1. Did the construction of the phylogenetic tree based on the 14 living Caminalcules change the way you would group Caminalcules species in your taxonomic classification (chart)? What does this suggest about classification based on strictly of similarity versus evolutionary relationship? The phylogenetic tree was more of an evolutionary tree. It showed the evolution of the organisms and their ancestors or traits that they branched off of. The chart however just simply organizes and separates the organisms in similarity. The tree did not change the chart, the chart see similarities with structures between the modern day organisms and the tree shows their evolutionary linage. The tree reflected our taxonomic classification. 2. Did your phylogenetic tree based on the 14 living Caminalcules differ from the phylogenetic tree based all Caminalcules, both living and fossil?
Which do you have more confidence in? What do fossils add to our understanding of Caminalcules evolution in terms of rates and direction of evolutionary change?
The two trees were fairly different. That is due to the more amount of information that was provided via the fossils. The tree with all the caminialcules clearly showed when a characteristic dies off and a characteristic moves on. We are more confident in the tree with both living and fossil because it allowed us to see where the traits of the organisms died off or moved on. The fossils showed us that when a key trait stays in an organism it lets us to predict the direction of the evolutionary change when looking at modern day organisms. 3. Identify the most recent ancestor of any two species. (e.g. species 5 is the most recent ancestor of species 2 and species 4) species 75 is the most recent ancestor of species 4 and 3
4. You will notice that some lineages branched many times and are represented by many living species. Provide an example from your phylogenic tree of this rapid diversification. Species 43 branched off to 8 different...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document