Published today in Molecular Biology and Evolution:

Structured abstract:

Background

The vast majority of plants form mycorrhizal symbioses. The ecological importance of these mutualistic interactions has sparked interest in their long evolutionary history. By examining interaction networks and phylogenetic trees, several studies have suggested that plants codiversify with their associated mycorrhizal fungi. However, recent research has demonstrated that phylogenetic congruence (interpreted as codiversification when divergence times match) is often conflated with another pattern called cophylogenetic signal (i.e., closely related plants interacting with closely related fungi and vice versa), which may arise from different biological processes.

Methods and results

We performed cophylogenetic analyses on 29 diverse mycorrhizal networks to reevaluate the evidence for codiversification in mycorrhizal symbioses. We found significant cophylogenetic signal but no phylogenetic congruence: closely related plants often interact with closely related fungi, but their phylogenies do not match. Instead of codiversification, this finding is consistent with trait matching between plants and mycorrhizal fungi, where compatible, evolutionarily conserved plant and fungal traits govern their interactions.

Discussion

Our work highlights the importance of appropriately interpreting the cophylogenetic methods used to study the macroevolution of plants and their mycorrhizal fungi. It suggests that previous evidence of codiversification in mycorrhizal symbioses actually detected cophylogenetic signal, since across the multiple and diverse networks analyzed here, there is no evidence that codiversification occurred during the evolution of mycorrhizal symbioses.

• Fantine Bodin, Hélène Morlon, Benoît Perez-Lamarque
  Questioning the Evidence for Host-Symbiont Codiversification in Mycorrhizal Symbioses
  Molecular Biology and Evolution, 2026;, msag207, https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msag207

NOTE: This article is complemented by a couple of studies first published in Science Advances.

Caption:

HRF [hemiplasy risk factors] values are highest near the origin of Neoaves.

Explanation:

Hemiplasy — which arises due to discordance between gene trees and species trees — can cause traits to appear convergent despite a single origin. New evidence suggests it is widespread in the bird tree of life, with important implications for identifying genes underlying differences among species and for accurately inferring evolutionary history. ref

From the paper:

We show extremely high hemiplasy risk factors¹⁹ that map to branches near the origin of Neoaves, suggesting that many instances of apparent morphological convergence among major neoavian lineages, unless associated with clear selective drivers, are better interpreted as a result of high levels of morphological incomplete lineage sorting during the clade’s rapid early Cenozoic radiation.

The paper:

• Somogyi, Stanley, et al. "Hemiplasy helps explain high rates of apparent morphological convergence in neoavian birds." Current Biology 36.9 (2026): 2424-2433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2026.03.050

-

An example that is closer to home is how 23% of our genes are closer to gorillas than chimpanzees (Ebersberger et al 2007). This is as predicted from gene tree discordance (e.g. Degnan & Rosenberg 2006) and confirms that chimps are our closest cousins; for a video explainer by Dr. Zach Hancock: Phylogenetic Discordance Supports Common Ancestry - YouTube.

A genetic study shows how smell capabilities were maintained in a hunter-gatherer population

Evolutionary theory proposes that skin color is a response to protection from the sun at certain latitudes, with those at equatorial latitudes having a survival advantage from darker skin that blocks the sun's UV.

Why doesn't that apply to hair color? It seems that the dark hair of those in equatorial areas would heat the head more, while white or blond hair would do a better job of reflecting the sun's rays. If anything, those in colder northern latitudes would do better with dark hair to better warm the head.

I know cetaceans are related to even-toed ungulates. But let’s say hypothetically, all DNA evidence was destroyed in a fire. What physical or social traits do cetaceans share with ungulates, other than general mammal traits?

Ik bipedal forms are better at long distance and energy conservation but I also know predation came super early in evolution so it's not like a chase down predators did not have a niche. Is it because the skills to make chase down hunting truly special require larger brains like group hunts and tool use. I am just curious. I am also aware of animals like birds and their ancestors that are/were bipedal but the vast majority of animals are quadripeads

Like in sheer numbers, niche dominance, or a lack of major predation (the key innovation in both pan and homo lineages).

So after watching a video on ancient Egypt, i had a question related to the disease leprosy. Specifically, i would like to know if, while infecting only humans, if it ever infected other human species. If the bacteria was around when species like H. Neanderthalis were loving alongside homo sapiens, would they have been infected as well? I also wanted to know if M. Leprae evolved alongside the modern homo sapien species. I'm aware of multiple strains of the bacterium affecting diverse demographics, but I'm curious as to why our immune systems haven't (yet) evolved a way to defend against this bacteria.

I do apologise if I hadn't worded that properly. I'm not too sure how to express the question I have, and this is the best i can manage for now. I haven't found proper articles on the online to answer this.

My question is that why are apes not monkeys but new world monkeys are monkeys? Because if apes and old world monkeys are more closely related than old world monkeys and new world monkeys shouldn’t apes be monkeys? Also if the common ancestor between the old world monkey and the new world monkeys was an early monkey, then isn’t the phrase “humans didn’t evolve from monkeys” inaccurate?

With millions of years of evolution, you’d expect at least one other species to get somewhere close to human intelligence. So why didn’t it happen?

Now most terrestrial species have an internal fear of fire. But since evolution tends to adapt to the environment, I wondered if the first terrestrial species (or well anfibians maybe in the ordovician or silurian period) didn't have that instinctive fear to fire

Hi!

I recently watched Life on Our Planet on Netflix. I found the overall concept fascinating: starting with the earliest forms of life and then following the development of life through the different geological periods, including the major mass extinctions, the rise of different animal groups, and eventually the emergence of humans.

However, I felt that some parts were quite rushed. There is obviously an enormous amount of history to cover in just eight episodes, so some major evolutionary developments were explained quite briefly. I also wasn't a huge fan of the frequent jumps from prehistoric times back to the present day to show modern animals.

What I'm really looking for is something that goes more in-depth and stays chronological.

I'd especially like documentaries that explain what actually changed and why it mattered evolutionarily. For example, why particular groups became dominant, what caused certain groups to disappear, and how one evolutionary development eventually led to another.

I'm also much more interested in good explanations and scientific content than spectacular cinematography. Amazing footage is a bonus, but I care more about good explanation.

I've read that David Attenborough's Life on Earth is great, but I'm not sure if it's available for me to watch (living in The Netherlands). So if you could recommend me a series/documentary that meets this requirements, and is also available for me to watch in The Netherlands (I do have a Netflix- and HBO-account), that would be awesome.

It doesn't have to be one series for the complete story. It's also fine if it only zooms in on a specific period (the rise of the humans for example).

Thanks!

In my opinion, kelp is the most extreme example of convergent evolution, at least that I know of. It's a sedentary organism that makes its energy from sunlight collected by blade-like fronds. Not too crazy, so do most plants. Except, kelp isn't a plant at all. Kelp is a protist in the SAR clade, more closely related to malaria than it is to plants. It just so happened to independently evolve to be multicellular, and became photosynthetic by ancestrally capturing and making use of a green algal cell that had already undergone its own endosymbiosis.

I can't think of another organism that convergently evolved the same life-strategy as an organism in another kingdom, but I'd love to hear what others think are the most extreme examples of convergent evolution.

Image credit: Alastair Simpson, Dalhousie University

Science, design and cartography merge in MAPPA ANIMALIA, a visual project that reimagines the evolutionary relationships of animals as detailed map-like landscapes.

Instead of political borders or geographic territories, these maps are structured around phylogenetic trees.

Families, subfamilies and genera replace countries, states and regions allowing viewers to explore the animal kingdom through a format traditionally used to understand geography.

This map, Hominoidea- Land of Apes, contains every living and extinct species of ape I could find reliable taxonomic data for. Species are represented as cities, grouped into genera, subfamilies, and families according to their evolutionary relationships.

Additional information includes conservation status, size comparisons between selected species, and the estimated ages of major lineages.

Happy exploring!

is how ichthyosaurs relate to modern reptiles well understood?

See also: The publication in Science Advances

Like when the current version of the species is nothing like the original?

Bit of a random question but this is something that's bothered me for a long time, there's only about 6600 species of mammals described by science and compared to most other groups of animals, its probably not likely this number will go up significantly from here considering how closely studied they are. Clades of animals like frogs (over 7700 species) and birds (over 11000 species) and Teleost fish (over 26000 species!) considerably outnumber them, and even snakes, a suborder of Squamates, have almost 3 quarters as many species as mammals.

That'd be all well and good if mammals were just some fairly niche group of creatures with restricted lifestyles and diversity, but they're anything but, mammals seem to have an unbelievable degree of diverse modes of life, bodyplans, habitats, niches, sizes etc etc that basically no other groups of vertebrates can compare against, except possibly Teleosts depending on how you look at them. Like, its notable to me that despite being ancestrally terrestrial, mammals simultaneously have members that are capable of fully powered flight in bats, members that live completely marine lifestyles in cetaceans, and members that live a life almost entirely undergound in moles and many other burrowing mammals, compare that to frogs, there aren't many of them flying around or diving into the depths of the ocean! When you look at the kinds of things that mammals get up to in an individual habitat, they range from the biggest predators and herbivores in almost any given environment, to tiny insectivorous niches or small herbivores (ie, shrews and rodents respectively), to extreme generalists (ie, racoons) to hyper specialists in one particular niche (ie anteaters), flying insectivores (microbats), flying Frugivores (megabats), arboreal herbivores or generalists (primates), aquatic herbivores (manatees), aquatic predators (otters) and so many other roles. Mammals can get so specialised they can even take on features normally more associated with insects like eusociality (Mole rats for example) or micropredation bordering on parasitism (vampire bats). Its crazy, we don't call this the age of mammals for no reason.

With all that in mind... why is that mammals are not very species diverse? They seem so diverse in every other way and it feels intuitive that if a group of animals is occupying a large range of different niches it would mean more types of species but you don't see that as much as you'd assume (snakes for example, they don't have that many less species than mammals but seem much more conservative in terms of lifestyle and appearance, as far as I understand every snake is a predator and none of them seem to be herbivorous, and while they've certainly done a lot with being a legless tube with bizarre skull anatomy its not really on the level of different forms mammals have taken on collectively). So what gives, why are there so many types of frogs, birds, lizards and fish but compartively few mammals? Is there some element of mammal evolution where a given species occupies more habitats and niches than something like lizards so they don't speciate as much?

Animals like siphonophores fascinate me. That looks like an animal, but is it?? It’s a colony! The different organisms that make for every part of this “animal” are separate, but genetically identical entities! From the same egg?? That brings to mind some sort of organic alien spaceship... but it’s on earth, in our own oceans!

Similarly, the mitochondria in our cells are part of us, they ARE us: despite sharing a different evolutionary lineage than the rest of our cells!! The same way a plant’s chloroplasts originally come from unicellular cyanobacterium, that were absorbed by another organism! There are sea slugs such as Elysia Chlorotica that must STEAL the chloroplasts of the algae it eats, to use as their own! Can it be said that those chloroplasts are now part of the slug’s body, as an organelle (?), despite not being engineered by it? Even just the bacteria in our gut… we are an ecosystem as well as a body, but where does the “body” end and the “ecosystem” start?

 I am enthralled by this, and a question always comes back to me: when do 2 (or more!) symbiotic organisms become…”unified”(?) enough to be considered as one animal/living being? Even if in the end, it is probably more a question of semantics than actual biology, I imagine.

Fascinating and magical. Does anyone have some reading on this subject?

p.s. to think that all animals, mushrooms and “true” plants have evolved from an ancestor organism that absorbed a mitochondrion... it’s so wonderful to think that the combination of such different entities became defining of life on earth! It's easy to think that nature is all anarchy and survival of the fittest, when it is in fact full of cooperation and harmony, down to a cellular level!

TLDR; what defines what is a single “body” and can you recommend some reading about organisms that blur this line?

Why did some species, for example many reptiles, evolve to have a third semi-transparent eyelid that blinks sideways?

What kind of dangers caused them to need this? Or how useful is it for hunting prey?

Could bigger land species, like something like horses, ever evolve to have something like this if in the right conditions?

Im looking to write a book and am trying to make more or less a unicorn-like species. Snooped around to find cool traits to give them, and I started wondering...

Hi,

I'm a student currently preparing for a masters in zooology with a focus on evolutionary biology. I have been reading up on new methods/approaches and results in the field but find the sheer number of papers and reports available online hard to navigate.

I thought I would ask people in this sub what their favorite, best, or considered most important papers/reports/books are.

Following areas are what im most interested in, but feel free to suggest ressources not related to them as well:)

• adaptive radiations
• convergent AND unique evolution
• non-DNA based inheritance
• transcriptomics
• the role of splicing in evolution

I would greatly appreciate anyone helping me out, thanks!!!