Clint Explains Phylogenetics - There are a million wrong ways to read a phylogenetic tree 

I don’t think so, it’s the same story as Janet. Cheetahs are closely related to lions, leopards and tigers and the bear is equally related to the big cats. In second tree we have two different ancestors: one for the bear and one for the big cats I think

@@Comments.section The way to read this chart is to compare how far back you have to go to find a common ancestor between any two existing species, or between an ancestor and another ancestor or species on the chart. The most recent common ancestor on this chart is the one connecting lions and leopards. They are the two most closely-related species shown on the chart. Next is the common ancestor between tigers and the lion/leopard ancestor. The tiger is equally related to both lions and leopards, but lions and leopards are more closely related to each other, since their common ancestor is more recent. Next further removed is the common ancestor connecting cheetahs to the lion/leopard/tiger ancestor. All four of these are related to each other via this ancestor, but any lion, leopard or tiger is more closely related to another than any is related to a cheetah. Likewise for the bear. It is equally related to all the cats, but the cats are all more closely related to each other than any is to a bear because they each have a more recent common ancestors than the common ancestor with bears. The second chart shows the same relationships between existing species and ancestors as the first. Both show a common ancestor for all the cats, and another ancestor connecting all the cats to a bear. Look closely at the charts shown side-by-side at 7:08.

Agreed

If he's teaching you biology he is your biology teacher :)

@@ComandaKronikk Especially while dating!

what the freak is wrong with you @@ConservativeAnthem

What’s the other channel?

@@Marcosaur03 client's reptiles

Well said ❣️🫶🏻☀️

Nicely done! Please feel free to help other people that have questions. You've got it!

Omg Thank you so much you just saved me from failing a bio edpuzzle

@@janethfarias1553 Dude that’s exactly why I’m here 💔 got half the edpuzzle questions wrong till here

@@michie8928 LMFAO ME RN

Yes, I got it right too! Thanks for explaining so that I understood right

I'm so glad you found us!

That's a great idea!

Thank you for mentioning that. I think that is probably a very common misconception. I'm glad we were able to blow your mind a little bit. That's how you know it has been a good day.

Thank you so much! That is so good to hear.

Thank you! No need to kill, just subscribe :)

Thank you! It's really exciting :)

If you use it on class, I would love your feedback about how well it worked for them.

@@clintexplains5327 Seemed to help students (and instructor in this case...) understand better. For some weird reason, it won't embed into Google Slides.

I'm so glad! Thanks for the great feedback.

Hopefully it was worth the wait.

@@clintexplains5327 100x better then expected!!! You're the best Clint! ❤

As you suggested, in hindsight the big red flag was your instructor essentially writing off most of the class in the first lecture and suggesting that the class HE WAS TEACHING didn't matter. Not the way to inspire interest in the subject. If I had a community college student telling me this was their first lecture, I would advise them to RUN to the admissions office and find a different offering of the class with a different instructor, or reschedule it to a different semester.

@@jimrodarmel8512 Oh yeah 100%. Unfortunately they were always super understaffed so it was hard to get into the classes I needed in the first place so it was kind of a take whatever you can get your hands on kind of thing. I'd already taken a class with one of the other 2 biology teachers there (who was also terrible) and I forget if the other one's classes were already filled up or what but I couldn't get them for some reason. I still think there are a lot of community colleges that are wonderful and would recommend anyone to check theirs out, but this one had serious issues. Definitely should have read the reviews first 😅

@@probsnooneyouknowtbh3712 Sorry you had a bad experience with your lower-level bio classes. I remember from my own experience in community college that it was often a mad scramble to get one's required courses into one's schedule, depending on one's registration priority and the available subject hours. You're right, most of the time the instructors are pretty great, there are just a few bad apples that give us all "war stories" to reminisce about. I only remember one instructor so bad I had to withdraw from the class, a College Composition (required Gen Ed class) instructor that amused himself by not telling the students what he expected on the assignments and saying things like "don't write to please me, what I think doesn't matter." But what he thought of your writing did affect your grade. Fortunately I didn't actually need his class, I just took the WEPT (Written English Proficiency Test) and got very good marks.

The first thing that comes to mind is how many fields are within each branch of science. He can't cover everything in Biology: phylogenetics, epigenetics, evolutionary psychology, sexual dimorphism, microbiology, taxonomy, etc... You always have to sacrifice some parts, but yeah, sounds like he might have done an especially bad job

We show that exact tree in our monophyly video.

Also, my answer would be that lions tigers and leopards are equally the closest relatives to cheetahs no matter how you layout the chart.

@@mysticbeastdraws2067 "looked up why chickens aren't part of dinosauria if they are supposedly dinosaurs, and discovered 'clades'. Went to RU-vid to learn what phylogenetics was and was thrilled to see my favorite reptile channel host had a video explaining exactly that" - ok, but what did you conclude? "my answer would be that lions tigers and leopards are equally the closest relatives to cheetahs no matter how you layout the chart" - well, I can see the context you are stating this within (Clint's 'flipped' question), but your bare words make it a no!

That's cool!

To go even further, phylogeny is an example of a meet-semilattice. Any two organisms have a last common ancestor (also known as a meet). See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semilattice I was wondering if we could go even further and say that phylogeny forms a tree structure, but that’s not the case because of hybridization (for example, the liger).

Please do! That's why we're doing this :)

@@clintexplains5327 Thank you for making quality content. Also, definitely going to get some blue death feigning beetles for my classroom next year. They’ll be a nice touch next to the mourning geckos you also convinced me to get (no better way to teach asexual reproduction lol).

That's a great idea!

We will for sure!

@@clintexplains5327 thank you!!!! 🥰

Such a thing is possible, but probably fairly uncommon. Sometimes we don't know which two are the closest, and so many phylogenies will include unresolved nodes called polytomies.

@@clintexplains5327 Thanks!

To this day I have the same question :( And I'm majoring in biology! Somehow I just can't wrap my mind around this. I wish we got an explanation..

To both of you, let me know if you'd like to go through this.

@@r4ts311 To both of you, let me know if you'd like to go through this.

Hopefully this channel will make that possible :)

I watched the section about the humans 3-4 times to help wrap my brain around it. For the cats, in the first diagram, we know that tigers are equally related to leopards and lions, but that leopards and lions are more closely related to each other. This remains true in the second diagram, as lions intersect with leopards before anything else, then both the lion and leopard line intersect with the tiger line. Yikes it's hard to explain.

@@KaeracterThis explanation helped a lot, thank you so much!

1. Your thinking is correct, but your miswording renders it wrong, for part of it, that is. See if you can spot it.

No

Our next video will cover this a bit. From a phylogenetic perspective it is okay to have a group called "fish", but if it includes sharks and trout, then it includes you as well :)

I think you've got it!

No, as with Linnaean taxonomy, morphology is used, as is amino acid protein sequences.

That's not true. Even-toed ungulates (e.g. horses) and odd-toed ungulates (e.g. goats and cows) are both clades within the grand order Ungulata. Cats and dogs are in Carnivora, which is completely separate.

Neil, that's simply wrong. Let me know if you'd like to discuss it.

@@Dr.IanPlect Huh. The "One Tree of Life" Phylogenetic Tree I was looking at must be incorrect.

@@neilchace1858 Or, you misunderstood it...

@@Dr.IanPlect I know how to read a phylogenetic tree. YT won't let me link the phylogenetic tree, but it can be found at "One Zoom Tree of Life". If there's an issue, it's that the tree was outdated or incorrect, not an issue in my interpretation.

A cladogram is a diagram which shows the relationship between different organisms based on their different similarities. A phylogenetic tree is a diagram which shows the phylogenetic history of organisms with respect to the geological time scale. Cladogram is not an evolutionary tree. Therefore, it doesn’t show evolutionary relationships. It shows that, say, humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than to gorillas, but not the time or genetic distance between the species. A phylogram, on the other hand, has branch distance proportional to evolutionary distance, whether based on genetics or characteristics.

Pause at 5:10 Elaborate...

Reword your question...

What is that in regard to, can you elaborate your whole point?

Let me know if you'd like to discuss this.

no

Not just the tiger, study 6:06 where the node is circled in green...

You are a bit wrong, Tigers and Cheetah are not from the same Genus

@@Sun-God2 Yes, 'closest living relative' isn't on the phylogeny shown, but in the context of the video; lions, leopards and tigers are equally related to the cheetah. That's the part I wanted kwes to understand, but as he didn't respond and you chimed in, there it is. Of course, none of those are the closest living taxa to cheetahs, that's the puma and jaguarundi. Note that 'not from the same genus' is irrelevant here, no other living taxon is in the cheetah's genus anyway!

Actually, within all felines, cheetahs are quite distant from those!

no, bears are ursidae but both ursidae and mustelidae are Arctoidea

Possibly. We do have a video explaining it on Clint's Reptiles, but a format like this might really help.

Yes would love it one here a more in-depth

No. The tree doesn't show that.