Read on Twitter
1/7 bueno, iñaki @multicellgenome, here we go: I've always wondered how biologists could come up with the tree metaphor because already 18th/19th century naturalists/botanists knew that trees are alive from the roots up to stem, branches, twigs & leaves...
2/7 ...in the 'tree of life', only the leaves are alive, that is, the extant species/lineages − all other parts are dead, with fossilized (sometimes) or molecular (always) remnants. a 'phylogenetic tree' reflects molecular remnants.
3/7 ...the living tissue that connects all parts of plants/trees is commonly known as phloem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phloem ). I don't have to tell you, of course...
4/7 ...actually, I wrote about this in STC a while ago: https://schaechter.asmblog.org/schaechter/2016/12/pictures-considered-42-ernst-haeckels-pedigree-of-man.html
5/7 ...now, that's clearly different in corals where the buds on different branches sit on a common dead skeleton − with or without anastomoses − and grow happily (if we don't heat up the oceans). darwin worked extensively on corals!
6/7 ...how darwin came to think of a 'coral of life' first before − persuaded by friends who thought corals wouldn't be 'communicable' − adopting the 'tree' metaphor has been meticulously traced and documented in the book "Darwin's Korallen"...
7/7 ...by the german art historian heinz bredekamp (unfortunately there's no english or spanish translation). https://www.wagenbach.de/buecher/kkb-kulturwissenschaft/titel/503-darwins-korallen.html.
and finally, I do not at all claim any originality for these ideas. other have pointed out to the 'coral of life' before (and before bredekamp).
