4 ms·
To nit 1: "totally unrelated" could reasonably mean "not in the same genus", but even relaxing that to "not in the same family" holds true for the word "cedars"
by cmpb 2mo ago
To nit 1: "totally unrelated" could reasonably mean "not in the same genus", but even relaxing that to "not in the same family" holds true for the word "cedars". The author's point about "common names" seems pretty salient
To nit 2: I fail to see what you're actually nitpicking here... How evolutionary related things are and how they evolved _are_ pretty well illustrated by taxonomic ranking. Some organisms (in a stable ecology) don't change much over time and some things do, and taxonomy gives us a good way to discuss that.
- fastaguy88 2mo agoI suppose "totally unrelated" might mean not in the same genus to some set of taxonomists, but for the larger audience to which this essay was directed, unrelated might mean "is not related in any way" (as in, does not share a common ancestor). Yes, they are "totally unrelated" in the sense that I am likely totally unrelated to you, but this not a very evolutionary sense of the word "related".
- magicalist 2mo ago> Yes, they are "totally unrelated" in the sense that I am likely totally unrelated to you Why would you assume that the "larger audience" would assume that "unrelated" means that these species of trees came from independent origins of life on earth instead of this totally normal and common sense of the phrase that you use here?