3 ms·

Interesting, but on the wobbly side of science. Trees are usually defined to be something very different from cycads and palms. Today if these were growing, th

Interesting, but on the wobbly side of science. Trees are usually defined to be something very different from cycads and palms. Today if these were growing, they wouldn't be called trees, and their cluster not called forests. And second, similarly to how 'there's no such thing as a fish', it's been postulated that there's no such thing as a tree. Many different life-forms that we call trees, have no known common ancestor. Make of that what you will.

dredmorbius 3y ago
The "there's no such thing as tree" concept is expanded here: <https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/ https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/> This was discussed on HN a few years ago: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29621646 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29621646> I think it's fair to argue that the palm forests noted in TFA filled a similar niche to that of current tree-like forests. All taxonomical groupings are ultimately grounded in practical organisational utility for humans.
tejtm 3y ago
As a non-biologist, long term I see tree-ness more as a vocation that plants sometimes take up for a while, more like a hobby than a biological imperative.
akira2501 3y ago
The title editing on this site is ridiculous. Of all the "social" sites to game I've never understood the instinct as applied to "Hacker News." "World's earliest fossilised forest discovered." Which is the actual title, more accurately describes the claim, and is far less sensationalized.
- gumby 3y ago
  Sometimes I submit a link and then the site changes the title. The NYT does this a lot.
jakderrida 3y ago
> Many different life-forms that we call trees, have no known common ancestor. None??
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  Maple and Mulberry are unrelated for instance. Stinging Nettle and Strawberries are related - their common ancestor was something like a tree. It's all pretty confused. More accurately: the common ancestor of modern 'trees' is often not a tree at all. Like, fruitflies and humans have an ancestor but it's neither fly nor human.

dredmorbius 3y ago

The "there's no such thing as tree" concept is expanded here: <https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/ https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/> This was discussed on HN a few years ago: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29621646 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29621646> I think it's fair to argue that the palm forests noted in TFA filled a similar niche to that of current tree-like forests. All taxonomical groupings are ultimately grounded in practical organisational utility for humans.

tejtm 3y ago

As a non-biologist, long term I see tree-ness more as a vocation that plants sometimes take up for a while, more like a hobby than a biological imperative.

akira2501 3y ago

The title editing on this site is ridiculous. Of all the "social" sites to game I've never understood the instinct as applied to "Hacker News." "World's earliest fossilised forest discovered." Which is the actual title, more accurately describes the claim, and is far less sensationalized.

gumby 3y ago
Sometimes I submit a link and then the site changes the title. The NYT does this a lot.

jakderrida 3y ago

> Many different life-forms that we call trees, have no known common ancestor. None??

JoeAltmaier 3y ago
Maple and Mulberry are unrelated for instance. Stinging Nettle and Strawberries are related - their common ancestor was something like a tree. It's all pretty confused. More accurately: the common ancestor of modern 'trees' is often not a tree at all. Like, fruitflies and humans have an ancestor but it's neither fly nor human.