TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

There’s no such thing as a tree phylogenetically (2021)

304 点作者 dynm大约 2 年前

28 条评论

photochemsyn大约 2 年前
Humans care about wood, so they made tree (thing which produces wood) a category, as it can be used to build bridges, ships and other structures. Wood being dense also made it a better feedstock for charcoal (one can use grass, however).<p>As far as why trees don&#x27;t seem to evolve into grasses, (or grasses into trees), it might be all about C3 vs C4 carbon metabolism, the latter being a complex structural system that pre-concentrates atmospheric CO2 before feeding it into the photosynthetic biochemistry (which is the right way to do artificial photosynthesis as well). This is apparently difficult to do in trees?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;32409834&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;32409834&#x2F;</a><p>&gt; &quot;Since C4 photosynthesis was first discovered &gt;50 years ago, researchers have sought to understand how this complex trait evolved from the ancestral C3 photosynthetic machinery on &gt;60 occasions. Despite its repeated emergence across the plant kingdom, C4 photosynthesis is notably rare in trees, with true C4 trees only existing in Euphorbia.&quot;<p>And here we have the world&#x27;s largest Euphorbia:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wikidata.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Q5851367" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wikidata.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Q5851367</a>
评论 #35083785 未加载
评论 #35083072 未加载
评论 #35082620 未加载
评论 #35083326 未加载
评论 #35090278 未加载
评论 #35085435 未加载
评论 #35086255 未加载
评论 #35087283 未加载
thanatropism大约 2 年前
Welcome to &quot;A thousand plateaus&quot; by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari.<p>ATP is a political book, albeit not a book about politics. But in the process of building their radical political theory, they build a radical general systems theory that&#x27;s u-n-m-a-t-c-h-e-d. We have no choice but to study it.<p>This doesn&#x27;t do it justice, but it&#x27;s a fair beginning. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Rhizome_(philosophy)" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Rhizome_(philosophy)</a><p>This is an illustrated audio reading of the first chapter of ATP (the one dedicated to rhizomes): <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=0XYc2scuJrI&amp;t=64s">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=0XYc2scuJrI&amp;t=64s</a>
评论 #35088137 未加载
评论 #35084081 未加载
评论 #35083101 未加载
评论 #35087594 未加载
评论 #35082730 未加载
dekhn大约 2 年前
I worked in phylogenetics for a while and it was a pretty confusing area. Originally, phylogenetic trees (not the biological trees that are the subject of the OP) were created by finding physical features (yes, just like ML) and using those to build a semi-supervised tree-structure of classifications. However, eventually we began to use DNA sequences to compare organisms, which restructured the tree in many ways, even close to the root. It was a controversial time as the the historical physical-feature classifier group was certain their way was right, and same for the DNA folks. I sort of assumed that the DNA would be a much higher quality source for clustering but it hasn&#x27;t really always worked out that way.
评论 #35084484 未加载
评论 #35083074 未加载
评论 #35086155 未加载
SamBam大约 2 年前
Reminds me a little of the fact that &quot;vegetable&quot; is not a botanical term.<p>People who say &quot;tomatoes are fruits, not vegetables&quot; are guilty of performing an incorrect hypercorrection. Tomatoes are vegetables just as cucumbers, green beans, asparagus, lettuce, fennel and carrots are. &quot;Vegetables&quot; is a culinary and dietary term, not a biological one.
评论 #35086990 未加载
评论 #35087218 未加载
评论 #35085033 未加载
donkeyboy大约 2 年前
Very fun article. Convergent evolution is so cool. At the end, the author asked: why don’t plants also evolve into grasses?<p>Would like to hear if anyone knows. If you look at onion or garlic growing, it basically looks like a very long piece of grass.
评论 #35082333 未加载
评论 #35081992 未加载
评论 #35081827 未加载
salicideblock大约 2 年前
From 2021.<p>Previous discussions<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=27094382" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=27094382</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=29621646" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=29621646</a><p>Cool article either way.
评论 #35090872 未加载
LudwigNagasena大约 2 年前
There is such thing as a tree. There is such thing as a fish. Maybe even conceding that dolphins and whales aren’t fish was already too much. After all, cladistics isn’t everything.
评论 #35081966 未加载
评论 #35087243 未加载
评论 #35082653 未加载
评论 #35082583 未加载
评论 #35081824 未加载
评论 #35082208 未加载
dhosek大约 2 年前
I’ve been thinking it would be fun to build a simple game where you get three organisms and you’re supposed to identify which two are most closely related, for example, strawberry, apple, orange, or hippopotamus, horse, rhinoceros or for the big challenge, squid, earthworm, fish.
评论 #35088934 未加载
评论 #35084716 未加载
评论 #35084451 未加载
timdellinger大约 2 年前
I second the suggestion at the bottom of the (very enjoyable) post, pointing readers to the Crime Pays But Botany Doesn&#x27;t content on YouTube - their passion and their approach are fantastic.
评论 #35082065 未加载
causi大约 2 年前
&quot;Trees are not a clade&quot; is a much more accurate description. Same as ravens, fish, and frankly most categories of <i>thing</i>.
DonaldFisk大约 2 年前
Surprised there&#x27;s no mention of Lepidodendrons. OK, they&#x27;re long extinct, but they were trees, even though they were closer genetically to club mosses and quillworts than any modern trees.<p>&gt; First, what is a tree? It’s a big long-lived self-supporting plant with leaves and wood.<p>Also, do pineapple and banana plants have wood? I didn&#x27;t think so.
MiguelVieira大约 2 年前
I like David Allen Sibley&#x27;s definition of a tree: &quot;If you can walk under it, it&#x27;s a tree; if you have to walk around it, it&#x27;s a shrub&quot;.
评论 #35081610 未加载
评论 #35081883 未加载
评论 #35082691 未加载
评论 #35082080 未加载
评论 #35084556 未加载
swalling大约 2 年前
Botany is fun in part because it has its own arcane descriptive vocabulary. One of my favorite botanical words is &quot;arborescent&quot;, meaning resembling a tree.<p>There are whole genera where some of the related plants are trees and others aren&#x27;t. There&#x27;s Aloe vera, which you can keep in a pot on your windowsill, and then there is <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Aloidendron_barberae" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Aloidendron_barberae</a> which can be 60 ft tall. A bunch of the tree aloes got split off somewhat recently, but there are a lot of genera where some have tree forms and others are tiny. Dracaena is another one, where you have the &quot;snake plant&quot; that&#x27;s probably the most common office plant in the world, and it got lumped together with <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Dracaena_draco" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Dracaena_draco</a> in one genus. Taxonomy is wild.
dav_Oz大约 2 年前
Useful abstractions. Exploring their usefulness can be fun (the pedantic kind) and even sometimes illuminating.<p>Obviously right from the start &quot;taxonomy&quot; itself is arbitrary. A more universal tool than naming, establishing branches, starting and end points is the concept of &quot;most recent common ancestor&quot; [0]. From that nameless unclassified vantage point I find it interesting to see (as OP pointed out) how &quot;woodiness&quot; or &quot;treeness&quot; evolutionary speaking is clearly a &quot;strategy&quot; (convergent evolution) and nearly impossible to chase down &quot;phylogenetically&quot; through MRCAs. Intuitively before reading this article I would have guessed this to be more straightforward.<p>[0]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Most_recent_common_ancestor" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Most_recent_common_ancestor</a>
eternalban大约 2 年前
&gt; Axolotls<p>The Axolotl tanks of Tleilaxu. I wonder if Frank Herbert got that from these creatures or is this some crazy coincidence that Axolotls are subjected to genetic &#x27;shape shifting&#x27;.
评论 #35087775 未加载
wardedVibe大约 2 年前
My partner, who is a biologist, hates this take as a mostly grammar trick. Then again, she has no patience for philosophy in general, so that probably explains it.
评论 #35089634 未加载
评论 #35088611 未加载
jonathankoren大约 2 年前
There’s also no such thing as a fish.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;chireviewofbooks.com&#x2F;2020&#x2F;04&#x2F;15&#x2F;why-fish-dont-exist-lulu-miller&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;chireviewofbooks.com&#x2F;2020&#x2F;04&#x2F;15&#x2F;why-fish-dont-exist-...</a>
评论 #35087316 未加载
GolDDranks大约 2 年前
This is something that struct me before as I was enjoying the Japanese Hanami (having a picnic under flowering trees) festival, and I once attempted to verify whether my understanding was correct, but unfortunately my Google-fu failed me at the time, since a &quot;tree&quot; happens to have a troubling double-meaning as a tree of clades in phylogeny, or as a physical tree; so it&#x27;s very hard to search whether &quot;physical trees form a phylogenic tree&quot;. Glad to have that verification now.
jadbox大约 2 年前
Convergent evolutions are fascinating. It also gives me a hope that we&#x27;ll find other non-earth life that will have some things axiomatically common with us (due to convergence).
评论 #35081693 未加载
isaacfrond大约 2 年前
This page has been on HN seven times!<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hn.algolia.com&#x2F;?q=+tree+%28phylogenetically%29" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hn.algolia.com&#x2F;?q=+tree+%28phylogenetically%29</a><p>Three of which are with identical links, by the way, why isn&#x27;t this filtered out by HN&#x27;s dupe detection system?
评论 #35093070 未加载
raldi大约 2 年前
Pineapple is “definitely a tree”?
评论 #35088701 未加载
stevenjgarner大约 2 年前
Am I the only one drilling down in this thinking it might be about tree data structures? Not really having a clue what &quot;phylogenetically&quot; might mean, but kind of assuming it was about &quot;those&quot; other natural trees.
taliesinb大约 2 年前
Interesting article, though I thought this was going to be about the fact the the &quot;phylogenetic tree&quot; is not in fact a tree but a hypergraph, owing to the existence of sexual reproduction.
jmull大约 2 年前
I guess plants are awfully good at finding niches, but with the sun up there and ready lignin, they always come back to growing tall and strong.
jdlyga大约 2 年前
This reminds me of carcinisation. Where natural selection tends to heavily favor crab-shaped animals even though they come from different lineages. Natural selection seems a lot like physics. Given similar initial conditions and a population of organisms, you’re going to get similar results across groups after a period of time.
peter303大约 2 年前
Poet Joyce Kilmer would be disappointed.
quickthrower2大约 2 年前
Is a tree a burrito or a sandwich?
throwawaaarrgh大约 2 年前
I&#x27;m going to save this chart just to mess with plant nerds at parties. (lol jk i don&#x27;t get invited to parties.)