Here's a big project I've been working on for a few weeks: a phylogenetic tree of everything in Minecraft! It would take ages to explain everything here, so if you want an explaination of any inclusions, exclusions, categorisations or Latin names PLEASE PLEASE PUHLEASE ask me I would love to answer any questions :3
Origin of Life Fungi Animalia Algae Plantae Brown mushroom Boletus edulis Red mushroom Amanita muscaria Crimson fungi Inferna rubedo Warped
Here's the slides I used to make it since i'm aware the text on the image there is pretty much unreadable.
Reblogs appreciated!
Edit: there are some problems with the image on here aside from the quality, so please check the slides for a slightly more accurate version! Also, if you have a question check the notes first! Odds are someone else has asked already.
Edit 2: PLEASE check the reblogs before you ask a question, most of the questions I'm getting now are ones that have already been answered. But I of course really appreciate how much people care :3
Full image description:
At the bottom is the Origin of Life, which branches out into five kingdoms - amoebozoa, animalia, fungi, algae and plantae.
Amoebozoa is in pink. It branches into Sculk (latin name sculk sculk) and then into slimes (scindo uliginosus) and magma cubes (scindo igneum)
Animalia starts off in orange. It branches off into the five types of coral (Fire - millepora, horn - rugosa, tube - tubipora musica, bubble - Plerogyra sinuosa, brain - diploria). The second branch of animalia branches off to the sponge (in the phylum demospongiae) and then to molluscs and arthropods.
Moluscs first branches off to the shulker (duopartes purpur) then to the nautilus (latin name nautilus), the ghast (Exspiravita inferno) the heart of the sea (unknown latin name), the squid (Immiforma caeruleum) and the glow squid (Immiforma crepuscula). The heart of the sea and nautilus are both marked with a dagger symbol, indicating they are extinct.
Arthropods branches off to the enderman (gracillis sapiens) and the ender dragon (draconiforma finis). It also branches off into insects, featuring bees (bombus enormus) and silverfish (Lepisma saccharinum), as well as to arachnids, featuring the endermite (terminus limina), the spider (rufoculos nocturnis) and the cave spider (rufoculos caverna).
Carrying on from the branch of animalia is the sea pickle (Pyrosoma) and then the vertebrates, which are coloured in reddish orange. The first branch contains the Queen angelfish (Holacanthus ciliaris), the emperor red snapper (Lutjanus sebae) and the moorish idol (Zanclus cornutus). the second branch contains salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). The third branch contains the yellowtail parrotfish (Sparisoma rubripinne), the clownfish (Amphiprion percula) and the dottyback (Diadem pseudochromis). The next branch contains cod (Gadus). the final fish branch contains the triggerfish (Abalistes stellatus), the pufferfish (Arothron meleagris) and the yellow tang (Zebrasoma flavescens).
Next the branch transitions into tetrapods. coming off this are amphibians, which includes the frog (Lithobates thermochroma) and the axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum)
image desc currently unfinished, would appreciate help
Our fossil is a rare new witness. It comes from roughly 80-million-year-old rock in São Paulo state, Brazil. We named it Tametara mirim, meaning “adorned” and “small” in the local Indigenous language.
(Photo: Agustin Martinelli)
The new fossil of Tametara mirim reframes how we understand snake evolution.
(Photo: Agustin Martinelli)
Life reconstruction of the burrowing stem snake Tametara mirim which lived alongside now-extinct stem-birds and sauropod dinosaurs.
(Illustration: Gabriel Ugueto)
The bones of Tametara show it had the skull of a burrower. CT scan volume-rendered with VGSTUDIO MAX.
(Image: Roy Ebel)
One theory about how snakes evolved suggests lizards went underground, lost their limbs and elongated their bodies.
(Illustration supplied - Roy Ebel)
80‑million‑year‑old snake fossil sheds light on why lizards lost their limbs and started slithering
Snakes are everywhere in our legends and mythology. Yet for most of us, our blood runs cold whenever we encounter these strangely undulating, scaly tubes of muscle slithering through the leaf litter.
The loss of an arm or leg poses a challenge. Yet snakes do perfectly well without all four of them. This makes them suspect. It also leaves us unable to fathom how this radical transition produced one of the most successful vertebrate body plans.
More than 4,000 species of snakes are alive today, on every continent except Antarctica, from thread-thin burrowers to massive pythons, on land and in the sea. We have studied them since antiquity, and still the oldest question about them has no answer: what turned snakes into snakes?
We have long suspected their peculiar, limbless body plan is explained by how the earliest snakes lived. In a new study, published today in Nature, my colleagues and I describe a small, exquisitely preserved fossil that brings us closer to an answer than ever before.
By Roy Ebel
Research Officer Herpetology, Museums Victoria Research Institute, Australia
The Conversation - July 23, 2026
Snakes lost their limbs millions of years ago to become undulating, scaly tubes of muscles. Scientists are finally figuring out why.
•
•
Related article >>
Fig. 1: Holotype (MPM 420) of T. mirim.
a, Photograph of the whole specimen with the articulated skull and postcranium in dorsal view. Ant, anterior; Bl, block number; Ce.V., cervical vertebrae; Do.V., dorsal vertebrae; Post, posterior; Sk, skull. b,c, Photographs of the skull in lateral (b) and dorsal (c) view. CB, compound bone; F, frontal; Oto, otoccipital; P, parietal; PFr, postfrontal; Pro, prootic; Ptg, pterygoid; Q, quadrate; Soc, supraoccipital; St, supratemporal. d–g, 3D renderings of an anterior precloacal (‘cervical’) vertebra in lateral (d) and anterolateral (e) views, and mid-precloacal (‘dorsal’) vertebra in dorsal (f) and left lateral (g) views. h–j, 3D renderings of the skull in the right lateral view (h) and with exposed brain endocasts in the right lateral (i) and dorsal (j) views. Mes., mesencephalon; Rho., rhombencephalon; Tel., telencephalon. Scale bars, 100 mm (a), 5 mm (b,c,h–j) and 1 mm (d–g). Specimen photos were taken by A.S.H.
Exceptional brain and ecological diversity in the earliest snakes
Understanding the ecological origin of snakes has remained a century-old challenge, hindered by an extremely sparse early fossil record and conflicting interpretations of fossil ecologies.
Here we describe an exceptionally preserved Cretaceous fossil snake, Tametara mirim gen. et sp. nov., from Brazil, representing one of the earliest-diverging stem snakes. High-resolution micro-CT scans reveal unprecedented details of cranial nerves, inner ear and brain anatomy, enabling the most integrated reconstruction of stem snake neuroanatomy to date. Quantitative and qualitative endocast analyses demonstrate that Tametara had a brain morphology distinct from both other stem and extant snakes, revealing substantial early neuroanatomical disparity — and probably sensory functions — in snake evolution. Independent evidence from telencephalon shape and bone microstructure converges on a fossorial lifestyle for Tametara and non-fossorial for another stem snake: Dinilysia.
These results indicate that major ecological transitions occurred early in snake evolution, and that known stem species do not represent the ancestral condition of crown snakes. Early snake evolution thus involved complex shifts in habitat use and sensory ecology, revealing greater ecological and neuroanatomical diversity than previously thought.
By Tiago R. Simões, Gabriela Sobral, Simone Macri, Roy Ebel, Thiago S. Fachini, Augustin G. Martinelli, William R. Nava, Giovanna M. X. Paixão, Luis M. Chiappe, Nicolas Di-Poï & Annie S. Hsiou
Nature - 22 July 2026
A well-preserved fossil snake from the Late Cretaceous of Brazil shows early ecological and brain shape disparity in the group.
are ammonites a sort of missing link between gastropods and cephalopods? since they're basically squids with snail shells? or are cephalopods just really derived gastropods?
no, ammonites were regular degular cephalopods as much as a squid or an octopus is today, they weren't a missing link of anything.
and cephalopods aren't gastropods, but both cephalopods and gastropods are mollusks! they love on opposite sides of their family tree:
mollusks are one of the very oldest and most diverse classes of animal life on earth, so it's not too surprising that they invented some bizarre standout characters in that timeframe! the very first cephalopods roughly 500 million years ago were basically a weird ball of snot with a shell that was jussssst starting to figure out this whole arms and eyes thing:
over the next 500 million years, different branches of the cephalopod would eliminate (octopus) internalize (squid, cuttlefish) or embiggen the external shell (ammonites, nautiluses) as suited their specific needs.
On the one hand, it's true that the way Dungeons & Dragons defines terms like "sorcerer" and "warlock" and "wizard" is really only relevant to Dungeons & Dragons and its associated media – indeed, how these terms are used isn't even consistent between editions of D&D! – and trying to apply them in other contexts is rarely productive.
On the other hand, it's not true that these sorts of fine-grained taxonomies of types of magic are strictly a D&D-ism and never occur elsewhere. That folks make this argument is typically a symptom of being unfamiliar with Dungeons & Dragons' source material. D&D's main inspirations are American literary sword and sorcery fantasy spanning roughly the 1930s through the early 1980s, and fine-grained taxonomies of magic users absolutely do appear in these sources; they just aren't anything like as consistent as the folks who try to cram everything into the sorcerer/warlock/wizard model would prefer.
For example, in Lyndon Hardy's "Five Magics" series, the five types of magical practitioners are:
Alchemists: Drawing forth the hidden virtues of common materials to craft magic potions; limited by the fact that the outcomes of their formulas are partially random.
Magicians: Crafting enchanted items through complex manufacturing procedures; limited by the fact that each step in the procedure must be performed perfectly with no margin for error.
Sorcerers: Speaking verbal formulas to basically hack other people's minds, permitting illusion-craft and mind control; limited by the fact that the exercise of their art eventually kills them.
Thaumaturges: Shaping matter by manipulating miniature models; limited by the need to draw on outside sources like fires or flywheels to make up the resulting kinetic energy deficit.
Wizards: Summoning and binding demons from other dimensions; limited by the fact that the binding ritual exposes them to mental domination by the summoned demon if their will is weak.
"Warlock", meanwhile, isn't a type of practitioner, but does appear as pejorative term for a wizard who's lost a contest of wills with one of their own summoned demons.
Conversely, Lawrence Watt-Evans' "Legends of Ethshar" series includes such types of magic-users as:
Sorcerers: Channelling power through metal talismans to produce fixed effects; in the time of the novels, talisman-craft is largely a lost art, and most sorcerers use found or inherited talismans.
Theurges: Summoning gods; the setting's gods have no interest in human worship, but are bound not to interfere in the mortal world unless summoned, and are thus amenable to cutting deals.
Warlocks: Wielding X-Men style psychokinesis by virtue of their attunement to the telepathic whispers emanating from the wreckage of a crashed alien starship. (They're the edgy ones!)
Witches: Producing improvisational effects mostly related to healing, telepathy, precognition, and minor telekinesis by drawing on their own internal energy.
Wizards: Drawing down the infinite power of Chaos and shaping it with complex rituals. Basically D&D wizards, albeit with a much greater propensity for exploding.
You'll note that both taxonomies include something called a "sorcerer", something called a "warlock", and something called a "wizard", but what those terms mean in their respective contexts agrees neither with the Dungeons & Dragons definitions, nor with each other.
(Admittedly, these examples are from the 1980s, and are thus not free of D&D's influence; I picked them because they both happened to use all three of the terms in question in ways that are at odds with how D&D uses them. You can find similar taxonomies of magic use in earlier works, but I would have had to use many more examples to offer multiple competing definitions of each of "sorcerer", "warlock" and "wizard", and this post is already long enough!)
So basically what I'm saying is giving people a hard time about using these terms "wrong" – particularly if your objection is that they're not using them in a way that's congruent with however D&D's flavour of the week uses them – makes you a dick, but simply having this sort of taxonomy has a rich history within the genre. Wizard phylogeny is a time-honoured tradition!
