This figure is packed with information but it is a lot to figure out at once. It seems like this would have been good to have in color or to split up a few pieces of information.

I really like this figure, it was quick and easy to understand. I hadn't thought of displaying results like this in the past.

I also looked at leaky dioecy- is this when they can sometimes produce flowers of the opposite sex? I took it as almost a grey area between dioecy and monoecy?

It seems bizarre that there are some states that don't have any specimens, I wonder if this is due to the fact that there just haven't been samples from that specific place?

This was surprising to me. When I first started to read this paper, I was more so leaning towards that they wouldn't have similar forest compositions.

This is one of the most interesting parts of the paper in my opinion. A lot of science is based on observations and facts, but when looking at historical research, sometimes that can be impossible. In order to try to get answers, you have to have a lot of knowledge about many different parts of the environment you're studying and how is has evolved.

Having the actual photos in the paper really gives this life and makes it really interesting to think about. I feel like this is something that should be included in more papers.

This was surprising to me. I was predicting that there would be more of a significant difference seen in most or all taxa, not just a few.

This is a complicated figure to look at. Each are different species, and the dot size represents the number of families that have that characteristic? What are the axes?

I was really surprised that there hasn't been more work done on this since 1951.

I'm not the most familiar with the way to displayed these results in figures a and b- can we go over this?

This is interesting, I didn't know that morphine was a natural analgesic, I just assumed it wasn't- definitely shows that natural medicines aren't talked about as much.

Thinking about taking the specific medicinal parts of plants and compiling them into a drug- would this be what is looked at to narrow down the needed ingredients?

This reminds me a lot of some of the papers I focused on for my bio seminar presentation. Creating the models is a really interesting way to look at possible future models, a setback is that it may not include all possible changing factors.

I wonder just how successful the production of natural medicines can/will be. There is such a large pharmacological industry, and I can only imagine what would happen if those drugs were to be replaced rapidly by natural medicines. In turn, I think it would be amazing to get more natural medicines that work, in my head I have this idea that there would be fewer side effects, and if that was the case then that would be reason enough to work towards a more natural medicine path.

Is this specifically two observations only of two clades that are congruent in structure? These are observations that apply to both?

I'm sure exactly where to put this annotation but it was much easier to have the pictures of the flowers during the lecture. It was tricky to picture them all while reading through the paper.

The fading borders is a little confusing at first- It's weird to see it very specific, then go to fading borders and then back to specific

This reminds me of the paper we discussed on Wednesday. It really amazes me that species are able to survive through such extreme conditions- in this case the interglacial cycles!

Have any of the pandemics in the past ever had just one strand present? It was found fairly quickly that there were two strands of Covid-19, I'm curious if this always happens.

I also thought this was a really interesting topic in class, it's amazing to think about the changes that would happen if this wasn't as much of a factor.

This is something I've never thought of as being helpful in tracking ancestry. It makes me curious as to what different individual's digestion abilities are like now compared to our ancestors.

Just like how they were able to travel through North America without leaving a genetic trace, how can we know if they really were the first to reach South America? There could have been others that traveled through South America and similarly didn't leave a genetic trail.

It's always so interesting when older theories are proposed and then looked at many years later and proven to be correct with modern knowledge.

This highlights the significance that one decision can make. One change can cause a chain reaction that results in many evolutionary changes.

Something that isn't thought of-founder effects cause bottlenecks.

Throughout a female's life, do her preferences change? If she already has offspring from a different male, would it be possible for her to look for a male that was a better in different ways such as territory defense rather than just reproductive success?

Something that Darwin predicted that has shown to be true today. A lot of times, earlier scientists are off with their theories but it's impressive to see that this has stood to be true over such a long time.

It's often seen that only the males has the ornamental traits that are appealing to the female.

For natural selection or drift to be the deciding factor in mate choice, it would have to be pretty significant drift. Even within the natural selection there still much be a natural hierarchy of attractiveness for females to choose from.

This isn't something I specifically thought about before but a really important point.

How important are the factors of protection, nuptial gifts and territory defense talked about in the previous paragraph, compared to reproductive success?

Most scenarios in the wild prove this point. Is it just those matings that are most often seen and that's why we automatically assume this?

This is really interesting to think about, the groundwork that he laid has been and is still really helping lead biologists today.

This is the beginning of how we are distinguishing species vs breeds. Also learning what context to use genetic terms such as variable expressivity, incomplete penetrance etc. Some species are just too different to create a fertile, viable offspring.

This is the main difference between the experiments completed by Kolreuter and Gartner versus Herbert. Herbert took into account more factors than Kolreuter and Gartner such as inbreeding.

Understanding evolutionary interactions absolutely is a critical part in beginning to work towards a solution. Having as much information as possible before jumping head first into trying to solve such a big issue is really important and is also the more efficient way of attacking an issue as large scale as climate change.