This tree doesn't have much to do with cladistics. The splits aren't binary and no explanation is given for their arrangement. It's really more a phylogenetic tree. I also think this might be a bad idea in general because nobody really knows how the lower groups are arranged, and most of the higher ones will be discussed in a different article. What do we plan to put here that won't be contained in
Monera,
Archaea,
Eukaryota,
Protista,
Plantae,
Fungi, or
Animalia, with more room for details and explanations? Not meaning to be negative... --
Josh Grosse
I agree it is not a formal cladistics diagram because no explanation is given for the arrangements. The non-binary splits were meant to represent currently unknown sequences of binary splits. I also agree that there is a lot of uncertainty that will necessitate future correction. However as a lay person I found such trees a compelling view of taxonomy and I think it gives a different perspecive that is not widely known. I am not suggesting that this tree be the main entry point into the wikipedia taxonomy, just an alternate view. --Eob