Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Cladogram requests/Archive 1

Laysan rail (Porzana palmeri)
I've long wanted to get the Laysan rail article up to snuff, and I just noticed a DNA analysis has recently been published. If you look at figure 2 here, could we get the clusters of species marked with "x"es (and the adjecent ones that aren't marked)? The most inclusive clade that includes Porzana monasa and Porzana parva... Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Did you mean least? Most would mean the entire tree... and beyond... :) Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 22:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Least! Maybe I should just take a screenshot, or do you know what part I mean? FunkMonk (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Done ;) Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 03:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's exactly the part I meant! FunkMonk (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Prognathodon and Mosasauridae
So I have been working on the Prognathodon article and the largest gap remaining is probably the classification section. The current cladogram in the article is from 2012 and several analyses have been done since then. The most recent studies on mosasaur phylogeny are these two: and  and I think a cladogram based on either would be good. One on Prognathodon would probably do best in being collapsed to only show the Mosasaurinae and featuring as many species of the genus as possible due to its paraphyletic nature. I would also like to request a tree on the Mosasauridae as a whole, since the one in the Mosasaur article is from 2013 and has some glaring discrepancies with the latest ones. Thanks in advance! Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Good work on the article! I'll get on the cladogram; do you have any preference which cladogram in particular between the two papers should be used? You obviously know mosasaurs better than I do, so you'd be better at deciding which would be better.  Luso titan  16:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Both papers utilize the same character set (which makes the discrepancies, e.g. the phylogeny of the Plioplatecarpinae, between them a bit weird), but I think the cladogram used in fig. 5 and 6 in the second paper would be the best one to go with. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: This is the poorly-supported Bayesian tree, and it has a (mostly) monophyletic Prognathodon! Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Shoot! Would the cladogram in fig. 7 be a better option? My knowledge of phylogenetic analyses is (as evident) slightly subpar, so if not you should just go with the best supported tree. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Mm, I will defer to on this one... Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Heres my attempt at the full Mosasauridae phylogeny (Mosasaurini relationships are the same as above). Maximum Likelihood tree direct from Simões et al 2017. I'd go with this one because it lacks the odd quirks of Bayesian analysis (such as prioritizing geological age over phylogeny) and it has fewer polytomies than normal Maximum Parsimony analysis. This phylogeny also has more taxa than those of Cau above. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 23:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

And Mosasaurinae:


 * Thanks! I'll add these. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Bluebuck modification
Hi, a user added a new cladogram to the bluebuck article (second cladogram), but it is way too inclusive, and should only contain Hippotraginae. Could someone cut off Sheep (Ovis) and Alcelaphinae? Thanks. FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'll get to that. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 14:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. How does it look ? IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 14:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! Good to get rid of all that white space, especially since there are no appropriate images left to fill it out with... FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Elasmosaurus
Let's get this going! While working on Elasmosaurus, I noticed we had no specific cladogram showing it. This seems to be one of the most recent ones: (I only need Elasmosauridae) FunkMonk (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll whip this one up. IJReid  discuss 14:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will add now! FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again,, I realised the Styxosaurus part of the cladogram might be confusing to readers, and isn't really relevant to the Elasmosaurus article. Do you think you could change the cladogram directly in the Elasmosaurus article so that it only shows species, with Styxosaurus as a single branch? FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How's this? IJReid  discuss 03:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take it! FunkMonk (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi again,, I have a question for the double cladograms now placed in Elasmosaurus. As you can see, they now act like they have something that prevents images being placed in the white space on their right side, similar to "clear", so that a huge space is created under the image. Any idea how to make it possible top fill out this space anyway without problems? FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I've fixed it, I'd used the same method on Europasaurus, you just need to set the columb width to be less than ~90% depending on the image width. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 15:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's weird! FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Stylonurine eurypterids
A lot of the eurypterid articles are missing cladograms, in large part due to the fact that their classification always seems to be undergoing radical changes, but I think this cladogram (link) from this open-access paper (link) which covers one of the two suborders (the Stylonurina) could be adapted for use here. Perhaps the main Stylonurina article could use a large all-inclusive one and trimmed down versions could be used for the various superfamilies and individual genera? Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, got this. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 00:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Done IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 00:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Looks good. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Catopsbaatar
Hi, I'm now working on Catopsbaatar, and the most recent cladogram I know that includes it is from 1997. I guess It will have to do, but the paper shows three differen cladograms, perhaps you know which one that would be most appropriate, as I don't know much about how such is evaluated. The PDF is here, and the cladograms are on page 236. Perhaps knows of something newer, as I think he had some interest in the group. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I found another analysis from 1997/8 that includes Catopsbaatar and also many more taxa than the other analysis, but it looks like it has fewer Djadchotatheroids. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 01:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, yeah, I think it's best to use one that has the most close relatives. FunkMonk (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll make that one. Unlabelled because I can't tell the nodes. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 02:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, now added. Seems Ptilodus is missing from the base, though? FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah ok. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 03:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Alcione elainus
Normally I draw these myself, but I've been getting out of practice lately, so I decided to just ask here. I was working on recreating the article for the gen. et. sp. nov. Alcione elainus, a nyctosaurid, when out of the blue, I completely forgot how the heck to make a cladogram! Here is a link to the paper. Could some create a cladogram that's just the least inclusive clade including Pteranodon and Nyctosaurus? Thanks in advance. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this what you need?  Jts1882 &#124; talk 13:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for creating this! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Eurypterine eurypterids
So with one eurypterid suborder with a nice cladogram, the other one is lacking a comprehensive one compromising the whole suborder, and with many species and families being without good phylogenetic analyses, a cladogram covering all of the Eurypterina would be useful for both the articles of various clades and for some of the individual genera, such as Eusarcana which I am working on right now. This paper has a comprehensive cladogram on page 565 of eurypterids which would be great for this purpose. The cladogram also features the Stylonurina suborder, but as the stylonurine cladrogram previously put together here and currently in use on wikipedia is more recent and extensive the stylonurine portion of the cladogram might not be strictly necessary to include. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll take this up, it'll be a big one. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 02:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I added a few extra clades to the cladogram above to reduce the horizontal stretching by unmatched labels. Take your pick.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 07:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will put this one to use. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Simplification at Thalassodromeus
Could the cladogram at Thalassodromeus be simplified so that Chaoyangopterinae and Tapejarinae don't show subtaxa? Those are not necessary to show here. Thanks. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure deleting all the subtaxa is a good idea. There is some value in seeing the relationship between genera in the same family. I'd be inclined to collapse the terminals to genera in the other subfamilies.


 * Take your pick.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yeah, it is certainly valuable to show taxa within other subfamilies in the higher taxon Tapejaridae article, but not really in the specific genus article. Thalassodromeus is equally removed from everything in the other subfamilies, so showing each genus is redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, it is always nice to be able to click through some related articles, so I might take the larger one, thanks. FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Chelicerate groups
I'm working on Strabops and I would need the cladogram on page 229 of this document. Super  Ψ   Dro  09:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll get on it promptly . IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 22:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you! But I wonder if it's possible to make it wider, I think that looks a bit odd. Super   Ψ   Dro  10:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I made it a bit longer IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 14:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Now it's perfect! Thank you. Super   Ψ   Dro  15:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, another way of stretching the cladograms is to use "blank" labels using a span element with a set width.

You can set the width in em or px. You only need to set the width for the first child element in each clade.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 17:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would recommend using em widths that are multiples of 1.5, as that is the normal width of a clade template branch, and thus the changes are minimal in overall proportions. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 23:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Mauritius owl
Hi, could a cladogram based on figure 2 here (it is on scihub) be made, restricted to the clade that has Otus longicornis and Otus mirus at the base (excluding Otus pembaensis and everything more basal than it)? FunkMonk (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Here you go. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 04:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Out of curiosity, as it doesn't make much difference, is there any reason why the placement of the branches are inverted compared to the figure? FunkMonk (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I just find it more simplistic to reconstruct in a fully linear way, instead of the branching method in the paper. I always have the largest subclades at the bottom, for no reason other than style and simplicity. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 14:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Cuban macaw
Hi, a DNA analysis of the extinct Cuban macaw has finally been published, could a cladogram be made based on fig 1 here (can be found on scihub)? It should be the clade that includes Orthopsittaca manilatus (excluding everything outside). FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I will have look. Loopy30 (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Here it is. Do you really want the subspecies (Ara militaris mexicanus) included too? What about combining the two Ara tricolor entries? Loopy30 (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yeah, an alternate version with the simplifications you mention could be nice. FunkMonk (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is the simplified version then:

I think this one would be a better version for use in a species-level article. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it will go on the front page in December, so nice to have this done before (the paper just came out, good timing). FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Xixiasaurus
I am currently working on Xixiasaurus, which could use a more up to date cladogram. Could one based on fig. 14 in this paper be made? It should only include Trooodontidae. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Here you go. Do you also want to include the label Sinovenatorinae? Loopy30 (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, nah, the other clade names aren't listed either anyway. I wonder if a version could be made that excludes Anchiornis and its allies? It is uncertain whether that group even belongs in Troodontidae, so maybe best to keep them out, since they aren't the focus here anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the second one what you wanted?  Jts1882 &#124; talk 10:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, added the simplified one! FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Onychopterella
I am working on Onychopterella and I will be moving to its relatives so I would need a cladogram that is disponible in the page 62 of this paper (needs download). Thanks in advance. Super  Ψ   Dro  11:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The following is using Fig 20b, without the outgroups. I'll leave you to add the formating for italics and wikilinks.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 13:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks! Super   Ψ   Dro  14:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)