Phylogenetic Interpretations

The strict consensus tree supports the following interpretations  

The Hypnidae and hypnodendroid pleurocarps together constitute a monophyletic group, though with at best a moderate branch support value (D1 = 3, bootstrap = 59%)  

Within the crown pleurocarps, there is weak support for the monophyly of the Hypnidae (DI = 2 bootstrap = 51%) and moderate support for monophyly of its sister group, the hypnodendroid pleurocarps (Dl = 3 bootstrap = 60%)  

There is weak support (Dl = 2 bootstrap = 54%) for the conclusion that the sister group to the Hypnidae and hypnodendroid pleurocarps includes Aulacomniutn, Hymenodon-topsis, Mesochaete and Pyrrhobryum Section Pyrrhobryum. 

The taxon samphng precludes further inferences about relationships within the Hypnidae and hypnodendroid pleurocarps. 

---

These same organisms shared another peculiar characteristic cell walls that did not contain peptidoglycan and this was known to be true even for a methanogen [15-17]. Still, no phylogenetic interpretation followed but in fairness it should be noted that the walls of certain (eu)bacteria, such as the planctomyces, also contain no peptidoglycan [18]. 

The example of the four species of Portulaca can also be treated according to oladistio (phylogenetic) interpretation. 

There are at least two reasons. One is the problem of concerted evolution of repeat sequences which may complicate phylogenetic interpretation. A second potentially confusing phenomenon is the fact that many, perhaps most, repetitive sequences are (or were) mobile pieces of DNA that have the ability to move within genomes and likely between genomes. If such sequences can move across species boundaries, i.e. be horizontally transfered, they would be misleading in analyses of phylogenies. 

C. R. Woese, Interpreting the universal phylogenetic tree, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 8392-8396. 

---