monophyletic

It is not known whether these groups are both monophyletic.

It has been suggested that the group is not monophyletic.

More recent work has identified that not all of these groups were monophyletic.

Recent genetic evidence shows that the family is clearly monophyletic.

It is also not certain that they represent a monophyletic group.

However, the monophyletic nature of these three groups remains unknown.

Many are thought to be monophyletic, though there is still uncertainty.

These two groups are probably monophyletic; their eyes certainly develop in a very similar fashion.

Together they form a monophyletic group, with very low genetic variability.

Together they are a monophyletic group, forming a distinct family.

They also seem not to form a monophyletic group.

The family Weejasperaspididae, on the other hand, is considered to be monophyletic.

The results show that the Protista is not a monophyletic group.

It is not yet clear whether this group is monophyletic.

However, molecular analysis provides more support for a monophyletic origin.

They left only five species in Oryzomys, which was now finally a natural, monophyletic group.

It is on this that the issue of monophyletic origin rests.

The new order Eulipotyphla has been shown to be monophyletic.

This branch is then taken to be outside all the other branches of the tree, which together form a monophyletic group.

While these three are each monophyletic, it is not clear how exactly they are related.

The first three groups formed a monophyletic group, the Entognatha.

Only in the late 19th century was their distinctness realized, yet they were not considered as a monophyletic group.

More recent evidence shows that the class Filices, as described above, is not monophyletic.

From the structure of the vertebrae, the group appears not to be monophyletic.

Since that time, most studies have supported a monophyletic Sebecosuchia.