I’ve never thought highly of scientific names for organisms. It’s seemed to me a case of “blink and it’s changed”, and with DNA sequencing of evolutionary relationships the categories are changing faster than ever.

But now that I’ve started adding scientific names to a group of organisms, to wit (to woo) the birds, I’m finding that they do make sense. Trying to group birds by appearance into groups leads quite naturally to a sequence from species, to genus (eg. butcherbird = Craticus), to Family (eg. honeybird = Meliphagidae), to order (eg. Parrot = Psittaciformes), to class (eg. Birds = Aves).

Mostly, the scientific names make more sense than common names.

For example, the common names for most of the types of raptors – eagle, sea eagle, hawk, goshawk, sparrowhawk, buzzard, harrier, kite, kestrel – turn out to be practically independent of real differences between the bird species. Goshawk and sparrowhawk for example are exact synonyms. They’re all Accipitridae. Interestingly, so are the old-world vultures (Lammergeyer and Griffon), but the Falcons aren’t. Weirdly and for no apparent reason, the Osprey isn’t either. The raptors are a case where scientific names work and common names don’t.

The reverse is true of the parrots, probably because Australasian parrots were not available when the system of scientific names was set up. Originally only parrots such as the Macaw, African Grey and Indian Ringneck would have been available, so now there’s no consistency among the Lorikeets, Corellas and Cockatoos.

I was delighted to unexpectedly see that the scientific name for Honeyeater is Meliphagidae, literally “honey-eater”. I had expected it to be paraphyletic. The friarbirds, the wattlebirds, and the miners, all have consistent genus within the honeybird family.

The common names “finch” and particularly “warbler” turn out to be paraphyletic. The Australian finches (Estrildidae) are relatives of the Nutmeg Mannikin, rather than of the European finches (Fringillidae). The common name “warbler”, for example including the Clamorous reed warbler, is a disastrous grouping, stick to scientific names.

I was delighted to see that it is recognised that the NZ highly endangered species Takahe is the closest relative of the Purple Swamphen in Aus. But they do not recognise that the NZ highly endangered Kakapo is closely related to the Aus Ground parrots, I’ll have to look into this in more detail as to my untrained eye they look virtually identical, apart from the Kakapo being heavier with a bigger beak.

I approve of the recent creation of Suliformes (Booby-like) splitting the boobies, gannets and cormorants from their old description as Pelican-like (Pelecaniformes). Pity they didn’t take the Tropicbirds along with them, the Tropicbirds are still classed with the Pelicans.

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve never thought highly of scientific names for organisms. It’s seemed to me a case of “blink and it’s changed”, and with DNA sequencing of evolutionary relationships the categories are changing faster than ever.

But now that I’ve started adding scientific names to a group of organisms, to wit (to woo) the birds, I’m finding that they do make sense. Trying to group birds by appearance into groups leads quite naturally to a sequence from species, to genus (eg. butcherbird = Craticus), to Family (eg. honeybird = Meliphagidae), to order (eg. Parrot = Psittaciformes), to class (eg. Birds = Aves).

Mostly, the scientific names make more sense than common names.

For example, the common names for most of the types of raptors – eagle, sea eagle, hawk, goshawk, sparrowhawk, buzzard, harrier, kite, kestrel – turn out to be practically independent of real differences between the bird species. Goshawk and sparrowhawk for example are exact synonyms. They’re all Accipitridae. Interestingly, so are the old-world vultures (Lammergeyer and Griffon), but the Falcons aren’t. Weirdly and for no apparent reason, the Osprey isn’t either. The raptors are a case where scientific names work and common names don’t.

The reverse is true of the parrots, probably because Australasian parrots were not available when the system of scientific names was set up. Originally only parrots such as the Macaw, African Grey and Indian Ringneck would have been available, so now there’s no consistency among the Lorikeets, Corellas and Cockatoos.

I was delighted to unexpectedly see that the scientific name for Honeyeater is Meliphagidae, literally “honey-eater”. I had expected it to be paraphyletic. The friarbirds, the wattlebirds, and the miners, all have consistent genus within the honeybird family.

The common names “finch” and particularly “warbler” turn out to be paraphyletic. The Australian finches (Estrildidae) are relatives of the Nutmeg Mannikin, rather than of the European finches (Fringillidae). The common name “warbler”, for example including the Clamorous reed warbler, is a disastrous grouping, stick to scientific names.

I was delighted to see that it is recognised that the NZ highly endangered species Takahe is the closest relative of the Purple Swamphen in Aus. But they do not recognise that the NZ highly endangered Kakapo is closely related to the Aus Ground parrots, I’ll have to look into this in more detail as to my untrained eye they look virtually identical, apart from the Kakapo being heavier with a bigger beak.

I approve of the recent creation of Suliformes (Booby-like) splitting the boobies, gannets and cormorants from their old description as Pelican-like (Pelecaniformes). Pity they didn’t take the Tropicbirds along with them, the Tropicbirds are still classed with the Pelicans.

Organisms are ranked together by relationship not appearance, which can be very deceptive. Carl Linnaeus devised the original system of classification, which was devised to avoid the confusion of the time of organisms being given several names (common names) by numerous people in numerous locations.

Before you continue with your exercise you should read the following links that will basically advise you about the complexities and extensive history of classification, plus of the great man himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus

PermeateFree said:

Before you continue with your exercise you should read the following links that will basically advise you about the complexities and extensive history of classification, plus of the great man himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus

So, he includes the Sloths with the Monkeys and Humans. That makes sense.
He puts the Pigeons in with the Passerines.
The Lemur is considered a type of Mouse.

This is pure gold, yes, worth studying in more detail.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

Before you continue with your exercise you should read the following links that will basically advise you about the complexities and extensive history of classification, plus of the great man himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus

So, he includes the Sloths with the Monkeys and Humans. That makes sense.
He puts the Pigeons in with the Passerines.
The Lemur is considered a type of Mouse.

This is pure gold, yes, worth studying in more detail.

Had you read and understood it, you would realise that Linnaeus was before Darwin and hence evolution did not in any consciousness exist in his time. He was the designer of the basic system of classification in use today and like science generally, it has evolve where evolutionary relationships are of prime importance and a major necessity for the name changes that peeve you so much. You are attempting to revolutionise many sciences with your thinking, which unfortunately with your lack of research you will never achieve, simply because you have no idea of how they work.

mollwollfumble said:

The Lemur is considered a type of Mouse.

no… there is a mouse lemur, but lemurs are not considered a type of mouse

i think they were referring to old style classifications.

I listen to Carolus linnaeus… I have told his story before here on the forum… loved his taxonomy system so much he changed his name to replicate it

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

Before you continue with your exercise you should read the following links that will basically advise you about the complexities and extensive history of classification, plus of the great man himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus

So, he includes the Sloths with the Monkeys and Humans. That makes sense.
He puts the Pigeons in with the Passerines.
The Lemur is considered a type of Mouse.

This is pure gold, yes, worth studying in more detail.

Had you read and understood it, you would realise that Linnaeus was before Darwin and hence evolution did not in any consciousness exist in his time. He was the designer of the basic system of classification in use today and like science generally, it has evolve where evolutionary relationships are of prime importance and a major necessity for the name changes that peeve you so much. You are attempting to revolutionise many sciences with your thinking, which unfortunately with your lack of research you will never achieve, simply because you have no idea of how they work.

Chill out. I meant it when I said it was pure gold and worth studying. I thank you for it.

One you may have missed, I certainly did. You’re aware that a new species of Australian dolphin, the Australian snubfin dolphin, was discovered in 2008 in the Northern Territory. But I hadn’t realised that a second new species of Australian dolphin had been discovered in 2011, in Port Phillip Bay!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrunan_dolphin
The Burrunan dolphin (Tursiops australis) is a species of bottlenose dolphin found in parts of Victoria, Australia. It was recognised as a species in 2011. By size, the Burrunan dolphin is between the other two species of bottlenose dolphin and only around 150 individuals have been found in two locations. The species was formally named Tursiops australis by the researcher who described the species, Kate Charlton-Robb of Monash University. The Burrunan dolphin was thought to be one of the two recognized species of bottlenose dolphin. Some differences had been noted, but for a long time there was not enough evidence to classify it as its own species. However, an examination of their skulls, external characteristics and DNA from old and current samples revealed unique characteristics which resulted in its classification as a separate species by researchers in a paper submitted on 27 January 2011.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

So, he includes the Sloths with the Monkeys and Humans. That makes sense.
He puts the Pigeons in with the Passerines.
The Lemur is considered a type of Mouse.

This is pure gold, yes, worth studying in more detail.

Had you read and understood it, you would realise that Linnaeus was before Darwin and hence evolution did not in any consciousness exist in his time. He was the designer of the basic system of classification in use today and like science generally, it has evolve where evolutionary relationships are of prime importance and a major necessity for the name changes that peeve you so much. You are attempting to revolutionise many sciences with your thinking, which unfortunately with your lack of research you will never achieve, simply because you have no idea of how they work.

Chill out. I meant it when I said it was pure gold and worth studying. I thank you for it.

I apologise if I have misinterpreted your comments, but you do seem to have a highly simplistic appreciation of the natural sciences, ranging from Botany to Biology, plus many others associated with them. It is, as if you consider them little more than what the average gardener or bird watcher would know about their field of interest, yet you are dealing with fully fledged sciences, with people of great learning who are as intellectually vigorous and capable, as any scientist in any other field you could mention. So as a suggestion, perhaps instead of taking random thought bubbles to unrealistic heights, you might quickly google your ideas, so any utterances made, might be more compatible with current understanding.

Anyway, Linnaeus is one of my heroes. I think of him virtually every day.

What is the scientific name for the Siberian tawny mouth strawberry faced bum skidder?

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Chill out. I meant it when I said it was pure gold and worth studying. I thank you for it.

… you do seem to have a highly simplistic appreciation of the natural sciences, ranging from Botany to Biology …

Don’t apologise, I was being deliberately provocative. I certainly do have a “highly simplistic appreciation of the natural sciences, ranging from Botany to Biology”. I was rather startled to find during the Melbourne bioblitz that most other people I looked up to for answers are too, outside their narrow specialities. For example, when the best scientific description I could find for a plant was “common weed”, the other people I met could do no better. But I can think of three exceptions.

When I am mentally healthy I’m a critic; when I’m mentally unhealthy I’m a dreamer. Criticising is the fastest way for me to learn, it’s not an attitude that earns me friends.

> Anyway, Linnaeus is one of my heroes.

Ditto. I’ve downloaded the links from that article. PS; My opinion of Newton has nosedived recently, so I’d put Linnaeus above Newton.

> What is the scientific name for the Siberian tawny mouth strawberry faced bum skidder?

Homo sapiens.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Chill out. I meant it when I said it was pure gold and worth studying. I thank you for it.

… you do seem to have a highly simplistic appreciation of the natural sciences, ranging from Botany to Biology …

Don’t apologise, I was being deliberately provocative. I certainly do have a “highly simplistic appreciation of the natural sciences, ranging from Botany to Biology”. I was rather startled to find during the Melbourne bioblitz that most other people I looked up to for answers are too, outside their narrow specialities. For example, when the best scientific description I could find for a plant was “common weed”, the other people I met could do no better. But I can think of three exceptions.

When I am mentally healthy I’m a critic; when I’m mentally unhealthy I’m a dreamer. Criticising is the fastest way for me to learn, it’s not an attitude that earns me friends.

> Anyway, Linnaeus is one of my heroes.

Ditto. I’ve downloaded the links from that article. PS; My opinion of Newton has nosedived recently, so I’d put Linnaeus above Newton.

> What is the scientific name for the Siberian tawny mouth strawberry faced bum skidder?

Homo sapiens.

Tick, 10/10 molly

bob(from black rock) said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

… you do seem to have a highly simplistic appreciation of the natural sciences, ranging from Botany to Biology …

Don’t apologise, I was being deliberately provocative. I certainly do have a “highly simplistic appreciation of the natural sciences, ranging from Botany to Biology”. I was rather startled to find during the Melbourne bioblitz that most other people I looked up to for answers are too, outside their narrow specialities. For example, when the best scientific description I could find for a plant was “common weed”, the other people I met could do no better. But I can think of three exceptions.

When I am mentally healthy I’m a critic; when I’m mentally unhealthy I’m a dreamer. Criticising is the fastest way for me to learn, it’s not an attitude that earns me friends.

> Anyway, Linnaeus is one of my heroes.

Ditto. I’ve downloaded the links from that article. PS; My opinion of Newton has nosedived recently, so I’d put Linnaeus above Newton.

> What is the scientific name for the Siberian tawny mouth strawberry faced bum skidder?

Homo sapiens.

Tick, 10/10 molly

When you criticise, it helps to know what you are talking about.

PermeateFree said:

When you criticise, it helps to know what you are talking about.

OK. Further criticism of things I know nothing about.

One advantage of scientific over common names is that common names often don’t distinguish between the “best known species” and the family. For example what I call a “Hyena” could mean the family Hyaenidae or the species Hyaena hyaena. What I call a “Civet” could mean the family Viverridae or the species Civettictis civetta.

What would Linneaus think of the taxonomic push to entirely remove the Cetaceans (Whales) and Two Toed Ungulates (Artiodactyls) from Taxonomy, replacing the order name by Cetartiodactyla (from Cetacea + Artiodactyla), and not even retaining Cetacean as a suborder because many other suborders already exist? Certainly whales are descended from Artiodactyls, their nearest relative is the Hippo. Other taxonomers want to include the Hippo as a whale, still others want to expand the two toed ungulates to cover whales, leaving no taxonomic term for the two toed ungulates that aren’t whales.

I still can’t get over how taxonomers still can’t agree on very simple things like the scientific names for the human and cat. Is it Homo sapiens sapiens vs Homo sapiens neanderthalensis? Or is it Homo sapiens sapiens vs Homo sapiens idaltu but only Homo neanderthalensis? Or simply Homo sapiens? For the cat is it Felis catus or Felis silvestris catus?

Could taxonomy simply be a case like politics, where “he who shouts loudest has the floor”?

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

When you criticise, it helps to know what you are talking about.

OK. Further criticism of things I know nothing about.

One advantage of scientific over common names is that common names often don’t distinguish between the “best known species” and the family. For example what I call a “Hyena” could mean the family Hyaenidae or the species Hyaena hyaena. What I call a “Civet” could mean the family Viverridae or the species Civettictis civetta.

What would Linneaus think of the taxonomic push to entirely remove the Cetaceans (Whales) and Two Toed Ungulates (Artiodactyls) from Taxonomy, replacing the order name by Cetartiodactyla (from Cetacea + Artiodactyla), and not even retaining Cetacean as a suborder because many other suborders already exist? Certainly whales are descended from Artiodactyls, their nearest relative is the Hippo. Other taxonomers want to include the Hippo as a whale, still others want to expand the two toed ungulates to cover whales, leaving no taxonomic term for the two toed ungulates that aren’t whales.

I still can’t get over how taxonomers still can’t agree on very simple things like the scientific names for the human and cat. Is it Homo sapiens sapiens vs Homo sapiens neanderthalensis? Or is it Homo sapiens sapiens vs Homo sapiens idaltu but only Homo neanderthalensis? Or simply Homo sapiens? For the cat is it Felis catus or Felis silvestris catus?

Could taxonomy simply be a case like politics, where “he who shouts loudest has the floor”?

I think you live on a different world where science and logic does not exist.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

When you criticise, it helps to know what you are talking about.

OK. Further criticism of things I know nothing about.

One advantage of scientific over common names is that common names often don’t distinguish between the “best known species” and the family. For example what I call a “Hyena” could mean the family Hyaenidae or the species Hyaena hyaena. What I call a “Civet” could mean the family Viverridae or the species Civettictis civetta.

What would Linneaus think of the taxonomic push to entirely remove the Cetaceans (Whales) and Two Toed Ungulates (Artiodactyls) from Taxonomy, replacing the order name by Cetartiodactyla (from Cetacea + Artiodactyla), and not even retaining Cetacean as a suborder because many other suborders already exist? Certainly whales are descended from Artiodactyls, their nearest relative is the Hippo. Other taxonomers want to include the Hippo as a whale, still others want to expand the two toed ungulates to cover whales, leaving no taxonomic term for the two toed ungulates that aren’t whales.

I still can’t get over how taxonomers still can’t agree on very simple things like the scientific names for the human and cat. Is it Homo sapiens sapiens vs Homo sapiens neanderthalensis? Or is it Homo sapiens sapiens vs Homo sapiens idaltu but only Homo neanderthalensis? Or simply Homo sapiens? For the cat is it Felis catus or Felis silvestris catus?

Could taxonomy simply be a case like politics, where “he who shouts loudest has the floor”?

No, no, no, no, no.. can’t have that. Cetaceans and Two Toed Ungulates are two of the few taxonomic terms that I recognise. And “Hippo – “ refers to Horse.

I’m having trouble “separating the sheep from the goats”, as they say. Wikipedia is giving me mixed messages. Which of these is a sheep, which a goat and which a “goat-antelope”?

“Ovis is a genus of mammals, part of the goat-antelope subfamily of the ruminant family Bovidae. Its five or more highly sociable species are known as sheep.”

Mouflon Ovis orientalis orientalis or Ovis aries
The mouflon is thought to be one of the two ancestors for all modern domestic sheep breeds.

Mountain Goat Oreamnos americanus
“Despite its vernacular name, it is not a member of Capra, the genus that includes all other goats.” “The Rocky Mountain goat is in a separate genus”.

Ibex Capra
“Capra is a genus of mammals, the goats or wild goats, composed of up to nine species, including the wild goat, the markhor, and several species known as ibex”

Barbary Sheep Ammotragus lervia
“The Barbary sheep is a species of caprid (goat-antelope)”

Chamois Rupicapra rupicapra
“The chamois is a goat-antelope species native to mountains in Europe”

I suppose I’ve figured it out. The Ibex is a goat, the Mouflon is a sheep, and the other three are “goat-antelopes”.

This is interesting, Sauropsida vs Reptilia

mollwollfumble said:

I’m having trouble “separating the sheep from the goats”, as they say. Wikipedia is giving me mixed messages. Which of these is a sheep, which a goat and which a “goat-antelope”?

“Ovis is a genus of mammals, part of the goat-antelope subfamily of the ruminant family Bovidae. Its five or more highly sociable species are known as sheep.”

Mouflon Ovis orientalis orientalis or Ovis aries
The mouflon is thought to be one of the two ancestors for all modern domestic sheep breeds.

Mountain Goat Oreamnos americanus
“Despite its vernacular name, it is not a member of Capra, the genus that includes all other goats.” “The Rocky Mountain goat is in a separate genus”.

Ibex Capra
“Capra is a genus of mammals, the goats or wild goats, composed of up to nine species, including the wild goat, the markhor, and several species known as ibex”

Barbary Sheep Ammotragus lervia
“The Barbary sheep is a species of caprid (goat-antelope)”

Chamois Rupicapra rupicapra
“The chamois is a goat-antelope species native to mountains in Europe”

I suppose I’ve figured it out. The Ibex is a goat, the Mouflon is a sheep, and the other three are “goat-antelopes”.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’m having trouble “separating the sheep from the goats”, as they say. Wikipedia is giving me mixed messages. Which of these is a sheep, which a goat and which a “goat-antelope”?

“Ovis is a genus of mammals, part of the goat-antelope subfamily of the ruminant family Bovidae. Its five or more highly sociable species are known as sheep.”

Mouflon Ovis orientalis orientalis or Ovis aries
The mouflon is thought to be one of the two ancestors for all modern domestic sheep breeds.

Mountain Goat Oreamnos americanus
“Despite its vernacular name, it is not a member of Capra, the genus that includes all other goats.” “The Rocky Mountain goat is in a separate genus”.

Ibex Capra
“Capra is a genus of mammals, the goats or wild goats, composed of up to nine species, including the wild goat, the markhor, and several species known as ibex”

Barbary Sheep Ammotragus lervia
“The Barbary sheep is a species of caprid (goat-antelope)”

Chamois Rupicapra rupicapra
“The chamois is a goat-antelope species native to mountains in Europe”

I suppose I’ve figured it out. The Ibex is a goat, the Mouflon is a sheep, and the other three are “goat-antelopes”.

The fact is that “sheep” and “goat” are paraphyletic categories, not clades.

PermeateFree said:

http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/download/file.php?id=1163

Is that you? or me?

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/download/file.php?id=1163

Is that you? or me?

Me!

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/download/file.php?id=1163

Is that you? or me?

Me!

Looks painful, try an analgesic? or hypnotherapy?

Well, I’m learning. For example, what is the “Order” to which Tortoises and Turtles belong? Is it Chelonia or Testudines? Here’s a historical perspective.

1751 tribe TESTUDINATA
1788 tribe TESTUDINES
1800 CHÉLONIENS
1800 CHELONII
1802 CHELONIA
1806 CHELONII
1811 TESTUDINATA
1814 PEROSTIA
1815 PEROSTIA
1820 TESTUDINATA
1825 CHELONII
1826 MONOPNOA
1828 CHELONII ↔ STERRICHROTES
1828 CHELYNAE
…

So it seems that disagreement over the question has a long history.

By 1843 it had settled down to either CHELONII, CHELONIA or TESTUDINATA.

Nobody suggested TESTUDINES again until 1950. TESTUDINATA was last seen in 1992. Still the controversy rages, or does it? Wikipedia consistently uses TESTUDINES.

mollwollfumble said:

This is interesting, Sauropsida vs Reptilia

No I know why I found this diagram vaguely frustrating. That it says that Sauropsida (i.e. Reptiles) descended from mammals rather than the other way around is not the concern. The concern is that fossil evidence suggests that Chelonia branched off the family tree before Mammals. That still allows “Reptilia” to make sense, but destroys “Sauropsida” by splitting it into two completely separate groups.

Checking the abstract of Laconte – Cladistics, 1990. I see that “Chelonia and Diapsida, which form Sauropsida”.

This neatly sweeps under the carpet the problem of whether the Sauropsida form a genuine evolutionary grouping or not. Mammals are diapsids (but not part of Diapsida) because mammals have two holes in the skull, a definition of diapsid.

It now becomes essential to either confirm or refute the contention that Chelonia branched off the family tree before Mammals.

Here we go: “The phylogeny of early groups of amniotes has been in a state of flux in the last few years, but the first phylogeny based on a data matrix was published in the eighties (Gauthier et al., 1988). The origins of mammals and saurians from early synapsids and early diapsids, respectively, has been relatively non-controversial, but the origin of turtles has been problematic” from the start of “http://www.tolweb.org/articles/?article_id=462“http://www.tolweb.org/articles/?article_id=462

Some pretty pictures in that article.

Try that again.
mollwollfumble said:

This is interesting, Sauropsida vs Reptilia

No I know why I found this diagram vaguely frustrating. That it says that Sauropsida (i.e. Reptiles) descended from mammals rather than the other way around is not the concern. The concern is that fossil evidence suggests that Chelonia branched off the family tree before Mammals. That still allows “Reptilia” to make sense, but destroys “Sauropsida” by splitting it into two completely separate groups.

Checking the abstract of Laconte – Cladistics, 1990. I see that “Chelonia and Diapsida, which form Sauropsida”.

This neatly sweeps under the carpet the problem of whether the Sauropsida form a genuine evolutionary grouping or not. Mammals are diapsids (but not part of Diapsida) because mammals have two holes in the skull, a definition of diapsid.

It now becomes essential to either confirm or refute the contention that Chelonia branched off the family tree before Mammals.

Here we go: “The phylogeny of early groups of amniotes has been in a state of flux in the last few years, but the first phylogeny based on a data matrix was published in the eighties (Gauthier et al., 1988). The origins of mammals and saurians from early synapsids and early diapsids, respectively, has been relatively non-controversial, but the origin of turtles has been problematic” from the start of http://www.tolweb.org/articles/?article_id=462

Some pretty pictures in that article.

Some great article titles among the scientific papers on cladistics.

1994 “Evolution of the WANCY region …” – try pronouncing that.
1995 “Detecting dinosaur DNA” – alliteration
1998 “The platypus is not a rodent” – was it in question?
1999 “Phylogenetic studies of complete mitochondrial DNA molecules place cartilaginous fishes within the tree of bony fishes” – oops, really?

Four papers related to the relative positions of the mammals and turtles on the evolutionary tree are:
1995 “Protein sequences indicate that turtles branched off from the amniote tree after mammals”
1999 “Complete mitochondrial DNA sequences of the green turtle and blue-tailed mole skink: statistical evidence for archosaurian affinity of turtles.”
2000 “Phylogenetic position of turtles among amniotes: evidence from mitochondrial and nuclear genes.”
2005 “Sister group relationship of turtles to the bird-crocodilian clade revealed by nuclear DNA–coded proteins”

From the 1995 paper:
“The phylogenetic relationships among the major groups of amniote vertebrates remain a matter of controversy. Various alternatives for the position of the turtles have been proposed» branching off either before or after the mammals. To discover the phylogenetic position of turtles in relation to mammals and birds, we have determined cDNA sequences for the eye lens proteins aA- and aB-crystallin of the red-eared slider turtle”.
In summary from that paper, Turtles are most closely related to Lizards, then to Chickens (or equally), then to Mammals, then to Frogs. But one protein does not suffice for taxonomy.

From the 1999 paper:
“The position of turtles in vertebrate phylogeny remains a tangled problem with regard to how their lack
of temporal fenestrae should be interpreted, i.e., whether it reflects an ancestral anaspid (holeless) condition of early reptiles or a state derived from the diapsid (two-hole) lineage leading to most extant reptiles, such as lizards, snakes, and crocodilians, as well as birds”.
In summary from that paper, Turtles evolved between the Lizards and the Crocodiles and Birds. This is looking more reliable. But again, mitochondrial DNA is only the start.

From the 2000 paper:
“amino acid sequences of 12 mitochondrial proteins and nucleotide sequences of mitochondrial 12S and 16S rRNAs from three turtles, one squamate, one crocodile, and eight birds. The analysis strongly suggests that turtles are closely related to archosaurs (birds+crocodilians), and it supports both Tree-2: (((birds, crocodilians), turtles), squamates) and Tree-3: ((birds, (crocodilians, turtles)), squamates).”
I, personally, would be very surprised if Tree-3 is true as the earliest dinosaurs (bird ancestors) closely physically resemble the earliest crocodile ancestors, but not the earliest turtle ancestors.

From the 2005 paper:
“The phylogenetic position of turtles is a currently controversial issue”.
“The resulting tree showed that turtles are the sister group to a monophyletic cluster of archosaurs (birds and crocodiles). All other possible tree topologies were significantly rejected.”
“Mitochondrial data tended to support hypothesis c (birds and crocodiles closest), whereas nuclear data favored hypothesis d (crocodiles and turtles closest).”

So the Sauropsida does make sense, but the diagram is still wrong, because the Chelonia branched off after the Lepidosauria (ie. snake+lizard+tuatara) not before.

mollwollfumble said:

1998 “The platypus is not a rodent” – was it in question?
1999 “Phylogenetic studies of complete mitochondrial DNA molecules place cartilaginous fishes within the tree of bony fishes” – oops, really?

The 1998 paper genetics gives Marsupials as a sister group to Monotremes, rather than having Marsupials as a sister group to Placentals. Surprised? I am. The method used was “DNA hybridisation”, I don’t know enough to understand how good this is.

Checking later papers. There is, from 2008, Genome sequenecs of the platypus reveal unique signatures of evolution
This looks at evolution of each gene separately (eg. compares venom of platypus and snake) but tacitly accepts the view that monotremes and placentals separated 166 MYA, as against separation of marsupials and placentals 148 MYA. I’m inclined to accept this and reject the 1998 paper.

The 1999 paper gives equally surprising results. It’s based only on mitochondrial DNA, so isn’t definitive. In terms of fish evolution, from more to less primitive it finds: Lamprey, Lungfish, Bichir (archaic-looking ray-finned fishes), Coelacanth, Sharks, other Bony fish.
That says that the sharks evolved from the Coelacanths. I’d definitely want to see independent confirmation of this! I don’t see any other scientific article on this. Can you? Surely someone else has looked at basal fish taxonomy.