Nonsense. You don't think, you assume. You assume badly.

The potato and tomato has a common ancestor rather than one having evolved
from another.

You must first have some sort of understanding of what taxonomic characters
separate the Solanum tuberosum complex from the genus Lycopersicon before
making rash conclusions of which came first. There are actually a number of
morphological as well as cytological characters that separate the two groups
besides the presence or absence of tubers. Find out why the tomato was
placed in a separate genus in the first place.

Do your homework before jumping to fanciful half wit conclusions, Archie.

Tomatoes did not arise from "hot jungles and outlying regions of South
America" nor are they vines.


Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message
...
I do not have proof of that claim. For I think the genome of the potato
and
tomato plants are decades away from obtaining and the comparing of those
2 genomes. The wild potato and wild tomato not the hybridized domestic
stocks.

But I think I can make the claim from commonsense reasoning. That the
wild tomato was borne in the hot jungles and outlying regions of South
America in a habitat that was not harsh. The potato on the other hand was
born in a habitat of harsh conditions, cold, arid, high in the mountains
and
this required adaptions. The adaptions were that the tomato proclivity to
throw
shoots from its vining stems became a potato root tuber and to store
nutrients
in the tuber for the high dry mountains of South America. In this view the
tomato
extended its range from the easy life in the hot moist jungle of South
America
and extend that into the high, cold, dry mountains.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies