As I mentioned a while back, one item getting frequent play in my rotating reading stack is the hefty volume The Ancestor’s Tale by Richard Dawkins, and as I expected, it is hugely engaging and informative. I’m about halfway done with it – the backwards pilgrimage is currently marching through the latter Carboniferous period, where we mammals have just been joined by the Sauropsids (including all reptiles and birds). I’ve already learned a great many interesting things, and will be sprinkling some of them about these pages in days and weeks to come. For today, however, I’ll call the attention of any of you who have an interest in natural history to a marvelous website, the Tree of Life Web Project. Onto the waka waka waka sidebar it goes.
- View a Random Post
-
Static Pages
-
Account
-
Categories
- Alison
- Apophthegmata
- Art
- Books
- Cape Cod
- Chess
- Curiosities
- Dance
- Darwin and Biology
- Dualism vs. Materialism
- Food
- Foreign Affairs
- Free Will
- General
- Global Warming
- Guns
- Haiku
- HBD
- Immigration
- Inner Work
- Jihad
- Language
- Law
- Marginalia
- Martial Arts
- Military
- Mind and Brain
- Music and Recording
- Politics
- Pretty Good Posts
- Racist Things
- Reaction
- Reason and Philosophy
- Religion
- Rubbish
- Ruminations
- Science
- Shameless Filler
- Society and Culture
- Sport
- Technology
- The Economy
- Tomfoolery
- Uncategorized
-
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- July 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
6 Comments
As a microbiologist I can’t resist commenting on how disappointed I am every time I see the tree on their main page. It is extremely eukaryo-centric. I do not think their rationalization that the tree is meant primarily as a navigation tool justifies the distortion.
Ok I feel better now.
Hi Andrew,
Well, that’s what you get when the eukaryotes are running the website. I’m sure they get complaints from monera all the time.
Hi Malcolm,
At the risk of being labeled a curmudgeon, I’m going to take another stab at this. I should not have started off my previous comment with “As a microbiologist” because that trivializes the objection. The tree they are showing on their main page is inaccurate, pure and simple. It grossly misrepresents both the total diversity in the tree and the relationship among the branches.
As a webpage devoted to science education, they should avoid this as much as possible. I accept the need for over simplifying some things in the interest of reaching a lay audience but that is not what they publishers of that page are doing. They might as well be using obsolete terms like monera as they clearly fail to appreciate just how profoundly the RNA results of Woese changed our very understanding of what the tree of life is.
One could defend them by pointing out they are not alone, Ernst Mayr never accepted it either. but this gives them too much credit. Mayrs position (however misguided) was a principled one, he argued that the tree on that page is essentially accurate and that Woese is wrong (here is a reply from Woese). The stance of the people behind that webpage is diametrically opposed to Mayr as they clearly acknowledge the three domain view of life but fail to understand the implications.
Their defense of the tree as being simply a convenient navigational aid is lame. With proper guidance, the artistic talent that drew that tree could have drawn a tree that was accurate, esthetically pleasing and useful for navigation.
*pant, pant*
Alright, now maybe I am ready to move on.
Andrew
Hi again Andrew,
First of all, thanks for taking the time to share your expertise, and for pointing us to those fascinating links. Just to make things clearer for the readers and me, could you explain in more detail what your objection is? The TOL website does indeed acknowledge the division of life into three domains (eukaryotes, eubacteria, and archebacteria), and I don’t understand exactly what it is you wish they had done differently.
And do forgive me for using the old term “monera”. I stand corrected.
Malcolm,
No need to apologize about the Monera comment. In fact, given the breadth of your knowledge, I was willing to assume you were saying it with a smirk and meant it as a friendly jab.
To raise all the things that pop into my head in response to your question would take about 50 blog entries. Saying what I do not like about that tree is easier than offering specifics about what I would prefer to see but I’ll give it a shot.
Drawing trees like this is difficult but there are two things the ideal tree should show. 1) the true evolutionary distance between different groups of organisms and 2) the total diversity within each group. Doing this for all of life on one tree is impossible unless you are making a large mural. So there is always a trade off between 1 and 2. On the main tree introducing a site like this, I’d like to see the actual distances between groups (1) shown at the cost of the total diversity within subgroups (2). Two reasons: first, this is the aspect of the tree least appreciated by most people; second, the main tree is the only place to show overall relationships, while the within group diversity can be preserved in the subtrees elsewhere on the site. The ToL people may disagree, but it is not clear whether the do or not. The tree they chose does not seek compromise, it simply miss-represents both aspects for no good reason.
Here is an interesting anecdote: If you were to have a ham sandwich and a salad for lunch tomorrow, you would be more closely related to everything you are eating (including the yeast in the bread) than all bacteria are to all archaea. The authors of the webpage downplay this point their choice of that picture. My position is that a webpage dedicated to phylogenetic relationships and the tree of life should be celebrating points like this, not obscuring them. Their calling attention to it would in no way detract from all of the other content on the site.
There is a page on the ToL website explaining their chosen tree. I can use their words to expand on my comments. This is the first paragraph:
“We’ve been getting a lot of inquiries about the tree of life picture on our home page. It is important to note that the major function of this picture is to help visitors to the ToL web site to quickly navigate to pages of some of the major groups of organisms. In order to serve this purpose, we had to use a greatly simplified representation of the tree of life.”
First of all, I take the tone here that I am not alone in my objections to their picture. They are not really simplifying as much as distorting the tree. I’ve already said that the navigation point is a cop-out. Towards the bottom of the overview page they link to a few sites with other representations. Two I’d highlight as being better are the first (UCMP’s tree) and sixth (Static diagrams from ‘Assembling the Tree of Life’) on Rebecca Shapley’s webpage. The UCMP’s tree in particular shows that there is no problem with using such a tree as a navigation tool. While it is not too pretty, the phylogenetic tree on the wikipedia Monera page is also quite good. Again, I’d argue that groups like ‘animals’ or ‘plant’ are neither difficult to find nor hard to click on in these trees.
“Life on Earth shares a common, genetic history with complex origins…”
Life does have complex origins and there is a large and rich literature on this topic. Why on earth do they cite an article in the New York Times to make this point? They also say in this section that, due to the complexity, the origins have been left obscure. Maybe I just have a much different idea of what the tree of life is, but why not choose to use their site as a way to explore this issue rather than obscure it.
They also mention Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) here. Not only has HGT been important historically, but it continues to be a major factor in the evolution of both bacteria and archaea. No discussion of the relationships among these two domains is complete without a considering HGT. Of particular interest to humans is the role of HGT in bacterial pathogenesis and antibiotic resistance.
The next two sections on this page begin (in red) with “Don’t draw conclusions about the relative diversity of different groups of organisms.” And “Don’t interpret relative branch lengths as indicators of levels of evolutionary ‘advancement’ ”
These are essentially my 1 and 2 above and I take these two paragraphs to be acknowledgements on the part of the people behind the site that their tree does neither well.
One sentence I really I object to is this: “Therefore, we created a diagram that is more of a general representation of people’s interest in different groups as well as their coverage on the ToL project.” Did they just say that my entire research area is not interesting? Is there any wonder why there is little coverage of microbes on the site? What microbiologist is going to take the time to develop content that is going to be ignored?
They repeat essentially the same thing again in the next paragraph saying that they made a conscious choice to relegate a bunch of boring stuff to the bottom corner of the page in order to make room for the really interesting stuff. Jeez, the least they could do is put pictures of microbes over by the other two domains. As it is you have to go through the root to get to bacteria or archaea.
The last red bullet is that “No organism alive today represents the ancestor of any other living creature.” Then goes on to say: “For practical reasons, we have placed an extant (living) annelid worm smack in the middle of our tree. Of course, this worm is not meant to represent the ancestor of organisms shown higher up in the tree; rather, it stands as a representative of animals in general. The most recent common ancestor of arthropods and vertebrates was some kind of worm, but it certainly wasn’t an annelid; in fact, nobody knows what this creature may have looked like.”
Does this explanation work for a layperson? It does not resonate with me at all. When I look at the picture I don’t see a representative animal, I see a worm in the middle of the tree. No other tree makers that I know of feel the need to stick living organisms on internal nodes and I am not sure why they did. One way other trees succeed in illustrating sub-groups is by color coding branches.
I hope this helps.
Andrew
Hi Andrew!
Well, indeed that did help, and I thank you very much for taking what must have been a good deal of your time to write such a thorough and informative response. You have given the TOL website a much more searching look than I had yet taken the time to do; it’s clear you were already well aware of it and its shortcomings, and I can certainly see why microbiologists would not be big fans. I still think that the site is an inviting and informative place for the lay visitor to explore; I am also sure, sad to say, that the eukaryotic bias does correlate with the interests of most non-biologists, even if there is just as much of genuine biological and evolutionary interest in the other domains as well.
This is too interesting to leave as a mere comment; I am going to promote it to a post. Thanks again; I consider myself very fortunate to have attracted readers and commenters such as you.