User:Ahalda/trees

Another issue I didn't notice before has to do with the monophyly of the panarthropoda/Cycloneuralia, and specifically whether tardigrada should be included in panarthropoda. The 2011 paper says this is still uncertain. Hwoever I found a 2014 review by the same author on panarthropoda, which says the best evidence suggests it is monophylic. Therefore I have left that part as it is. On the other hand, a different 2011 publication (including Edgecomb as author again) claims that Cycloneuralia is paraphyletic. Therefore I have removed it.

Post
I was looking into these phylogenies, and I've found some recent review articles that could be cited, and which also suggest improvements to this template.

The first is a review article from 2011,, which has been fairly highly cited since then (98 times), which summarizes recent results and gives a 'consensus' phylogeny. I've copied the cladogram below. * means the node has 'broad consensus'. Overall it agrees well with what's in the template. Here are the places with important differences: Minor differences (probably can be left alone):
 * everything under Lophophorata is placed differently in the cladogram below (which has a new category 'Polyzoa')
 * everything under Xenacoelomorpha is placed differently in the cladogram below
 * Chaetognatha is in Protostomia by article, but it falls easily into the 'disputed' category.
 * cladogram is a little more precise about the Panarthropoda

Also, there seems to be some confusion elsewhere over whether Lophotrochozoa and Spiralia are different. I have not understood the relation yet.

I found another 2013 review article which attempts to describe current consensus on the more ancient metazoan divergences from March 2013, cited 9 times since then. As you can read in the article, although this is the current consensus it is still somewhat uncertain. Probably the template's small amount of detail is enough, but in case we want more detail the cladogram is below. This would clarify the Mesozoa, Parazoa and Radiata in the template. I'm not sure if combining the two cladograms would count as 'original research', since how to do so is a tiny bit subjective.

Finally, here is yet another article which confirms the the last two above from April 2014, 2 non-self citations since then. It does have one difference I noted: It groups the Ctenophora and Cnidaria together. Otherwise it looks identical. I did not find any other more relevant articles.

I will let this sit here until I have time to work on it again or read the articles more closely, and then maybe I'll update the template.