Hi, I'm doing a list of alismatid monocots (still in user-space, but it'll be ready for article-space soon). The cladogram on that page has only two branches. My sources support a cladogram along these lines:
This borrows the cladogram from our Alismatales article, and I tried to add Acorales to this, and this is in fact roughly what I want it to look like ... but I'm getting an error message (because of the "|label1=Alismatales ... |1=" duplication of the "1" parameter). When I try to fix it, the cladogram always winds up being wrong. Help? - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
That worked out well ... List of alismatid monocot families is up at WP:FLC now, thanks much. I'm working on the next list, and so far, I've had no luck with the next cladogram ... should I make this a separate request? It's for the Commelinids (again, down to the family level). - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
It sounds like you are requesting a cladogram for Commelinids. Do you have a source that can be followed in order to create one? Or do you have a cladogram already started that needs fixing? Cougroyalty (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, sure, I'm just looking for the standard APG4 cladogram. This can be dug out of Wikipedia as follows: A cladogram for just the orders of the commelinids is at Commelinids#Subdivision (except that I don't want "commelinid" to appear as a node), and for the families: Poales is at Poales#Evolution and phylogeny (but I don't want any of the "clade" labels), Zingiberales is the last one at Zingiberales#Phylogeny, Arecales is trivial, and there's a cladogram for Commelinales at APWeb. (Or, any other way you want to reproduce APG4 will be fine.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The APG-IV topology for the commelinids is in the cladogram to the right. I can add families if you have a source. The APWeb cladogram for Commelinales is based on a 1995 morphological study. Is this still considered the arrangement?
Actually ... striking this. Cancel my request please. I've got health issues, and that cladogram you did for the monocots looks great, I'll try using that instead. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Would it be possible to code up figure 6 from this paper? I would like the placoderms, osteichthyes and crown group chondricthyes collapsed for clarity. Thanks as always. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to show the recent cladogram finding silesaurs within Ornithischia in the Diodorus article, and it would also be handy in the Silesauridae article, which only shows the "traditional" non-dinosaur view. The paper is free here:[3], and it would be fig. 1 with everything but the lower green clade collapsed into major groups (Theropoda etc.). FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I think it might be nice to claim requests like this going forward. I've started on a few cladograms in the past without realizing they were already being worked on ;) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Decided to base the cladogram on the more recent Norman et al. (2022) paper, which has a somewhat better sampling of ornithischians and adds a few new clades. Also, I excluded all the non-dinosaur groups, because the cladogram would be way too big otherwise. Hope it's okay —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 21:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, was about to update the article, but seems you already did hehe. Will add it to Diodorus next time I expand it. I wonder if the two cladograms would work side by side (as in Elasmosaurus) to avoid white space, but perhaps wouldn't work since this one is much taller. FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)