How Do New Plant Species Evolve? A Lecture for You Jadrools

[@michaelkalin2209]

holy shit, you've been making a lecture series in the last few weeks!?!?!? THIS WAS SO GOOD!! can't wait to see the rest that i've missed!!!

[@chiseldrock]

All the best to you and yours for the Holidays and the New Year Joey!

[@stevemurray6543]

I am an old guy. Still love learning and gardening for nature. Thanks for your contribution.

[@PlantNatives]

Thanks for breaking this down in easy to understand segments. I also like the tagging style of illustration. Have watched this 3 times already

[@stacicriswell2572]

Another really awesome lesson on all those crazy connections that plants can teach us about evolution. I fucking love botany. Thanks a shit ton dude. You rock.

[@NullAnsh]

Currently taking BIOL coursework for environmental science, Excellent timing on these videos, TYVM.

[@jamesdriscoll_tmp1515]

Thanks for your time. Not many youtoobers go into such detail.

[@ambv-m7s]

22:25 the one in the right its Kleinia nerifolia, a succulent senecio, great to see the canary flora here. We have amazing species and biomes like the laurisilva forest

[@katherinegolightly271]

Nice illustrations! Thanks for the explanations :) Merry Xmas!

[@TXGirlMIGenetics]

Thanks for the lecture today

[@user-ol2mr4bx7c]

Darwin's role on that ship was to provide gentlemanly conversation to the captain

[@kso808]

Thank you for helping to keep my brain sharp!

[@SN-of5tu]

YES! Aw man dude, thank you, this is awesome. I have such a hard time learning stuff, I cant really focus, but the way you teach somehow manages to keep my brain from wandering. 30 min in, gonna go make myself some dinner and grab a notepad, maybe something will stick for once! thanks for the effort man, these vids are my salt n' pepper, my bread n' butter.

[@queenbeet]

You ever do any lectures in the SF Bay area? I'd go. :) I know you don't live here anymore...

[@goodvibrations253]

Loved what you said about the science, there’s so much that is not understood about nature and even misunderstood. Thanks for changing that shit.

[@magicalnocturnal]

Can’t seem to access the pdf ?

[@Ashleyyy414]

Michael Levin and his colleagues have created a new life form, xenobots, and are showing their seemingly instant cognitive ability to live and navigate its space without ANY evolutionary timeline. 'The Well' does some nice little 8 minute videos on Levin talking of these discoveries. Obviously, we can relate it to all forms of life. Also, I find the documentary Hans w/ the Essentia Foundation put out recently 'Micronauts' absolutely capturing and brilliant.

[@helenpatterson3858]

Right... what happened to the Texas gig ? Nevermind. I'd love him if he lived anywhere.

[@ericmiller8995]

I'd appreciate if you did a lecture at Shasta college

[@ericmiller8995]

I also just got my master gardener certificate

[@DinoSarma]

Why is everything an asteraceae? It’s freaking awesome. You see those giant fucking happy sunflowers, and think they’re cool. Then, you showed us so so so many other random plants in asteraceae, and it’s cool as hell.

[@IGLUPhylogeny]

Hello, the Ronald Jenner's concepts of "the lineage thinking" and "the cladistic blindfold" surely deserve an attention from all public educators and teachers. These concepts are explained in the following KZbin videos and the article: Lineage Thinking in Evolutionary Biology: How to Improve the Teaching of Tree Thinking (Springer article) Two KZbin videos: - Ronald Jenner: Seeing Evolution Through a Cladistic Blindfold - Telling linear stories with branching evidence: tales from the history of narrative phylogenetics It shows how the concept of monophyletic taxa is incompatible with the evolution. For example the genus Ceropegia is probably paraphyletic to the huge diverse clade of stapeliads - because it doesn't make any sense to rename Pseudolithos or Huernia to Ceropegia, the genus Ceropegia must be divided into more genera, so unfortunately the similar species of Ceropegia will end up in different genera. In fact, if the rule that all taxa must be monophyletic is strictly abided, all ancestral species are paraphyletic, so all living things should be single genus or species because LUCA was paraphyletic. The most vocal critic of monophyletic taxa was Tom Cavalier-Smith (he died in 2021). Jenner explains why arguments like "humans didn't evolve from apes, but they are still apes" don't make any sense from the evolutionary point of view, it's like saying humans or whales are still pelycosaurs or excavate flagellates. Chimps are overall more similar to other living or extinct apes, except the stem humans like Ardipithecus. Humans are way too different from apes, humans are to apes what cetaceans are to artiodactyls or acanthocephalans to rotifers. The stem lineages of taxa are another example where the concept of monophyletic taxa fails - are theropod dinosaurs birds or is walking Pakicetus cetacean? An Eocene taxonomist would have no problem, because he wouldn't know that Pakicetus will evolve into fully aquatic legless cetaceans. It just shows how artificial taxa are, for example if marine lobopodians and radiodonts survived to modern times then we wouldn't have three separate phyla Tardigrada, Onychophora and Arthropoda, but a single phylum. Similarly if all medusozoan cnidarians and Polypodium (not a fern) went extinct, then we could have new phylum Myxozoa.

[@IGLUPhylogeny]

I've always been baffled by arguments such as "humans haven't evolved from apes, we just share a common ancestor with them". But the chimp-human last common ancestor was rather accurately reconstructed and it was clearly an ape (hairy, quadrupedal and so on), of course it was not a chimp but overall it was more similar to chimps and gorillas than to modern humans. Similarly I was baffled by the rejection of linear evolutionary imagery. I have always thought that phylogenetic trees can be visualized as a long line of parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and so on, stretching back to the origin of life (or in the most simplified version (in case when I'm interested only in my ancestors and not in the ancestors of eg. barnacle) just a single long line beginning with me, my mother standing next to me, grandmother standing next to my mother, and the rest of mothers forming a line all the way to the origin of life ca. 4.4 billion years ago). Such linear evolutionary imagery of course doesn't imply that a lobe-finned fish was destined to become a rabbit or a triceratops or a human in the distant future, it's just looking back at the history - it's just like genealogy: my ancestors 1000 years ago had no intention to "create" me, although their actions were totally neccessary for me to exist. Fortunately I have read Dawkins' book "The Ancestor's Tale" and several other books on evolution long ago. From one of those books, I remember a cladogram (composed of taxa A, B and C, taxa A and B are sister taxa) explaining how a taxon A (for example sheep) is cladogenetically closer to a taxon B (for example whale) and at the same time the taxon A (sheep) is ANAGENETICALLY (but not cladogenetically) closer to a taxon C (for example llama) - this I think is an another often ignored aspect of evolution and explains the preconception of the following style: for example "morphologically, chimps are the most closely related to humans so they must be the most similar of all animals to humans", when in fact humans could be more similar to gorillas (this is just an illustrative example which may not be completely true in the case of humans and chimps, but there are many such similar cases where paraphyly is involved, i.e. the sister monophyletic taxon doesn't have to be automatically the most similar one - this must be decided by the ancestral state reconstruction and cannot be just seen from a naked cladogram). In other words, each lineage of a cladogram can be assigned a number of changes between each nodes and terminal taxa and to decide which species are more similar means to sum up these numbers of changes and not just count the number of nodes between terminal taxa. Maybe some people think of the phylogenetic trees as diagrams depicting how similar species are instead of the real depiction of genealogy? Another common misconception is the case when for example ctenophores were found to branch off as the first lineage from the rest of animals, then many people wrote that the ctenophores were the first animals, without realizing that the stem lineage of Ctenophora was inhabited by ancestors which were not ctenophores and ctenophores could be much younger than some cladogenetically more distant taxa, eg. chordates. But of course evolution is gaining/losing one character after another and not gaining all characters defining a taxon at the same time, for example I have read an article claiming Yanjiahella can't be an echinoderm because it lacked the stereom despite the fact it was considered to be a STEM echinoderm and thus to be expected not to have some features of the crown group echinoderms. It's a shame that we don't see more phylogenetic trees with images of reconstructed last common ancestors at the individual nodes. Many common ancestors were accurately reconstructed, especially when paraphyletic taxa were identified - for example last common ancestor of rabbit and carrot was an excavate flagellate which lived cca 2 billions years ago. This excavate flagellate was reconstructed in great detail (types of flagella, groove, size etc.), unlike the last common ancestor of rabbit and scorpion, a marine worm living more than 540 mya about which we know almost nothing (flattened or cylindrical?, sessile or motile?, segmented?, through gut?, microscopic or 20 centimeters long?, ventral mouth? .......). Unfortunately most of depictions of evolution, like for example "OneZoom-Tree of Life Explorer", are just mere naked cladograms - at least they should have put reconstructed last common ancestors at those nodes where possible. Recently it looks like we are approaching the true phylogenetic tree (for example Xenacoelomorpha sister to monophyletic Nephrozoa, Ctenophora sister, eukaryotic root among Excavata, Archaea paraphyletic). Then fossils will be "grafted" on this stable tree to elucidate morphology of those lineages for which there are no living examples, for example vetulicolians and yunnanozoans could be paraphyletic assemblage of stem chordates, Ediacaran dickinsoniomorphs ("Proarticulata") could be stem planulozoans (clade comprising Cnidaria, Bilateria and Placozoa). Ancestral state reconstruction then can reveal that a certain fossils are indistiguishable from the last common ancestor so that Tiktaalik-like fishapod can be depicted not as a sister branch but as a direct ancestor (for example the reconstructed last common ancestor of the fishapod Tiktaalik and rabbit was so similar to the fossil Tiktaalik that a Tiktaalik fossil and the fossil of the real last common ancestor were indistiguishable because fossils are always more or less incomplete). Fortunately in some case we don't even need any fossils to reconstruct the common ancestors - an example: the last common ancestor of living eukaryotes, because the living excavates are highly paraphyletic AND they are all morphologically very similar AND they are not similar because of the convergent evolution. And this I think is the main goal of this whole research endeavor: to have an accurate "linear evolutionary imagery" and not just the naked cladogram with mere bifurcating black lines connecting the taxonomic names at the tips of the branches. Those black lines are where the real interesting evolution happened. In other words, one of the main goals of reconstructing cladogenesis is to reconstruct anagenetic changes which happened along the individual lineages. This accurate "linear evolutionary imagery" will depict the maximal amount of ancestors between any living/extinct species and the LUCA (or FUCA), documenting as many evolutionary changes between the generations as possible, without any large gaps.

[@CrimePaysButBotanyDoesnt]

Buddy you just copied and pasted the same comments on like three different videos, two of which aren't even mine. Settle down.

[@WithAnEss]

0:39 dive in head first 😂

[@megbernstein8452]

Would you move your screen so we can see the slides better? Or make it smaller.

[@priceandpride]

Tip for the content

[@CrimePaysButBotanyDoesnt]

No

[@WithAnEss]

@@CrimePaysButBotanyDoesnt a man with boundaries! 😉😂

[@EastWindCommunity1973]

YES PLEASE

[@goodvibrations253]

Lava can split a population, here in Hawaii it’s turned rain forest into a lava desert.

[@davidedgar2818]

I always identified you as a New Yorker myself. I grew up on Long Island and worked on a lobster boat in my early teens. You could easily be classified in the New England coastal region. Like I explain to people about my language.... "Hey my morning greeting to my neighbor was hey F you and the response was always the same.. Hey F You and your mother! That was our way to say good day. Here in Hawaii those are fighting words, imagine that for a culture shock😳

[@FreeMindedFella]

The phenotypes of peyote need to be studied more imo

[@JarSimmssgoPrince]

professional hort here. gay. will you marry me ? lol in all seriousness, your “ idgaf” attitude about pretentious Botanical science is refreshing and novel. Your hatred for human beings destroying biodiversity, niche eco-regions, and the very thing that gives us everything ….is sexy. Your regionalism coming through in speech is fucking hot. thanks for being a breath of fresh air.

[@contemporiser]

My buddy had a motorcycle accident and he speciated into a plant

[@designerprojects8137]

In simple terms, Electrically?

[@mechaslugzilla]

the common name indian grass is usually associated with sorgastrum nutans, the common name for panicum virgatum is switch grass. f*ckin common names. hope you have a good saturnalia.

[@dhaktizero4406]

psychedelics are a human right/rite also obregonia denegri was listed by schultes and hoffmann or maybe it was ott...

[@benm5407]

Brain hurty

[@gr3ym0us3r5]

Polyploid speciation is spooky. It just is. Also, slide drawings are some of the more refined low-brow art I've seen in awhile.

[@CrimePaysButBotanyDoesnt]

Not really. It's just a mutation that causes the whole genome code to duplicate.

[@gr3ym0us3r5]

@@CrimePaysButBotanyDoesnt When I learned about it, it seemed like the polyploids were sort of more suspiciously "hell-bent for speciation" than the diploids. You know like, "Hey! Keep an eye on those sneaky polyploids!".

[@CrimePaysButBotanyDoesnt]

@gr3ym0us3r5 having more copies of the genome gives a species more to work with, which means polyploids will have often have a selective advantage

[@gr3ym0us3r5]

@@CrimePaysButBotanyDoesnt Stunning lecture so far. Thank you. Merry Christmas. 51:23 🤣

[@kamikaze2613]

Joey turn OFF webcam tracking its annoying as fuck bud! makes me feel drunk even though I dont drink no more

[@CrimePaysButBotanyDoesnt]

I don't know what the hell that is.