This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
You can merge the two files, as long as you include a separate definition inside of it. Phylogenetic trees are stated as relationship hypotheses; evolutionary trees should include time and fossil information. Anonymous, 22:50 18 Jun 2006
Don't we have evidence that the eukariotes are formed by branches merging? What does that do to the neat figure? Drobinsonatlaur 02:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Very stylish. Wetman 10:07, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)~
Some information on how phylogentic trees are computed from genome sequences would be nice. There doesn't seem to be awfully much material on that on the web. 62.227.165.193 20:34, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Work is currently in progress on a page entitled Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared. Also currently being worked upon is Wikipedia: NPOV (Comparison of views in science) giving guidelines for this type of page. It is meant to be a set of guidelines for NPOV in this setting. People knowledgable in many areas of science and the philosophy of science are greatly needed here. And all are needed to ensure the guidelines correctly represent NPOV in this setting. :) Barnaby dawson 22:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Is there a page entitled Views of Flat Earthers and mainstream scientists compared? Or one called Views of People Who Think Disease Is Causes By Ill Humours and mainstream scientists compared? Wake up people and move on. Jeffgwatts ( talk) 11:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
From the article, "Trees that do not include extinct species must also be interpreted with care." (emphasis mine)
I think this should read "Trees that include extinct species must also be interpreted with care." This is because extinct species may or may not be terminal nodes, the likelihood that they are terminal nodes, however, is very high (see coalescence (genetics)); however, they have often been placed on internal nodes in the past. These are the trees one should be wary of. Anyone differ? - Samsara 15:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Largely semantics but I do not think there is such a thing as an evolutionary tree (entirely possible I could be wrong) as such I feel like searching for an 'evolutionary tree' should return a phylogenetic tree. Ho
As far as I can determine by googling the subject, an " evolutionary tree" is the same as a "phylogenetic tree". Therefore, I suggest that we merge the two pages.
According to this article, "phylogenetic tree" is the more technical term. Therefore, I suggest that we merge the evolutionary tree article into this one (although the reverse is also possible. SpectrumDT 11:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Even the single "don't merge" comment by RickReinckens can be taked as supporting the merger DGG 02:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I accept there's been a long discussion on this. I also accept that there is no single way of doing it, but it does have to be done either one way, or the other. Perhaps the way to go is to try writing it both ways and see what's possible and helpful. (This is not an offer to do it myself just now :) DGG 01:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
RickReinckens 15:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
As the layman will not know the precise distinction, perhaps it is more important to have a single article, than worry about the name. I agree with the comment above that the best-known term is evolutionary tree. The various detailed meanings & implications can be explained in the article. Equally impt would be to have a single presentation for all the kingdom, etc. pages, as there is no agreement among them. The existence of different hypotheses can also be discussed once, with the refs, and then referred to. NPOV should be possible, as the disagreements are fundamentaly over which set of genes is the more important, and this is still mainly a matter of opinion. What I think we should avoid is going over the same ground repeatedly, with the same arguments and examples and variant views. that's confusing rather than neutral. Neutral is expressing the different hypotheses clearly and accurately; that's hard enough, bit we should only have to deal with it once. DGG 00:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Initially, I thought they should be merged. As an evolutionary biologist who uses phylogenetic methods to infer evolutionary history, I definitely blur the distinction between "evolutionary tree" and "phylogenetic tree." But there is a fundamental difference, as pointed out by RickReinckens. I think we do indeed have a problem if laypeople search for "evolutionary tree" and end up with this largely technical article about phylogenetics. I suggest we move a lot of this material over to phylogenetics, where it belongs, and change this article to evolutionary tree, if that is truly the term that laypeople will be familiar with. - Safay 03:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the history of this article and the discussion, I can't see why the merger took place, i.e. I can't see that there was a consensus among editors to do this.
It doesn't seem to me that the article conveys this at all. I'm reluctant to add anything without understanding the views of previous editors. Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know of the first use of a tree to represent evolutionary history? Darwin has his diagram in On the Origin..., but does anyone know of another before that? This would make an interesting historical addition to an article about evolutionary trees. - Safay 03:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Discussion about renaming Category:Tree of life to Category:Organisms: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 10.-- ragesoss 23:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
There aren't any references cited for the limitations of phylogenetic trees. Also, calling ancient DNA "little useful" is a little vague and misleading. I can root around for some references if necessary. -- Estelahe 16:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
When extinct species are included in a tree, they should always be terminal nodes, as it is unlikely that they are direct ancestors of any extant species
Why is that? It makes absolutely no sense to me, that the direct ancestor of a living species is most likely to also be a living species. I would think that would actually be quite rare. Can someone point me to a multi-celled living species whose direct ancestor is also living????? 24.11.53.10 ( talk) 22:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
"For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?page=1
"Most biologists now accept that the tree is not a fact of nature - it is something we impose on nature in an attempt to make the task of understanding it more tractable." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126923.000-editorial-uprooting-darwins-tree.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.199.83 ( talk) 21:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Acoording to the Department of Biology, University of Oslo, the eukaryots are divided in
Dont see this classification anywhere, please inlclude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.162.121 ( talk) 06:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The main article states in part "... various biological species or other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor." The word "believed" is not appropriate: common descent is an observed fact, and it requires no belief. I have corrected the article. -- Desertphile ( talk) 17:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
So you were there to observe it? And "fact." My aren't we good a hyperbole.-- TDurden1937 ( talk) 00:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Rogue-pilot recently changed the opening sentence from:
to
The edit was undone by 3 different users, but it keeps being restored. I don't want to get into an edit war (though Rogue-pilot is already in violation of 3RR), but the original version has been stable indicating a de-facto consensus, and the change has not been sourced (not to mention that it seems specious), so I'm just checking here to see if there is consensus to go back to the previous version. Rogue-pilot, it would be great if you could discuss it here instead of changing the article repeatedly without sources or explanation. (I think I would change the end of the sentence to ...biological species or other entities that have a common ancestor." "...are known to have a common ancestor" seems unnecessarily wordy to me.) Thoughts? Dawn Bard ( talk) 16:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I was confused for more than a month from this phrase: " common ancestor". I had to look at numerous sources (too bad I cannot site any one here) and I had to verify this with a genetics professor. I concluded that we can talk about ancestry (not only common ancestor, but also the higher node as ancestor to lower nodes or leaves), only in rooted trees. In unrooted trees, we can only say that the leaves are ancestors to no other node. We can make no other assumption about ancestry in unrooted trees. Leontaurus ( talk) 23:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Before my edit, this sentence appeared in the History section: "Over a century later, evolutionary biologists still use tree diagrams to depict evolution because the floral analogy effectively conveys the concept that speciation occurs through the adaptiveand random splitting of lineages." At first I had no idea what was meant by "the floral analogy" (and the links to "flora" and "analogy" didn't help me). I think it was meant to mean that tree diagrams are a 'floral analogy'. Well, they are an 'analogy' but not a 'floral' one in the usual meaning of 'floral', i.e. they have nothing to do with flowers. I've changed 'the floral analogy' to 'such diagrams', which I think is much clearer. Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Before my edit, this paragraph appeared in the History section:
This is undoubtedly true, but not, as far as I can see, of any relevance. The Engler system is not primarily an evolutionary tree and certainly not a phylogenetic tree. It's a 'Chain of Being' type view, based on ideas of what characters are 'primitive' and what are 'advanced'. Hence I've removed this paragraph entirely. Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
This paragraph:
was, I think, meant to follow on from the paragraph about the Engler system (assuming that the "It" in the second sentence refers to the Engler system). As I don't think that the previous paragraph is relevant, I've removed this too. Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Useful resources can be drawn from the following journal reference:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)It contains examples of three-domain and non-three-domain phylogenetic trees from analyses of the COG database protein alignments. Diptanshu Talk 05:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the article per MOS:ANDOR. It's better to avoid its use in articles. Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση ( talk) 20:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
In the section on limitations, it claims that "convergent evolution" can be a confounder for creating phylogenetic trees based on genome sequencing. This seems unlikely, as convergent evolution is in almost all cases the evolution of similar features with a distinct genetic basis. To reproduce the exact same sequence of mutations is a quite different matter. Am I right in suggesting "convergent evolution" should really be deleted from the sentence: "The data on which they are based is noisy; the analysis can be confounded by genetic recombination, horizontal gene transfer, hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences."? – Elroch 13:29, 23 November 2014
hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences.
Inter species hybridization is by definition the reason (if species are defined as population exchanging genes via sexual reproduction) to downgrading such species to subspecies status. Taxonomic reconsideration may by slow down by various species concepts and pragmatic conservatism in taxonomic namingand and other factors. To overcome limitations of structure of phylogenetic tree is proposed braided river concept. Flowing trough time, bifurcating and merging, surging on obstacles but trying to flow with some branched channels silting to dry. This Braided river reticulate streams of life exchanging genetic information in 4d space is proposed as long overdue paradigm change in diversity conceptualization of phylogenetic evolution. [1] [2]
now what ? 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 15:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
References
The article, in describing a cladogram, says that its internal nodes do not represent ancestors. As written, this seems nonsensical. It is at the very least contrary to the article on cladograms. It may be an attempt to say that ancestors represented by nodes in a cladogram are not necessarily already identified, but possibly are inferred. If howls of protest do not arise, I'll probably return sometime soon and edit accordingly. Aboctok ( talk) 17:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This article references Woese, but not Norman R. Pace. Here is an earlier good reference for both: Pace, N.R., G.J. Olsen, and C.R. Woese. (1986). Ribosomal RNA phylogeny and the primary lines of evolutionary descent. Cell 45:325-326. Charles Juvon ( talk) 19:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I removed the word "speculative" from the "rooted tree for rRNA genes" figure legend, as this word is misleading. Phylogenetic trees are NOT "speculative" when they are based on DNA (or RNA) data (as in this case). One can argue that phylogenetic relationships are flawed by an erroneous algorithm or too little data, but a phylogenetic tree is simply a representation of similarities and thus a hypothesis about phylogenetic relationships. The figure legend was used by a creationist on Quora to "demonstrate" the "speculative" nature of evolution. Given that there is nothing speculative about evolution itself, I removed the word "speculative" as it (wrongly) indicates that a phylogenetic tree is just guesswork, which it is not. Peteruetz ( talk) 02:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Is my understanding correct that the order of branches (that is the order resulting from the sum of decisions at each branching point which branch to depict to the left and which to the right – in a tree that shows time on a vertical axis) is arbitrary? Are there any conventions for these individual decisions? Is there any special tree type for which the order is not arbitrary? ◅ Sebastian 10:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC) If it helps, one can limit the question to trees that show only extant species. The order, then, would simply be the order of the branches at the crown of the tree. ◅ Sebastian 11:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
This is an article about phylogenetic trees—what they are and how to construct them. It is not an article about the tree of life and various models about the relationships between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
The history section needs a lot of work. It should describe the first trees based on the sequences of molecules from the early 1960s and why such trees are possible (the Neutral Theory). It should NOT say that that Woese's ribosomal RNA tree (Three Domains) is the first molecular tree and it should certainly not imply that this is the modern view especially since the main Wikipedia article ( Three-domain system) specifically points out that it is no longer the preferred model of eukaryote evolution.
I have reverted the recent edits that misrepresent the history of molecular trees and the current consensus model of the origin of eukaryotes. Genome42 ( talk) 16:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
You can merge the two files, as long as you include a separate definition inside of it. Phylogenetic trees are stated as relationship hypotheses; evolutionary trees should include time and fossil information. Anonymous, 22:50 18 Jun 2006
Don't we have evidence that the eukariotes are formed by branches merging? What does that do to the neat figure? Drobinsonatlaur 02:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Very stylish. Wetman 10:07, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)~
Some information on how phylogentic trees are computed from genome sequences would be nice. There doesn't seem to be awfully much material on that on the web. 62.227.165.193 20:34, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Work is currently in progress on a page entitled Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared. Also currently being worked upon is Wikipedia: NPOV (Comparison of views in science) giving guidelines for this type of page. It is meant to be a set of guidelines for NPOV in this setting. People knowledgable in many areas of science and the philosophy of science are greatly needed here. And all are needed to ensure the guidelines correctly represent NPOV in this setting. :) Barnaby dawson 22:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Is there a page entitled Views of Flat Earthers and mainstream scientists compared? Or one called Views of People Who Think Disease Is Causes By Ill Humours and mainstream scientists compared? Wake up people and move on. Jeffgwatts ( talk) 11:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
From the article, "Trees that do not include extinct species must also be interpreted with care." (emphasis mine)
I think this should read "Trees that include extinct species must also be interpreted with care." This is because extinct species may or may not be terminal nodes, the likelihood that they are terminal nodes, however, is very high (see coalescence (genetics)); however, they have often been placed on internal nodes in the past. These are the trees one should be wary of. Anyone differ? - Samsara 15:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Largely semantics but I do not think there is such a thing as an evolutionary tree (entirely possible I could be wrong) as such I feel like searching for an 'evolutionary tree' should return a phylogenetic tree. Ho
As far as I can determine by googling the subject, an " evolutionary tree" is the same as a "phylogenetic tree". Therefore, I suggest that we merge the two pages.
According to this article, "phylogenetic tree" is the more technical term. Therefore, I suggest that we merge the evolutionary tree article into this one (although the reverse is also possible. SpectrumDT 11:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Even the single "don't merge" comment by RickReinckens can be taked as supporting the merger DGG 02:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I accept there's been a long discussion on this. I also accept that there is no single way of doing it, but it does have to be done either one way, or the other. Perhaps the way to go is to try writing it both ways and see what's possible and helpful. (This is not an offer to do it myself just now :) DGG 01:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
RickReinckens 15:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
As the layman will not know the precise distinction, perhaps it is more important to have a single article, than worry about the name. I agree with the comment above that the best-known term is evolutionary tree. The various detailed meanings & implications can be explained in the article. Equally impt would be to have a single presentation for all the kingdom, etc. pages, as there is no agreement among them. The existence of different hypotheses can also be discussed once, with the refs, and then referred to. NPOV should be possible, as the disagreements are fundamentaly over which set of genes is the more important, and this is still mainly a matter of opinion. What I think we should avoid is going over the same ground repeatedly, with the same arguments and examples and variant views. that's confusing rather than neutral. Neutral is expressing the different hypotheses clearly and accurately; that's hard enough, bit we should only have to deal with it once. DGG 00:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Initially, I thought they should be merged. As an evolutionary biologist who uses phylogenetic methods to infer evolutionary history, I definitely blur the distinction between "evolutionary tree" and "phylogenetic tree." But there is a fundamental difference, as pointed out by RickReinckens. I think we do indeed have a problem if laypeople search for "evolutionary tree" and end up with this largely technical article about phylogenetics. I suggest we move a lot of this material over to phylogenetics, where it belongs, and change this article to evolutionary tree, if that is truly the term that laypeople will be familiar with. - Safay 03:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the history of this article and the discussion, I can't see why the merger took place, i.e. I can't see that there was a consensus among editors to do this.
It doesn't seem to me that the article conveys this at all. I'm reluctant to add anything without understanding the views of previous editors. Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know of the first use of a tree to represent evolutionary history? Darwin has his diagram in On the Origin..., but does anyone know of another before that? This would make an interesting historical addition to an article about evolutionary trees. - Safay 03:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Discussion about renaming Category:Tree of life to Category:Organisms: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 10.-- ragesoss 23:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
There aren't any references cited for the limitations of phylogenetic trees. Also, calling ancient DNA "little useful" is a little vague and misleading. I can root around for some references if necessary. -- Estelahe 16:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
When extinct species are included in a tree, they should always be terminal nodes, as it is unlikely that they are direct ancestors of any extant species
Why is that? It makes absolutely no sense to me, that the direct ancestor of a living species is most likely to also be a living species. I would think that would actually be quite rare. Can someone point me to a multi-celled living species whose direct ancestor is also living????? 24.11.53.10 ( talk) 22:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
"For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?page=1
"Most biologists now accept that the tree is not a fact of nature - it is something we impose on nature in an attempt to make the task of understanding it more tractable." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126923.000-editorial-uprooting-darwins-tree.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.199.83 ( talk) 21:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Acoording to the Department of Biology, University of Oslo, the eukaryots are divided in
Dont see this classification anywhere, please inlclude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.162.121 ( talk) 06:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The main article states in part "... various biological species or other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor." The word "believed" is not appropriate: common descent is an observed fact, and it requires no belief. I have corrected the article. -- Desertphile ( talk) 17:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
So you were there to observe it? And "fact." My aren't we good a hyperbole.-- TDurden1937 ( talk) 00:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Rogue-pilot recently changed the opening sentence from:
to
The edit was undone by 3 different users, but it keeps being restored. I don't want to get into an edit war (though Rogue-pilot is already in violation of 3RR), but the original version has been stable indicating a de-facto consensus, and the change has not been sourced (not to mention that it seems specious), so I'm just checking here to see if there is consensus to go back to the previous version. Rogue-pilot, it would be great if you could discuss it here instead of changing the article repeatedly without sources or explanation. (I think I would change the end of the sentence to ...biological species or other entities that have a common ancestor." "...are known to have a common ancestor" seems unnecessarily wordy to me.) Thoughts? Dawn Bard ( talk) 16:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I was confused for more than a month from this phrase: " common ancestor". I had to look at numerous sources (too bad I cannot site any one here) and I had to verify this with a genetics professor. I concluded that we can talk about ancestry (not only common ancestor, but also the higher node as ancestor to lower nodes or leaves), only in rooted trees. In unrooted trees, we can only say that the leaves are ancestors to no other node. We can make no other assumption about ancestry in unrooted trees. Leontaurus ( talk) 23:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Before my edit, this sentence appeared in the History section: "Over a century later, evolutionary biologists still use tree diagrams to depict evolution because the floral analogy effectively conveys the concept that speciation occurs through the adaptiveand random splitting of lineages." At first I had no idea what was meant by "the floral analogy" (and the links to "flora" and "analogy" didn't help me). I think it was meant to mean that tree diagrams are a 'floral analogy'. Well, they are an 'analogy' but not a 'floral' one in the usual meaning of 'floral', i.e. they have nothing to do with flowers. I've changed 'the floral analogy' to 'such diagrams', which I think is much clearer. Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Before my edit, this paragraph appeared in the History section:
This is undoubtedly true, but not, as far as I can see, of any relevance. The Engler system is not primarily an evolutionary tree and certainly not a phylogenetic tree. It's a 'Chain of Being' type view, based on ideas of what characters are 'primitive' and what are 'advanced'. Hence I've removed this paragraph entirely. Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
This paragraph:
was, I think, meant to follow on from the paragraph about the Engler system (assuming that the "It" in the second sentence refers to the Engler system). As I don't think that the previous paragraph is relevant, I've removed this too. Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Useful resources can be drawn from the following journal reference:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)It contains examples of three-domain and non-three-domain phylogenetic trees from analyses of the COG database protein alignments. Diptanshu Talk 05:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the article per MOS:ANDOR. It's better to avoid its use in articles. Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση ( talk) 20:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
In the section on limitations, it claims that "convergent evolution" can be a confounder for creating phylogenetic trees based on genome sequencing. This seems unlikely, as convergent evolution is in almost all cases the evolution of similar features with a distinct genetic basis. To reproduce the exact same sequence of mutations is a quite different matter. Am I right in suggesting "convergent evolution" should really be deleted from the sentence: "The data on which they are based is noisy; the analysis can be confounded by genetic recombination, horizontal gene transfer, hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences."? – Elroch 13:29, 23 November 2014
hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences.
Inter species hybridization is by definition the reason (if species are defined as population exchanging genes via sexual reproduction) to downgrading such species to subspecies status. Taxonomic reconsideration may by slow down by various species concepts and pragmatic conservatism in taxonomic namingand and other factors. To overcome limitations of structure of phylogenetic tree is proposed braided river concept. Flowing trough time, bifurcating and merging, surging on obstacles but trying to flow with some branched channels silting to dry. This Braided river reticulate streams of life exchanging genetic information in 4d space is proposed as long overdue paradigm change in diversity conceptualization of phylogenetic evolution. [1] [2]
now what ? 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 15:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
References
The article, in describing a cladogram, says that its internal nodes do not represent ancestors. As written, this seems nonsensical. It is at the very least contrary to the article on cladograms. It may be an attempt to say that ancestors represented by nodes in a cladogram are not necessarily already identified, but possibly are inferred. If howls of protest do not arise, I'll probably return sometime soon and edit accordingly. Aboctok ( talk) 17:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This article references Woese, but not Norman R. Pace. Here is an earlier good reference for both: Pace, N.R., G.J. Olsen, and C.R. Woese. (1986). Ribosomal RNA phylogeny and the primary lines of evolutionary descent. Cell 45:325-326. Charles Juvon ( talk) 19:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I removed the word "speculative" from the "rooted tree for rRNA genes" figure legend, as this word is misleading. Phylogenetic trees are NOT "speculative" when they are based on DNA (or RNA) data (as in this case). One can argue that phylogenetic relationships are flawed by an erroneous algorithm or too little data, but a phylogenetic tree is simply a representation of similarities and thus a hypothesis about phylogenetic relationships. The figure legend was used by a creationist on Quora to "demonstrate" the "speculative" nature of evolution. Given that there is nothing speculative about evolution itself, I removed the word "speculative" as it (wrongly) indicates that a phylogenetic tree is just guesswork, which it is not. Peteruetz ( talk) 02:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Is my understanding correct that the order of branches (that is the order resulting from the sum of decisions at each branching point which branch to depict to the left and which to the right – in a tree that shows time on a vertical axis) is arbitrary? Are there any conventions for these individual decisions? Is there any special tree type for which the order is not arbitrary? ◅ Sebastian 10:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC) If it helps, one can limit the question to trees that show only extant species. The order, then, would simply be the order of the branches at the crown of the tree. ◅ Sebastian 11:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
This is an article about phylogenetic trees—what they are and how to construct them. It is not an article about the tree of life and various models about the relationships between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
The history section needs a lot of work. It should describe the first trees based on the sequences of molecules from the early 1960s and why such trees are possible (the Neutral Theory). It should NOT say that that Woese's ribosomal RNA tree (Three Domains) is the first molecular tree and it should certainly not imply that this is the modern view especially since the main Wikipedia article ( Three-domain system) specifically points out that it is no longer the preferred model of eukaryote evolution.
I have reverted the recent edits that misrepresent the history of molecular trees and the current consensus model of the origin of eukaryotes. Genome42 ( talk) 16:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)