Table 1 Summary of the misconceptions of tree-thinking
Misconception | Description | Source |
|---|---|---|
The Great Chain of Being | Evolution has progressed from simpler to more advanced organisms | Meisel (2010), Gregory (2008), Kummer et al. (2016), Schramm and Schmiemann (2019) |
Reading across tips | Use relative order of tips to make conclusions about species relatedness | Meisel (2010), Gregory (2008), Kummer et al. (2016), Schramm and Schmiemann (2019) |
Clade density | Species-poor clades are “primitive” while species-rich clades are “advanced” | |
Node Counting | The more nodes that separate species, the more distantly related they are | |
Main line and side tracks | Human evolution forms the main line of the tree, and all other branching species are side tracks | Gregory (2008) |
Similarity vs. relatedness | Group organisms based on phenotypic similarity rather than relatedness | Gregory (2008), Kummer et al. (2016), Schramm and Schmiemann (2019) |
Sibling vs. ancestor | The common ancestor of two contemporary groups is very similar to one of these two groups | Gregory (2008) |
Long branch implies no change | Interpreting a long branch to mean that a species is more similar to the root ancestor than the other contemporary species | |
Different lineage ages for contemporary species | Conflate taxon age with lineage age | |
Backwards time axes | Read time from tips as being oldest and root being youngest | Gregory (2008) |
Change only at nodes | Assuming node represents exact moment of change | Gregory (2008) |