Talk:Phylogenetic network

Main Figure
The main figure of this article seems to depict a tree. Although the nature article from which the figure is taken calls this a network, it is a tree (no reticulations). Trees are also networks, as this article clearly states, so this is no problem on itself. However, it might be nice to have a main figure with at least one reticulation. I propose we replace the current main figure with a (published) explicit phylogenetic network with at least one reticulation. RemJanssen (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Extra topics needed
This article can profit from more information about what information can be found in which kinds of phylogenetic networks. Explicit rooted networks can, for example, be seen as the highways for flow of genetic information. Gene trees (trees for parts of the genome that do not recombine, not necessarily functional genes) must fit in the network. Explicit rooted networks with extra information such as branch lengths and admixture probabilities can also be obtained, for example with Phylonet. Such networks are most like the phylogenetic trees biologists like to use (Such a network would be nice as main figure).

There should also be more emphasis on the fact that splits networks are data display networks, and not explicit networks. Their popularity is mainly due to their ease of use. They do not, however, represent an evolutionary history (phylogeny)! 85.148.50.244 (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)