Re: Genetic Study Shows Snake Evolution

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> "Our results (figure 1)

This is a sort of consensus tree, if I've understood it, of maximum
likelihood, maximum parsimony, minimum evolution (isn't that a kind of
maximum likelihood?) and Bayesian methods. Simplified here:

+--turtle
`--+--tuatara
   `--Squamata
        |--Dibamidae
        `--+--Gekkonidae
           `--+--+--Cordylidae
              |  `--+--Xantusiidae
              |     `--Scincidae
              `--+--+--+--Teiidae
                 |  |  `--Gymnophthalmidae
                 |  `--+--+--Lacertidae
                 |     |  `--Rhineuridae
                 |     `--+--Bipedidae
                 |       `--+--Amphisbaenidae
                 |          `--Trogonophidae
                 `--+--Anguimorpha
                    |    |--+--Xenosauridae
                    |    |  `--Varanidae
                    |    `--+--Helodermatidae
                    |       `--Anguidae
                    `--+--Iguania
                       |    |--Iguanidae
                       |    `--+--Chamaeleonidae
                       |       `--Agamidae
                       `--Serpentes
                            |--Scolecophidia
                            `--Alethinophidia

The topology within snakes looks rather normal -- according to what little I
know about snake phylogeny. (Iguania + Serpentes) has a bootstrap value from
maximum parsimony of 59 and a Bayesian posterior probability of 50. The only
big clades that have both values at 100 are Squamata and Serpentes. The
basal 3 nodes within Squamata have very low values. In short... don't trust
that tree. :-)