ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ก.พ. 2020
- The classification of animal groups is essential to the the development of modern biology-but it's extremely complicated. Trying to shoehorn the messy, complicated web of interrelationships that is biology into neat boxes has resulted in a pretty messy tree of life that we'll try to break down for you in this episode of SciShow!
Hosted by: Olivia Gordon
SciShow has a spinoff podcast! It's called SciShow Tangents. Check it out at www.scishowtangents.org
----------
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: / scishow
----------
Huge thanks go to the following Patreon supporters for helping us keep SciShow free for everyone forever:
Kevin Bealer, KatieMarie Magnone, D.A. Noe, Charles Southerland, Eric Jensen, Christopher R Boucher, Alex Hackman, Matt Curls, Adam Brainard, Scott Satovsky Jr, Sam Buck, Avi Yashchin, Ron Kakar, Chris Peters, Kevin Carpentier, Patrick D. Ashmore, Piya Shedden, Sam Lutfi, charles george, Greg
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Tumblr: / scishow
Instagram: / thescishow
----------
Sources:
ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/gl...
Irie et al 2018 zoologicalletters.biomedcentr...
Komarek and Beutel 2007 www.researchgate.net/publicat...
Satoh et al 2014 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Padial et al 2010 frontiersinzoology.biomedcent...
de Queiroz 2012 hydrodictyon.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb...
www.royalsociety.org.nz/asset...
www.cbd.int/gti/importance.shtml
academic.oup.com/bioscience/a...
phys.org/news/2017-08-biodive...
www.cell.com/current-biology/...
www.britannica.com/animal/tur...
www.britannica.com/animal/din...
www.biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/artic...
science.sciencemag.org/conten...
Images:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Li...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:La...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sp...
nautiluslive.org/video/2019/0...
commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Li...
![[Full Episode] Hell's Kitchen Thailand EP.14 | 12 พ.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MNspIlqlJcc/mqdefault.jpg)
Suddenly, cleaning and organizing the garage seems way easier.
Thomas Hughes ha ha. my apartment too.
Lol, I'd rather tackle taxonomy than cleaning my house...
@@stmistry Ok, that's nearly done, time to tackle taxonomy!
I do the same while cleaning my house!
‘Oh a new video! Time to clean something while listening!’ Multitasking!
@liam Anderson I have no clue what that means...
Save the Taxonomists, they're an endangered species
How so?
@@galek75 Taxidermy.
How do you become one? I wouldn’t mind being one tbh.
@@luckygnome2746 you study taxonomy or systematics at a university. or you nerd out completely on an organism group of your choice. but it can be difficult to get old-schoolers to accept your conclusions if you don't have a degree :)
or even if you do have a degree...
11:05
"Ultimately, it might be time to prune a few branches on the tree of life."
If you take this quote out of context, it sounds much darker than it was meant to be.
With climate change, we're pruning away.
@@kathryngeeslin9509 Sad but true ...
th-cam.com/video/CqCx9xU_-Fw/w-d-xo.html
That SO sounds like something a supervillian would say. Probably in a calm and elegant way, with an upper-class British accent.
@@robinchesterfield42 while stroking a cat and sipping a martini
@@chrismain7472 Exactly! "I am afraid, Mr. Bond" (reaches across the polished mahogany desk to push a red button) "that it might be time to _prune_ a few branches on the tree of life..."
THIS, THIS MY FRIENDS, IS WHAT I HAVE TO DEAL EVERY WORKING DAY OF MY LIFE AS A BIOLOGY GRADUATE STUDENT. Just, thank you.
When one studies biology... confusion, confusion everywhere...!
It appears that our 'Tree of Life' has both _roots AND branches._
Oopsie, sorry Bio Students😂😂😂
Imagine what microbiologist students have to deal with!
@@Ignasimp I do know, it is a living hell. I'm specially afraid of fungi taxonomy, that's a mess.
@@ajguevara6961 yes, that's why when I studied microbiology we didn't even mention kingdoms, they are like very artificial and don't help at all at understanding a thing.
That reminds me of Cleopatra being in the time line closer to the moon landing than the building of the Pyramids.
Wow is that true?
TheLadyDelirium surprisingly yeah
and mammoths were still roaming around up north when those pyramids were being built!
@@TheLadyDelirium Cleopatra was around the same time as Julius Caesar, just over 2000 years ago. The Pyramids were built near the beginning of Ancient Egypt maybe slightly less than 5000 years ago, which would've been something like 3000 years before Cleopatra's time. Roughly anyway. So yeah it's true.
@@TheLadyDelirium The first pyramids, not all pyramids.
No taxonomy without representonomy!
Remember to phylum your taxonomy
@@claimingseven72 -Watch your language, there may be children reading this.
Christel Headington but taxonomy season ends April 15th! They need to know.
Rent!
@@christelheadington1136 What?
I remember in school being split into groups to come up with our own mnemonic for the taxonomic ranks. We decided we were just going to brute-force pronounce it "dukkapuhcofagus." I still remember.
Clearly, it works, then.
Lol
In my chemistry class, we came up with one like that for the di-atomic identicals; H2, O2, N2, Cl2, F2, Br2, I2: "hon-cle (like 'uncle') fuh-bri"
I biology, the teacher taught us the one she figured we'd remember: King Phil Can Only Fart Good Smells
"Domain" wasn't included
Or maybe we were just supposed to remember "domain" and I forgot about it in the last couple decades.
How to start a brawl at a biologist convention? Ask them what the definition of "species" is.
I remember being in High School biology being taught the definition of a species. I don't recall the specific definition word for word, but whatever it was, it separated Great Danes and Chihuahua's into different species.
@@oxenfree6192 they’re not though.
@@oxenfree6192 they are breeds of dog. Far from a different species.
@@roenherkth2821 that may be the point of the story, as in "can you believe they taught me this?"
To understand this, it is best to first understand something called "species paradox".
I really think this video should have mentioned the terms "clade" and "cladistics". Maybe also the problems classifying microorganisms including horizontal gene transfer.
Not to mention naturally occurring hybrids and ring species! Even species are fuzzy when you get down to it.
Meanwhile, virus taxonomists are totally lost...
It's a 12 minute video, and the microorganism bit could be an entire hour long video by itself..
True,well the video is kind some decades late, is not that big issue anymore and phylogenetic cladistic and using both morphologic and genetic information are already the norm..
Yes, that bugged me too!
So author William Faulkner was ahead of his time when his young protagonist in "As I Lay Dying" declares:
"My mother is a fish."
Hindi tradition say that humans came from fish
Those guys were really ahead of thar tine
Rubens Martins de Carvalho there’s mentions of microbes in ancient Jainist text too
@@Darknight4434 and DragonofEpics both of your replies hint at the depth of insight to be found in ancient beliefs, traditions and writings from the Asian sub-continent. Your comments serve as valuable reminders that despite the western world's propensity to dismiss an entire culture by reducing it to the caricature of urine-guzzlers worshiping blue gods, elephant boys and cows, there is nonetheless an abundance of scientific and philosophical concepts which, though only newly emerged in the west, can be found as thematic elements in eastern culture - dating from a time when most northern European culture (without the benefit of writing) was no more sophisticated than the severe restrictions of oral tradition would allow.
@@Darknight4434 One lucky guess versus magical thinking and all the nonsense about sky daddies and mummies. 🙄
@@fishypaw relax dude, is just a joke. Im not suggesting that hinduism is right about the world
I just wanna say..
Olivia has come a long way. I remember when she first came on SciShow, lots of people didn't like her. Negative comments about her appearance and whatnot were the only things you could read. It was heartbreaking to see, and I'm pretty sure it must have been bloody discouraging..
But I'm glad she kept adapting and learning. I'm glad she kept it up and never gave up on this. She's become a better communicator, and these videos are a real treat, especially with her as the presenter. I'm some random on the internet, but I gotta say, I'm hella proud of you, Olivia. I hope you continue to make awesome SciShow content with the rest of the team! I absolutely love these vids ^-^
It is heartbreaking to see how ladies have negative comments about their...APPEARANCE. Mostly women, ladies, from men. And on alot of videos, shows, sing, films...Never about men (or rare!). Here this ladie is still young and pretty and she needs work. If a woman is smart, smiling, but older and without grace, IT doen't matter. Negative comments are always nasty. Let us alone, men...Interesting video, thanks! excuse my very bad english
I like to think that the characters in the "The Big Bang Theory" have crept into the hearts of viewers.
Scientists: Are you a reptile?
Birds:Well yes but actually no
But if you want to be picky, ALL life has a common ancestor if you go far enough back. At what point is it considered an offshoot?
@@selalewow it's a different species when it can't mate to produce offspring *shrug!
Birds are reptiles. There's no "actually" about it.
Birds are dino's
@@Antuan444 I was always told that dinosaurs are not reptiles
Nature always finds a way to defy the rules and names we define for it, almost as if it doesn't want to be identified, and I love that about it.
This and the comment currently right below it ("I'm looking at you platypus") SEEM to have been made to go together, and that's amazing. XD
But you're right. Part of _why_ everything in nature is so fascinating is its tendency to go "SCREW YOU, HUMAN UNDERSTANDING!" and flip us off as it goes back to doing its own thing. XD
Also stop overcharging me for all these stupid home upgrades I didn't even ask for, Tom Nook! ;)
Looks like Blathers forgot to log out of Tom Nook's account
Well then, we will keep exterminating it until it is easy enough to classify then.
The thing with the reptiles and birds is so strong it's interesting to read some papers because they refer to what we typically think of as reptiles as non-avian reptiles
There is a whole sub section of the internet such as TV Tropes who would love to get their hands on organizing a flow chart of all the life in the world. Why don't we just ask somebody in charge if we can Crowdsource this? I'm sure with a popular website and the right advertisement we could get thousands of people a day organizing animals for fun.
The proplem comes with how able they are to do it. There is a lot of testing needed and giving them the right tools and traing maybe extreamly tricky.
Aron Ra's Phylogenetic Project
To add to Orson Zedd's comment: Here is the website: phylogenyexplorerproject.com/ which has options to volunteer or donate.
Though it is based on cladistics(the monophyletics described in the video)/phylogenetics instead of the Linnaeon taxonomy to address the issues described in the video. See this video for a bit more depth th-cam.com/video/cRb22e1vysg/w-d-xo.html.
Bonus informative recommendations: The systematic classification of life series by Aron Ra th-cam.com/video/AXQP_R-yiuw/w-d-xo.html
with a couple of Journey to the Microcosmos (if you don't already know of it) th-cam.com/video/wS2mdmt4JPw/w-d-xo.html episodes after the first 3 to 4 episodes of the prior series to get a better sense of real cases similar to early life, although actually evolved for the same length of time as us.
I guess you underestimate the sheer amount of data involved. It's already tricky to get the 2 million or so known species online somewhere, and it' especially tricky to keep it up to date, because taxonomy is evolving faster than a bat virus on a wet market.
this is how we get "Birdy McBirb Face" instead of Avian
Looks like the tree of life needs to *evolve* but seems like this work will be very *taxing*
Phylum: what you do with a taxonomy return.
;-)
Ba-dum tisss.
@@BengtRosini13 I feel like u just pulled a simon whistler
@@matthewcox7985 this made me laugh more than once...I'll give u the 'W'
You'd think lizards and turtles would be considered their own orders at this point. "Reptiles" should be a supra-order, if we're going to bother keeping the old ranks at all.
And yet the Supra was revamped...Oh, Olivia!
I tought reptilia was just thrown at the trash by now.
@Dinosaur dominus I mean, you fit the turtles in where you can, when you can. And the last time I checked, recent genetic evidence strongly suggested that they're diaspids like lizards and dinosaurs and such, in spite of the window-less skulls (one of the things that was confusing about them). Fossil evidence was already suggesting they might be cousins of plesiosaurs, so it fits.
And if they had turned out to be more distant from lizards than mammals, then I guess that would either make turtles not reptiles, or mammals very fuzzy reptiles.
@Dinosaur dominus What about DNA distance?
it's like herptiles, it's not that helpful of a label. (or make aves a subclass under reptilia)
I just went back to school (as an adult) and tonight was my second class. Low and behold our class tonight was all about taxonomy! Great timing, I got to pull the video up on youtube for the class to watch. We all really enjoyed it!
Thanks as always Sci Show. Keep on learning!
Even Darwin was before Genetics. Mendel was just starting his research when Darwin published his magnum opus and Darwin isn't believed to have ever read any of Mendel's findings.
Taxonomy is challenging since the relationships first described didn't have anything to do with ancestry but merely with morphology/function. Ancestry has long been a contested question. It will always be challenging to impose a Darwinistic outlook onto that structure. Issues abound: fertility, genetic, morphological, and geographical methods of defining relationships all tend to render different shaped trees. Then there is the issue that convergence isn't merely morphological but also genetic: you can't simply assume relatedness because of similar genes or shape/function.
Taxonomy will always be a human imposition onto the world: the content of which will never be unquestionable. But doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Most of the important yet unanswerable questions in life are vital precisely because of the information we gain in the search for a better purchase toward a solution.
So then how could taxonomy constitute objective knowledge?
What is a Domain? I've heard of all the other classifications save that one.
@@galek75 Few things are absent of bias. When I worked for the Fish and Wildlife Service, there were occasions (not often but there were several) that certain species were labeled as separate species and it just 'happened' to be the case that by such a label they became endangered species (as opposed to sub-species or mere variations of the same species). Many jobs depend on such labels.
There are also many PhDs had at re-arraigning things on the tree.
The data obtained is hung on a structure of definitions. If there is a cost to one self for changing the definition, its typically done in such a way as to favor the one building the structure. Data never interprets themselves.
@@johnkelly7757 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_(biology)
@@1stGruhn Quite true. And yet there are people who go too far.
In all seriousness, These videos are really educational! Thanks, SciShow!
Look it's Indiana Jones!
@@edgelord8337 WHO is Indiana Jones in the show???
When I was taking a plant systematics class, my professor told me that most taxanomic ranking, with the exception of species and maybe genera, are arbitrary
But like a good analogy, it's useful while remaining inaccurate.
Even species is somewhat arbitrary. Look up ring species as an example of why. Look at any lineage and try to find the boundary between two species, even with perfect and complete information. In reality there is none.
Taxonomy is a valuable tool to sort life into useful boxes that in reality don't exist.
@@0urmunchk1n just wanted to say how much I agree. Biology (well, all of science. Well, literally every topic) is so much more complicated than what we learn in school
But plants hybridize readily, and there are also self-pollinating and other asexually replicating ...types, which makes the definition of 'species' even more arbitrary than with animals.
True. Except species is very arbitrary as well.
3:33 That is the friendliest looking crocodile I've ever seen.
Soooo...we need a Dewey Decimal System for taxonomy?
no.........NOOOOOOOOOOOOO
@@adroitdroid5989 Librarian?
More like Library of Congress system.
And it all started with those dang cells!
Some believe they weren't even "cells" as we know them now.. more like protocells or something like that.
Regardless.. it is deducible that there was one horny stranger among the group that changed everything at some point.
Meteor should’ve come earlier ngl
@@branm5459 not probable
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep Not true, read up on abiogenesis. Quite some discoveries in the past few decennia.
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep Ah ok, so there must have been a god or something that designed life.
Some branches of Lineus' work have already been pruned... like rocks... This video also reminded me of two things from my studies. One was my vertebrate evolution professor telling us that reptile was a 'waste basket' term. The other was when I was writing my bachelor thesis and had to describe the taxonomic place of a fossil fish and it belonged to two classes somehow. This was not an error, it just did (the class as a whole was part of the other class, but the same rank).
Looking for a fish with the same interests as me.
There a catfish that hunt pigeons look it up...
Oda? Relative of Eiichiro Oda? :D
#1 Tako haha I am Norwegian and Oda is from Norse mythology meaning “small pointed spear” but I hear lots of people in Japan have it as a last name!
There’s plenty of fish in the sea
GenPone finally it makes sense with the fish references in the Bible
As a taxonomist describing my 5th species, this video touches on such a good array of complex issues that have remained underdisccused for too long, including ones we are constantly trying to accomodate. Thank you!
I find taxonomy really fascinating and this video was interesting, thank you! Especially that bit about humans being closer to urchins than jellyfish to box jellyfish.
Aron Ra has a great series on his channel called The Systematic Classification of Life, a project he is involved in to make a "tree" of life that's more understandable.
In my biology class we were taught that King Phillip came over for something more...scandalous than great soup
"Dear King Phillip came over for great S U C C ."
in my class we learned King Philip Came Over From Germany Sailing
@@brianseimandi2755 great success
Dear King Philip came over for great "sausage"
Truly amazing content, this channel never ceases to amaze me, bravo! I am really so interested in the topics you discuss, they are on my mind, and then boom a sci show video explaining more!
Wow! this was a very well done thorough rich informative video! truly well done and presented! thank you
This most off topic I could possibly be:
This helped me to understand how the Rito from The Legend of Zelda evolved from the Zora.
Nerdy, and again off topic, but yeah.
I thought it was divine intervention from the gods that forced Zora evolution to the Rito? They didn’t want anyone finding old Hyrule, so they forced Zora to evolve, preventing them from swimming down to find it.
Well at one point they both lived at once but after the flooding, the Zora died since they are freshwater creatures.
It has helped me in understanding the convoluted timeline and the many species that have spawned in it. That much I'll say
@@captainrobots1 But then how both Rito and Zora are still alived in Breath of the Wild?
@@nidohime6233 the games are not in order from what timeline the games are set in.
You can find online what timeline each game is in.
This was a fantastic episode! I wish I would have had this in high school because I always felt like reptiles were way to diverse. Keep up the great work 😊
This is why I watch SciShow, thank you for explaining this
This was a very difficult issue to explain and you did am amazing job. Props to you!
"there's no such thing as a fish"
Fish = non-amniote vertibrate
All vertibrates that are not amniotes.
@@nikkilee3840 so a frog is a fish then?
a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animal with gills and fins and living wholly in water.
@@quintanshelton7491 so a shark is a fish? That was from Stephen j Gould when he researched the genetics of fish and aquatic life for decades and concluded that quote.
@@mandarth9951 yes, sharks are and have long been classed as fish and that is not the problem this comment is talking about
Thank you for being so relatable.
I'm looking at you platypus
I have a B.S. in Zoology and this kind of topic fascinates me. Maybe it's past time for the Tree of Life to given a good shaking! 😁
They haven't even mentioned the sideways transmission of genes or endosymbiosis. These also alter the tree of life. It is getting quite messy!
Can you make a follow-up video explaining cladistics? Like some of the differences in organisation and such. Would be an interesting video :).
People: Lol, English spelling and pronounciation are messed up!
Latin: Cniaria!
Cnidaria. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnidaria
It's the fkd up english pronounciation fking it up, not the Latin.
In Latin I can very well spell this : sne-dah-re-ah.
having a k-like sound before an 'n' isn't that weird, it's just that English doesn't have that combination for whatever reason, also cnidaria stems from Greek, not Latin.
@@rasmusn.e.m1064 It's not a k sound but a c sound.
@@entyropy3262 And a c-like sound is what exactly? XD It comes from a Greek word with a k in it so this better be good...
I dont know a lot of words you said, but boy do I love learning
Awesome improvement in your tonality! Really nice to listen to you now.
Videos like this reminds me the real world isn't a neatly-put-into-boxes thing. My organising mind woes at this.
The video needed some more thorough research. It is quite surprising that the main "problem" mentioned for DNA barcoding-based species description was the lack of resources or accesibility to some researchers/amateurs. Nothing was mentioned about that DNA barcoding, even if useful in countless situations, is conceptually an oversimplification that leads to incorrect species estimation in many cases, particularly when great speciators are involved. DNA barcoding can speed up some species descriptions but, when it fails (hybridization, incomplete lineage sorting, paralogy, radiations, etc.), correcting the failures may take an enormous amount of resources, both in time and funds. There are no shortcuts when describing species, just to have taxonomists working hard and combining all available data, from more classical morphological descriptions to the state-of-the-art molecular techniques.
damn you scishow for the call for action at the end. I always end up feeling so inspired to do research for everything science related!!!!!!
Nice to know how well-recognized the inconsistencies and often weird logic of taxonomy is. I just started learning this stuff and realizing how many weird or contradictory things there are in classifying life. I chalk it up to the fact it's a somewhat arbitrary art, as well as us having a lot more to learn to try to connect the dots on the tree of life.
When I watch my chickens run, I am reminded that this could be how some dinosaur look when running.
The skeletons of chickens and Tyrannosaurus Rex are 95% the same.
There is one major difference, non avian dinosaurs had long tails which balanced them while running, birds dont have it and because of this they have a much more upstanding stance
@@davidpavel5017 Plus, the size of course ;-)
There is famously less difference between a human & a banana. I think I am remembering it correctly; that factoid amused me.
Wait till you find out about chickens with toilet plungers attached to their backside
Molecular taxonomy is priceless, but overestimated for systematics on the large scale. Paraphyletic morphological taxa should exist. If some two groups of jellyfishes so ancient that are more different genetically than humans and some worms, still all their ancestors were jellyfishes, it's relatively conservative groups with "slow" evolution and it is fine to keep it in the same rank as some other phyla that evolved more intensively, but have not enough time to change so much genetically. Main purpose of systematics is to made work with biodiversity more sufficient. Molecular methods great to find polyphyly or some hidden close relations, but if to made a system only by genetic differences ignoring morphology (like 95% differences, 90% differences, etc) - it will be unusable for practical purposes. Molecular taxonomy should be fixing morphological, not replacing it. There are some scientists, mostly geneticists, who telling that we don't need morphology as we can sequence DNA now - hate those guys, so wrong.
That would destroy a natural taxonomy. More like phylogenetic system and paraphyletic practical one can exist in parallel, but natural phylogenetic system should not be spoiled by paraphyletic taxa
You're also asking us to ignore the behaviors of individual species when you only classify by DNA.
Things we can't see or even predict when we just look at genetic material
Anyone who says DNA sequencing can/should replace morphology doesnt know enough about just how much damn life exists and on what time scale to argue in the first place.
@@KateeAngel paraphyletic groups are everywhere. For example, placental mammals were divided into two clades, "African" and "Laurasian", that entailed dividing of classical order Insectivora (shrews, moles and hedgehogs) into two orders (or even 3), one in "African" clade and one in "Laurasian". It doesn't mean that Insectivora was polyphyletic (but it is paraphyletic), these groups of living forms (shrews, moles and hedgehogs) evolved from each other without anything in transition, all their ancestor were shrews, moles and hedgehogs until their mutual ancestor. It is divided because all other placental mammals evolved from "Insectivora" (the oldest group of placental mammals) and some of insectivor lineages are genetically closer to orders that descend from them, not because they not related to other "Insectivora". Also "Insectivora" collected much more random genetic differences (that not change much in them) as they existed much longer than other placental mammals (as dinosaurs were a thing). It works that simple, smthg like 95% instead of 94% and we have one genetically and morphologically monolithic group, that was considered to be an order, to be divided into few orders ignoring morphological differences and displaced into two different superorders or some groups of that rank. Same would be with dinosaurs and birds if someone would sequence dinosaurs. And it is on the every level with every group - always someone descend from someone. So in my opinion paraphyletic taxa is much more natural than what we having here.
Entirely all of genetic based taxonomic categorization or morphological taxonomic categorization is just wrong and undermines the reality of evolutionary relationships between species. Morphological differences won't really help a biologist trying to determine if a live shark is a Caribbean Sharpnose Shark or an Atlantic Sharpnose shark without killing it. And horizontal gene transfer puts a wrench in the idea of a perfect genetic categorization system. For now I agree that genetics should modify and correct the existing taxonomic model and not outright start from scratch. However if someone is able to come up with a better system (i.e. a mixture of genetic relationships, evolutionary metabolism [metabolism in this case being the rate of change], morphology metabolism, and genetic timescales, run through a factorization program to account for horizontal gene transfer) then let it happen. Preferably a system chosen by nature itself as opposed to one made by man. After all that's why the periodic table has withstood the test of time.
A brilliant presentation, Olivia.
Very informative. Thank you.
Could y'all do a video on why mint can help clear a stuffy nose? I was being choked by mucus until I popped in some mint gum
You just start to realize everything is a fish but with more steps or less steps? Paralleled steps? genetic river dance.
cladistically fish would basically become all vertebrates except sea squirts and kin :P
Chordata minus amniote = fish
It's really not as complicated as some people make it.
Yes, sharks are more closely related to humans than they are to lampreys. But the "fish" concept still holds some water.
This video made me feel understood, the more we think about it the more life gets complicated
Super fascinating stuff!
To quote Vinnie Barbarino from Welcome Back, Kotter "I'm so confused!"
"this makes Reptilia a paraphyletic group"
I think you'll find Reptilia is a really good song by The Strokes
that was fascinating, thanks!
its so nice to see you not twitch so much.... good job!
She's so pretty!
This episode was AWESOME! And a bit confusing. Also sad for some reason.
This was SUCH a good video
Awesome love all your videos
Imaging your job being to record footage on wasps. I will be having nightmares tonight....
Do a deep sea compilation!! Or at least a video on new species found in 20 9!
This is my jam!!!!! I made a taxonomic tree for a bunch of monster species in a comic I was working on, and through research learned about all this sort of stuff!
love this project
Although it's said death and taxes are the 2 certainties in life, in the tree of life we have death and taxonomy. Here, death is still certain, but taxonomy ...not so much.
I came here for sacred geometry....
*slowly backs out of the room
stay..... Those are part of scared geometry web map. They help you see connection, better updated than following racist's science you learn in k-12 because they can control the school with insecure
Backing out would implied that DNA are not scared geometry, good things I caught you slowly while still in same room
Delightful! Super meta! 😄 Patreon
Olivia Gordon is one of my personal favorite hosts. My daughters agree. I hope I'm not the only one who pauses the vids hoping to figure out what the tats on her forearms are though...
It is sadly comforting that I am not the only one often confused by taxonomy ;)
The more I learn about taxonomy the less I understand it.
You should watch aronra's videos on phylogenetic taxonomy
@@tigerkill420 I would watch Aron Ra if he wasnt so incredibly insufferable about his atheism
@@kelzbelz313 That's exactly why sometimes I just get frustrated and resort to taxidermy.
Animal kingdom: Our taxonomy is so messy...
Plants: Hold my root beer...
Bacteria: You, guys are funny...
Fantastic episode!! I ran around the house telling everyone the info like a kid who just found out what happens when vinegar meets baking soda.
@AronRa has a fantastic series called the systematic classification of life that really goes into detail about the issues of classical taxonomy and being a super fun ride through our own evolutionary history
According to the phylogenetic classification, the whales were fish all along.
I have had nightmares about this theme. We still don't know all the species around us and trying to understand the current tree of life gives me a headache
Excellent video. The complexity and obscurity of taxonomy reminds me of psychology which also is as much of art as it is science. Both disciples rely on formal logic and science but also creative intuition as their subject matter is neither strictly immediate nor material and therefore cannot be tested in the classical scientific sense but must deduce probably like a detective would.
I salute the efforts of all the trail blazers who describe our world in meaningful ways.
OMG THANK YOU
Thank you for the video. Please don't say "less developed" areas or regions. It is the same issue when researchers think societies can be ranked in old school evolutionary terms, an idea going back to early models when explorers thought there is a linear progression from primitiv to advanced societies. The bias therein has continued to this day and carries dangerous connotations about value ascription to certain societies, cultures and people. The measure of "development" is just as complex as evolution and hardly linear, nor relatable in terms of less and more.
I agree with you
Side note,
-Taxonomy Episode-
Scishow: Taxonomy is way more complex than we thought and the more we learn about it, the more research it needs to better and more accurately define it.
Comments: Hmmm... yes, yes, I see. Very interesting.
-Sex or gender episode-
Scishow: Gender and sex is way more complex than we thought and the more we learn about it, the more research it needs to better and more accurately define it.
Comments: BURN THEM!
Because they assumed they were paid out or were pushing an "agenda"
unfortunately :/
that episode didn't even give a whisper about gender identity, it was literally just on the literal biologic variances that exist.
@@3possumsinatrenchcoat yeah it was the clickbait title that was the problems
Because there is actual observable and very much quantifiable and justifyable data and reason behind the evolutionary pathways of biology.
And in animals (which humans are) as well as plants there only exist male, female, both sexes and sexless.
We aren't yeasts, so yes, two sexes.
Minor abberations aren't something new entirely, or you'd habe to say that people with down syndrome or other chromosomal abberations aren't humans.
And gender is a made up meaningnless term.
Amazing video!
AMAZING THUMBNAIL 😍😍
Dear King Philip,
Come out for Gods' sake!
No! it’s warm in this closet, I like it
Don King PunChes Over FlaGS
Donkey Kong Pushed Cows Over For Giggles n Shits
Dumb Kids Playing Cards On Freeways Get Smashed
@@amyk6869 Jeez, what's with all the violence?
@@kelvinelrick807 It's the version I was taught.
Chronospecies are especially fun to wrangle with. Species like Neanderthal that technically went "extinct" but also have surviving descendants.
Some decades ago, I saw a list of phyla including Vestimentifera and Pogonophora. They are both now placed in the family Siboglinidae, along with the bone-eating snot flower, an annelid which looks nothing like your typical familiar annelid.
I think I am a snake cause after every meal I go into my room and don't come out until next meal XD
Hey brother.....or sister, or whatever you may be.
Just sounds like your 15. Lol
The name taxonomy sounds too much like "Tax on a me" and nobody likes being taxed 🤔
I am a trying to get into taxonomy and something I just cannot wrap my head around is why the "mammila" class can range from 3-27 orders!
Aron Ra "systemic classification of life" is an excellent video series that goes in depth into cladistics
"Taxonomy lacks staff and funding to classify all the new species we find"
"Global warming is causing species to go extinct"
Sounds like this problem is solving itself :P
👍 to the dark joke, but 👎 to the truth of the fact.
To anyone wanting to learn about taxonomy I suggest aronra's videos on the subject
And the Phylogeny explorer project
The King Philip thing is interesting. When I was in high school, we were taught Kingdom as the broadest group. Didn't learn about Domain until a few years later.
Amazing
So it isn't the "tree" which is messed up, it's just the naming of the branches...
Ultimately the names we give things are artificial but the scientific names should give an idea to evolutionary relationships. Many scientific names may be outdated but we should be updating the system and not just trying to scrap it.
Treat it like a Language, just add another dialect to the categorizing, rather then replace it.
So, as a programmer the notion of shoehorning a new paradigm into a system coded for the old paradigm is pretty familiar. And from experience - Burn it down, stomp on the ashes. The overhead of trying to hobble along with the old ALWAYS is higher than the transition cost. Make the new system modular and data independent rather than tied to your paradigm.
Give species/subspecies a node. That node can have pointers to groups based on physical characteristics, niches, habitats, and genetic ancestry, but the species stands alone so you have the name no matter what is learned later about those relationships. By treating subspecies as an equivalent node you can define them independently and move them as needed as you learn more. So demoting a species to subspecies is just informational rather than changing the node. And you can even link phylogeny to a subspecies if you happen to figure out that kind of linkage or spin off new groups like subsubsubsubspecies if you need to.
And by making the groups mere linkages, you can view the listing dynamically by whatever criteria you need. You can generate a tree of life that is exclusive to Australia, or one that focuses on the physical characteristics that are what matters for biological needs or visual identification, all while also allowing for geneticists to move things around to sort out their species ancestry without toppling everything else.
That also means you can work with what you have. A gene sample without physical characteristics gets a node and is only linked as well as it can be. Footprints of an extinct animal get their own node and whatever linkages you can establish. And the bug collector can submit physical characteristics without genetic linkages. You will have things orphaned in whatever grouping they don't have data for, but we have that already with piles of things not in the system at all yet.
And as you discover more you can modify links, merge nodes, etc. as needed.
We live in the digital age. This doesn't need to have the overhead of specialists that have to decide the whole tree for every species. Just create a node for review and let the experts of each field link their parts and allow the system to hold onto what information we do have about species we don't yet have time to link up.
Odds are pretty good someone will even create a narrow AI to set proposed linkages for you to save time.
Given what a mess cladistics has become, this is going to have to happen eventually, and it's cheaper the sooner you do it. And in this case it would keep a lot from being lost and squash the mindset of system over reality.
Please do a followup on the chaos of a debate that is even determining what a species is! "things that can breed viable offspring together" was fine years ago, but you can find plenty of exceptions quite literally in your backyard (if you're in the United States - coywolves, anyone?). plus equus, felids, etc.
also claudistics vs taxonomy!
(pardon the forgetting of most examples on my part, it's been a few years since i read up on it last)
That just means that coyotes, wolves, dogs and golden "jackals" should have been reclassified as simply different races of the same species years ago. But Linneaus didn't give a flip about who could breed with whom, and probably didn't know or care, especially since he took great care to deliberately put humans and other apes each in their own genus, just because he wanted it that way. Meanwhile, chimps, bonobos and humans should at least share the same genus, but that would be offensive to his religious sensibilities (because different species wasn't far enough .. because of his lack of regard for breeding. Meanwhile, by his logic, an Englishman and a Japanese would be two different species.