User talk:Faendalimas/turtle phylogeny

Introduction edit

Ok for purposes of discussing what to do with this phylogeny rather than just delete it I have moved it to this temporary page. Please feel free to add comments wherever you see fit. Please try to keep some order to it so we can all follow. Section titles are just for clarity. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

General edit

  • I think this phylogeny is too big, takes up too much space and is too detailed for a page on turtles in general.
  • In say above I have no issue with a phylogeny being presented I just think we should cut it down.
  • One suggestion that came up was to only take it to family. I can agree with this as it is then also a pointer to the articles on the various turtle families, and more detailed partial phylogenies can be presented on those pages. This would break up the phylogeny reduce its size and be meaningful in terms of the topic of this page.
  • this phylogeny is a hybrid of PhylloCode and ICZN Code nomenclature. Without getting into arguments of which one is better. I do not think hybrid nomenclatures work.

Phylogeny of living turtles showing families

I suggest the following phylogeny based on Crawford et al. (2015)Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page)., with the additional family names as listed in the 2017 Turtle Taxonomy Working Group update.[1] This uses the names in the primary source (Fig 2 in Crawford et al, 2015) and the secondary source (phylocode classification (p23) in TTWG, 2017).   Jts1882 | talk  16:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ "Turtles of the World: Annotated Checklist and Atlas of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status (8th Ed.). In: Rhodin, A.G.J., Iverson, J.B., van Dijk, P.P., Saumure, R.A., Buhlmann, K.A., Pritchard, P.C.H., and Mittermeier, R.A. (Eds.). Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises: A Compilation Project of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group". Chelonian Research Monographs. 7: 1–292. 2017. doi:10.3854/crm.7.checklist.atlas.v8.2017. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
Testudines
  • comment The general topology of the tree is fine, it is only molecular based which is problematic as molecular trees generally only sample 1-2% of known species, total evidence trees are better. However, that said. Since this is dealing with living species and for this group they use the linnean system, and the point that phyllocode has no nomenclatural standing we should be using the valid nomenclature. Hence Trionychia should be called Trionychoidea. With regard to the name Cheloides it is only used in Phyllocode, and has been in several papers discussing the Pan-Pleurodira when discussing stem pleurodires. Its not relevant here and has never been favored by many taxonomists. The labels that are currently red links should go, there is no need to label every node of a tree, this is a phyllocode issue, proponents seem to think you need to label all nodes, its overkill, plus they have low support and these families bounce around depending on the analysis. That is they have dubious support. I would leave them out. Stick to linnean names as they are are the only ones accepted under the code. TTWG 2017 acknowledged the existence of the phyllocode phylogeny but recommended against it. IUCN, CITES and all government agencies around the world use the linnean names only. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I generally favour using the names used in the source for the cladogram (in this case Crawford et al, 2015), as this avoids taking a POV. However, the TTWG 2017 reference can be given for the names and the redlinks are not useful, so I've removed the redlinked names from the cladogram. What about Pelomedusoides and Americhelydia? Are they compliant? They do have wikipedia articles so I think they are useful and should stay.
What do you think about addin back some thumbnail images? I've have mix feelings about the use of images in cladograms as they often just make the cladogram larger, but in this case the shapes of the shell could be useful information.   Jts1882 | talk  16:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • comment Further to this is that the changes outlined above would bring it in line with Wikispecies. I do think WM projects should be in agreement with each other where possible. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Accuracy of this phylogeny edit

Chelidae edit

  • Now has 4 subfamilies, Zhang et al. 2017[1], named Pseudemydurinae as the 4th subfamily containing the genus Pseudemydura.
  • Chelodina is sister to rest of Chelodininae
  • Flaviemys is sister to Myuchelys with Rheodytes and Elusor outside this, Elseya is sister to Emydura, which in turn is sister to rest of short necks. Spinks et al 2015.[2]

References

  1. ^ Zhang, X., Unmack, P. J., Kuchling, G., Wang, Y., Georges, A. 2017. Resolution of the enigmatic phylogenetic relationship of the critically endangered Western Swamp Tortoise Pseudemydura umbrina (Pleurodira: Chelidae) using a complete mitochondrial genome. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. Volume 115, October 2017, Pages 58-61.
  2. ^ Spinks, P.Q., Georges, A., and Shaffer, H.B. 2015. Phylogenetic uncertainty and taxonomic re-revisions: an example from the Australian Short-necked Turtles (Testudines: Chelidae). Copeia 103(3):536–540.


Copied here for purpose of commenting edit

Classification of turtles edit

Order Testudinata Klein 1760 accepted name is Testudines Batsch 1788, discussed in TTWG 2017 (annotations: 07:1, 10:4, 12:6, 17:1)


I think the non-linneaen names are better dropped. It only causes confusion as no valid nomenclatural references will use them. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I was wondering about this listing. It seems to be a synthesis from Mikka's phylogeny and even then there seem to be errors (e.g. the indent for Meiolaniformes, which I changed). Any suggestions for a good source to use here for extinct forms. If've been looking at Anquetin (2012), but I assume there must be some more recent reviews.
What is the currrent thinking on "Casichelydia". If I understand correctly, this was coined by Gaffney (1975) for Pleurodira + Cryptodira so might be an option to replace the embedded "Testudine".
A few taxa are labelled extinct when they contain living families (e.g. Cheloides and Pelomedusoides).   Jts1882 | talk  16:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply