Evolutionary Tree of Life | Episode 2 - Reptiles & Birds
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ย. 2024
- Buy the chart:
usefulcharts.c...
Episode 1:
• Evolutionary Tree of L...
CREDITS:
Chart & Narration by Matt Baker
Animation by Syawish Rehman
Audio editing by Ali Shahwaiz
Theme music: "Lord of the Land" by Kevin MacLeod and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution license 4.0. Available from incompetech.com
🦕 Buy the poster: 🐢
usefulcharts.com/products/evolution-classification-of-life
You don't ship to South Africa, sadly. My dad would go mental for this chart
Can you make a "useful chart" for the CERN "standard model"?
They brag it does everything, but I am fairly certain it is derived from a variety of sources and a bit wishy washy in places. But it takes a serous effort in tracing sources and writing it down. Your methods are helpful. I would like to see living charts that can be expanded.
Have you tried an OPEN "UsefulChart" on a global topic, subject, tool, concept, language, issue, place, person, model, story? Where anyone in the world could put there comments, sources, questions, additions, links, suggestions on a living chart as text, data, videos, images, software, models, simulations, drawings, diagrams, "AI", database, etc etc etc?
Where billions of human do not need a particular written language to interact and be involved?
Imagine all these comments below and in all your video "conversations" as living useful charts that are more interactive and much more flexible. They could have mathematics, diagrams, design tools, software, simulations, animations, infinitely many ways of communicating and sharing. All the conversations and sites in the world. Including between AIs so they can learn how things fit together visually and topologically and by priority and importance.
Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
Matt, any thoughts on making a chronological version of the tree of life? I think it would be very interesting to visually grasp what events were and were not "contemporary".
Damn! Matt's really good at making bird sounds!
Matt's wife here again. I took a bunch of those bird photos in our backyard. They all bring back fond memories.
You did an awesome job 👏
@@zurgmuckerberg Aw, thanks. When I first met Matt, he thought I was a little bonkers with my love of birds, but I've converted him. We feed the crows every day, and built a crow feeding station off our deck. Now we're building a bird fountain in our garden.
I can't believe how simply he explained the different groups and evolution of reptile taxonomy, even covering the time periods! Thank you for this stellar educational content
Some groups are missing otherwise he did alright.
Those impressions at 20:58 were spot on!
I always enjoy your work with these "useful charts". It helps us visualize things in a way that just having it in memory cannot. Thanks for your work!
My only snivel might be leaving out falcons, which sit somewhere between parrots and songbirds... and ties into the "most of the birds of prey" comment as they are the rest of the birds of prey :) It even looks like there's room on the chart.
Funnily enough I was going to comment that too
I guess it's a matter of how far you want to take the subdividing of classes. I'm thinking that much more subdividing would make the chart look even a lot more complicated than it already does. Gotta draw the line somewhere!
Nobody asked. STFU
Slight correction: the actual easiest way to tell the difference between alligators and crocodiles is whether they will see you later or after a while.
This comment needs more love.... I got too big of a chuckle for it to be sitting so low with the likes.
oh i get it
I love this series!! One suggestion though...could you please add the turatara to the chart with reptiles since it resembles a lizard but is just a convergently evolved reptile that isn't a a lizard and is the only surviving member of its order.
Sorry for the run on sentence. Keep up the great work!!
It isn’t convergent with lizards, it is the closest relative to lizards in fact.
10:51
*imagines Dinosaurs dying out due to the Napoleonic wars*
Yeah little known fact, Napoleon was keeping not only his treasury, but also the last of the dinosaurs onboard the Orient - he was taking them to live in Egypt after they started eating too many people in France. But there in lies the danger of using an ark to save species - you never know when the royal navy is going to find you, destroy your fleet, and blow up your dinosaurs.
10:51 I remember learning in school about how George Washington rode an Ankylosaur into battle
Lmao
Best blooper ever!
I didn't know that the K-T Event kicked off an expansion of the Aves Class as well as the Mammals, really loving this series Usefulcharts!
I would probably make a note that dinosaurs before Archaeopteryx DID have feathers, even if they didn't have wings. The way it's worded here makes it seem like all previous dinosaurs didn't have feathers which is definitely not true.
I thought archaeopteryx had protofeathers. Out of date, probably
Evolutionary biology is fantastic, because it proves that what you can assume by looking at something is not always the full truth. Humans like to group Amphibians and Reptiles into a group, like with early Herpetology, because they can look similar, and they're both cold blooded, but i'm always struck by the fact that their last common ancestor's defining trait was having four limbs; being a tetrapod.
Reptiles being 'cold-blooded' as a general statement is obsolete. Across all reptiles past and and present, there is a wide range of physiologies.
Omg didn’t realize this video was just released 15 hours ago…I was about the watched the whole series all at once but apparently I have to wait 😢 I love it so much..
Overall great video, but one MAJOR mistake around 17:30! There were plenty of true dinosaurs by the late Triassic (plateosaurus, eoraptor, probably herrerasaurus, coelophysis, etc), they just didn't become *dominant* until the Jurassic. Otherwise wonderful work as always!
There were true dinosaurs in the Triassic before the Triassic-Jurrasic extinction. That mass extinction just wiped out many other archosauromorph competition like aetosaurs, phytosur, and rauisuchids.
Matt, thank you for your extensive, exhaustive, impeccable research!
Thank you for the endless entertainment
There's some theories that place Turtles and Sauropterygians as a sister group, and they're both the sister group of the classic Archosaurs in the clade Archelosauria, while Ichthyosaurs are sometimes placed in there, or they're among the most primitive Sauropsids :'v
Amazing video, can't wait for the Synapsids! :D
Hold on, you seem to imply that fish didn't move into shallow water until later.
But the earliest bony fish were probably already dwellers in shallow, fresh water.
In fact, all bony fish appear to have evolved from a common fresh-water ancestor.
This is why they all have lungs, and why all marine bony fish have special adaptations to deal with salt water, which clearly isn't native to their ancestry, whereas, cartiloginous fish are directly native to salt water, and have to specially adapt to deal with fresh water.
The lungs were probably an adaptation to being trapped in shallow fresh water that was drying, or in low oxygen conditions.
One interesting theory of amniote evolution is that, somehow, the ancestral amniotic condition was one of retained eggs, internal fertilization and pregnancy (though without any sort of placenta-like organ), but not hard shells that were inperimable to water. This would explain why amnoite eggs evolved in the first place, before adding shells to them for ease of laying.
I'm definitely getting a jumbo sized chart ❤ That said, I wonder if more people would be interested in a chronological version of the tree of life. I think it would offer a good visualization of which species of different branches did and did not coexist.
Need part 3 immediately. I’m on the edge of my seat bro
This series gets my vote for best of Useful Charts! Although I have to say, the charts on the world's religions give it a run for the money.
As an Australian, I just want you to know we all love and appreciate that brilliant accent lmao
Beautiful! Very last point, I see the Stellar's Jay. You should know the the National Autobahn Society is considering renaming all birds "named after humans."
Small correction: at around 3:03 you labelled the arm bones. The Blue one is the Ulna and the Green one is the Radius.
came looking for this!
Spotted this too.
Great work. My only suggested edit is the disclaimer that some of these relationships among groups are still scientifically disputed
Back to my new favorite series on youtube
I love this serie so much!!!Keep up the good job❤
Favourite series
Absolutely amazing.. loved the episode
I suppose that the reason why you included caecilians on this chart is because there are only 3 living orders of amphibians. I also still want you to change the label that says "snake-like amphibians" to "caecilians", because no one calls them by what you call them on this chart.
Fantastic! As always. Keep up the good work.
Just amazing. Thank you.
2:58 You have the Radius and Ulna switched. Radius lines up with the thumb, Ulna with the pinky.
So here's my question: how is it that reptiles and amphibians have a 3-chambered heart while birds and mammals have a 4-chambered heart?
Matt, your channel is awesome, I am not "sharpshooting" you, I am genuinely interested in how two branches have such a different organ. Keep up the great work that you do, I watch everything you upload! (Even stuff with Jack or other narrators, but your voice is simply sublime)
All living archosaurs (including birds and crocodiles) have four-chambered hearts, and so dinosaurs probably did too. Mammals evolved four chambers independently. Non-mammal, non-arcosaur reptiles still have only 3.
Been waiting on this one
"Birds are also technically reptiles." This has just blown my mind!
Speaking of anomalies and the Linean naming system: Eukaryotes being a domain that is also within the domain Archaea - specifically inside the Asgard superphylum - is certainly one of them, I think.
I don't think the linnaean system included domains. I believe that reptile shouldn't be a scientific classification, since it basically means saurapsid.
This is incredibly beautifully explained ❤
I would recommend replacing “Struthioniformes” with “Paleognathae”; while it’s not a traditional order, it is inclusive of those other flightless birds you mentioned and would fit in that position.
10:50 - God I wish hahae.
If the Tree of Life was eaten from first, creationist would have never argued about fish with legs.
Please do Thomas Jefferson family tree. It’s so interesting.
Gills and lungs did NOT evolve at the same time. Gills were earlier.
Gills predate chordates, they exist in amphioxus and acorn worms, which are close relatives of chordates. (Although in those animals they are used for salt and PH regulation and are not used to breathe--salt regulation and PH regulation probably being the ancestral function of gills).
Whereas lungs (or rather the structure that would become lungs in several animals, but which became swim bladders in several fish) are much more recent. Cartilaginous fish such as sharks and rays do not have a swim bladder (or lungs), for example.
The last interesting question, is that since the gill almost certainly did not originally have the purpose of breathing, did gills evolve breathing before the lung evolved, and the answer also seems to be yes. (All three of lampreys and sea squirts and cartilaginous fish like sharks and rays, early branch-offs of chordates, use their gills for breathing but do not have a lung or swim bladder, whereas earlier branch-offs of chordates like Lancelets do not use their gills for breathing).
So basically, gills evolved I think with Deutorosomes (550 million years ago) maybe earlier.
Gills evolved breathing probably with the common ancestor with sea squirts (535 million years ago) or a little earlier.
The structure that would become lungs and swim bladders evolved with bony fish (430 million years ago) or a little earlier.
That structure evolving into a recognizable lung happened by the time of colecanths or lungfish branching off (420 million years ago).
Thanks for the video
The reason Apodiformes are called footless is an ode to the medieval belief that Swifts didn't have feet, since they never land on the ground, medieval people believed it was due to them not having feet . (so it is not because hummingbirds have small legs.)
it's kind of like how barnacle geese are called as such, because medieval people believed they grew out of barnacles.
p.s the fact no birds of paradise have a picture in the Paradisaeidae section is a travesty. they take the effort to evolve those wonderful feathers, and dull Sparrows and Tits get mention.
But I mean, you know the Internet is always biased in favor of pictures of tits.
Thank you so much for explaining this 😊
Matt, this is SO GOOD
the chart itself is gorgeous ofc, but its these brilliant, careful and clear walkthroughs that really take it above and beyond
your videos never fail to get me dreaming about the future of education, where resources like this are abundant and deeply integrated into curriculums worldwide. where there are subcultures dedicated to creating and sharing and updating them. where the whimsy and wonder and granduer of our incredible cultural projects of science and pedagogy are properly beheld and respected again, and returned to the front-and-center of our discussions and teachings...
i could almost shed a tear imagining it lol 🥲🥲 but then i realise i've gotta get to work making it real...
thank you, as ever, for your essential contributions to this future. your care and attention to detail shines through in every video, and is what will solidify your work as a historic cultural achievement, once everyone else catches up :p
Excellent.
11:46
We can also split the theropods into two clades: the Carnosaurs, like Allosaurus and Spinosaurus, and Coelurosaurs, like T. rex and Deinonychus. In fact, all birds are members of the Coelurosaurs.
Too late for changes, but it would have been interesting to crosscut a branch with a dotted line to indicate one of the extinction events.
*400 million years in the future a teacher with zebra striped scales addresses her class:* And it's not known exactly how our ancestors developed the bones necessary to walk on land, but what we have determined is that we are not descended from most of the other land dwelling animals found in the fossil record up to a few million years ago...
If you want a good laugh, try looking at what different groups of birds/species are referred to as a group. Some bird group names go crazy.
you mean the murder of crows?
8:18 But, If you have Archosauria as one major node, then Lepidosauria should be the other. Doesn't Squamata belong to the Superorder of Lepidosauria? You completely left out Rhynchocephalia. The poor Tuatara, they never get any love😢
no one says p-t extinction even, we say the permian triassic mass extionction event or the end permian mass extinction event and no one says k-t extinction event, we call it either the cretaceous paleogene mass extinction event or the kpg (the k stands for cretaceous in german)
Fun fact: falcons are in parrot order, not the one with eagles and hawks
Interesting
I got a bearded dragon named catfish who love water and lives in a ufo themed house and prefers it to all the other setups. Put that guy on your list not only is he an alien he is also part fish like his name suggests
I have a suggestion. Salamanders are more closely related to frogs than caecillians. So can you add that someday? Also turtles are more closely related to archosaurs than sqaumates.
If the Cenozoic can be called the age of birds, then it can also be called the age of squamate reptiles, as according to the most recent estimates they slightly surpass the whole of birds in number of species.
There should have been a third group of lepidosaurs that would have dominated over the mammals after the KT extinction event!
@3:30
Sarcopterygians did not evolve from Actinopterygians. They are sister clades.
Great one, again! Why are family trees with the younger ones down but biological trees are the other way?
What would it look like if the current niches of insects were filled by new species of mammals (since we are probably not going to care enough about insects to keep them around)? Would that even be possible?
The Australian Magpie, despite looking like a corvid is not one and is therefore not closely related to the magpie on the chart. They are also highly intelligent. As are parrots.
that was so crazy when the dinosaurs died after the us civil war
13:16 No pls T-T. They really are *actual* dinosaurs. Not just “technically” dinosaurs.
As in, god I really wish common parlance would change to include birds as dinosaurs and just using “non-avian dinosaurs” when relevant. Cuz there’s a sort of “don’t change the lore” sentiment towards the Mesozoic (and surrounding) eras. Which definitely is related to the whole “science changes too damn fast so I won’t believe in [a specific thing].” Or, at least, they’re both symptoms of the same problem.
But, and more importantly, going “a fucking dinosaur woke me up at ass-o’clock in the morning” or “aww my pet dinosaur is singing at me” is just kinda fun XD. (Both of those are from experience lmao)
Feel free to call birds dinosaurs, and be completely correct. But by the same logic, all tetrapods, including dinosaurs, birds and humans, are fish too.
You mispelled sarcopterygii, at 2:35.
3:16 gonna be picky here Matt but you have mislabeled the Ulna and Radius bones. The Radius is on the “thumb” side of the arm and the ulna is the bone that forms the pointy end of your elbow. Just need to swap them there. Good show otherwise.
could you do an 'evolution of planets' tree
It takes millions of years for fish to evolve limbs good enough to work on land and then snakes.just go nah and get rid of them lol.
I knew you didn't even added Mosasauria to Squamata order as Marine Lizards. Why?
Hi Matt, How do I get in contact with you? I'm a university professor from Brazil, and I'd like to run a few ideas by you.
matt@usefulcharts.com
This is an observation, not intended as a correction, although it in fact is. My intention here is to convey more advanced aspects of reading a phylogeny and understanding lineage progression.
7:04 not quite all, just the taxa after the amniote common ancestor, stem-amniotes, the lineage from the first tetrapod to the first amniotes, are not amniotes. And of course the same applies to stem-amphibians in regard to your wording.
14:00 another point for the more advanced; 'oldest type, cladistically speaking' should not be misinterpreted as meaning those groups of crown birds are more related to the bird common ancestor. It is only stating that those 2 lineages diverged earliest among all crown birds. Note further that I am specifically talking in regard to crown birds; this phylogeny only shows crown groups. Some extinct bird lineages of course diverged even earlier. So, ostriches and chickens, representatives of those first 2 divergent lineages, are _not_ more related to the common ancestor than any other bird.
This point relates to a scientific paper that came out about 10 years ago or so. It was comparing T. rex collagen proteins with 21 living organisms. The group of living organisms analysed included humans, chimps, mice, chickens, ostriches, alligators and salmon. T. rex's collagen proved to be most similar to chickens and ostriches; its next closest match was to alligators, all unsurprising. It is this finding that got misinterpreted as meaning that chickens and ostriches are the closest living T. rex relative. I reiterate; this is not so; all extant birds are equally related to T. rex.
I would suggest that this "tree" should have been organized into clades, the modern phylogenetic understanding of the tree of life.
Each branching comes from a last common ancestor. And, perhaps more importantly, it would avoid confusion like mistakenly showing dinosauria as being a branch of reptiles, when in fact they are sauropsids.
Jacques Gauthier established, about forty years ago, that given the new cladistic system of taxonomy, we needed to rename some branches, because one never evolves out of their clade.
So if we had called the branch with all fish "fish", then humans would still be fish.
His example was "reptilia", the former name for the clade that includes all reptiles, archosaurs, dinosaurs...ergo birds. Given that birds lack most reptilian traits, and in fact dinosaurs were turning out to lack them as well, he proposed that the name be replaced with "sauropsida", which is what has happened.
So it's squamates, not lizards, or else snakes would still be lizards.
It's simiiformes, not monkeys, or else we'd all be monkeys.
And it's sauropsida, not reptilia, or else birds would be reptiles.
Not necessary just call snakes lizards, birds as reptiles, and humans as fish
It’s more simple then these goofy scientific names no one wants to memorize
@@GravityIsFalling Except they're not goofy, and it's only "memorizing" if one's too dim to learn words.
@@KAZVorpal
We are monkeys. It’s much more simple this wat
At about 3 min mark you mixed up radius and ulna. Radius is on the thumb side.
17:24 Weren't there dinosaurs around in the late Triassic?
No mention of the Tuatara and its relation to Squamata?
Where would flamingos go? And also, puffins? Thanks!
Puffins are in the same order as seagulls whereas flamingos are classified with the sea birds.
Amazing work Matt!!! one question, (I'm interested on philosophy and religion, and it would be interesting to read your answer) What do you think about the Ludwig Feuerbach's philosophical system of the origins of God? Thanks for everything!!!
I'm not overly familiar with him but I'm pretty sure he leaned towards God being an entirely human creation, right? I'd therefore disagree with him because, while I believe that the God of the Bible is a human creation (just like the God or gods in any religious text), I do actually believe that God does exist and that while every human concept of God is faulty, there are glimpses of truth in them and that it's better to try and say something about God (via some sort of mythos) than to say nothing at all.
@@UsefulCharts Thank you!!!, I thought the same thing!, I mean, it seems that each culture represents him in a very different way, but that is not a proof that he doesn't exist!!!
@@UsefulCharts That remembers me of the Xenophanes' system of thinking!!!
it is not pancustacea in steade of crustacea?
Hi, please u private the old royal chart playlist. Those videos match my posters. Thanks!
Hey Matt, are you sure the "T-rex" you have on the thumbnail isn't AI-Generated? I have the suspicion it might be (especially considering how the lips at the corners of the mouth look like)
Dinosaur bones were known for millenia.
It is likely that the stories of the gryphon in Greece came from protoceratops skeletons found in "Hyperborea", probably around the Dzungarian Gate mountain pass.
You mixed up the Radius and Ulna locations.
Where would the extinct terror birds fall on the chart?
birds like emus
WHERE IS TUATARA?!?!
Where do Axolotls fit in? 🤔
So what is the lineage of Pterodactylus?
True dinosaurs evolved in the Triassic, not the Jurassic
Also we don't "know" that the Chicxulub asteroid "definitely" caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. There are a variety of proposed causes, and none of them are truly definitive. The reason people believe the asteroid was "definitely" the cause is due to media bias. It's a lot more spectacular than depicting climate change, genetic stagnation, or even increased volcanic activity
We could also call today the age of beetles since they are more successful as a single clade than the vast majority of all other clades combined
Brontosaurus... wasn't that a debunked, mis assembled dino?
No. It's just understood in a different way now.
Yeah, the whole thing of birds being a class within a class, doesn't make sense.
I guess that's a problem with using linnaean terminology when it's obsolete
If Aves is a class within a class (Reptile), what does that make Fish? Is Fish still a class? I noticed that in the chart, Actinoptrygii is labeled as a class but Bony Fish or Sarcopterygii are not. I would really love an explanation. Thanks!
"Fish" isn't a class
@@joshuawalker7054 You probably know more than me so I'll take your word on this but on the chart it says "Actinoptrygii Class" but Sarcopterygii doesn't have "class" on it but they are the same color and come from the same clade
Also, if "fish" isn't a class, how are all the animals on that side organized then? Are they all clades? Phyla?
Please I'm not trying to be a smartass, I genuinely want to learn
These fins evolved for walking... ANd that's just what they'll do! One of these days those fins witll walk all over you!
-zoic means "animal," not "life"
it just sounds wrong to say the gills are behind the eyes
Where is celeocanth
Your description of the difference between crows and ravens is overly simplistic. There are about 50 species in the corvus genus, most of which are called "crow" or "raven" in some form. One specific species called "crow" compared to one specific "raven" might fit the description given in this video, but there are numerous other ravens and crows that aren't as clear cut. For example, here in Australia crows and ravens are nearly indistinguishable in terms of size. They are instead better differentiated by geographic spread, with crows in the north and west, and ravens in the south and east. The American crow likewise should not be confused with the hooded crow or carrion crow from Eurasia.
Something else that might interest Australian viewers (though I consider this less a "correction" like the above paragraph was, and more just interesting extra detail) is that the Australian magpie is _not_ a corvid. It's part of a separate family of passeriformes that also includes various species of butcherbird and currawong.