Table 4. Comparison of reported support metrics for focal nodes from trematopid-focused analyses.
| Clade | B10 | B11 | PR11 | G20 | This study (TNT) | This study (PAUP*) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Olsoniformes | 2/NR | 2/NR | 2/66 | NR/55 | 3/32 | 3/58 |
| Dissorophidae | 2/NR | 1/NR | NR | NR/97 | >5/81 | >5/93 |
| Trematopidae | 3/NR | 5/NR | 5/82 | NR | 3/57 | 3/78 |
| Acheloma + Phonerpeton | 4/NR | 7/NR | – | NR/92 | 3/57 | 3/78 |
| Anconastes + Tambachia | 1/NR | 1/NR | 6/77 | – | 1/21 | 1/42 |
| Ecolsonia as trematopid? | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | No |
Note:
All nodes are from strict consensus trees. Abbreviations refer to publications: B10, Berman et al. (2010); B11, Berman et al. (2011); PR11, Polley & Reisz (2011); G20, Gee (2020b). Nodal support of Gee (2020b) refers to the analysis of that study that sampled all twelve trematopids at the species-level (Fig. 6 therein). This study’s nodal support is derived from Analyses 6 and 8 (Figs. 14B, 17). An en-dash indicates that a node was not recovered, and ‘NR’ means that the value was not reported. Note that Trematopidae in Analyses 6 and 8 of this study only includes Acheloma cumminsi (the specifier for the clade) and Phonerpeton pricei. Bremer decay indices are listed before the forward slash, and bootstrap values are listed before the forward slash.