Sneak Peak at our Redesigned Evolution Chart

I would like to propose the inclusion of a clade within the reptile lineage: the Archosauria. This clade comprises diapsid sauropsid tetrapods and includes birds(Dinosaurs) and crocodilians. There is also ongoing debate regarding the inclusion of turtles within this clade. Additionally, Homo floresiensis is a descendant of the Homo erectus lineage. Furthermore, I propose changes within the order Carnivora. I noticed you had some species in wrong places, there should be a split into two clades: Caniformia and Feliformia. Caniformia then splits into Canidae and Arctoidea. Arctoidea includes Ursidae (bears), Pinnipedia (seals, walruses, sea lions), and Musteloidea (skunks, red pandas, badgers, weasels, otters, and ferrets). Feliformia encompasses the remaining families, including Nandiniidae, Viverridae (which splits into Hyaenidae and others), and Felidae (all cats).

i think Archosaurs should have their own bubble to show that crocs are closely related to birds and dinosaurs

I did notice a typo. Streptococcus is spelled “Streptoccus” on this chart

Great work! I suggest to include lichen, because they are such a unique symbiosis between various fungi, algae, and cyanobacteria.

I realy liked the dates on the old poster, u can see/calculate when and what came first. Please add that to the new poster<-- ty. When its done, ill order 2.

And that little Timmy is how broccoli is our distant cousin

I don't know anything about biology, but I noticed around 14:53 when you are talking about the Monocots that you have two different branches off of it labeled Poaceae Family. Some quick googling is telling me the one with onions and daffodils is called the Amaryllidaceae Family. Very cool chart!

I love this chart! If you really welcome comments - that ‘honey bee’ picture is in fact a bumble bee - the honey bee looks quite different x

There is a mistake in the Monocots branch. You have put the Poaceae family twice. The onion family is called Liliaceae.

Really nice chart! I would love to have one for my classroom once it becomes available. I have spotted one minor mistake though. Snakes are presented as the sister group of lizards, while they should be nested within the lizard clade. There are lizards (e.g. monitor lizards and iguanas) much closer related to snakes than to the other lizards, meaning that lizards without snakes included are a paraphyletic group and not a clade / monophyletic group. Also it would be nice to have the tuatara included as it is the sister to the squamates, as well as archosaurs having their own circle branching off from reptiles.

Above and to the right of the word "PROTISTS" you stilk have a space for adding a little something. I suggest you add the blob (Physarum polycephalum), which is a related to amebas and probably one of the most famous protists.

It would be so cool if you could include Araucariaceae in the conifer section... They're such ancient and fascinating trees, and very iconic to the areas of South America, Australia and Oceania where they occur, akin to Pinaceae in the northern continents. They're the only conifer trees native to South America and Australia, a relic from Gondwana and the time of dinosaurs. They're very important to the culture and economy of indigenous cultures and also the descendants of settlers, so I would love if you could please show them in your chart. I grew up around Araucaria angustifolia forests, btw. :)

I'd love a chart of archeogenetic lineages, how they are related, and the ethnolinguistic groups that derive ancestry from them. I know that Indo-Europeans are WHG, ANE, and EEF, but I don't know their parent and grandparent populations, etc.

good job taking an insanely detailed and complicated concept and simplifying it down to a comprehensible chart

If at all possible, including the split in Carnivora between Feliformia and Caniformia so that's is easier to see which other carnivores are closer to felines and canines would be a useful redesign.

Snakes should be under Lizards as well, in fact Snakes, Agamids, Iguanids and Chamaeleons are more closely related to each other than to Geckos.

Euarchontoglires is divided into archonts, which includes primates and tree shrews, and glires, which includes lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) and rodents. Since rabbits, that you chose to include, are closer to rodents than to other euarchontoglires, and since you have largely enough space, I suggest you add a little "Glires" label circle between the "Euarchontoglires" and "Rodents" circles, and that you show rabbits splitting away from that circle instead of the big circle.

Can you do a dog breed evolution tree?

This is the smartest comment section I've ever seen.

I love the new chart, but I'm saddened by a couple things, like how you skip over the origin of tetrapods with the visuals of this chart. I'd love a little more context for the origins of tetrapods as sarcopterygians, perhaps a couple more branches to illustrate to show how our limbs evolved from fleshy fins. I really think it would do a lot to inform an already very underappreciated aspect of our evolutionary lineage. There are lots of lungfish and cool ancient early tetrapods you could include that would be fun and informative. (to hate for tiktaalik but thats like just the beginning of some really crazy amphibian adaptation). Also humans, chimps, and bonobos absolutely form a clade within great apes, to the exclusion of orangutans and gorillas. showing all five as originating simply from one common origin is not telling the full story. edit: also not including a little echidna image should be a crime (love you but pls matt)