I think you are missing the point here. Yes, we can put autos into nested hierarchies. But automotive nested hierarchies do not correlate to “similar origins”, “similar histories” and common “components” the way that genetically-driven “Nested Hierarchies” do.
@T_aquaticus will have no problem explaining the differences to you. The question is will you understand the explanation?
Let’s look at this animal example again:
When molecular comparisons are made for each “bucket” or “nest”, we generally see genetic “imperfections” or “novelties” passed “upstream” [for the purpose of this discussion, we will have to use the term Upstream, instead of the more intuitive Downstream, simply because the chart has been arranged in the reverse order, with currently existing life forms at the top of the image, instead of at the bottom of the image].
When there are observable fossilized attributes in animals from middle layers of rock, these attributes are typically passed on (if passed on at all) to the animal groups with fossils in the more recent layers of rock. You don’t find fish fins popping up on rabbits. But you might find genetically-based vitamin difficiencies being passed on, just like the human problem with vitamins can be found in some closely related primate groups.
When we do find a category of problem popping up in unrelated (or "lesser-related) animal groups, it is frequently a problem produced by a completely different set of genes. See how that could help explain why Common Descenty is seen as a logical outcome of Evolution?
In the auomotive version of a chart like this, we could easily find “retro elements” from older successful models being “revived” in newer models to make statements in style, or to re-capture a wave of nostaligia. And such retro-attributes may well be made of completely new materials, or with new manufacturing techniques.
In the animal world, the traits that are passed on are being produced with very few changes in the genetic machinery that makes them.
Are you following this logic, NonLin?