1. The three panthers (lion, tiger, leopard) are all equally related to cheetahs, as the last common ancestor cheetahs shared with panthers was further back in their evolutionary history than the last common ancestor of the panthers with respect to each other. 2. The nodal ancestry of all groups shown is preserved across both arrangements, so the phylogenies are functionally identical.
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.
I just discovered this, your “other” channel, about an hour ago. It has quickly become my favorite channel. I love learning about science and we need more young people to be interested in science. Especially in our current state of affairs where so many people believe conspiracies. Using the scientific method on these “ideas” would help them get a more accurate picture of reality.
Thank you for this! I have my first exam in evolutionary biology next week. Just found this channel, been subbed to reptiles for a while. You explain things clearly and concisely, definitely increased my fitness in regards to surviving the next semester! 😆
I'm home sick and stumbled here through your Reptile channel. You've been filling my mind with knowledge all day. Thank you. I love your channels. I would have loved to take classes with you. You're so enthusiastic. I love it.
Clint! Love this new channel. Nice job! The idea that what we are talking about is populations rather than individuals when tracing backward to common ancestors just blew my mind.
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.
Could you do a video soley on birds being reptiles? I've thought it is one of the most fascinating things to think about for a few years. Also, the warm bloodedness of birds but not crocs is super neat too. I appreciate you, thanks
I took general biology 1 and 2 at my local community college and we did not talk about any of this stuff AT ALL. The teacher actually said at the beginning of class "most of you probably aren't going to go on to be biology majors, so none of this matter anyway." So you can imagine it's thrown me for a loop now that I'm taking higher level biology courses at a 4 year college where we are expected to know this stuff LOL. Man, the credits were cheap but the education was just not good.
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
This was amazing, and brought me back to middle school where I had the coolest science teacher with a huge ball python named Lucy! It was my favorite class, as science class has always been. Biology even more so. Thanks for the rad lesson! 😎
1. The closest living relatives to cheetahs would be tigers, leopards, and lions, because they share the cheetah's most recent common ancestor. 2. The two phylogenies represent the same hypothesis, because the relationships of each animal to their common ancestors are the same. Thank you so much for this video, it was very informative!
This is an awesome explanation! In math, we call this sort of thing a poset(partially ordered set). It's a collection of things with an ordering. In this case, it's the set of animals with the ordering: animal1 < animal2, if animal2 has animal1 as an ancestor. You can make a graphical depiction of a poset called a Hasse diagram and when you do that here, you end up with a phylogenetic tree! Never made this realization before, thanks for being awesome Clint!
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).
How did I just discover this channel?!? This basically merges my evo bio major and reptile keeping. I've been subbed to Clint's main channel for like 2 years, but I guess I'm a fake fan lol
@@clintexplains5327 Seemed to help students (and instructor in this case...) understand better. For some weird reason, it won't embed into Google Slides.
If Cheetahs reproduced as quickly and numerously as flies, would that make them meaningfully a more distant modern day relative to tigers compared to lions because their population could be expected to have more mutations in that time period (assuming lions still reproduce at their normal lion rate in this hypothetical)? What if one population has more intense and distinctive environmental pressures? Are they still equally related?
What are some profund changes to classifications postulated by modern phylogenetics? Does everything fit seamlessly now the classifications a performed by ribosomal RNA or are the contentions amongst scientists with regards to groupings?
I think "level of relatedness" and "closest/ furthest relative" is a slightly misleading term in its limited scope for Phylogeny- it says nothing about genetic/ phenotypic similarity and nothing about temporal proximity in terms of evolution. There are several concepts that one could plausibly expect to be included by a term like "relatedness" that aren't and that probably bears explicitly discussing early on.
I think that's a good way to look at it for the most part but you also have to factor in if the rates of mutation are the same. In certain circumstances a species might have greater genetic overlap with another species that it diverged from farther back in time than a more recent relative. A small starting population or extreme environmental changes are a couple examples of events that can speed up the rate of mutation and how much genetic overlap two species share with each other. In your example above the lion and leopard may have chronologically split from the tiger at the same time. But I bet if you compared the lions genome to the tiger. And then the leopards genome to the tiger. You would find that the tiger has greater genetic overlap to one of them (even if it's slight) than the other just by random chance mutations.
I have one question: If, say, leopards would have significantly shorter generations than lions, leopards could have a lot more generations between the common ancestor than lions, would that change how closely related they are to tigers (using the examples in this excellent explanation)?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but phylogenetic trees are supposed to model species/whole groups and evolutionary processes. The Human example can lead to the misconception that it can model human generations, which it can't since humans are the same species.
@@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).
1. Theoretically, the closest relative of the cheetah in the diagram would be either the species depicted by the node from which tigers, lions, and leopards all descended, or the species depicted by the node from which cheetahs descended directly; therefore the cheetah is equally related to tigers, lions, and leopards, and is more closely related to those other cats than to the bear, as its relationship with the other cats can be thought of as an aunt/uncle to niece/nephew type relationship, whereas its relationship with the Grizzly bear can be thought of as a great niece/nephew to great aunt/uncle type relationship 2. If one where to move the Grizzly bears to the top of the first phylogeny, then Invert the two branches which lead to tigers, and both lions and leopards, one would end up with the layout of the second phylogeny. The first move (moving the Grizzly bears) does not alter the theory, as both depictions show that the Grizzly bears share a common ancestor with all cats depicted in the phylogeny, and the relationships between the cats remain unaltered. Likewise, the second move (moving the tigers) does not alter the theory, as both diagrams show that tigers share a common ancestor with both lions and leopards, and the relationship between lions and leopards is left unchanged
I'm so confused, wouldn't the cheetahs be more closely related to the grizzly bear because it closer to the first common ancestor? Or is it once you pass the first node you kind of disregard that specific species?
Wonderful ! Thank you . Can I use this method for reading , evolution tree , species , genus , familia ,ordo , classis, divisio, regnum ? Thank you again.
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.
This is so interesting. I watch clints reptiles because I like learning about and looking at cool reptiles. Just an hour ago I looked up why chickens aren't part of dinosauria if they are supposedly dinosaurs, and discovered 'clades'. Went to TH-cam to learn what phylogenetics was and was thrilled to see my favorite reptile channel host had a video explaining exactly that. Subbing cuz this is so cool.
@@mysticbeastdraws2067 "looked up why chickens aren't part of dinosauria if they are supposedly dinosaurs, and discovered 'clades'. Went to TH-cam 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!
What I find to be the craziest phylogeny is that horses are more closely related to dogs and cats than they are to goats or cows. Once you look at a full phylogenetic tree, it is INSANE the crazy relationships there are.
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.
@@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.
No branching can be a priori to the specific or it becomes paradoxical. Family trees begat phylogenic trees and this is the root (no pun intended) of the problem. But it is clearly referred to as a hypothesis.
Are there any examples of three organisms all being equally related to each other? For example if you have a species of tortise and then a flood redirects a river in such a way that it divides the population into three groups.
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.
1) leopards, lions and tigers 2) yes, leopards and lions remain more closely related to each other then tigers or Jaguars. and Jaguars share the same common ancestor in both as well.
So, cheetahs are equally related to other cats with a common ancestor. I don’t think the new position changes that cats are more closely related to each other than to a bear.
Is there a big book or collection of phylogenetic trees that I could buy and have as a reference for teaching my kids about all their favorite animals?
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 :)
So for the questions, is the answer for the first one that the 1st node would be the closest ancestor so bears to cheetahs. And the second one would be no change.
Why did I NOT KNOW about this channel *hits subscribed* Do you have more channels I don't know about? In my opinion you might want to cross advertise your channels more :)
1. Tigers, Leopards, Lions 2. Same phylogeny How would one depict a phylogeny with some or all of the common ancestors prior to the node, or at the node if a sub-population split off, filled in, if they're known?
Hi, I am still not really understanding the equal genetic relation versus who is more closely related. I am not sure how to think of it, I've tried putting myself in a phylogenetic tree with my family and it confused me even more. Could you help me out please! Thanks :)
I think I'm understanding 1. So since lions, leopards, and tigers all branch off from the cheetah node, that means they share a common ancestor and are equally related to each other? 2. I think they do, since leopards and lions share a common ancestor together before with tigers, that would mean they're more related to each other than tigers and cheetahs, but since lions, leopards, and tigers all branch off from the cheetah node, the cheetah is equally related to them? So yes?
A)Cheetahs are more related to lions leopards and tigers but the bear is equally related to all the big cats shown above. B) the second tree I’m Not sure …
@@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!
I lose the thread when we go from population to individuals. That is because, in my mind, there is additional genetic material from mating in the case of individuals and there is not additional genetic material in the populations, the genes mutate, form extra copies and so on but still derived from the same source. Now I can get moved around on this pretty easily but I think there are differences. I don't want to get hung up on the analogy as I think I get the point unless they are in fact the same argument then I am missing something.
@@javierhillier4252 "No we never go to individuals when we are showing the picture of the animal on the tree we mean the whole population" - that's misleading, phylogenies can and do represent individuals too
Phylogeny has it's shortcomings; how do you know the Leopard didn't diverge before the Lions; this would make it genetically closer to the tigers. And in terms of true numbers of generations.
"Phylogeny has it's shortcomings; how do you know the Leopard didn't diverge before the Lions" - since it's a split into 2 lineages from one, how can one be before the other?! "this would make it genetically closer to the tigers" - no, it wouldn't make it closer to the tiger. The total divergence time since both lions and leopards split from tigers is the same. It doesn't matter when those 2 subsequently split from each other
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.
I spent an hour trying to figure out phylogenic trees, this video answered all my questions in five minutes
1. The three panthers (lion, tiger, leopard) are all equally related to cheetahs, as the last common ancestor cheetahs shared with panthers was further back in their evolutionary history than the last common ancestor of the panthers with respect to each other.
2. The nodal ancestry of all groups shown is preserved across both arrangements, so the phylogenies are functionally identical.
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.
I want Clint as my Biology teacher please. I like how he always has sparkle in his eyes when he explains things!
Agreed
If he's teaching you biology he is your biology teacher :)
@@ComandaKronikk Especially while dating!
what the freak is wrong with you @@ConservativeAnthem
I just discovered this, your “other” channel, about an hour ago. It has quickly become my favorite channel. I love learning about science and we need more young people to be interested in science. Especially in our current state of affairs where so many people believe conspiracies. Using the scientific method on these “ideas” would help them get a more accurate picture of reality.
What’s the other channel?
@@Marcosaur03 client's reptiles
Well said ❣️🫶🏻☀️
1. Lions, leopards and tigers are equally related to cheetahs.
2. The two phylogenetic trees show the same things.
I think...
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 found this channel yesterday and I'm soooooo thrilled about it. Cant wait to watch every video you make here 🥰
I'm so glad you found us!
Thank you for this! I have my first exam in evolutionary biology next week. Just found this channel, been subbed to reptiles for a while. You explain things clearly and concisely, definitely increased my fitness in regards to surviving the next semester! 😆
I'm home sick and stumbled here through your Reptile channel. You've been filling my mind with knowledge all day. Thank you. I love your channels. I would have loved to take classes with you. You're so enthusiastic. I love it.
Just watched this before a Biology exam, god bless you, this has helped clarify phylogeny so much!
Clint! Love this new channel. Nice job!
The idea that what we are talking about is populations rather than individuals when tracing backward to common ancestors just blew my mind.
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.
clint would make a good science teacher!! id kill for him to teach my class.
Thank you! No need to kill, just subscribe :)
Could you do a video soley on birds being reptiles? I've thought it is one of the most fascinating things to think about for a few years. Also, the warm bloodedness of birds but not crocs is super neat too. I appreciate you, thanks
That's a great idea!
These are absolutely the best videos I watch on TH-cam
Thank you so much! That is so good to hear.
I took general biology 1 and 2 at my local community college and we did not talk about any of this stuff AT ALL. The teacher actually said at the beginning of class "most of you probably aren't going to go on to be biology majors, so none of this matter anyway." So you can imagine it's thrown me for a loop now that I'm taking higher level biology courses at a 4 year college where we are expected to know this stuff LOL. Man, the credits were cheap but the education was just not good.
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
these videos are super helpful im starting a biology course at college because you inspire me
This was amazing, and brought me back to middle school where I had the coolest science teacher with a huge ball python named Lucy! It was my favorite class, as science class has always been. Biology even more so. Thanks for the rad lesson! 😎
Finally a video that explains phylogenetics! I’m going to have to draw one of these with crocodilians and birds.
We show that exact tree in our monophyly video.
I guess I’m learning science just for fun now 💁🏼♀️
Woot you’re almost at 1k already! Well done CE!
Thank you! It's really exciting :)
1. The closest living relatives to cheetahs would be tigers, leopards, and lions, because they share the cheetah's most recent common ancestor.
2. The two phylogenies represent the same hypothesis, because the relationships of each animal to their common ancestors are the same.
Thank you so much for this video, it was very informative!
1: Tigers, Leopards and Lions. They share a common ancestor. 2: Yes, those diagrams show the same information.
This is an awesome explanation! In math, we call this sort of thing a poset(partially ordered set). It's a collection of things with an ordering. In this case, it's the set of animals with the ordering: animal1 < animal2, if animal2 has animal1 as an ancestor. You can make a graphical depiction of a poset called a Hasse diagram and when you do that here, you end up with a phylogenetic tree! Never made this realization before, thanks for being awesome Clint!
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).
How did I just discover this channel?!? This basically merges my evo bio major and reptile keeping. I've been subbed to Clint's main channel for like 2 years, but I guess I'm a fake fan lol
Excellent, clear explanations. Thank you.
Thanks for this. Saw it posted in the AP Bio teacher FB group and doing this rn with my AP Bio classes. Helpful!
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.
If Cheetahs reproduced as quickly and numerously as flies, would that make them meaningfully a more distant modern day relative to tigers compared to lions because their population could be expected to have more mutations in that time period (assuming lions still reproduce at their normal lion rate in this hypothetical)? What if one population has more intense and distinctive environmental pressures? Are they still equally related?
What are some profund changes to classifications postulated by modern phylogenetics?
Does everything fit seamlessly now the classifications a performed by ribosomal RNA or are the contentions amongst scientists with regards to groupings?
Thanks so much :DD Your passion for the subject is really motivating.
I think "level of relatedness" and "closest/ furthest relative" is a slightly misleading term in its limited scope for Phylogeny- it says nothing about genetic/ phenotypic similarity and nothing about temporal proximity in terms of evolution. There are several concepts that one could plausibly expect to be included by a term like "relatedness" that aren't and that probably bears explicitly discussing early on.
This is not valid at all. Reply if you'd like to discuss.
I hope you post to this channel again someday!
I think that's a good way to look at it for the most part but you also have to factor in if the rates of mutation are the same. In certain circumstances a species might have greater genetic overlap with another species that it diverged from farther back in time than a more recent relative. A small starting population or extreme environmental changes are a couple examples of events that can speed up the rate of mutation and how much genetic overlap two species share with each other. In your example above the lion and leopard may have chronologically split from the tiger at the same time. But I bet if you compared the lions genome to the tiger. And then the leopards genome to the tiger. You would find that the tiger has greater genetic overlap to one of them (even if it's slight) than the other just by random chance mutations.
I have one question: If, say, leopards would have significantly shorter generations than lions, leopards could have a lot more generations between the common ancestor than lions, would that change how closely related they are to tigers (using the examples in this excellent explanation)?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but phylogenetic trees are supposed to model species/whole groups and evolutionary processes. The Human example can lead to the misconception that it can model human generations, which it can't since humans are the same species.
How did I not know you made this channel? This is quality stuff. I hope you don’t mind if I use it in my classes, because I will be doing that.
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).
1. Theoretically, the closest relative of the cheetah in the diagram would be either the species depicted by the node from which tigers, lions, and leopards all descended, or the species depicted by the node from which cheetahs descended directly; therefore the cheetah is equally related to tigers, lions, and leopards, and is more closely related to those other cats than to the bear, as its relationship with the other cats can be thought of as an aunt/uncle to niece/nephew type relationship, whereas its relationship with the Grizzly bear can be thought of as a great niece/nephew to great aunt/uncle type relationship
2. If one where to move the Grizzly bears to the top of the first phylogeny, then Invert the two branches which lead to tigers, and both lions and leopards, one would end up with the layout of the second phylogeny. The first move (moving the Grizzly bears) does not alter the theory, as both depictions show that the Grizzly bears share a common ancestor with all cats depicted in the phylogeny, and the relationships between the cats remain unaltered. Likewise, the second move (moving the tigers) does not alter the theory, as both diagrams show that tigers share a common ancestor with both lions and leopards, and the relationship between lions and leopards is left unchanged
1. Your thinking is correct, but your miswording renders it wrong, for part of it, that is. See if you can spot it.
I'm so confused, wouldn't the cheetahs be more closely related to the grizzly bear because it closer to the first common ancestor? Or is it once you pass the first node you kind of disregard that specific species?
thank you for this very educational share !
well and now every paper in the future will relate all of their observations to tigers. Good Job.
I LOOOOOOOVE 💖💖💖 Your method of teaching. your image is soooo likable.
Wonderful ! Thank you . Can I use this method for reading , evolution tree , species , genus , familia ,ordo , classis, divisio, regnum ?
Thank you again.
this is brilliant. i have misinterpreted phylogenetic tree all my life.
7:12 can someone explain how the two diagrams represent the same hypothesis, Im still having trouble understanding
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!
I think you just saved my grade in my Vert. bio class.
Can you explain what is a subspecies? For example, What's the Difference between _Jaholocanthus yotari yotari_ and _Jaholocanthus yotari makri_ ?
Those subspecies live in different areas and have differences, but can interbreed (with non-sterile offspring)
This is so interesting. I watch clints reptiles because I like learning about and looking at cool reptiles. Just an hour ago I looked up why chickens aren't part of dinosauria if they are supposedly dinosaurs, and discovered 'clades'. Went to TH-cam to learn what phylogenetics was and was thrilled to see my favorite reptile channel host had a video explaining exactly that. Subbing cuz this is so cool.
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 TH-cam 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!
What I find to be the craziest phylogeny is that horses are more closely related to dogs and cats than they are to goats or cows. Once you look at a full phylogenetic tree, it is INSANE the crazy relationships there are.
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.
This was very entertaining and informal, I really loved it thanks.
WHAT COLLEGE COURSES DO I HAVE TO TAKE TO TAKE CLASSES ABOUT THIS. Currently working on a bio major and BEARLY survived with a 70% C
No branching can be a priori to the specific or it becomes paradoxical. Family trees begat phylogenic trees and this is the root (no pun intended) of the problem. But it is clearly referred to as a hypothesis.
Are there any examples of three organisms all being equally related to each other? For example if you have a species of tortise and then a flood redirects a river in such a way that it divides the population into three groups.
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!
1) leopards, lions and tigers
2) yes, leopards and lions remain more closely related to each other then tigers or Jaguars. and Jaguars share the same common ancestor in both as well.
Thanks, I was so confused in my bio lab learning this 😵💫
I've been waiting for this video for so long!!
Hopefully it was worth the wait.
@@clintexplains5327 100x better then expected!!! You're the best Clint! ❤
Please make more videos related to taxonomy and such
We will for sure!
@@clintexplains5327 thank you!!!! 🥰
Explained better than my bio 3 class in college.
Watching this so I understand the lizard video on the other channel. I listened! 😅
Right. I am a very nerdy person. Time to take some notes.
That's a very good teacher
But this says nothing about how much actual genetic difference there is between these organisms, only how many years are between them correct?
So, cheetahs are equally related to other cats with a common ancestor. I don’t think the new position changes that cats are more closely related to each other than to a bear.
I think you've got it!
Is there a big book or collection of phylogenetic trees that I could buy and have as a reference for teaching my kids about all their favorite animals?
That's a great idea!
This is really cool. Thanks Clint
I can say with 100% accuracy, I'm confused.
But I'm having fun!
The closest living relatives to the cheetah on the phylogeny are the lions, tigers, and leopards.
Redrawing it in the way you did changed nothing.
Phylogenetics can be complicated to explain. Where do you stand on the 'there is no such thing as a fish' phylogenetic thought piece?
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 :)
Holy crap he had another channel!
Great explanation!
So for the questions, is the answer for the first one that the 1st node would be the closest ancestor so bears to cheetahs. And the second one would be no change.
If the tiger's last common ancestor was the same of that of the lion's and leopards then they are all equally related?
Why did I NOT KNOW about this channel *hits subscribed* Do you have more channels I don't know about? In my opinion you might want to cross advertise your channels more :)
How to add the early primates whose data isn't available on ncbi.
Please explain Parthenogenesis
1. Tigers, Leopards, Lions
2. Same phylogeny
How would one depict a phylogeny with some or all of the common ancestors prior to the node, or at the node if a sub-population split off, filled in, if they're known?
Reword your question...
So does this mean in theroy would could have a leopard x lion hybrid or tiger x leopard hybrid?
No
Hi, I am still not really understanding the equal genetic relation versus who is more closely related. I am not sure how to think of it, I've tried putting myself in a phylogenetic tree with my family and it confused me even more. Could you help me out please! 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.
HELP! How to use distance scale in such graphs???
Pause at 5:10
Elaborate...
I think I'm understanding
1. So since lions, leopards, and tigers all branch off from the cheetah node, that means they share a common ancestor and are equally related to each other?
2. I think they do, since leopards and lions share a common ancestor together before with tigers, that would mean they're more related to each other than tigers and cheetahs, but since lions, leopards, and tigers all branch off from the cheetah node, the cheetah is equally related to them? So yes?
Let me know if you'd like to discuss this.
It shows a diffrent phynogenetics because it says the chetah, the leopard and the lion are both euqual related to one another.
no
Yes, both phylogeny trees are equivalent.
Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!
Well done!
A)Cheetahs are more related to lions leopards and tigers but the bear is equally related to all the big cats shown above.
B) the second tree I’m
Not sure …
I think he made a mistake; Wanda could be fewer generations down from the shared ancestor, meaning she is more closely related to Spencer. Idk.
No. The tree doesn't show that.
Thank you...
1.Lion, leopard, Tiger all are closely related to cheeta.
2.Yes, both phylogenetic tree are same
Actually, within all felines, cheetahs are quite distant from those!
The closest living relative to cheetahs is Tiger. Pls can you give me feedback if I’m wrong or not
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!
I lose the thread when we go from population to individuals. That is because, in my mind, there is additional genetic material from mating in the case of individuals and there is not additional genetic material in the populations, the genes mutate, form extra copies and so on but still derived from the same source. Now I can get moved around on this pretty easily but I think there are differences. I don't want to get hung up on the analogy as I think I get the point unless they are in fact the same argument then I am missing something.
What is that in regard to, can you elaborate your whole point?
No we never go to individuals when we are showing the picture of the animal on the tree we mean the whole population
You can get genetic mutations giving you new combinations
I conclude you know your comment is without merit.
@@javierhillier4252 "No we never go to individuals when we are showing the picture of the animal on the tree we mean the whole population"
- that's misleading, phylogenies can and do represent individuals too
1. The lion, tiger and leopard are equally the closest relatives to the cheetah
2. Yes.
This is a great video
Subscribed and found today ;)
Great video, it really helped. Thanks!
I'm so glad! Thanks for the great feedback.
What a helpful video!
Phylogeny has it's shortcomings; how do you know the Leopard didn't diverge before the Lions; this would make it genetically closer to the tigers. And in terms of true numbers of generations.
"Phylogeny has it's shortcomings; how do you know the Leopard didn't diverge before the Lions"
- since it's a split into 2 lineages from one, how can one be before the other?!
"this would make it genetically closer to the tigers"
- no, it wouldn't make it closer to the tiger. The total divergence time since both lions and leopards split from tigers is the same. It doesn't matter when those 2 subsequently split from each other
Just found this channel
Yea this is dope keep this going 🎯🔥
Are Cladograms different from a Phylogenetic tree?
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.
Thank you sir 😇🙏🏻
is phlogenetics only based on the coding regions or in other words the genes .?
No, as with Linnaean taxonomy, morphology is used, as is amino acid protein sequences.
thank you, i learned a lot :)
Thank you!
Thanks SO much !