|WikiProject Animals||(Rated Template-class)|
Citations and Updates
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:
- 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
Minor differences (probably can be left alone):
- 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: It groups the Ctenophora and Cnidaria together. Otherwise it looks identical. I did not find any other more relevant articles.
I've updated it now. 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. Ahalda (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- It looks to me like there is only one inconsistency, in the placement of Ctenophora. That makes sense, since the metazoa page was recently updated based on some 2014 publications on the placement of Ctenophora. I looked into moving Ctenophora in the template, but I think we should make other changes as well: The subkingdoms Mesozoa, Parazoa and Radiata look to me to be obsolete. They are probably paraphyletic, and their wiki pages say they are only use informally/historically now. Ahalda (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- The Dendrogramma article itself considers it a Cnidarian. Shouldn't Dendrogramma be removed from this table? Ypna (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Animal#Ctenophora.2C_Porifera.2C_Placozoa.2C_Cnidaria_and_Bilateria argues for a rather different phylogeny than this template shows. Any thoughts on whether we should reflect that? Bondegezou (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Jondelius, U., Ruiz-Trillo, I., Baguñà, J. & Riutort, M. (2002). The Nemertodermatida are basal bilaterians and not members of the Platyhelminthes. Zoologica Scripta, 31(2):201–215.
- I suppose there is some value in it; some of these taxa are still often treated separately (e.g. Sipuncula). Maybe I could at least condense the section. Ypna (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Major groups within phyla
- Well one possible way would be to have a different background. I might experiment with this to see what it's like. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
"The Genome of Intoshia linei Affirms Orthonectids as Highly Simplified Spiralians" (2016) "The phylogenetic position of dicyemid mesozoans offers insights into spiralian evolution" (2017) Can someone edid the template accordingly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. We should move Orthonectida from Mesozoans to Spiralia, parallel to Gnathifera and Platytrochozoa, based on Kirill V. Mikhailov, Georgy S. Slyusarev, Mikhail A. Nikitin, Maria D. Logacheva, Aleksey A. Penin, Vladimir V. Aleoshin, Yuri V. Panchin (2016), "The Genome of Intoshia linei Affirms Orthonectids as Highly Simplified Spiralians", Current Biology, 26, 1768–1774. However, the syntax of the table has defeated me: can't work out how to do it! Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- Edgecombe, Gregory D.; Giribet, Gonzalo; Dunn, Casey W.; Hejnol, Andreas; Kristensen, Reinhardt M.; Neves, Ricardo C.; Rouse, Greg W.; Worsaae, Katrine; Sørensen, Martin V. (2011). "Higher-level metazoan relationships: recent progress and remaining questions.". Organisms, Diversirt and evolution. doi:10.1007/s13127-011-0044-4.
- Dohrmann, Martin; Wörheide, Gert (2013). "Novel Scenarios of Early Animal Evolution—Is It Time to Rewrite Textbooks?". Integrative and Comparative Biology. doi:10.1093/icb/ict008.
- Shua, Degan; Isozakib, Yukio; Zhanga, Xingliang; Hana, Jan; Maruyamac, Shigenori (2014). "Birth and early evolution of metazoans". Gondwana Research. doi:10.1016/j.gr.2013.09.001.
- Edgecombe, Gregory D.; Legg, David A. (2014). "Origins and early evolution of arthropods". Palaeontology. doi:10.1111/pala.12105.
- Rota-Stabelli, Omar; Campbell, Lahcen; Brinkmann, Henner; Edgecombe, Gregory D.; Longhorn, Stuart J.; Peterson, Kevin J.; Pisani, Davide; Philippe, Hervé; Telford, Maximilian J. (2011). "A congruent solution to arthropod phylogeny: phylogenomics, microRNAs and morphology support monophyletic Mandibulata". Proceedings of the Royal Society B. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0590.
- Rouse, Greg W.; Wilson, Nerida G.; Carvajal, Jose I.; Vrijenhoek, Robert C. (2016-02-03). "New deep-sea species of Xenoturbella and the position of Xenacoelomorpha". Nature (530): 94–97. doi:10.1038/nature16545. Retrieved 2016-02-03.