theres also a definition of a what a tree in the sense , its develops wood, many things are tree like, but not trees: such as palms(just overgrown herbs), dracaena( aka cabbage tree, they have something dracenoid thickining.) extinct plants like giant lycophytes and ferns
Concentrated sun energy sinks
I always liked the idea of being a tree like life form.
Imagine looking down at a bunch of cute little things crawling all over you for hundreds of years and then one day one of them shows up with an axe
Or maybe the microorganisms and food sources that life forms are exposed to have more of an effect on how the macroorganisms evolve than is currently talked about, which would explain why so many things in similar environments evolve similar traits.
Well, I'm just a product of my environment.
Are at least all woody plants related?
As far as they are all vascular plants, but that's like, basically everything that isn't moss iirc.
The evolution of wood is common because it's simple for cellulose to get denser in response to a need to grow taller to outcompete your neighbors.
So trees are the "evolve to crabs" meme and wood is like a crab shell. Or, I guess just exoskeleton, because things that aren't crabs also have hard shells.
Kinda! But the shell isn't what the carcinization memes are referring to. I'd say the biggest part of carcinization is the loss of crustacean tails. Basically every false crab is in the process of losing their tail in favor of a rounder body plan
I was under the impression that structural lignin was what really made trees a viable style of growth, and that seems like an odd chemical for a bunch of unrelated plants to all evolve. Is there something I'm missing? Is lignin actually present in all vascular plants?
I wasn't being specific enough. Cell walls in plants are composed of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. Lignin IS one of the structural polymers that plants produce, and yea, every single vascular plant has and uses lignin to provide structure. Iirc its a polymer produced by every plant, including mosses and other nonvascular plants, it's just not used to the same extent.
AH, I see. So, it already existed, but until trees evolved, it wasn't used to such an extreme extent.
Yea, the evolution of vascularity in plants let them get off the ground in the first place (meaning being taller than a few inches). Vascularity is the first big jump plants made after leaving the water. From there, being taller means outcompeting your neighbors and spreading your babies further. When you have that double whammy of more food + more babies, you get a selective pressure for taller that never really goes away. This is why multiple families have species that have arborized and have continuously done so over their evolutionary history. If the niche is empty, something will jump into it, often sooner rather than later (on a deep time scale) which is basically the whole idea of convergent evolution as a whole.
Had to look it up because I didnt beleive
sure enough its correct
Scishow had an episode about it a week ago. It's a strategy, not a species.
Something poetic and quaint about a link to a Wikipedia article titled "Tree"
I'm a billion years, crabs will start turning into trees and trees into crabs. merging into the ubercreature
I'm a billion years
Damn. You look good for your age.
here’s a cool blog post that expands on this There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically)
i didn’t even put it in a bookmark folder, it’s just loose on my bookmark bar because it’s such an interesting post that i reread from time to time
So that's why every stargate planet looks like Canada
That and every Stargate planet is Vancouver
Nature likes things that turn hard- Wait what?
Weren't there like, several millions of years where trees evolved but nothing had come yet to break down wood, so like, generations of dead forest just fell on top of each other until some fungus was like "that looks yummy"?
The molecule is called lignin. And yes, there was a good 60 million years before that particular problem was cracked.
Also, no such thing as fish.
Google it.
Impossible. If there were no such thing as fish, how could bees be fish?
I don’t have the tools to know how to respond to this comment. You win.
Edit: Holy shit. I just did a quick google. Boydster is not shitting us. Just google “bees are fish.” Oddly enough, this actually furthers the thesis of fish not existing.
My sister in law recently quipped that "Trees are a social construct" and at first I thought she was just being glib but now I can't get that statement out of my head.
Its called convergent evolution and you also have some shit you wouldnt believe that makes all apes similar to us.
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
