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 perspective 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
Ok, now subpages I definitely disagree with. If we have enough information on animals to warrant a separate page, why doesn't that info just go on Animalia? There is already a nice summary chart there, with basically the same structure and content as what one would expect here.
My concept was that these new "tree pages'", such as Tree of life/Animalia, would be parallel and complementary to the current "prose pages", such as Animalia. They would be different to the prose pages in the following ways:
--Eob
When I came to this page I expected to see an article about the Tree of Life from the Genesis story(I think there are corallaries in Norse and American Indian mythologies too). I think maybe this article ought to be renamed because I suspect that most people would make the same mistake. --MemoryHole.com
Perhaps just a note at the top of the page with links to other meanings of Tree of Life would be sufficient. --Eob