I could be way off base here, and I don't honestly know much about biology... but just because two species don't have recent common ancestors, doesn't mean they couldn't have co-evolved and ended up very similarly, right? Wouldn't this be grounds for relating their classification?

▲

6 days ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

philwelch 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Convergent evolution happens all the time but taxonomy is nonetheless based on ancestry.

	▲	SAI_Peregrinus 6 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Also "horizontal gene transfer" happens in bacteria, and even happens in multicellular sexually-reproducing organisms after viral infection in some cases. Taxonomy should be a directed acyclic graph, not a tree.
	▲	taeric 6 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		For a fun somewhat related topic, it was neat to see the hierarchy of strings and characters in Common Lisp the other day. Can be used to illustrate a bit of the shortcoming of using ancestry to answer if two things are related. https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/strings.html#stri...

▲

jgwil2 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They could have a similar phenotype without being genetically similar.