Re:There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically)
by derbOac on Tuesday December 21, 2021 @08:26AM
(#29637129)
I wasn't really surprised by the claim of the article but also hadnt thought about it explicitly much.
Bunchberries, for example, are really common where I am, and they're a type of dogwood (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornus_canadensis). It's really obvious they're a dogwood too, once you get past the fact they're not woody.
Also, "tree" can get really fuzzy really fast with different shrubs in between.
And, since it later also mentions theoretical "insect birds"... well, there are some insects who are regularly mistaken for hummingbirds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummingbird_hawk-moth. In photos you can quite clearly see that it's an insect, but if you see it in real life it hovers around flowers just like a miniature hummingbird, and it's a bit large and bulky for a flying insect, so the confusion is understandable. BTW this is also an example of convergent evolution, and it's interesting that these moths don't exist on the American continent, where the actual hummingbirds have occupied this ecological niche.