisms
<v Speaker 1>that share derived characters is called clidistics or phylogenetic systematics.
<v Speaker 1>Remember phylogenetic cladistics, same thing. Okay, you can see chimp, mouse, pigeon, lizard.
<v Speaker 1>How there's a thing of all. There's a cladogram of
<v Speaker 1>all these these organisms that we know. Maybe maybe people
<v Speaker 1>don't know hagfish, but you know that they're basically jaw
<v Speaker 1>as fishes. They're they're a modern member of a lineage
<v Speaker 1>that branched off from the tree of life before fish
<v Speaker 1>evolved jaws.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>Clatograms can also be represented by DNA codes and changes
<v Speaker 1>in the coding of various genes. Okay, we like I
<v Speaker 1>just talked about holding up one DNA barcode to another.
<v Speaker 1>They literally call it DNA barcoding. My friend Alan Rockefeller
<v Speaker 1>as a mycologist. He started doing this stuff, never went
<v Speaker 1>to school, learned it on his own. Actually, I think
<v Speaker 1>he had someone at Berkeley Tacham pcr over a summer
<v Speaker 1>and he was helping them out and learned this. But
<v Speaker 1>he learned polymerase chain reaction. He got the thermocycler, he
<v Speaker 1>got the primers, all the things you need to tell
<v Speaker 1>that amplification when to start with the code and when
<v Speaker 1>to stop with the code, and what specific gene region
<v Speaker 1>you're looking at. He did all this and he literally
<v Speaker 1>teaches DNA bar coding of mushrooms.
<v Speaker 2>It's really cool.
<v Speaker 1>He did this and he found out that things that
<v Speaker 1>we were calling a certain mushroom in North America was
<v Speaker 1>based on a name out of Europe. But but then
<v Speaker 1>when you look at the DNA and they look kind
<v Speaker 1>of alike, but there's also there's a little bit of
<v Speaker 1>inconsistency in how they look too, and that kind of
<v Speaker 1>got him thinking, maybe these things aren't the same species
<v Speaker 1>at all. They're certainly closely related, but maybe they're not
<v Speaker 1>the same species at all. He looked at the DNA,
<v Speaker 1>held up the DNA barcodes realize that the thing in
<v Speaker 1>North America that we were calling by the name of
<v Speaker 1>the same mushroom in Europe, not the same mushroom, but
<v Speaker 1>similar looking mushroom in Europe, was actually a different species.
<v Speaker 1>As you would think. Because the Atlantic Ocean is three
<v Speaker 1>thousand miles wide and these things have been separated quite
<v Speaker 1>likely for a long time. Sports can travel far, but
<v Speaker 1>the spore on a mushroom growing on a fourth floor
<v Speaker 1>is not going.
<v Speaker 2>To travel that far.
<v Speaker 1>And that's called biogeography, okay. That is the study of
<v Speaker 1>where things evolve. And you generally see that certain plant
<v Speaker 1>lineages are indeed restricted with a very few exceptions, to
<v Speaker 1>certain continents or geographical areas. Okay, Like there's a whole
<v Speaker 1>suite of plants called the Gondwanan relics after the super
<v Speaker 1>continent Gondwana, which was comprised of Antarctica and South Africa
<v Speaker 1>and Australasia, Australia basically New Zealand, Tasmania, in southern South America.
<v Speaker 1>They were all together at one point, so you get
<v Speaker 1>the same plant families that don't occur anywhere else in
<v Speaker 1>the world and nowhere in the northern hemisphere, like the
<v Speaker 1>proteace occurring on Chile in South America, there's a few
<v Speaker 1>in Brazil, to occurring in South America, occurring in South Africa,
<v Speaker 1>and occurring in Australia.
<v Speaker 2>And that situation is repeated like.
<v Speaker 1>Dozens of times with plant lineages, and they got there
<v Speaker 1>as a result of being that old, the lineage, which
<v Speaker 1>is literally that old, from a time when all those
<v Speaker 1>contents were together before plate tectonics pushed them apart at
<v Speaker 1>roughly the rate that your fingernails grow over eighty million,
<v Speaker 1>fifty million, however long, however many years. Okay, biogeography, and
<v Speaker 1>that's what Alan was doing when he was, you know,
<v Speaker 1>teasing out that, oh, this is not the same species
<v Speaker 1>as the one in Europe. They're closely related, but you know,
<v Speaker 1>this species of mushroom. Look at the DNA hold of
<v Speaker 1>the DNA barcodes, they would look slightly different than mushrooms
<v Speaker 1>would and that kind of gave the hint. And then
<v Speaker 1>you look at the DNA barcodes. He's like, oh, yeah,
<v Speaker 1>this is a different species. We've just been calling it
<v Speaker 1>that because we didn't No one's analyzed the DNA before
<v Speaker 1>and anyway, so he's described the whole couple new species
<v Speaker 1>that way. Really cool stuff. This is also a clatogram,
<v Speaker 1>this fancy poster I got, all right, this fancy poster.
<v Speaker 1>It's a scientifically accurate cladogram. It's literally drawn as a tree,
<v Speaker 1>a tree of life. And there's old Charles Darwin's quote,
<v Speaker 1>there is grand they're in this view of life, with
<v Speaker 1>its several powers having been originally breathed into a few
<v Speaker 1>forms or into one, and that whilst this planet has
<v Speaker 1>gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity.
<v Speaker 1>From so simple a beginning, endless forms, most beautiful and
<v Speaker 1>most wonderful have been in our being evolved, endless forms,
<v Speaker 1>most beautiful. When I was getting into plants and I
<v Speaker 1>was nerding out on I was really nerding out on
<v Speaker 1>redwood trees because I was living in California at the time.
<v Speaker 1>I could just see how big they could grow, and
<v Speaker 1>they could live two thousand years. And then I would
<v Speaker 1>go to the Wikipedia page and look at the taxonomy chart,
<v Speaker 1>which was kind of a mini cladogram, and see redwoods
<v Speaker 1>are in this family. What else are redwoods related to?
<v Speaker 1>They're so cool. I just have to know what else
<v Speaker 1>evolved somewhere else. And then I found out there's a
<v Speaker 1>Chilean species of redwood that's in the same family, Fitzroya
<v Speaker 1>cooper Soidis, also known as the Allersee. Most of them
<v Speaker 1>were logged in, you know, the seventies and eighties, but
<v Speaker 1>there's a couple old growth ones left. They grow in
<v Speaker 1>these really cool temperate rainforests that get up like four
<v Speaker 1>feet of rain a year, but it's chilly, like the
<v Speaker 1>climate of the Pacific Northwest, And that just blew my mind.
<v Speaker 1>I was like, if you go far enough back, you know,
<v Speaker 1>alurses in California coast redwoods, you know, have a common ancestor,
<v Speaker 1>all right, they're both separate branches of this pyramid shaped fork.
<v Speaker 2>And I just thought that was so cool.
<v Speaker 1>And then you start thinking about all the other things
<v Speaker 1>that existed that have gone extinct, all the other branches
<v Speaker 1>on that pyramid shaped fork that would have come off
<v Speaker 1>that we only know from fossils, that we haven't even
<v Speaker 1>found fossils of yet, that we don't know, you know,
<v Speaker 1>it just it's the imagination runs wild and you start
<v Speaker 1>thinking about this stuff and what those forests look like.
<v Speaker 1>It's really cool. And also how did they survive each
<v Speaker 1>in their respective habitats, like how did they You know,
<v Speaker 1>redwoods grow really fast because they literally sometimes grow in
<v Speaker 1>floodplains and also on very unstable slopes where they can
<v Speaker 1>get buried really quick, so they've got to get really tall,
<v Speaker 1>really quick, right, Same thing with medicaicoia, the dawn redwood,
<v Speaker 1>which is only native to a small section of China.
<v Speaker 1>Almost when extinct, and now it's planted all over the
<v Speaker 1>East coast. You know it needs a little bit more rainfall.
<v Speaker 1>It's related all these thing and those are related to
<v Speaker 1>our own Texan Montezuma cypress and bald cypress. If you
<v Speaker 1>go further east by Houston, you think about all this stuff.
<v Speaker 1>Just seeing one form you're familiar with and then seeing
<v Speaker 1>what else it's related to. It's wild. Like knowing that
<v Speaker 1>prong horn antelope are more closely related to giraffes than
<v Speaker 1>they are to deer. You'd see them and you'd think
<v Speaker 1>this thing is just a different kind of deer.
<v Speaker 2>It's not.
<v Speaker 1>It's actually related more closely related to giraffes, which today
<v Speaker 1>are only on Africa. Wild stuff to think about how
<v Speaker 1>life moves around, how it's evolved, why it occurs where
<v Speaker 1>it does, et cetera. Okay, and then over here on
<v Speaker 1>this you got that's Charles Darwin's drawing. This motherfucker literally
<v Speaker 1>drew a cladogram one hundred and eighty, one hundred and
<v Speaker 1>ninety years ago. It was an maybe hundred and sixty,
<v Speaker 1>I don't know what, what was it, eighteen eighties, eighteen seventies,
<v Speaker 1>all right, he that's the way when he was when
<v Speaker 1>it was all starting to click. And it started to
<v Speaker 1>click because he was traveling around and he was seeing
<v Speaker 1>all these different continents with different life forms on them
<v Speaker 1>and noting similarities and saying, oh. He started to really
<v Speaker 1>he got he zoomed out far enough due to his
<v Speaker 1>ability to travel, and uh.
<v Speaker 2>You know, I don't know how they pack his ass
<v Speaker 2>on that ship. How do you get on there? How
<v Speaker 2>do you how do you get a ticket on an
<v Speaker 2>HMS Beagle.
<v Speaker 1>Anyway, he was seeing all these different life forms and
<v Speaker 1>really thinking about him being like, Okay, this is there's
<v Speaker 1>obviously something going on here. This thing grows here, and
<v Speaker 1>this thing grows here, or if it's an animal, lives here.
<v Speaker 1>But I can tell they're closely enough related, like they
<v Speaker 1>share perfect similarities and bones and flower structures, and but
<v Speaker 1>they grow so far away, so they obviously there's something there.
<v Speaker 2>You know.
<v Speaker 1>They shared a comment answer and it started to click,
<v Speaker 1>and so that's when he started. I mean, this is
<v Speaker 1>out of his notebook, this drawing. This dude literally drew
<v Speaker 1>a clatoground he started to piece it together. So anyway,
<v Speaker 1>you can see down here at the base of the tree,
<v Speaker 1>bacteria arka, arka being the extremophiles that grow in places,
<v Speaker 1>you know, like the hot springs of yellowstone hydrothermal vents.
<v Speaker 2>All right.
<v Speaker 1>This wasn't even known to be a separate clade until
<v Speaker 1>the seventies or eighties when DNA revealed it that arca
<v Speaker 1>were not just bacteria. They're extremophiles. They've got a totally
<v Speaker 1>unique genetic code. Though they share a lot in common
<v Speaker 1>with bacteria, they're actually a whole different evolutionary clade and bacteria,
<v Speaker 1>you know, obviously the things that make you sick.
<v Speaker 2>All right.
<v Speaker 1>Uh, you know, we'll eat some bad sushi. It's coming
<v Speaker 1>out both ends the next morning.
<v Speaker 2>All right.
<v Speaker 1>But our ur KaiA generally are are you know, relegated
<v Speaker 1>to more extreme places like hot hot springs of yellowstone,
<v Speaker 1>hydrothermal vents, et cetera. Then you got your ukara up here,
<v Speaker 1>you know, cells with the nucleus more quote advanced life.
<v Speaker 1>You can see they're evolving later thirty eight hundred million
<v Speaker 1>years ago. That's three point eight billion years ago. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>So there is a correlation of time. These evolutionary trees
<v Speaker 1>do imply time. But you got to remember what you're
<v Speaker 1>seeing alive today are modern members of an old lineage,
<v Speaker 1>the branched oiler. They're not necessarily an old species or
<v Speaker 1>an old group, they're something that branched earlier. This is
<v Speaker 1>a cladogram too.
<v Speaker 2>This this circle.
<v Speaker 1>This is a really cool cladogram from a paper that
<v Speaker 1>just came out in twenty twenty four. This is a
<v Speaker 1>circular clatogram that represents the phylogeny, evolution, and classification of
<v Speaker 1>all flowering plants. The dark gray ring and center the center,
<v Speaker 1>all right, the donut hole represents the Jurassic. And then
<v Speaker 1>as you move further away from the center, it gets younger.
<v Speaker 1>You go to the younger Cretaceous and so on, and
<v Speaker 1>so that the age of the stems where a lineage originates,
<v Speaker 1>which you can see if you zoom in on this. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>the stems, so that the age of the stems correspond
<v Speaker 1>with the time period. Okay, So where that note is
<v Speaker 1>indicates where it evolved right with the center of the doughnuts,
<v Speaker 1>the Jurassic. Then you move through early Cretaceous, late Cretaceous
<v Speaker 1>into the Cenozoic, which is comprised of the Paleogene, Eocene, Ologosine, Miocene,
<v Speaker 1>and Neogene. I don't even use that I don't use
<v Speaker 1>Neogene Halocene where we are now, and so you can
<v Speaker 1>see looking at this cladogram, this is really specific the
<v Speaker 1>estimated origin when this speciation event happened, and you get
<v Speaker 1>a whole new family or a whole new order evolving,
<v Speaker 1>a whole new evolutionary group. Wild stuff to think about.
<v Speaker 2>Really cool.
<v Speaker 1>And anyway, so that going back to that on Andrew Swims,
<v Speaker 1>something I forgot to talk about regarding flowering plants is
<v Speaker 1>that the you know, we talked about the five lineages
<v Speaker 1>of plants that there are, right the bryophytes, which is
<v Speaker 1>actually paraphyletic, but it's mostly the non vascular plants. Don't
<v Speaker 1>worry about that. Briofights, remember mosses, liverwarts, hornwarts, What the
<v Speaker 1>ships of hornwart? Most people don't know. You're probably not
<v Speaker 1>gonna encounter them. But they're cool, don't get me wrong.
<v Speaker 1>But anyway, I just know that they don't have plumbing,
<v Speaker 1>they don't have ilm and flow them.
<v Speaker 2>They're not vascular.
<v Speaker 1>You got the bryophyts, you got the lycophytes, spike mosses, lycopods,
<v Speaker 1>quill wartz, stupid common name. Okay, so brio fights lycophytes.
<v Speaker 2>Ferns.
<v Speaker 1>It's an easy one, right, and then gymn noo sperms
<v Speaker 1>and angiosperms in each one of those major five classifications
<v Speaker 1>then has its own you know, number of you know,
<v Speaker 1>lower classifications that.
<v Speaker 2>They can be brought down into.
<v Speaker 1>Basically being at the top of the pyramid looking down right,
<v Speaker 1>you could get into the lower the top of the cladogram,
<v Speaker 1>the pyramids of cleogram looking down into you know, there's
<v Speaker 1>like within the gym no sperms, you have the get
<v Speaker 1>the the the pines and the meatums in the ginko,
<v Speaker 1>which is its own weird lineage.
<v Speaker 2>It's alone.
<v Speaker 1>Now the ginkos are weird, you know, modile sperm, swimming sperm,
<v Speaker 1>just like the psycheads. And then you've got the true conifers,
<v Speaker 1>which is like the eri Carria's, the potocarbs, the redwood family,
<v Speaker 1>et cetera. Okay, and I think pines are actually outside
<v Speaker 1>of that. I'll have to look at the old cladogram
<v Speaker 1>and the previous presentation, but I think pines are more
<v Speaker 1>closely related to A federis and well witchies.
<v Speaker 2>Than they are the redwoods.
<v Speaker 1>I don't know anyway, Okay, But within angiosperms, the two
<v Speaker 1>major classifications are monocots and diecots. Okay, monocot, monocotta leeding,
<v Speaker 1>a kata leeding's a sea leaf one seed leaf, or
<v Speaker 1>die kotta leading two seed leaves. Okay, really easy. Like
<v Speaker 1>when you grow a corn kernel and it germinates, you
<v Speaker 1>get one seed leaf. When you grow in a gave,
<v Speaker 1>you get one seed leaf. When you grow a banana
<v Speaker 1>from seed, some bananas actually have seed. The bananas you
<v Speaker 1>get in the grocery store are all the same clone.
<v Speaker 1>The cavendish bananas get the same phenotype. Okay, the same clone.
<v Speaker 1>All right, they're wild bananas. The progenitors of cultivated bananas.
<v Speaker 2>Actually produce seeds.
<v Speaker 1>Right. They're actually somewhat closely related to ginger. You can
<v Speaker 1>see that in the leaves, Okay, when you l the seedlings.
<v Speaker 1>Monocots have one sea leaf versus two sea leaves. Like
<v Speaker 1>if you grow a cactus seed, al right, it starts
<v Speaker 1>quite you know, within a few days, it just looks
<v Speaker 1>like a stem, but like at first you can actually
<v Speaker 1>see two little priggles.
<v Speaker 2>It's caced.
<v Speaker 1>I have two seed leaves too, okay. Mono coots die coots,
<v Speaker 1>all right, some examples of mine. So that when you
<v Speaker 1>when you find when you know something you're looking at,
<v Speaker 1>it's the flowering plant, all right, an angiosperm, which is more,
<v Speaker 1>you know, a newer lineage than the gym tho sperms
<v Speaker 1>and the mosses and all that. When you know something
<v Speaker 1>is in angiosperm, it's the first thing you want to
<v Speaker 1>break it down to. Okay, is monocot or diecot really
<v Speaker 1>easy classification, right aside from having one single seed leaf.
<v Speaker 1>Another trade of monocots is they've got long leaves, parallel veins.
<v Speaker 1>There's exceptions to all these, of course, but for the
<v Speaker 1>most part this is pretty steadfast. Flower parts in multiples
<v Speaker 1>of three, okay, whereas flower parts of diecots generally in
<v Speaker 1>multiples of five or four.
<v Speaker 2>All right.
<v Speaker 1>There are exceptions, like the buckwheats. Ariogonum, all right, is
<v Speaker 1>a diecot, but it's got nine stamens.
<v Speaker 2>It's really weird.
<v Speaker 1>I don't know what that's about. But it's got nine
<v Speaker 1>stamens a multiple of three, but it's a diecot. But
<v Speaker 1>for the most part, multiples of three, irises orchids, lilies,
<v Speaker 1>agave flowers, the flowers and monocots have multiples of three, three, six.
<v Speaker 2>Nine, whatever. Generally three or six.
<v Speaker 1>And when you do a cross section of the stem,
<v Speaker 1>the vascular bundles, the plumbing looks way different than the
<v Speaker 1>plumbing on a dicot. Okay, diecots and monocots, it's way different.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>Most monocots don't have lateral growth. Okay, like a palm
<v Speaker 1>tree never gets wider, It just grows straight up.
<v Speaker 2>It doesn't have that.
<v Speaker 1>Lateral maristem. It doesn't have secondary growth, okay, because it's
<v Speaker 1>a monocot, all right. No monocot has true secondary growth.
<v Speaker 1>Some a very few exceptions have have something comparable to that,
<v Speaker 1>analogous to it, but like pseudosecondary growth. But don't even
<v Speaker 1>worry about that right now.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>It's the point is that there's multiple ways that these
<v Speaker 1>things look different, these two lineages. But yeah, that's another
<v Speaker 1>thing that there's no true secondary growth in monocons, okay,
<v Speaker 1>parallel veins, flowers and multiples of three one sea leaf,
<v Speaker 1>et cetera.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>Also in their roots, monocosts tend to have fibrous roots.
<v Speaker 1>Diecosts tend to have tap roots, right, I think.
<v Speaker 2>Of like grassroots.
<v Speaker 1>Right, if you ever ripped up invasive buffalo grass from
<v Speaker 1>South texas, et cetera. It's got very fibrous roots, all right.
<v Speaker 1>And then when you get into it, because everything's more
<v Speaker 1>complicated than initially you think. When you get into it, see,
<v Speaker 1>these are all the angiosperms right here, okay, and the
<v Speaker 1>green is the monocost and the red is the dicosts,
<v Speaker 1>and you've got these things in between, the basal angiosperms,
<v Speaker 1>the more early evolving angiosperms. You don't need to remember this,
<v Speaker 1>but just know that it's technically it's not as simple
<v Speaker 1>as just.
<v Speaker 2>Monocots and diecos. Okay.
<v Speaker 1>You know these these things, like some of the piper aleis,
<v Speaker 1>that's kava is in piper alis. If you ever had
<v Speaker 1>cava through winter ales. This is mostly in the southern hemisphere.
<v Speaker 1>Very smelly, pleasantly smelly leaves, okay, loreles containing the avocado
<v Speaker 1>family lores, the sassafras family, Magnolia's okay, those are there
<v Speaker 1>are more primitive angiosperm lineage, all right. Not Magnolia's are
<v Speaker 1>more primitive, but the lineage is more primitive. And it
<v Speaker 1>doesn't really fit into the box of monocots or diecots.
<v Speaker 1>It looks like a diecot, but technically it's its own thing, okay.
<v Speaker 1>So just know that a right Ninphailes water lilies amborella,
<v Speaker 1>really weird plant that only grows a new ladonia, which
<v Speaker 1>I've seen, really fucking cool, weird plant. And then down
<v Speaker 1>here you've got the conifers. So just know that it's
<v Speaker 1>technically not as simple for monocuts and diecots, but for
<v Speaker 1>all intents and purposes, for us it is, and for
<v Speaker 1>beginner bondanists and people that just want to know a
<v Speaker 1>thing or two about plants, it is as simple. It's
<v Speaker 1>just monocots and die cuts, okay. So in order see
<v Speaker 1>how closely related one plant may be to another plant,
<v Speaker 1>we can look up a phylogeny of that plant's order, family,
<v Speaker 1>or even genus. It is often as simple as going
<v Speaker 1>to Google and typing the name of the plant's family
<v Speaker 1>and the words phylogeny. So if I want to see
<v Speaker 1>a phylogeny for the cactus family because I'm curious, for instance,
<v Speaker 1>is what is sister too, which is a word that
<v Speaker 1>means what is most closely related to you know, again,
<v Speaker 1>if you imagine a pyramid clatogram, all right, the plant
<v Speaker 1>species at either end of that fork, those are sister taxa. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>whether it's a family can be sister to another family,
<v Speaker 1>or a genus can be sister to another genus, species
<v Speaker 1>can be sister to another species, et cetera. Say, I
<v Speaker 1>want to know what the sister genus of Lofafra, the
<v Speaker 1>payote genus is. Okay, I type in cactace phylogeny h
<v Speaker 1>and I'll get And then I go to like the
<v Speaker 1>image search on Google, and I'll get a phylogeny of
<v Speaker 1>cactus of the cactus family, all right, specifically the cactody
<v Speaker 1>subfamily which Payoti is in, And I'll see how it's
<v Speaker 1>related to this plant called Obergonia, which looks nothing like peyote.
<v Speaker 1>At first, it's got tubercles. It looks more like a
<v Speaker 1>flattened pine cone or a pineapple. But when you look
<v Speaker 1>at the flowers you start to see are like, oh,
<v Speaker 1>that looks like a payote flower. It's gott tap root.
<v Speaker 1>It's got a tap root too. Really cool stuff. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>How those two evolve from each other and they share
<v Speaker 1>a somewhat recent common ancestor is pretty wild to think about,
<v Speaker 1>being that they look so different. But then you can
<v Speaker 1>start to see it in these little similarities, and you
<v Speaker 1>can see that with a lot of a lot of
<v Speaker 1>similar things. Let me see, U, is there any pausing this? No,
<v Speaker 1>you gotta wrap this up, so okay, So let's do it.
<v Speaker 1>For the mangoes. Mangoes are in the family Anacardiac. It's
<v Speaker 1>the poison oak family. It's the sumac family Anacardia C's
<v Speaker 1>and the order Sapin Dailies, which is named after the
<v Speaker 1>maple family Sapindacey. Sapin Dailies is the maple order.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>What else is in Sapin Dailey's The mahogany family Meliace Okay,
<v Speaker 1>which really invasive tree called the chinaberry tree is in
<v Speaker 1>meliac in Texas at least it's very invasive. And its
<v Speaker 1>citrus family Routasi so oranges are in the same order
<v Speaker 1>as poison oak, poison ivy maples and mangoes. Wild stuff
<v Speaker 1>to think about, but you can start to see it
<v Speaker 1>when you look closer, like at the flowers or some
<v Speaker 1>of the vasculature, the internal plumbing. Okay, So now we
<v Speaker 1>know that mangoes are somewhat related to citrus, mahogany, and
<v Speaker 1>maple trees. The divergence between all these groups likely happened
<v Speaker 1>dozens of millions of years ago, all right. And then
<v Speaker 1>you got this out group over here. That's a different
<v Speaker 1>that's just something that we use and we're doing phylogenetic studies.
<v Speaker 2>But now you have a tree.
<v Speaker 1>So this is a clatogram for antacardiac and for mangoes specifically,
<v Speaker 1>it shows what they're related to the genus Anacardium. And
<v Speaker 1>then up here you got roost chenonsus, Chinese sumac, and Pistachia,
<v Speaker 1>which is the pistachio genus. And right, this is fun
<v Speaker 1>stuff to think about, all right, It just it boggles
<v Speaker 1>the mind. That's it's interesting if you're interested in a
<v Speaker 1>certain and you can do this with anything. If you're
<v Speaker 1>interested in a certain animal or a certain kind of
<v Speaker 1>lizard or a certain kind of plant, you can type
<v Speaker 1>in that the genus or the family that things in
<v Speaker 1>and type in phylogeny and you will get this. You
<v Speaker 1>will get a cladogram right in this case, the little
<v Speaker 1>tuning fork clatogram. But remember clatagrams can also be a
<v Speaker 1>circle or a pyramid, whatever, showing you what it's closely
<v Speaker 1>related to. And so things that are right next to
<v Speaker 1>each other, you could see and share the same branch,
<v Speaker 1>the same node, and the same branch and the same stem.
<v Speaker 2>Are closely related to each other. All right.
<v Speaker 1>Let me see here maples are related to buckeyes and
<v Speaker 1>the genus Aesculus et cetera. Okay, so it's it's really
<v Speaker 1>fun stuff to think about in a lot of cases.
<v Speaker 1>There's a zoomed in photo of this. Okay, here's a
<v Speaker 1>phylogenetic tree for the order Carophilelees, the order that cacti, spinach, beats, quinoa,
<v Speaker 1>and jehoba are in. Okay. Hoba is like the plant
<v Speaker 1>that produces oil that's used in cosmetics. It's really good
<v Speaker 1>for your skin, so you always see the you know,
<v Speaker 1>rich ladies using it whatever. And it's native to the
<v Speaker 1>desert of the Sonoran Desert. A right produces little nut.
<v Speaker 1>You squish that nut in a cool plant. It's I
<v Speaker 1>think it's the only species in his family anyway. It's
<v Speaker 1>in the same order as cacti, spinach, beets, and venus
<v Speaker 1>fly traps. Venus fly traps drostrace down here in the
<v Speaker 1>penthes the picture. Plants from Borneo are in Carriophilelees. The
<v Speaker 1>order this is a huge order. A snapomorphy for the
<v Speaker 1>order Carriophilales is the production of betaaline pigments. Okay, which
<v Speaker 1>is the color you see in beats. You'll see it
<v Speaker 1>in bogin via, which is a kind of a horticultural atrocity.
<v Speaker 1>You'll see it home deep a lot of the time.
<v Speaker 1>You know, they love plant in it because it evokes
<v Speaker 1>the images of Tuscany whatever. Even though it's not native
<v Speaker 1>to Tuscany. It's native to the Americas. Okay, you'll see
<v Speaker 1>it like viining up atrellis or whatever. That same pigment
<v Speaker 1>is shared by all the members of Caryo Philals, the order,
<v Speaker 1>member orders and in alis, except for like one or
<v Speaker 1>two families like.
<v Speaker 2>Malluginac and the other. They lost it.
<v Speaker 1>They evolutionary lost it, evolutionarily lost it.
<v Speaker 2>I don't know why.
<v Speaker 1>Normally red pigments are produced by anthocyanin pigments or red
<v Speaker 1>colors produced by anto sionin pigments and plants. Carrio Philelees
<v Speaker 1>doesn't produce anthocyanins. They produce betolins. Why what was the
<v Speaker 1>adaptive benefit? I don't know, because we don't say what
<v Speaker 1>did this evolve for?
<v Speaker 2>Nothing evolves for something.
<v Speaker 1>There's an adaptive benefit in producing something, and that's why
<v Speaker 1>evolution selects for it.
<v Speaker 2>That's the correct way to talk about all this stuff.
<v Speaker 2>But either way, you.
<v Speaker 1>Could see cacti their sister family to Portula cace. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>portal Laca is a genus. There's edible portual Laca I.
<v Speaker 1>Forget the common name of it, but you know, and
<v Speaker 1>you can see it and their flowers and their Portulaca
<v Speaker 1>is also succulent et cetera. All right, fidalle Cace, the
<v Speaker 1>pokeweed family, poke berry whatever it's called, amorant the ace, spinach,
<v Speaker 1>quinoa there and amorant ThEC that's all the same order
<v Speaker 1>as cactus and venus flytraps et cetera. You can see
<v Speaker 1>venus flytraps are in this other clade, the non core
<v Speaker 1>Carriophilelees from this one the core carrio Philelees, and then
<v Speaker 1>Jhobe is right there in the middle. Okay, And again DNA.
<v Speaker 2>Backs this up.
<v Speaker 1>Flower morphology backs this up. Here's a great example of
<v Speaker 1>the cactus family. And this is a great example of
<v Speaker 1>a polyphyletic. A genus that was classified probably eighty years
<v Speaker 1>ago before DNA that was later found to be polyphyletic.
<v Speaker 1>K Penio Sirius. The really cool cactus. They produce these
<v Speaker 1>big tubers. They grow in the Sonoraan Desert. They're some
<v Speaker 1>of that grow in West Texas. You won't see them
<v Speaker 1>because they blend in. They grow up through other shrubs,
<v Speaker 1>kind of like a vine. It's called being scandined, and
<v Speaker 1>you won't see them until they bloom a big white
<v Speaker 1>flower at night. Pollinated by moths. Some are probably pollinated
<v Speaker 1>by bats. And they've got that big tuber in the ground.
<v Speaker 1>So if it gets if during the extra crispy times
<v Speaker 1>of the desert, which these things are certainly evolved to.
<v Speaker 1>They've been selected for over thousands of hundreds of thousands
<v Speaker 1>of years by these desert environments.
<v Speaker 2>They grow and they can.
<v Speaker 1>Dive back to that storage tuber. It looks like a
<v Speaker 1>big bulb in the ground. The leaf just turns crispy,
<v Speaker 1>but it's okay because the thing is still alive in
<v Speaker 1>that storage tuber. Okay. Penia serrus is really cool. Penia
<v Speaker 1>Serrus Greggi I think is the one we get in
<v Speaker 1>West Texas. Anyway, these two, when you look at this,
<v Speaker 1>the thing, the thing circled in red here is are
<v Speaker 1>both Peneo sirius, the genus Pino serius, and it was
<v Speaker 1>determined via DM. Well, these things are not that closely
<v Speaker 1>related at all. They share two separate common ancestors. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>all the members of Penio series over here have a
<v Speaker 1>separate common ancestor than this one over here, and there's
<v Speaker 1>a bunch of stuff in between that's not related to them,
<v Speaker 1>like Packet Sirius, the giant cacti from Mexico, Carnegie Gigantia,
<v Speaker 1>the Suaros.
<v Speaker 2>Et cetera. So this is not right.
<v Speaker 1>This is polyphyletic. Okay, these things were grouped together and
<v Speaker 1>considered to be Pineo serious because without looking at DNA,
<v Speaker 1>they do look kind of similar. But again it was
<v Speaker 1>just convergent evolution, all right. Both bloom at night. Both
<v Speaker 1>of these clades, these groups bloom at night. They produce
<v Speaker 1>a stem that's generally spineless and just kind of like
<v Speaker 1>pencil thin in some cases and grows up through another plant. Okay,
<v Speaker 1>so they they look a lot alike, but it turns
<v Speaker 1>out they're not that closely related. This Pineo series down
<v Speaker 1>here is more closely related to Acanthos serious, even which
<v Speaker 1>we get down here in South Texas as well, which
<v Speaker 1>you know has three real This Canthos serius has spines.
<v Speaker 1>It's also moth pollinated, and it tends to grow up
<v Speaker 1>scandidly leaning on other plants, on other shrubs and stuff.
<v Speaker 1>When you look at that, you can kind of see
<v Speaker 1>you can see it. Okay, Yeah, I get that. I
<v Speaker 1>get how that's definitely related. You know, it's more closely real.
<v Speaker 1>I can see it.
<v Speaker 2>The DNA reveals it. You can see it. Okay.
<v Speaker 1>But this is a great example of a polyphyletic designation.
<v Speaker 1>So what happened here. Peneo Sirius was later transferred to
<v Speaker 1>the genus of Canthos sirius after DNA because remember, we
<v Speaker 1>don't want polyphyletic groupings. We do not want polyphyletic groupings
<v Speaker 1>in our taxonomy. We want everything to be monophyletic, right,
<v Speaker 1>So that was grouped into a whole other genus.
<v Speaker 2>Okay, and this basically explains it.
<v Speaker 1>Okay. If we're confused about what polyphily, paraphileing, and monophily mean,
<v Speaker 1>we can consult this diagram. Let me, I gotta take
<v Speaker 1>a leak.
<v Speaker 2>Let me let me. I'll be right back.
<v Speaker 1>I can't all right, I'm back, okay. So and same
<v Speaker 1>thing here with this with this designation here. If we're
<v Speaker 1>confused about what polyphilely, paraphiley, and monophily mean, look at
<v Speaker 1>this this example right here, here's a good example, all right,
<v Speaker 1>because see monophyletic designation. This is just in reference to
<v Speaker 1>the apes. Okay, right, Hey, you have New World monkeys,
<v Speaker 1>Old World monkeys, apes, and humans. Over here you got lemurs, lorises, tarsars.
<v Speaker 1>All right, what is the what is the lorius in
<v Speaker 1>a tarsia? Okay, these big eyed things, Uh, they're probably
<v Speaker 1>generally active at night. They do look a lot alike,
<v Speaker 1>But it turns out tarsiars are more closely well they're
<v Speaker 1>just as they're more actually more closely related to New
<v Speaker 1>World monkeys than they are to lemurs. Okay, I and
<v Speaker 1>they're kind of in between. They're they're they're that would
<v Speaker 1>that's not a good if you if you're classifying tarsiars, lorises,
<v Speaker 1>and lemurs altogether just because they look alike and they
<v Speaker 1>do a right cute little bastards, weird looking things, it
<v Speaker 1>turns out that they are that's that's a paraphyletic designation,
<v Speaker 1>because tarsiers are are outside lemurs and lorises are closely
<v Speaker 1>related to each other. But tarsiers are in between. They're
<v Speaker 1>kind of they're an outgroup. They're more closely related to
<v Speaker 1>the actual apes and Old World monkeys, New World monkeys,
<v Speaker 1>et cetera, than they are two lemurs. Okay, so that's
<v Speaker 1>a that's a paraphyletic designation. If you're going to include
<v Speaker 1>tarsiars in the group of lemurs and lorises, you would
<v Speaker 1>have to include the New World monkeys, the Old World monkeys,
<v Speaker 1>the semia forms for mees, the semiformies as well, including
<v Speaker 1>apes and humans, whereas polyphiley is including lorises and tarsiars together.
<v Speaker 1>See here's one on the here's a loris on the left,
<v Speaker 1>the tarsi on the right, and they do look a
<v Speaker 1>lot alike, but it's not including lemurs.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>So there's a box runnerund lorises and tarsiers, but not
<v Speaker 1>around lemurs. Okay. So that just means way off, two
<v Speaker 1>separate common ancestors, okay, two separate nodes that are not
<v Speaker 1>included in the designation. This is a node right where
<v Speaker 1>it branches. Okay, Hey, this is a really helpful diagram,
<v Speaker 1>all right, So you got to imagine that, Okay, polyphilely
<v Speaker 1>way off paraphiley ancestor begins with a parophiley has a
<v Speaker 1>parophilely includes common ancestor, not all the descendants. And then
<v Speaker 1>there's another example showing the same thing. Okay, drawing a
<v Speaker 1>box around. You know, this would be a polyphyletic designation,
<v Speaker 1>including mammals and birds and the same thing, but nothing
<v Speaker 1>in between. These things are way far apart, not that
<v Speaker 1>closely related at all, and if you had to include
<v Speaker 1>everything in between them, they would be so it would
<v Speaker 1>be meaningless because they'rero You have to include crocodiles. They
<v Speaker 1>look nothing like mammals or birds. They're so far off,
<v Speaker 1>all right, you'd have to zoom down to such a
<v Speaker 1>broad circumscription down here to amniota. Okay, you'd have to
<v Speaker 1>go be going so far back in the evolutionary tree
<v Speaker 1>and evolutionary time that you'd be including everything, and it
<v Speaker 1>just would be pointless. It'd be a meaningless designation. This
<v Speaker 1>is just this is just redundancy. This just reiterating what
<v Speaker 1>I've said. Right, here's a great example of DNA bar
<v Speaker 1>coding of holding up different comparisons.
<v Speaker 2>Take over.
<v Speaker 1>Here on the left, we have tax on one two
<v Speaker 1>three through eight one two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.
<v Speaker 1>We're representing eight different species or eight different families. It
<v Speaker 1>could be any of those, but let's pretend it species.
<v Speaker 1>And over here we have different DNA sequences eighty two zero, eight,
<v Speaker 1>two through one twenty three, one twenty three. You can
<v Speaker 1>see they're basically all the same except for sequence one
<v Speaker 1>fifteen through one twenty. You could see the gt TCAA
<v Speaker 1>code is the same through tax on one, three, four, six, seven,
<v Speaker 1>and eight, but then two and five are outliers, So
<v Speaker 1>two in five form a group. They're more closely related
<v Speaker 1>to each other than they are to the other species
<v Speaker 1>listed here than they are to either one, three, four, six,
<v Speaker 1>seven or eight. Okay, that's just great. This is literally
<v Speaker 1>a great example of how DNA bar coding is done.
<v Speaker 1>And you can see it again a change in the code.
<v Speaker 1>Those four DNA based pairs at C and G, and
<v Speaker 1>everybody should know those, the four DNA based base pairs,
<v Speaker 1>all right, the four nucleotized at C and G.
<v Speaker 2>We've all got them.
<v Speaker 1>This is just again different ways to draw cladograms phylogenetic trees.
<v Speaker 1>The black bars represents sinnapomorphies, just like we saw on
<v Speaker 1>that whale cladogram. Okay, reconstructing phylogenies. This is out of
<v Speaker 1>Carl Zimmer's Evolution book, chapter four, all right, which again
<v Speaker 1>you can download on that Google Drive folder in PDF form.
<v Speaker 1>I suggest just the getting the book. If you have
<v Speaker 1>the money, you'll use it, and if you're interested in
<v Speaker 1>this stuff, you'll get it for the next you'll use
<v Speaker 1>it for the next ten years of your life.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>Because we did not directly witness species branching a part
<v Speaker 1>of a millions of years, we must construct phylogenetic trees
<v Speaker 1>as our hypotheses about their real evolutionary history. To generate
<v Speaker 1>these hypotheses, we must gather data, all right. Just talking
<v Speaker 1>about comparing snapomorphies, comparing character traits, okay, and so going on,
<v Speaker 1>it talks about you know, knowing. Uh, let's see what
<v Speaker 1>is it comparing seals and dogs, all right, Carnivora species
<v Speaker 1>dogs cats, and they're close mammal relatives such as bears, raccoons.
<v Speaker 1>While as seals look at their skulls, we can see similarities.
<v Speaker 2>And so what are we looking for.
<v Speaker 1>We're looking for sanapomorphis. Okay, again, just the reiteration at
<v Speaker 1>Sanapa morphis. Then you can see over here taken from
<v Speaker 1>Carl Zimmer's Evolution Making Sense of Life. That's a great
<v Speaker 1>fucking textbook, all right, So how are their Caniberan species
<v Speaker 1>related to each other? We see these sanapomorphies, that these
<v Speaker 1>shared traits, and then they're morphological at first, or at
<v Speaker 1>least the you know, when life is first being classified.
<v Speaker 1>But of course we know looking closer it's all DNA.
<v Speaker 1>So if you want to read more about this, it's
<v Speaker 1>chapter four in Carl Zimmer's textbook. Great stuff, okay, and
<v Speaker 1>there's text on me again. Just remember we're only concerned
<v Speaker 1>with mostly order family, genus, and species. And then as
<v Speaker 1>you zoom out each each level of tax each taxon
<v Speaker 1>family order class C gets more broad and it encompasses
<v Speaker 1>more organisms. Okay, it's literally zooming out on the tree
<v Speaker 1>of life, all right. Taxonic levels confer a degree of relatedness.
<v Speaker 1>How recently one species may be, may have shared a
<v Speaker 1>common ancestor with another. Okay, and that's just talking about
<v Speaker 1>zooming out.
<v Speaker 2>Okay.
<v Speaker 1>Things that are in the same order are not necessarily
<v Speaker 1>as closely related as things that are in the same
<v Speaker 1>family or the same genus, et cetera. I think I'm
<v Speaker 1>just repeating myself at this point.
<v Speaker 2>All right.
<v Speaker 1>These synapomorphies can be chemical, morphological, Oh I already said
<v Speaker 1>chemical as a repeat or molecular. Okay, So like a
<v Speaker 1>third of the members and the mango family produce you
<v Speaker 1>rush you all, which is the compound that causes a
<v Speaker 1>rash in like eighty percent of the human population if
<v Speaker 1>they touch poison oak. Okay, you rush you all evolved
<v Speaker 1>as an anti fungal and anti orbivy compound. The deeter
<v Speaker 1>fungi and insects that didn't evolve for us. It just
<v Speaker 1>happens to cause a rash in humans. And so a
<v Speaker 1>lot of the plants in that family produce it. Not
<v Speaker 1>all of them, but a lot of them do. And
<v Speaker 1>so if you see this can be helpful because if
<v Speaker 1>you know there I was in Mexico looking walking through
<v Speaker 1>a cactus forest on this sketchy slope and I saw
<v Speaker 1>this plant. I could tell it was in antacardiace, and
<v Speaker 1>I just by the the leaf pattern it was it was.
<v Speaker 1>It had pinnate leaves. It's a good and that can
<v Speaker 1>be a lot of things that pinnate leaves. You know,
<v Speaker 1>members of the p family, members of the creoso bush families, zygophileace,
<v Speaker 1>but a lot of members of Antacardiaca do too. When
<v Speaker 1>I saw the inflorescence, it was a panicle with tiny
<v Speaker 1>flowers on it. I saw, okay, this is this is
<v Speaker 1>an antacardiac And then I saw that blackening on the leaves,
<v Speaker 1>which is what you rush y all does.
<v Speaker 2>When it reacts with oxygen.
<v Speaker 1>Boom. I knew not to touch this plant. I had
<v Speaker 1>a hint, this is probably what's going on. I'm not
<v Speaker 1>going to touch it. And indeed, later on I found
<v Speaker 1>out it was It was a cool genus in anacardier
<v Speaker 1>a c that grows in the desert among giant cacti
<v Speaker 1>and little peotes and other little cool cacti, and it
<v Speaker 1>produces you Russia. Okay, so here's a great example. We're
<v Speaker 1>finishing upon taxonomy. Okay, this is a Texas native Solanum rostratum.
<v Speaker 1>It's called buffalo burr. You could see every level of
<v Speaker 1>taxonomy for this plant down the species.
<v Speaker 2>All right.
<v Speaker 1>It's in the family solin Ace, the night shade family,
<v Speaker 1>the order Solinals. All right, And you can do all
<v Speaker 1>this on I Naturalist, that I Naturalist app. You can
<v Speaker 1>click on the taxon page for a species that you're
<v Speaker 1>interested in and you'll be taking you click on the
<v Speaker 1>taxon name, it'll be it'll take you to the taxon page,
<v Speaker 1>the taxon being Solanum ro stratum, and you'll you'll click
<v Speaker 1>on the taxonomy and you can literally see all this.
<v Speaker 1>This is why AINA could be so helpful, all right,
<v Speaker 1>for learning. It's wonderful, all right, whether it's the app
<v Speaker 1>or the web page whatever, And so you'll see, Okay,
<v Speaker 1>this is Solanum rostratum. It's and because solin Ace is
<v Speaker 1>such a big family, it's got all these intermediate levels
<v Speaker 1>of taxonomy like subfamily and tribe and even subgenus between
<v Speaker 1>family and species, because there's so much in it. It's
<v Speaker 1>such a diverse family.
<v Speaker 2>All right.
<v Speaker 1>So here are some sinnapomorphis of the nightshade family we
<v Speaker 1>talked about this last class. The page on the left
<v Speaker 1>is taken from Botany in Today by Apple. Great book,
<v Speaker 1>kind of a beginner book, but it it doesn't even
<v Speaker 1>mention the words sinapimorphis. But that's what it is. Those
<v Speaker 1>are the patterns. It says patterns. Every page says patterns
<v Speaker 1>of it says the patterns method of plant identification. Those
<v Speaker 1>patterns are sinapomorphis. Just a technical word for those patterns,
<v Speaker 1>and it goes into the flower structure and you start
<v Speaker 1>to see it. This stuff starts to click. Okay, And
<v Speaker 1>then on the right is plant systematics, a literalist of
<v Speaker 1>all the senapomorphies of the night shade family. All right,
<v Speaker 1>whether it's Bergmanzia or detura or nicotine or peppers or potatoes.
<v Speaker 2>Or tomatoes, et cetera.
<v Speaker 1>Right, so easy to read, be good for beginners. This
<v Speaker 1>is if you get more in depth, really goes into
<v Speaker 1>the science it right, ovary position, how many stamens, corolla,
<v Speaker 1>five fused petals, petals fused together to form kind of
<v Speaker 1>a tube. And there's a written description of all the
<v Speaker 1>traits of the night shade family. Placentation, how the seed
<v Speaker 1>attaches to the ovary wall, perianth remember pering that's composed
<v Speaker 1>of pedals and sequals. This was in the last class.
<v Speaker 1>The flowers are bisexual, actinomorphic. That's radial, radially symmetrical, rarely zygomorphic.
<v Speaker 1>Sometimes they are zygomorphic, generally for hummingbird pollination or something else.
<v Speaker 1>But this all these terms too become helpful. You know,
<v Speaker 1>if you the deep you get into this stuff, you'll
<v Speaker 1>be reading about a plant. You'll be trying to figure
<v Speaker 1>out what it is in a flora. How do I
<v Speaker 1>tell one species from another. You'll see a word in
<v Speaker 1>there like sim pedaliss. What the hell does that mean?
<v Speaker 1>Look it up in the glossary. Okay, it means the
<v Speaker 1>petals are fused together.
<v Speaker 2>Boom.
<v Speaker 1>That's super helpful. It helps to know this stuff, and
<v Speaker 1>so that Whay, you're not just looking at pictures. You're
<v Speaker 1>actually getting into the nitty gritty, looking at the subtle details. Okay.
<v Speaker 1>Taxonomy orders soule inna. All right, there's five families in
<v Speaker 1>that order, five different variations on a theme. Note the
<v Speaker 1>morning glory family Convolvulaces, and the order solin Ales too,
<v Speaker 1>and then you've got family Solinace. Go down to all
<v Speaker 1>the different subfamilies of Solinace. Okay, Cestroidy, the cestrums, the
<v Speaker 1>generally moth pollinated, night blooming, very pleasant smelling genus of
<v Speaker 1>plant cestrum. Okay, NiCoT all right, the nicotines. Obviously, Petunia's
<v Speaker 1>petunioid e skyzanthoid e sky'zanthus is a genus of really
<v Speaker 1>cool plants. Is really cool flowers in the andes al right,
<v Speaker 1>super diverse, and the andes. I saw a bunch in
<v Speaker 1>the andes of Chile when I was there. Solinoidy. That's
<v Speaker 1>the genus Solanum. Potatoes, eggplant peppers are in that. I
<v Speaker 1>believe his caps come in solinoidy probably, Yeah, tomatillos, tomatoes,
<v Speaker 1>et cetera. Okay, examples of sinnapomorphies of various orders and families.
<v Speaker 1>Every family and every order is gonna have its own
<v Speaker 1>list of sinapomorphies. Then you can literally type in if
<v Speaker 1>you're interested. Okay, how do I know something's a mustard
<v Speaker 1>type in sinapomorphis Brassic case the mustard family. Here's a
<v Speaker 1>list of some of them. Four petals, six stamens. I
<v Speaker 1>forgot to put that. They're superior ovary and glucoscinilates. That's
<v Speaker 1>that horseradish. It's like a sulfur kale kale farts. It's glucoscinilates.
<v Speaker 1>That chemistry. All right, they're anti here. I think they're
<v Speaker 1>mostly anti rbivery compounds. They probably confer some other kind
<v Speaker 1>of adaptive benefit, but it's a chemical sinapomorphy for the
<v Speaker 1>family Brassic case on a gracie evening primrose family. Four petals,
<v Speaker 1>four sepals inferior ovary. That just means where the ovary
<v Speaker 1>is positioned. Is it below the sepals or is it
<v Speaker 1>enclosed in the sepals. Tomatoes tend to produce a superior ovary.
<v Speaker 2>Is that right?
<v Speaker 1>I didn't write that down here, but you know you
<v Speaker 1>see the sepals on top of that that tomato. That
<v Speaker 1>means that when the flower is open, okay, the fruit
<v Speaker 1>is above the ovary was above the point of attachment
<v Speaker 1>of the sequals and pedals, superior ovary, inferior ovary, et cetera.
<v Speaker 1>That's implant systematics. It's also in this PDF which you'll
<v Speaker 1>be able to download Eric case the blueberry family, lame
<v Speaker 1>miac a mint family. This is immensely helpful because again,
<v Speaker 1>when you're out in the field you see a new plant,
<v Speaker 1>immediately the first question you ask is not what plant
<v Speaker 1>is this, what family is it in? Because that's going
<v Speaker 1>to be the first clue. Like you're trying to put
<v Speaker 1>clues together to figure out what a new species that
<v Speaker 1>you've never seen before is. In Sinapa morphis of the
<v Speaker 1>mustard family. I literally just went to Google. I typed
<v Speaker 1>in Sinapa Morphis of the mustard family and AI gave
<v Speaker 1>me this all right, mentions.
<v Speaker 2>All the stuff we just talked about.
<v Speaker 1>And there's our native West Texas mustards. What was it
<v Speaker 1>hesperidantus hesperanthus anyway, linear a folioget I've got too many
<v Speaker 1>names in there. Follow up questions what are the three
<v Speaker 1>lower levels of taxonomic classification that were most concerned with
<v Speaker 1>for the purposes of this class and for beginning botanists, okay, family, genus, species,
<v Speaker 1>Which of the three file going terms is the correct
<v Speaker 1>way to classify life? And why monophyletic? Why did the
<v Speaker 1>advent of DNA analysis lead to certain plants need to
<v Speaker 1>have to be placed in separate genera Because plants one
<v Speaker 1>hundred years ago when they were being described, some of
<v Speaker 1>them one hundred and fifty years two hunred years ago,
<v Speaker 1>depending on where you are, a lot of plants in
<v Speaker 1>the Americas were described one hundred and fifty years ago
<v Speaker 1>were originally grouped together on how they looked, not on DNA.
<v Speaker 1>DNA turned out that convergent evolution or just sheer coincidence
<v Speaker 1>produced plants that had similar flowers. Again, you look close,
<v Speaker 1>you look super close, you could tell the difference. But
<v Speaker 1>you know, it was hard back then, So the advent
<v Speaker 1>of DNA really cleared up any confusion about how closely
<v Speaker 1>related one plant was or what family belonged.
<v Speaker 2>And what is a clade?
<v Speaker 1>It's a monophyletic evolutionary group. What is the term that
<v Speaker 1>describes traits that are shared by all related members of
<v Speaker 1>a clade? Monophiley or monophyletic? Okay, which are these four clatograms?
<v Speaker 1>Is the correct way to display a phylogenetic tree? Also,
<v Speaker 1>what's wrong with this question? Okay, they're all the same.
<v Speaker 1>They're all the same way to display a phylogenetic tree,
<v Speaker 1>all right, And what's wrong with this question is that
<v Speaker 1>it's it's they're all the same, right, it implies that
<v Speaker 1>that one of those is wrong.
<v Speaker 2>They're all the same.
<v Speaker 1>That's all I got And hopefully you got some out
<v Speaker 1>of that. You will be quizzed on this, and yeah,
<v Speaker 1>check it out again. The books that I was using,
<v Speaker 1>evolution Making Sense of Life, Chapter four pdf is available
<v Speaker 1>in the Google drive folder plant Systematics for some of
<v Speaker 1>the flower descriptions. And then, of course, if you need
<v Speaker 1>a refresher, watch that first part of this pdf, that
<v Speaker 1>first class. Okay, up here where we're going through all
<v Speaker 1>the different plant families. Okay, like you know the carrot family.
<v Speaker 1>We talk about Azarella compact a, super cool plant and
<v Speaker 1>that some would not assume to be in the carrot family.
<v Speaker 1>All right, remember the pea family, the three different subfamilies.
<v Speaker 1>All right, Azarella compacted. The cool thing about that is, yeah,
<v Speaker 1>I can live for two thousand years. It looks like
<v Speaker 1>this doctor Sussian matt of green. Now I can't find it.
<v Speaker 1>Where the shit did it go? But this really gets
<v Speaker 1>into it. Okay, this flower structure is how we grew plants.
<v Speaker 2>It's the stead.
<v Speaker 1>There you go, there's Azarella compacta and great example of
<v Speaker 1>conversion evolution in this photo. That's Azarella compacta. This is
<v Speaker 1>a plant from the carnation family Caryophylaci, also taking on
<v Speaker 1>the matted habit because it's growing at fifteen thousand feet
<v Speaker 1>elevation where the winds can be brutal, where every night
<v Speaker 1>gets really cold. It's also at a low latitude. It's
<v Speaker 1>at eighteen degrees latitude, so it can also be really hot,
<v Speaker 1>and they're exposed to more UV lights, so they've got
<v Speaker 1>this thick waxy covering. Okay, but they're from different families.
<v Speaker 1>Azarel's Carrott family. This other thing, which I forget the
<v Speaker 1>name of, is in Carriophileci, the Carnation family. And then
<v Speaker 1>this is a little member of the astrazy, the backers
<v Speaker 1>of the family. But yeah, this is all volcanic fifteen
<v Speaker 1>thousand foot elevation landscape. All right, hopefully this uploads and
<v Speaker 1>the sound didn't get messed up. Take care and definitely
<v Speaker 1>email me if you have any questions about any of this,
<v Speaker 1>and please please download those books and look into it,
<v Speaker 1>take some notes, and this PDF will be available as well.