Maybe…but I doubt many of these phylogenies use DNA, and if so, likely only a single or few genes. Nowhere near enough resolution to accurately determine genetic relatedness. Woody plants may actually be more related than we think.

These sorts of phylogenies tend to use morphological characteristics which is an unreliable measure of genetic relatedness.

I will stand corrected if wrong though

True. A good way around this is to test ideas across multiple people. N=1 is just bad science.

And also asking: “but shit how, specifically?”

Not saying it’s easy

You don’t need their permission to write it up yourself