FA+
Shop
4 submissions
Hey. HEY. Click here for the full version, FA doesn't like my 5000x6000 image: http://min.us/lkdn3o
Super short version: This shows how real-life animals are related to each other. Just read the pastel green bubbles. The closer things are to each other, the more related they are. Search for your critter of choice on the bottom right - furries in the brown, featheries in the blue, scalies in the green!
For those who haven't seen a phylotree before, these are basically diagrams showing the relatedness of things to one another. Things connected to the same "point" are equally related to each other, and are more closely related to each other than the next higher node. If you go all the way to the bottom, you'll see that otters and poleweasels are more closely related to each other than either of them are to raccoons, but otters, poleweasels, and raccoons are just as related to each other compared to skunks. On a more macro scale, you could say mammals (dark brown cloud) and birds (blue cloud) are similarly related to each other because they're both warm-blooded compared to cold-blooded reptiles (green cloud), but all of them are closely related to each other compared to insects (tan cloud) because mammals, birds, and lizards all have a backbone, while insects don't.
For the more sciencey out there: BUTTS I know warmbloodedness is paraphyletic i'm just giving a simple example. Bird clades were based on Hacket et al. (2008). Insects aren't ordered whatsoever. Diagram created in Freemind (I actually hit the upper limit of size with the program- it refused to export any larger of an image. They've released a new version since, though).
I've decided to release this in all its unfinished glory because I'm busy as butts and have lost the original .mm file. I was hoping to get better resolution in the insects and plants and amphibians, but so many other things demand my blood.
Anyway, hopefully people find this interesting!
Super short version: This shows how real-life animals are related to each other. Just read the pastel green bubbles. The closer things are to each other, the more related they are. Search for your critter of choice on the bottom right - furries in the brown, featheries in the blue, scalies in the green!
For those who haven't seen a phylotree before, these are basically diagrams showing the relatedness of things to one another. Things connected to the same "point" are equally related to each other, and are more closely related to each other than the next higher node. If you go all the way to the bottom, you'll see that otters and poleweasels are more closely related to each other than either of them are to raccoons, but otters, poleweasels, and raccoons are just as related to each other compared to skunks. On a more macro scale, you could say mammals (dark brown cloud) and birds (blue cloud) are similarly related to each other because they're both warm-blooded compared to cold-blooded reptiles (green cloud), but all of them are closely related to each other compared to insects (tan cloud) because mammals, birds, and lizards all have a backbone, while insects don't.
For the more sciencey out there: BUTTS I know warmbloodedness is paraphyletic i'm just giving a simple example. Bird clades were based on Hacket et al. (2008). Insects aren't ordered whatsoever. Diagram created in Freemind (I actually hit the upper limit of size with the program- it refused to export any larger of an image. They've released a new version since, though).
I've decided to release this in all its unfinished glory because I'm busy as butts and have lost the original .mm file. I was hoping to get better resolution in the insects and plants and amphibians, but so many other things demand my blood.
Anyway, hopefully people find this interesting!
Category Resources / Animal related (non-anthro)
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 411 x 449px
File Size 17.9 kB
Thanks \o/ It took about a week's worth of actual building (though I don't really remember specifics) - counting out-of-class research and figuring out how to use the damn program. But for all it's faults, Freemind was a really great program to use once I got the hang of it.
But now that I've sorta tree'd out all of life, I don't really have a use for it anymore T_T
But now that I've sorta tree'd out all of life, I don't really have a use for it anymore T_T
Oh haha no I meant the tree-diagramming software, not life itself. Other than maybe a family tree (where one already exists going back seven generations) or doing some thing like an elimination match diagram, I don't see any use for the program anymore.
They can't make me live long enough to do all the things I want to do!
They can't make me live long enough to do all the things I want to do!
Aww :3
More than anything, the tree is showing similarities, not necessarily ancestry; I didn't go in with a strict sense of criteria about which phylogenies to use past "I want the average person to easily understand most of this tree".
Rooting the birds within the reptiles would make the tree a little less clean, since the birds would be a cloud within the dinosaur cloud within the reptile cloud within the mammal cloud - so I opted for the morphological relationship rather than the ancestral one. If people are really interested, they can take a class or do their own research and decide for themselves on whether or not I made an egregious error.
The scientist in me wouldn't let me leave it entirely incorrect, though. I mentioned "class aves" within Dinosauria :3
More than anything, the tree is showing similarities, not necessarily ancestry; I didn't go in with a strict sense of criteria about which phylogenies to use past "I want the average person to easily understand most of this tree".
Rooting the birds within the reptiles would make the tree a little less clean, since the birds would be a cloud within the dinosaur cloud within the reptile cloud within the mammal cloud - so I opted for the morphological relationship rather than the ancestral one. If people are really interested, they can take a class or do their own research and decide for themselves on whether or not I made an egregious error.
The scientist in me wouldn't let me leave it entirely incorrect, though. I mentioned "class aves" within Dinosauria :3
It's a PNG; I would've done SVG but I wanted something that a lot of people could see and digest (the tree isn't strictly accurate because of this too) - and a lot of people don't even know the difference between jpg and png, much less what to do with svg. I don't think there was a lot of svg support in-browser back when I made this, either.
If it's not a size issue, it might be because the software I used to make this was fairly buggy. Leave it to mindmap to make a picture that breaks things :V
If it's not a size issue, it might be because the software I used to make this was fairly buggy. Leave it to mindmap to make a picture that breaks things :V
Ohh ALTHOUGH is this really a modern cladogram? I thought it was pretty established now that birds are descended from dinosaurs and should be rooted well within the dinosaur clade (e.g. http://tolweb.org/Coelurosauria/15769 ), but you've got dinosuars with reptiles, and birds and mammals together!
If you look closely, I did mention Aves in Dinosauria (see red cloud within green cloud).
I took many liberties in making this cladogram! i MOSTLY used DNA markers in constructing this, but it's a little more nonscientist-friendly to use fish>amphibian>reptile>bird>mammal so people can find what they want a little easier.
Tell you what, if you can find the original .mm file I'll move the burds over wholesale.
I took many liberties in making this cladogram! i MOSTLY used DNA markers in constructing this, but it's a little more nonscientist-friendly to use fish>amphibian>reptile>bird>mammal so people can find what they want a little easier.
Tell you what, if you can find the original .mm file I'll move the burds over wholesale.
Comments