The article only says the tree was dependent on the bird, not visa versa
No, the article says that the "Tambalacoque and the dodo bird would had to have come into existence at the same time in order for the Tambalacoque to survive."
Why couldn't the Dodo have come into existence first? The implication is that the Dodo was likewise dependent upon the Tambalacoque.
The author is grasping at straws to make it sound as preposterous as possible that the Dodo and the Tambalacoque came into existence separately, at different times, and without any particular dependence upon one another - and that they only gradually developed this (one-sided) relationship.
Any further objections?
Regards,