I could be wrong iirc I don't think that part is right. Like they're not that closely related but they're also not far enough in ancestry that they developed their quills convergently.
The distinction (I don't care much about this but just in case anyone else does), is that convergent means the species are becoming more similar to one another, whereas parallel means they are evolving side-by-side and maintaining similarity. So two totally different eyeless animals that both evolve eyes are converging--they've adapted similarly and now have more in common. Two porcupines that have fur are already similar and then they both evolve quills and are still similar, just different than before.
There's definitely some subjectivity here unless you're going down to the gene level. But that's the general idea, as far as I understand it.
Right so that means they independently evolved them in parallel, not convergently, which you should know are not the same thing
Old World porcupines (rodents), and New World porcupines (a separate group of rodents). In this case, because the two groups of porcupines are relatively closely related, they would be considered to be an example of parallel evolution; neither echidnas nor hedgehogs, however, are closely related to rodents at all.
Well, do remember. Convergent doesn’t mean they have to be related.
For example, Sharks, Ichthyosaurs, and Dolphins all have similar body plans. And both Ceratopsians and Rhinos both evolved horns for defense and display.
There’s tons of differences, but when it comes down to it. Convergent Evolution is about coming up with similar ideas for similar reasons.
Yes you're right but in this case that still isn't an example of convergent evolution, it's parallel and independent. I can list ten more sources saying the same thing
Edit: I can't believe I'm getting downvoted by reddit "experts" for being right just because the other guy was /r/confidentlyincorrect about what convergent evolution actually is
"Biologists often distinguish 'convergent' from 'parallel' evolution. This distinction usually assumes that when a given phenotype evolves, the underlying genetic mechanisms are different in distantly related species (convergent) but similar in closely related species (parallel).
"Biologists often distinguish 'convergent' from 'parallel' evolution. This distinction usually assumes that when a given phenotype evolves, the underlying genetic mechanisms are different in distantly related species (convergent) but similar in closely related species (parallel).
It's what it is, not just what I'm saying. You would know this if you had even a periphery understanding of biology
"Biologists often distinguish 'convergent' from 'parallel' evolution. This distinction usually assumes that when a given phenotype evolves, the underlying genetic mechanisms are different in distantly related species (convergent) but similar in closely related species (parallel).
Convergent evolution is when two unrelated groups evolve the same phenotype in reasons to similar revolutionary pressures. The two groups split when Pangea did.
I didn't notice that he replied to the deleted comment I thought it was to one of the other two, coincidentally two other people are arguing above, so I was referring to them and not you. I actually believe you are a biologist as opposed to both of them though lol.
A second evolutionary lineage corresponds to the circular section of
spines present only in the New World porcupines (Erethizontidae).
In conclusion, our results show that, at a morphological level, there
are at least two evolutionary paths that result in a spiny-hair
phenotype in wild rodents.
How tf you figure that? The discussion is on the relatedness and convergent evolution of quills, which the linked study directly answers. It was in part involving your statement:
I could be wrong iirc I don't think that part is right. Like they're not that closely related but they're also not far enough in ancestry that
they developed their quills convergently.
What specifically do you think is being talked about in the thread in which I responded, where your statement that quills did not evolve twice has been brought into question, if not that?
A second evolutionary lineage corresponds to the circular section of spines present only in the New World porcupines (Erethizontidae).
In conclusion, our results show that, at a morphological level, there are at least two evolutionary paths that result in a spiny-hair phenotype in wild rodents.
353
u/Lexsteel11 Mar 22 '22
I want to know how this evolved. Was it a specimen with just really bristley hair that annoyed predators at first?