4 ms·
Just like fish, trees aren't real. There's no single evolutionary branch where we go from non-tree to tree. What we call trees are speckled throughout without s
by bena 4y ago
Just like fish, trees aren't real. There's no single evolutionary branch where we go from non-tree to tree. What we call trees are speckled throughout without seeming rhyme or reason.
It's mostly because our fuzzy definitions of things are just that, fuzzy. Tall, thick, bark-covered plant? Yeah, tree. Water-breathing legless animal? Fuck it, fish.
Tomatoes are fruits and everyone loves this fact. But so are bell peppers. And I think cucumbers. In fact, most vegetables are technically fruits (anything with a fruiting body is a fruit). And half the nuts are legumes. And legumes are fruits. And all fruits are also vegetables. Because vegetables are the part of plants we eat. But most vegetables are some other sort of plant life.
So in short, our classifications and definitions are more what you'd call "guidelines".
- ravi-delia 4y agoTrees are significantly less of a thing than fish! Fish are almost a phylogenetic class; just remove reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals, and insects! It's like measure, there are only countably many discontinuities. Trees are more like fins then fish. There are pairs of trees whose last common ancestor wasn't a tree, and visa versa. Many non-trees are just a few genetic tweaks away from being trees, suggesting evolution has kept around a master control switch in case the environment favors trees one day. Trees are... ...what was the original subject? Trees are just so cool