Phylogeny Friday - 25 August 2006

Last week's Phylogeny Friday introduced the three domains of life: bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes. The bacteria and archaea are commonly referred to as prokaryotes, although that creates a paraphyletic taxon. Today, we will focus on the eukaryotes (organisms with nuclei and organelles). This taxon contains plants, animals, fungi, and a bunch of other lineage with which you are probably not familiar. Recently, a group of Canadian researchers reviewed our current understanding of the evolutionary relationships of the eukaryotes, creating the following phylogeny.


The eukaryotes can be divided into five supergroups (they left off the Damn Yankees), but the relationship of these groups is unresolved. The green supergroup in the upper left contains the photosynthetic lineages (both the green and red ones), including the land plants. In the bottom right are the unikonts, a taxon that contains the fungi (ascomycetes, basidiomycetes, zygomycetes, chytrids, and microsporidia which were recently classified as fungi) and animals (in the red box). The other three supergroups -- excavates, rhizaria, and chromalveolates -- are made up entirely of organisms commonly known as protists.

What does this tree tell us about eukaryotes? Animals and land plants, the two taxa people are most familiar with, are represented by single lineages -- twigs on the tips of the tree. The fungi make up a substantially larger part of the tree, but they are also extremely diverse relative to animals and land plants (in terms of ecology and physiology). The rest of the lineages of the tree (including the other unikonts and non-land plants) are lumped into the paraphyletic taxon protists. Considering the diversity of this group, and the fact that these organisms make up the majority of the tree, we could say that protist is a synonym for eukaryote.

Next week we'll take a closer look at one of the many lineages of the eukaryotes: the animals. Why? It could be because animals are the most interesting, it could be our bias (we are animals and we're interested in learning about ourselves), or it could be because I know more about this lineage than any of the other ones.

Keeling, PJ, G Burger, DG Durnford, BF Lang, RW Lee, RE Pearlman, AJ Roger, MW Gray. 2005. The tree of eukaryotes. Trends Ecol Evol 20: 670-676. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.09.005

More like this

My advisor has recently got me listening to Whad'ya Know. My first reaction: It's like Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me! Only not as funny, not as interesting, and not as good. I've been downloading the podcasts for the past couple of weeks, and I'm not sure whether I'll keep subscribing in iTunes. I'm…
Phylogeny Friday is back, bitches! Katherine's gotta add me to her list ASAP. In the glorious return of PhyFridays, I give you the root of the tree of life. In the upcoming editions we'll zoom in on a few parts of the tree to illustrate the diversity of certain taxa of interest. It'll be kind of…
When Phylogeny Friday last made an appearance on this blog, we were exploring the vertebrates. This was part of a larger series in which we were working our way through the eukaryotes, focusing on animals. I've come to realize that weekly phylogenies are too much, so we're scaling Phylogeny Friday…
A few weeks ago I introduced the tree of life, albeit to some criticisms. The following week I zoomed in on one branch of that tree, the eukaryotes. I pointed out that animals were a mere twig in the eukaryotic tree, yet they have been the focus of a large amount of biological research. This…

Thanks for posting the figure. It's extremely important for the average person to recognize the significance of "animals" relative to the rest of eukaryotes. (And don't forget the prokarotes, which are just as diverse.)
Next time you hear talk of "evo-devo" and other so-called important new contributions to evolutionary biology (kin selection?, behavior?, sexual selection?) think about this picture and put things in perspective. If the "new" contributions only deal with species in the little red box then you can be certain that they don't have much impact on the field of evolutionary biology as a whole. They just reflect our anthropormophic biases.
Don't get me wrong. They can still be interesting and exciting contributions to the understanding of animals but they aren't necessarily important contributions to the understanding of the other 95% of existing phyla.

By Larry Moran (not verified) on 25 Aug 2006 #permalink