Family trees & connections.

Morphological phylogenetic analysis incorporating Xiaotingia, summarized by the published simplified cladogram; full matrix detail is referred to the paper’s supplement.

The authors explicitly call statistical support tentative. This result places Archaeopteryx outside their Avialae, unlike the conventional placement they discuss. Their caption flags anatomical features requiring confirmation. Group terminals are source summaries, not individual ancestors; no dates or modern taxonomic verdict are transferred.

Topology recovered by the present morphological analysis; actual figure inspected. Time axis, body-size optimization and ghost-lineage lengths omitted.

Figure 55B gives a competing published topology, especially for Acrocanthosaurus. This older sampled hypothesis is not presented as the final consensus or a direct fossil-ancestor chain. Exemplars do not describe every species in each genus.

SVDquartets subset of sampled individuals; network and concatenated analyses provide comparisons.

These population clusters do not establish one species per branch. CM3 is split in the displayed topology. Network reticulation, admixture and often low bootstrap support limit a strictly branching account; two concatenated-analysis conflicts are drawn as dashed alternatives in the source. The source states branch lengths are not scaled to time or substitution rate; no dates are shown.

Bayesian morphological analysis in MrBayes 3.2.6; Figure 6 caption specifies 41 taxa and 182 characters. The unconstrained majority-consensus topology is shown.

Charnia is a stem-group relative, not a demonstrated direct ancestor. Ctenophora, Cnidaria and Bilateria remain a three-way polytomy in panel A. Panels B–D impose competing living-group constraints and retain its stem placement; they are not merged here. Character homology and incomplete fossil anatomy limit inference. No dates shown.

Maximum-likelihood SSU rDNA topology; actual Figure 3 inspected. Source group numbers retained; outgroups and branch lengths omitted.

A single-locus 2009 hypothesis, not a complete modern species tree. Names follow the figure rather than silently adopting subsequent generic revisions. The lower intergroup branch has only 55 / 69 bootstrap support in the two analyses; weak deeper placement outside this subtree is not represented.

Published molecular-clock mitogenome topology; actual figure inspected. Unsampled taxa and time scale omitted.

Mitochondrial history may differ from nuclear species history. Support varies across nodes. Broader placements conflict with an earlier study; this does not establish living pigeons as direct ancestors or identify every closest relative outside the sample.

Morphological parsimony analysis used a 98-character starting matrix for 28 taxa plus six added taxa, eight ordered characters, PAUP heuristic search and seven equally most-parsimonious trees of 447 steps. Figure 4 reports majority-rule frequencies, not bootstrap probabilities; selected polytomy remains unresolved.

The displayed 57 values are four-of-seven consensus frequencies, and Alienacanthus placement varies among the equally parsimonious trees; three instead group it with Selenosteus. This is a study-specific morphological hypothesis, not a definitive placoderm phylogeny. T/R labels remain as printed because this main-paper figure does not expand them; both links lead to the broad Dunkleosteus profile. Outgroup tips and other ingroup taxa omitted. The jaw silhouettes and geological strip below the tree are anatomical comparisons, not additional topology or direct ancestors; no dates or branch lengths reproduced.

Rendering of the published supplementary Newick, not an original figure. A partitioned IQ-TREE analysis concatenated 14 single-copy gene families. The six named outgroups identify the rooting edge; omitted tips and resulting single-child nodes are suppressed deterministically. Names map through the supplied gene identifiers.

This is one concatenated species-tree hypothesis. The study compares discordant gene histories and discusses horizontal transfer and rooting sensitivity, including the long SynPro branch. Internal numeric labels and substitution lengths are not interpreted here as confidence, dates or direct ancestry. Supplementary Figure S1 is a trait-agreement heatmap, not the source topology.

Maximum likelihood branching from four ribosomal loci, 2,994 aligned characters and 108 sampled species; Bayesian support was also assessed.

Support labels are not supplied for every internal branch. This transfers neither trophic ancestral states nor cellulase presence/absence. The two muscaria labels are samples in this study, not a declaration of current accepted species boundaries.

PHYLIP neighbor joining from nuclear pairwise divergence; 100 bootstrap replicates. Retained original-node support pairs are all-substitutions / transversions; not recomputed after collapsing.

An average genetic-distance tree, not the complete species history: admixture analyses recover gene flow, especially involving straight-tusked elephants. Internal woolly-mammoth branching differs between panels. No direct ancestors or dates inferred.

Complete mitochondrial genomes; maximum-likelihood, neighbour-joining and Bayesian analyses agreed on the mammoth–Asian elephant grouping.

A selected gene-history tree, not every elephant species or a complete nuclear-genome history. Living elephants are not mammoth ancestors. Branch lengths and dates are omitted.

Bayesian Mkv analysis of 59 morphological characters, gamma-distributed character rates and 20% burn-in. Only branching is transferred.

Internal posterior support is low (29, 39 and 55 percent in the figure). Cardiodictyon nests among named Hallucigenia species in this result; genus membership is not imposed as a branching constraint. The paper also presents a conflicting parsimony topology. Fossil tips are sampled relatives, not asserted direct ancestors.

Pruning of the single most-parsimonious morphological tree; analysis length 475 steps, consistency index 0.429 and retention index 0.796.

The family node shows bootstrap 74, Bremer 3 and jackknife 88; internal bootstrap values are 71,59 and 42 toward the terminal pair. These are study-specific hypotheses with weaker internal support, not a chronological ancestor chain. Arachnids were excluded; this figure cannot establish their sister relationship to eurypterids.

Relaxed molecular clock using 106 genes after complete-orthogroup parameter estimation failed. Branching follows Figure 3.

No confidence values or calendar dates are represented. Figure percentages describe relative divergence, not bootstrap support. The paper explicitly uses S. bayanus to mean S. bayanus var. uvarum; that historical convention is retained here. Later-discovered species and hybrid reticulation are outside this sample; living tips are not ancestors.

115 additive binary characters, 80 informative; branch-and-bound parsimony, MinF optimisation and 500 bootstrap replicates.

Preferred historical topology among nine equally parsimonious trees. Basal placements vary; Figure 2b is a separate imposed scenario, excluded here. Root HYAN is a hypothetical character reconstruction, not a fossil ancestor. Figure lengths count character changes, not time. Parenthesised character and autapomorphy counts are not support. Lepidophloios labels retain the study’s taxonomy; the text later regards two sampled names as conspecific. No direct ancestors or dates inferred. Bootstrap values belong to original nodes; pruning does not recompute support.

Published STAR coalescent nuclear-gene topology, compared with concatenation; 305 nuclear loci. Actual figure inspected.

Plastid analysis places gnetophytes differently. Concatenation is sensitive to site-rate partition. Limited samples represent major lineages, not every living seed plant. No dates or direct ancestors inferred.

RAxML gene trees from 25 kb nuclear windows, followed by ASTRAL-III 5.5 coalescent species-tree inference with 100 bootstrap replicates and gray fox as outgroup. Figure S1 and Results report 8,117 windows; main Methods reports 8,177. Only branching is represented here.

The species-tree procedure does not model gene flow. The supplementary discussion questions the golden jackal position and tests a separate demographic topology exchanging it with the Ethiopian wolf. Figure S1 ages are average genomic divergence estimates, not branch support, species-split dates or domestication dates; none are transcribed. The main figure overlays a different demographic model and migration bands. Living samples are not direct ancestors, and this tree does not identify the exact progenitors of domestic dogs.

Concatenated amino acids from 13 mitochondrial protein-coding genes; MP, ML and NJ analyses. Actual figure inspected.

Only two Apis species were sampled; this cannot identify the closest relatives across all honey bees. Mitochondrial history is not a complete nuclear species tree. Outgroups and branch lengths omitted.

742 mostly single-copy orthogroups; MAFFT alignments, IQ-TREE concatenation and ASTRAL gene-tree summary. Thick original branches indicate maximal support in both nucleotide and amino-acid analyses: 1,000-replicate ultrafast bootstrap and SH-aLRT, and local posterior probability.

The inset supports the bryophyte hypothesis in over half of gene-tree quartets, leaving substantial discordance. Displayed support belongs to original nodes and is not recalculated after pruning. Thin branches receive no invented value. The 0.2 scale is substitutions per site, not time; no living species is shown as a direct ancestor. Historical source names are retained.

Fourfold-degenerate sites from 7,946 one-to-one orthologues; non-mammalian outgroups omitted here.

Only sampled representative species are displayed. A short-beaked echidna represents the sampled echidna genome, not all echidna diversity. Internal nodes denote shared ancestry, not living species transforming into one another. No dates or branch lengths are shown.

Morphological specimen-level analyses and taxonomic assessment summarized into species relationships. This combined diagram is not one raw equal- or implied-weight consensus.

Individual analyses differ for some specimens. Figure 120 supplies no numerical node support or divergence dates. Names reflect the study’s revisions, including Galeamopus and Supersaurus lourinhanensis. Terminal taxa are relatives, not demonstrated direct ancestors.

Morphological synapomorphies interpreted through Hennigian systematics; Appendix supplies the character arguments.

A historical group hypothesis, not a species-level Meganeura tree. GBIF supplies only Meganeura’s group membership, not topology. Geroptera monophyly is explicitly weak; “Eomeganisoptera” may be paraphyletic. Figure numbers 1–7 identify character groups, not support values. No dates, direct ancestors or statistical support are inferred. Mating-behaviour scenarios are separate hypotheses.

Morphological character interpretation, not a statistical consensus or a resolved species tree.

The authors say the affinity remains unresolved and requires more early lophotrochozoan evidence. Odontogriphus and Wiwaxia are terminal branches, not literal ancestors. No support values or dates are supplied. The December 2023 correction restores omitted supplementary data, without changing this figure.

Bayesian consensus using the minimize-assumptions character treatment; key opabiniid support is 0.68, versus 0.69 under maximize-information treatment.

Utaurora is known from one specimen with tentative proboscis evidence. Coding the proboscis uncertain reduces Bayesian support and collapses opabiniid monophyly in parsimony. Treespace contains alternative placements. Selected radiodont branching is this analysis, not a settled universal tree; fossils are not direct ancestors and no dates are shown.

Equal-weight parsimony, 183 morphological characters, three ordered; exhaustive search yielded two shortest trees of length 210. Figure 8 retains unresolved Oviraptor placement. Labels record printed bootstrap percentage / decay support.

The two shortest trees place Oviraptor differently; the three-way split must remain unresolved. Sparse coding caused several taxa to be excluded, while sparse ingroup Oviraptor, Heyuannia and Machairasaurus were retained. Rescoring five estimated Nemegtomaia ratios as unknown preserved topology but reduced bootstrap support. Historical specimen labels and genus names are retained; no direct ancestry or dates inferred.

Three-gene partitioned RAxML GTR.

Sampled lineages; no ancestors, dates or recomputed supports.

Adams consensus from parsimony analysis of 54 taxa and 167 morphological characters, with Hemichordata outgroup and the published backbone constraint.

Adams consensus summarizes potentially unstable taxa; it does not imply that every displayed split is identically supported across all 1,951 shortest trees. The deep vertebrate polytomy is retained. A separate Bayesian analysis and different placements of Eriptychius are discussed in the paper. No dates or direct-ancestor identities are transferred.

Morphological parsimony in TNT 1.1 with sectorial, ratchet, drift and tree-fusing searches and 1,000 random-addition sequences. Analysis 2 restricts the Plateosaurus operational unit and replaces the other unit with the historical “Sellosaurus” complex, excluding its cranial scores. Displayed percentages are the figure’s absolute bootstrap values from 100 replicates.

Alternative specimen definitions, exclusions, constraints and implied weighting are separate analyses. The “Sellosaurus” complex is a composite operational unit, not a confirmed single individual or independently resolved species. Historical labels remain as published. Pruning does not identify direct ancestors, dates or resolve omitted polytomies.

TNT 1.5, 271 equally weighted morphological characters, continuous characters rescaled to unity; 2,000 random-addition replicates. A single most-parsimonious tree is shown. Labels identify nodes and S1 Table bootstrap percentages.

Support is weak: the selected clade has bootstrap and jackknife 7%. Missing Bremer scores are not zero. Historical Pteranodon sternbergi naming is retained as printed. No branch lengths, dates or direct ancestors are inferred.

Pruned branching topology from the strict consensus of 12 equally parsimonious trees in the recoded Wang dataset plus 23 pelvic characters (129 characters in total). Unresolved nodes retain multiple children.

This is one 2013 morphological analysis, not a current consensus for all pterosaurs. Figure 11A’s pelvis-only matrix has much poorer resolution and does not recover this same resolved subtree. Species labels follow the paper’s historical identifications. No branch lengths, dates or direct ancestors are inferred; the three Anhanguera tips remain an unresolved group.

195 single-copy ortholog groups aligned with MAFFT; RAxML gene trees combined in ASTRAL with 100 bootstrap replicates.

A study-specific species-tree summary, not direct ancestry. Figure 1D’s green values are estimated times; other numbers count gene-family changes, not support. Figure 3 shows 48.25% discordance among 2,033 qualifying single-copy gene trees. Separate QuIBL, MSCquartets and PhyloNet tests favour incomplete lineage sorting rather than hybridisation in the tested datasets; this does not prove absence of every historical gene-flow event. No numerical node confidence is inferred from the illustration.

Figure 1B summarizes RAxML-NG and SVDQuartets analyses of 176,382 filtered SNPs. RAxML used GTR+G with Lewis ascertainment correction and 500 bootstrap replicates; SVDQuartets sampled all quartets with 1,000 bootstrap replicates. The diagram retains the published branching and original displayed supports; they were not recomputed.

Northeast samples nest among northwest samples; this is not a split into two reciprocally monophyletic geographic populations. Shallow relationships remain unresolved, and the reduced high-coverage analyses disagree on the most divergent northwest sample. The mitochondrial tree places the Antarctic sample differently. Gene flow is not represented by these branches. The caption’s separate PCA census lists eight northeast samples, whereas this tree visibly labels seven; no missing individual is invented. Adapted from Jossey et al. under CC BY 4.0: layout changed and branch lengths omitted; no dates inferred.

Neighbour joining from genome-wide transversion distances, using a low-coverage Smilodon populator palaeogenome.

No dates or confidence values are represented. The 100-scaffold replication confirms Smilodon placement, not every branch with a bootstrap percentage. Figure 1 uses genetic-drift distances; its modern-cat branching is not blended here. Undetected ancient gene flow cannot be excluded. These tips are not direct ancestors.

Eight mitochondrial loci: COX1, COX2, COX3, CYTB, ND1, ND2, ND4 and ND5. Supplementary Methods describe translation alignments in MAFFT, a concatenated alignment, RAxML rapid maximum-likelihood bootstrapping with 250 searches, and a separate MrBayes analysis. Original displayed posterior probabilities and maximum-likelihood bootstrap values are retained; none are recomputed.

A study-specific mitochondrial hypothesis, not an ancestor chain or a comprehensive ctenophore species tree. The caption describes a protein tree, while Methods alternate nucleotide/protein wording; reported Bayesian sampling and burn-in settings are not reconstructed here. Separate COX1 and 18S panels raise generic-boundary questions and are not blended into this panel. Beroe accession branching is preserved as displayed, and the unlabelled root receives no invented support. Adapted from Schultz et al. (2021), CC BY 4.0: layout redrawn, accession labels expanded, branch lengths omitted; all terminals retained.

Branch-and-bound parsimony in PAUP, with 122 unordered, unweighted morphological characters; 72 were informative. Branching follows Figure 6.

This is a limited dental-focused sample, not all synapsids. Pie charts reconstruct tooth-character states; they are not branch support. No confidence values or dates are represented. The sampled Dimetrodon identifications require further taxonomic work. Fossil tips and ghost lineages are not demonstrated ancestors.

A concatenation of 1,457 single-copy OrthoMCL gene families, selected with inflation 1.5, aligned independently in MUSCLE 3.8.31. RAxML 8.0.20 used protein gamma models, automatic model selection for each gene partition and 100 rapid bootstrap replicates. The caption reports bootstrap 100 for every node; numerical labels are not separately redrawn or recalculated.

A limited genome-sampling species hypothesis. Present-day Chlamydomonas, Gonium and Volvox are relatives, not successive ancestors or a compulsory ladder of increasing complexity. This retains the Supplementary Figure 20 species topology rather than midpoint-rooted pathway gene trees or gene-family gain/loss diagrams. No divergence ages or branch-length scale is inferred. Adapted from Hanschen et al. (2016), CC BY 4.0: all tips retained, layout redrawn, colour and branch lengths omitted, genome-label qualifiers added.

TNT parsimony using 174 characters: 153 discrete and 21 additive continuous characters. Two search strategies returned the same tree.

These branches are a historical morphological hypothesis. The authors describe unstable dicynodontoid rooting and problematic Lystrosaurus relationships, whose inferred divergence order conflicts with fossil appearances. No support values or chronology are represented. Non-anomodont outgroup branching is intentionally excluded; the authors warn that it reflects character sampling rather than reliable broader therapsid relationships.

Maximum posterior clade credibility tree with a lognormal rate prior across characters and uniform hyperprior.

Plotosaurus is nested among the selected Mosasaurus tips in this particular analysis; genus classification is not substituted for branching evidence. The paper reports method-dependent rearrangements and poorer resolution in Bayesian consensus trees. No direct ancestor, dates or aquatic-trait history inferred from this pruning.

Single most-parsimonious tree from the authors’ 40%-completeness dataset, with Herrerasaurus replaced by Eodromaeus, plus Segisaurus and four averostrans. The analysis uses 155 cranial and 130 postcranial characters; length 547, consistency index 0.5210 and retention index 0.5379.

One explicitly chosen example from several taxon-sampling analyses, not a pooled consensus. Including averostrans breaks the reduced analysis’s Dilophosauridae; adding Sinraptor can instead join Dilophosaurus and Cryolophosaurus. Removing Notatesseraeraptor produces 12 equally parsimonious trees and poor resolution. Coelophysoid relationships are weak. Bootstrap labels appear only where the figure reports values above 50%; absence is not zero support. Time-scaled geometry is omitted, and no fossil tip is labelled a direct ancestor. Historical names are preserved.

Parsimony of 120 anatomical characters, including 25 new characters; one shortest tree of 129 steps. Labels retain source Bremer decay values.

This study combines Wessex material under Ceratosuchops rather than a separate Riparovenator terminal. Camarillasaurus placement is tentative. Alternative analyses differ; the tree does not settle swimming behaviour or imply direct ancestors. Text and caption claim nine spinosaurids, but the figure visibly depicts eight (14 total tips versus text’s 15). No missing ninth tip is invented.

GBE59 analysis: 264 conserved proteins, 93,743 amino-acid positions and 59 species. Bayesian CAT-Poisson analysis and maximum-likelihood PMSF analysis agree on this clade. Black-dot thresholds are retained from the original figure, not recalculated.

Fast-evolving sanchytrids can distort deeper fungal rooting; alternative taxon sets and site removal were tested. This subtree makes no universal fungal-root claim. The separate 53-protein BMC analysis is not blended into these node labels. No dates, direct ancestors or species ages inferred.

Bayesian mitochondrial protein-coding-gene analysis; MrBayes, one million generations and 25% burn-in. Original retained posterior probabilities are shown, not recomputed after pruning.

One mitochondrial hypothesis, not a complete species tree. The larger Figure 8 changes some other Amanita placements; the authors emphasize limited sampling. Gene-arrangement bars are not branching support. No dates or direct ancestors inferred.

The selected tree uses 317 concatenated nuclear markers with LG + C60 + F + G-PMSF maximum likelihood and 100 non-parametric bootstrap replicates. Comparison posterior probabilities came from PhyloBayes CAT-GTR + G. Three original branch support pairs are retained, without recomputation after pruning. Branch lengths, remaining supports and the inset topology are omitted.

Picozoa sister to red algae plus rhodelphids is the main Figure 2 result. An alternative joining Picozoa directly with red algae was also not rejected by the AU test and appeared after stronger site filtering. Some closely related sequences were merged into OTUs; Bayesian chains achieved only partial convergence. Nuclear branching does not establish which plastid-loss or independent-gain scenario occurred. Adapted from Schön et al. (2021), CC BY 4.0: eight tips retained, omitted branches suppressed and layout redrawn; three original support pairs retained.

ASTRAL multispecies-coalescent tree from 34,192 genomic fragments; topology checked against the actual figure.

Gray-whale placement and the earliest rorqual split have conflicting quartet support. The study reports introgressive gene flow; this branching view omits reticulations. One study’s sampled topology, not a settled universal tree. No dates or direct ancestors inferred.

Hallgren and colleagues manually curated 72 single-copy alphaproteobacterial marker genes, including checks for paralogy, contamination and possible horizontal transfer. Their 25,448-amino-acid concatenation was analysed in IQ-TREE with LG+C60+F+R and a posterior mean site-frequency approximation, using 100 non-parametric bootstrap replicates. This diagram preserves branching among selected tips; supports and branch lengths are not transcribed or recomputed.

A sampled genome-based species hypothesis, not a direct-ancestor chain or a map of individual gene transfers. The paper labels CB15 as Caulobacter vibrioides [C. crescentus]; the laboratory-model profile remains linked with that explicit historical naming convention. Acaudatibacter aquilonius is an uncultured genome representative. The 2026 addendum supplies effective-publication protologues and corrects a SeqCode accession without revising this topology. Adapted from Hallgren et al. (2025), CC BY 4.0: six tips retained, intervening omitted branches suppressed, layout redrawn and original support/length/environment panels omitted.

Maximum-likelihood analysis of 423 concatenated single-copy orthologues from 16 animals, using MUSCLE and RAxML. The study ran 1,000 rapid bootstraps; Figure 1c does not display their values, so none are supplied here.

This sampled genomic topology does not make living Nautilus an ancestor of coleoids. Figure bars indicate modeled divergence-time intervals, and adjacent signed numbers count gene-family changes; neither is branching confidence. Dates and population-history curves are not transcribed.

Park et al. scored sixteen ingroup taxa and twenty-three morphological characters, with Sinotubulites as outgroup. Characters were equally weighted and unordered. TNT traditional searches used random addition and TBR swapping; four most-parsimonious trees of length 42 produced the strict consensus, with CI 0.595 and RI 0.770. The diagram preserves selected branching and the unresolved Cambroctoconus node. No node-support values are displayed or invented.

This is a conditional morphological hypothesis, not established direct descent. The authors’ Bayesian analysis did not distinguish lower cloudinids from other cloudinid-like tubular organisms; soft-body evidence remains important to affinity. Their proposed cnidarian interpretation competes with bilaterian interpretations of some cloudinomorph fossils, which are not automatically the same organisms. Stratigraphic bars, proposed character transitions and ancestral timing are omitted. Pruned and redrawn from Park et al. (2021), CC BY 4.0, with attribution retained.

The Divergence estimates Methods describe 541 shared BUSCO orthologues, taking the highest-scoring transcript for duplicated BUSCOs. MAFFT E-INS-i alignments were trimmed with trimAl gappyout, then analysed with IQ-TREE 2.0.6 and gene-partitioned model selection. Subsequent r8s Langley-Fitch dating fixed the bilaterian-cnidarian calibration at 595.7 and 688.3 million years.

Only the displayed branching is retained. Red ranges in the source figure concern calibrated ages, not bootstrap support; neither ages, ranges nor branch lengths are reproduced. No numerical confidence is shown for these nodes. This selected study tree does not establish living species as direct ancestors. Chromosomal linkage diagrams in Figure 2 are separate comparisons. Adapted from Zimmermann et al. (2023), CC BY 4.0: tips pruned, omitted branches suppressed and layout redrawn.

Concatenated mitochondrial protein-coding sequences, codon-based MUSCLE alignment and IQ-TREE maximum likelihood with ModelFinder partition/model selection and 1,000 ultrafast bootstrap replicates. Each species contributes one mitochondrial genome.

Figure 1b prints molecular-clock age ranges, not branch support; none are relabelled as bootstrap values or species ages. No support values are inferred from the replicate count. The authors note difficulty resolving deep decapodiform relationships. This mitochondrial hypothesis differs in evidence from nuclear-genome or chromosome-linkage comparisons; no living species is treated as a direct ancestor.

Maximum-likelihood topology from 1,878 core genes; inspected original figure. Branch lengths omitted.

Horizontal transfer and recombination are not drawn. Strong concatenated bootstrap support is not uniform agreement among genes. Sampled Shigella strains occupy multiple branches; taxonomic labels are not forced into monophyletic groups.

Single most-parsimonious tree from 46 taxa and 204 equally weighted, unordered morphological characters; Bayesian analysis supplies additional node support.

This transfers branching only, omitting geological ages, ghost-range calibration and character transformations. The Tiktaalik / Elpistostege pair has Bremer support 1; other short supported branches are also study-specific. Fossil tips are not arranged as direct ancestors of the subsequent tips. The collapsed Carboniferous terminal contains multiple sampled groups, not one organism.

Kang et al. selected 17,183 single-copy gene families from thirty-three genomes. OrthoFinder clustering, MAFFT alignment and Gblocks conserved-site extraction preceded maximum-likelihood analysis in IQ-TREE, with automatic model selection and 1,000 ultrafast bootstrap replicates using bootstrap tree optimization. Displayed values belong to original retained nodes; no supports were recomputed after collapsing the non-relict group.

Tibet-0’s basal position among sampled ecotypes does not identify it as their living ancestor or establish the place where the species originated. Relict ecotypes are paraphyletic in this sampled tree, whereas the non-relict group is monophyletic. An individual ecotype is not a separate species, and geographic origin is not equivalent to ancestry. Adapted from Kang et al. (2023), CC BY 4.0: twenty-six tips collapsed, layout redrawn, branch lengths and geographic map omitted; no ages inferred.

Supplementary S14.1 describes OrthoMCL orthologue selection across 22 species, PRANK alignment, trimAl filtering and concatenation, followed by RAxML 8.2.9 with PROTCATLG. Non-flatworm relationships were constrained to a guide tree. Figure 3A calls the dataset 51 single-copy genes; S14.1 instead describes 52 conserved proteins. That discrepancy is retained rather than reconciled.

This reproduces the displayed flatworm branching, not a new inference. No node support values are printed in Figure 3A, so none are supplied here. Its scale is substitutions per site, not time; branch lengths are omitted. Sexual/asexual samples belong to one species. Gene-loss comparisons in panel 3C do not prove that parasitism caused each loss. Adapted from Grohme et al. (2018), CC BY 4.0: nine terminals retained, omitted branches suppressed, layout redrawn and lengths omitted.

Dated Bayesian craniodental analysis: 380 characters, 20 hominins and two outgroups; MrBayes 3.2.3, corrected Mk/gamma model, uncorrelated clock and birth–death prior. Four 10-million-generation runs, 25% burn-in. PP labels retain original nodes after pruning.

This historical summary contains weakly supported branches, not settled ancestry. Fossil dating uses scored specimens, not necessarily species first appearances. Missing data and alternative taxonomic groupings matter. Pruning excludes Australopithecus sediba, originally paired with H. habilis, and distinct H. ergaster. No direct ancestor, divergence date or genomic admixture history is inferred.

The authors selected 884 nuclear orthologue groups, aligned amino-acid sequences with MAFFT and filtered them with Gblocks and trimAl. IQ-TREE gene trees used gene-specific models and 1,000 ultrafast bootstrap replicates; branches below 20% were collapsed before ASTRAL 5.7.3 species-tree inference. Retained original node values are local posterior probability and multi-locus bootstrap, not divergence ages. Other support labels and branch lengths are omitted; none are recalculated.

This retains Figure 2A only. The weak UUOI/DS and Bryopsidales/Chlorophyceae stems show extensive gene conflict: quartet alternatives are nearly equally frequent, and a heterotachy concatenation model changes the DS position. Simulations support incomplete lineage sorting as a plausible explanation, without proving it is the sole process. Ulvophyceae is paraphyletic in this study. Figure 4 uses alternative fossil calibrations; it does not establish Proterocladus as an ancestor, and no calibrated ages are imported here. Adapted from Hou et al. (2022), CC BY 4.0: eight tips retained, omitted branches suppressed, layout redrawn, pies and lengths omitted; two original support pairs retained.

Comparison of ancient Denisovan and Neanderthal nuclear DNA with present-day human genomes.

This branching summary omits documented gene flow between populations; it is not a complete evolutionary ladder or a classification of present-day human peoples. Mitochondrial histories differ. No direct ancestral fossil or divergence date is claimed.

391 craniodental characters, 24 taxa; corrected Mk/gamma, relaxed clock, birth–death prior; four 20-million-generation runs, 25% burn-in.

Original node probabilities are retained, not recomputed. Many branches are weak. Omitted tips include Au. sediba beside H. habilis, H. antecessor beside the sapiens group, and distinct African/Georgian erectus samples. Asian erectus alone maps to the broader profile. Bayes-factor tests did not identify a unique naledi sister. This historical morphology-based tree predates independent naledi dating; no ages or direct ancestors are inferred. It differs from the 2015 matrix and is not merged with it.

Strict consensus of three most-parsimonious trees: 25 species, 148 equally weighted characters, length 263. PAUP*/TNT analyses; 10,000 bootstrap replicates.

Historical morphological hypothesis, not direct ancestor chains. The three-way branch remains unresolved. Torosaurus and Nedoceratops retain the study’s operational labels; this tree does not independently settle synonymy or growth-stage interpretations. The genus profile links the T. horridus tip, not an invented combined terminal. Retained support belongs to an original node, not a reanalysis of this pruning. Figure S1 reports only bootstrap >50% and Bremer >1; omitted values are not zero. Geographic histories and Figure 7’s stratigraphic ranges are excluded.

Equal-weight maximum-parsimony strict consensus of 12 trees, each length 209, as labeled in Figure 1a.

Only branching is transferred, omitting time scaling, geological ranges and ecological color coding. Panel 1b is an ecological clustering dendrogram, not the source of this phylogeny. Low support and incomplete fossil samples limit finer resolution, especially inside the collapsed Baracromia. No fossil tip is asserted to be a direct ancestor.

SSU rDNA: 1,640 aligned positions; RAxML maximum likelihood under GTR+I+Γ with 20 randomized starts. Neighbour-joining, parsimony and Bayesian analyses provide comparisons; each bootstrap analysis used 1,000 replicates.

A single ribosomal locus and incomplete sampling limit this historical hypothesis. Leptophrys morphologically indistinguishable cultures include two sequence lineages; LV.03 represents only one. Support values are omitted rather than transferred onto newly collapsed nodes. Branch lengths, ages and direct ancestors are not inferred. The quoted Arachnula identification and accession remain those of the source.

IQ-TREE maximum likelihood, C10+GTR20+F+G, on 1,882 orthologs comprising 2,309,771 amino-acid characters. The combined analysis adds 51 MK-model morphological characters weighted 50-fold. The published molecules-only analysis gives the same within-Placozoa branching.

The 50-fold morphology weighting is partly subjective and affects the deeper animal root, which is outside this displayed subtree. The source’s mitochondrial comparison instead pairs Trichoplax H1 with H17 rather than H2. Confidence symbols are not converted to exact percentages. Chronogram dates are excluded because no placozoan fossil calibration anchors those nodes; no modern species is shown as a direct ancestor.

BEAST Bayesian inference using six highly conserved nuclear genes shared by Wolffia, Spirodela, rice and Zostera. ProtTest selected the LG model. The analysis fixes the moss-root calibration at 496 million years; dates are not reproduced here.

This small-marker historical hypothesis is distinct from a genome-wide species-tree analysis. Figure colors represent posterior probability, but no exact probabilities are extracted from colors. Green/red numbers are gene-family gains/losses, not support; horizontal bars are divergence-time intervals. Calibration and broad model uncertainty do not date living species or identify direct ancestors.

Published Bayesian topology, Figure 7 in the article PDF. Selected displayed posterior probabilities are percentages; divergence dates and ancestral-area reconstructions omitted.

Moderate-to-poor support and fragmentary/composite specimens limit resolution. Parsimony places Vallibonavenatrix differently. Constrained alternative baryonychine arrangements are statistically indistinguishable. This source separates Riparovenator and Ceratosuchops, unlike Sereno 2022. North African specimen synonymy remains equivocal; omitted tips do not prove synonymy or direct ancestry.

Peter and colleagues aligned 2,018 one-to-one orthologous coding sequences across 41 genomes, partitioned by codon position. RAxML GTRGAMMA used 100 rapid bootstraps; no support values are transferred because the selected figure does not display them.

Collapsing sampled strain branches does not assert that every strain or species was sampled. The figure’s distance and introgressed-gene heat maps are not node confidence or dates. Introgression and mosaic genomes complicate a single branching summary. The alternative ASTRAL gene-tree summary is not blended into this concatenated result; no direct ancestors are designated. Adapted from Peter et al. under CC BY 4.0 by collapsing strain tips and omitting distances and map.

Combined whole-genome orthologues: 322 loci and 67,256 aligned residues, analyzed with RAxML and PhyloBayes; Figure 4A branching only.

The figure separates Bayesian support, bootstrap support and individual-locus agreement. Its holometabolous stem has Bayesian support 0.52 despite maximal concatenated bootstrap support; many individual genes disagree at deeper nodes. Transcriptome-inclusive Figure 4B is a separate analysis. Branch lengths and deeper tardigrade placement are omitted.

RAxML tree from concatenated fourfold-degenerate sites of 7,946 one-to-one orthologues; chicken and green lizard specified as outgroups.

The figure combines a phylogenetic backbone with calibrated times and gene-family counts. This rendering transfers only branching, omitting dates, expansion/contraction counts and chromosome reconstruction. Representatives are sister lineages, not direct ancestors; it does not display relationships among human peoples.

Strict component consensus of 41 morphological most-parsimonious trees, length 3739; gap weighting to 26 and 5,000 bootstrap replicates.

Historical labels are retained, including then-assigned Stegosaurus species; this is not current nomenclature consensus. Decay indices are weighted: 26 corresponds to ordinary index 1, and values below 26 depend on continuous characters only. No direct ancestors or branch dates are implied. Figure 1b is a different reduced consensus, not mixed here.

Selected branching topology from nuclear single-copy gene first and second codon positions (SSCG-NT12); Figure 1 caption reports maximum ML bootstrap and ASTRAL support.

Nuclear/plastid and mitochondrial datasets disagree on the position of cycads. High summarized branch support coexists with substantial gene-tree conflict; incomplete lineage sorting is discussed as an explanation, not shown here as a dated event. Selected tips are sampled representatives, not all species or direct ancestors. Dates and whole-genome duplications are omitted.

MrBayes, 70 taxa and 100 morphological characters; 20 million generations, four chains, 25% burn-in. This unconstrained analysis treats Acanthomeridion ventral plates as non-homologous to trilobite cephalic features.

This is one coding scenario. Constraining five trilobites changes Olenellus placement; other scenarios also differ. Both initial daughter clades have posterior probability 0.625. No dates, direct ancestors or universal trilobite classification are inferred.

Presence/absence of SINE insertions. Solid branches represent the supported topology; the paper counts 11 markers for the thylacine split versus four and one for conflicting placements.

Dashed alternatives are attributed to incomplete lineage sorting and are not silently merged. The thylacine is a sister lineage, not an ancestor of living numbats or dasyurids. Internal Dasyuridae and demographic curves are omitted; no dates shown.

Reduced strict consensus from morphological parsimony; Bravoceratops and Eotriceratops removed as wildcard taxa. Matrix: 172 characters, 29 taxa; character 93 excluded. Bootstrap uses 1,000 replicates.

A historical hypothesis with unresolved branching, not direct ancestry. The alternative homology analysis changes surrounding relationships and some supports. Missing data, character conflict and homology assumptions limit confidence. Species labels follow this study; separate tips do not settle synonymy disputes. No geological dates reproduced.

Strict consensus of five most-parsimonious trees from 366 discrete anatomical characters, 28 tyrannosauroids and four outgroups; length 765, consistency index 0.557 and retention index 0.812. Node labels reproduce Bremer and jackknife support.

A historical study hypothesis, not direct ancestry or a current universal consensus. The same-data Bayesian analysis differs in Dryptosaurus, Daspletosaurus monophyly and tyrannosaurine resolution; earlier Loewen topology also differs. Branches are not scaled to time. Figure bars mostly show age uncertainty, so no dates or ancestor links are reproduced. Several displayed nodes have jackknife support below 50%; the unnamed Daspletosaurus species retains its 2016 label.

tES67: 67 proteins, 461 archaeal taxa, 14 eukaryotes; IQ-TREE LG+C60+F+G+PMSF, 1,000 ultrafast replicates. Supports omitted.

Marker-sensitive; Bayesian chains unconverged and Bayesian grouping weak. No consensus, direct ancestors or combined-panel supports. Eme’s corrected 2026 analysis retains a competing Hodarchaeales-sister placement.

Birth identifies Myeh Khit as mother; dialogue and narration explicitly identify Lord Sa Kyah as father.

Joint-parent root groups two stated parents without implying their marriage or ordinary reproductive mechanism. Frog and handsome man are the same child’s forms. The royal father-in-law is a separate person, not Sa Kyah.

The woman names the transformed girl, and both repeatedly identify their mother–daughter relationship.

The yam becomes and later ceases to be the daughter; forms are not separate generations. No father or siblings are supplied. This edition retells collected material rather than presenting original transcripts.

Explicit father–daughter and mother–children statements.

No names or sexes are supplied for the three children or grandfather. The husband’s other relatives are not included; the children’s later fate is unstated. The tree does not generalize to every Okoyumo.

Opening explicit only son of the god of building designation.

The father has no personal name; no mother, partner or descendants of Ang-ngalo are supplied. The note’s different creation attribution remains separate, and Sipgnet, Angin and Asin are not inferred relatives.

Joint stated parents connected to their unnamed child.

No names, further children or ancestors are inferred. Note 482 explains the polite “our wife” expression; it does not establish a shared marriage. Monkey’s later permission to marry the host’s daughter is not represented as a completed wedding.

Express daughter-of-Anuanima statement, marriage and identification of the hunter’s own son.

Brett presents a fragmentary outline attributed collectively to Arawaks of Tapacuma, without an individually named narrator. The daughter and grandson have no personal names. Their human and bird forms do not create different people; no kinship among the supporting birds is inferred. The grandson’s father is the hunter, not Anuanima.

Explicit parentage and half-brother statements in Cole’s English collection; editor’s alias identification retained.

These are source-specific translated narratives, not one universal Philippine pantheon. Unnamed attendants are not relatives. Alias equivalence does not erase differences between episodes.

The stanza explicitly names the sire and dam types.

Literary genealogy, not real interspecies reproduction or a lineage for all later adaptations. Parents are unnamed individuals, not whole creature classes. The wizard’s training is not parentage. No Virgil influence is inferred.

Explicit brother, sister and shared-mother statements; marriage noted on the daughter without creating an offspring branch.

All relatives are unnamed; father and sibling birth order are unstated. The woman’s reported jinn marriage does not establish fairy birth or any children. The title and body’s descriptions remain distinct.

Atalanga is called Kijikiji’s father, and Kijikiji his son.

Motua is omitted: printed p.45 lists him among Atalanga’s brothers, but p.47 calls him father. The later joint paternity of Tuimotuliki belongs to a separate episode and is shown separately.

Mai-Aska is a son of Kuri/Uwar-Dowa according to some; Sambo is a younger son of Kuri/Doguwa Na Daji according to most.

Joint root groups two named parents. The labels preserve different attribution strengths. Some instead call Sambo the forest aspect’s husband; this contradictory marital version is recorded separately in prose, not drawn simultaneously as descent. The two son reports do not independently state full brotherhood or a shared universal pantheon. House and forest aspects are not silently interchangeable. This is textual religious genealogy, not biological evolution.

Prose explicitly names Gajere and Uwar-Dowa as parents; the song separately names the mother.

Joint-parent root groups two individuals. The collector admits confusion over Gajere / Kuri identity; this tree retains Gajere rather than merging alternate names. Uwar-Dowa refers to the forest-aspect naming scope, not every Doguwa manifestation. These are attributed historical religious relationships, not biological phylogeny or a universal contemporary doctrine.

Explicit maternal relationship in Ralston’s source discussion.

Collective tip preserves the stated count; individuals and their father are unnamed. Other Baba Yaga tales are separate versions. The husbands’ egg origin is not the daughters’ parentage.

Explicit old father, named son and daughter, completed marriage, and expressly identified father and grandfather of the boy.

The immediate text names no individual narrator and does not explicitly name the mountain Katahdin. This family is kept separate from Josephs’s two-brother household and Mitchell’s transformed visitor. No mother of Badawk or Lightning is supplied.

Opening parentage and sibling statement, repeated father–son addresses and note 7.

The root groups siblings; it is not an invented common parent. Earthquake and thunder receive no additional personal identities. Bantugan’s later wife is not stated to be Balatama’s mother.

The Princess is the Sultan’s daughter; the Sultan summons his own father to identify the approaching flags.

All three personal names are unspecified. The Princess’s siblings are mentioned without names; their number is not fixed. Marriage to Bantugan is documented separately, without inventing their children.

Basi’s mother is explicitly a snake. The other girl is first tentatively called a sister, then both girls refer to a shared mother.

The narrator’s initial sister qualification is retained. No father or full-versus-half-sibling distinction is supplied. Dovaowari is Basi’s husband and the snake’s son-in-law, not her offspring.

The returning mates expressly identify the two nestlings as their offspring.

The root labels a joint parental pair, not one organism. Nestlings remain unnamed and without a stated zoological species. The Hiraman tale’s unspecified chicks are a separate narrative witness, not assumed to be these same two birds. The miraculous cure is narrative content, not medical guidance.

Explicit childbirth, kinship and family recognition in the named tale.

The other six queens are additional caring mothers, not additional birth mothers. Their six murdered babies are paternal half-brothers; no individual names are supplied.

Explicit mother, sons, brothers and youngest-child statements.

The other winds are unnamed and their number is unstated. No father is supplied. Polite aunt/my-son addresses to Lionbruno are excluded; no classical family is imported from an editorial name gloss.

Borevui’s explicit sister identification and the three distinct brothers in the narrative.

The root groups stated siblings and is not an invented parent. Borevui emerges at their dead mother’s grave; emergence is not presented here as an ordinary birth or the mother’s resurrection. Brothers remain unnamed; no father or maternal/paternal side for the grandmother is supplied.

The single branch records the cow’s calving.

The calf is unnamed, and its father and subsequent fate are unstated. The earlier Bukolla tale is a separate witness. Ownership of the pursuing bull does not make him this calf’s father.

Explicit opening parentage and the concluding recognition of Langgona’s father as the twins’ grandfather.

The mother is Langgona’s unnamed wife, stated in the opening. Other arriving “brothers” are not assigned to this family because their exact kinship is unclear. This is not a merged genealogy of other Agyu traditions.

Named spouses linked to their explicitly acknowledged son.

The son’s personal name is unstated. Senkepenyane is his mother’s younger sister, not another mother or wife. Mabulane is named as the mother-in-law but no wider pedigree is inferred. This telling remains separate from Monyohe XVIII–XXI despite the recurring name Senkepeng.

Two stated birth relationships rendered side by side; top grouping is not a shared ancestor.

Siminok’s father is unstated. Identical appearance, simultaneous births and mutual brother-address do not prove common biological parents. Only Busujok marries the princess. Fish consumption does not identify a fish parent, and the closing stars preserve individual identity. Romanian originals have not been collated.

Explicit family relationships in the named translated tale.

The story explicitly identifies her daughter and separately her husband. It does not explicitly identify the husband as the daughter’s father, so that paternal link is omitted.

Two sibling groupings; spouse names appear on individual labels rather than connecting grouped profiles as undifferentiated couples.

Grouping roots are not ancestors. Both pairs have living parents, but names and a complete pedigree are not supplied. The closing father Tornado and his younger brother Wave remain distinct from the opening sons with those same names. No children of the two marriages are stated.

Explicit childbirth and named daughters, with stated oldest/middle/youngest order.

The king is an owner, not a supplied father. Each daughter’s prince husband is unnamed and no descendants are stated. The comparative Indian story has two daughters and reversed daughter roles; it is not blended with this household.

Explicit father–son statements, particularly the opening of the continuous Portuguese rendering on p. 250.

No mother, siblings or descendants are supplied. This is a textual relationship, not natural evolutionary ancestry. The adjacent Yurukaré Tiri/Karu account and the collector’s comparative naming conjectures are excluded. Original-language text was not independently translated.

Narrator-stated sibling group, with the first woman’s grandchild separately labelled.

The grouping root is not an ancestor. The two Chir Pokaila women are distinct despite sharing a name. The edge to Sehinom skips an unspecified parent generation. Kawas relationships conflict elsewhere and are excluded rather than forced into this pedigree.

Explicit daughter and mother designations in the main narrative.

No father, siblings or children of Chonguita are stated. Don Juan’s king father is her father-in-law, not birth father. Monkey guards are not inferred siblings. Indian, Greek and Visayan parallels in the notes remain separate versions.

Explicit spouses, daughter and three brothers subsequently called their sons.

No individual child names or birth order are supplied. The daughter’s marriage is stated but her spouse is unnamed. Collector terminology does not establish a genealogy for present-day communities.

Retain the explicit final statement that Shu and Tefnut brought forth Osiris, Heru-khenti-an-maa, Set, Isis and Nephthys.

Creation A explicitly inserts Geb and Nut as parents of this group; B’s displayed wording does not, and that difference is preserved. Joint root groups two divine producers, not one organism. The Horus name remains unlinked to avoid conflating distinct Horus parentage. This historical translated recension is not biological evolution or a modern critical edition. The shared leaf set with Creation A is intentional: these are substantively different textual witnesses, not duplicated topology.

Explicit parentage in Ker’s historical English telling.

Unnamed relatives remain unnamed. Human and pig births are narrative assertions; no zoological lineage is inferred. The pig owner’s form of address is not proof of birth fatherhood.

Explicit sister, wife, sister-in-law and mother designations in the printed account.

The root groups siblings; it is not an unnamed parent. The child’s sex and paternal descent remain unspecified here. The appended 1875 report has different family details and is excluded. The hyena’s mistaken marriage is not kinship with the real wife. The younger sister’s OCR name is uncertain.

Three sibling branches, with no ancestor node.

The grouping root is not a parent. No birth parents or ages are given. The characters’ transformed mineral and animal identities belong to this source’s narrative, not zoological phylogeny.

Repeated literal mother–son statements.

Both dragons are unnamed; no father, sibling or intermediate ancestor is supplied. Stan is a human servant. The inherited club’s unnamed ancestors do not establish a longer genealogy. Romanian originals have not been collated.

Repeated explicit father–daughter identifications support this single branch.

Kah-gyur ii. 202–209 is the translator’s edition locator; the Tibetan original has not been independently collated. Attendants and identical Kinnarīs are not assigned kinship. Sudhana’s father-address to Druma is affinal; marriage is not a descent edge.

One father-to-daughter branch records the marriage on the daughter’s label.

The bride and her mother are unnamed; no mother is reconstructed. Keukw’s son-in-law greeting agrees with the completed wedding and final narrator identification. No descendants are stated.

Explicit opening brotherhood and one designated married brother.

Sibling grouping, not a parent node. Names are final celestial identities, not invented birth names. Birth order, parents and children are unstated. Only one brother is explicitly the killer; collective closing punishment is not additional evidence of a second killing. The collector’s Greek Orion footnote is commentary, not shared parentage.

Explicit parentage and birth statements on pp. 256–258 and 264, within the complete pp. 256–268 tale.

Fatima’s mother and the tattooer are different mothers. Both later daughters link to their collective profile; no extra individual profiles are invented. The text later calls them stepsisters despite its shared-father account. Fatima’s reed and whistle retain her identity. Alla Zingi’s affectionate child address is not biological parentage.

The former wearer’s direct daughter statement, with the two recipients distinguished by the one-each gift instruction.

Names, mother and birth order are unstated. The father is the speaker returning from his bath, not the hunter who has put on the skin. Transfer of a predatory identity is not transfer of biological parentage; no spouse relation to either daughter is supplied.

Explicit father/daughter introduction, completed marriage and two-son ending.

The princess is called tenth daughter, but other daughters are not separately rendered. The sons are unnamed. The rejected Yuan marriage is excluded. The closing real-population identification is a prejudicial editorial claim, not verified biological descent or ethnography.

Frost explicitly identifies his daughter.

Mother unnamed. Intended Storm-wind marriage is not depicted as completed. Storm-wind and Frost are not inferred biological brothers; the grouped profile remains a pair of helpers.

Two wives and their separately stated sons; Gandharva’s explicit acknowledgement of the prince.

The earlier son and second wife remain unnamed. Social rank is attributed to the narrative. The serpent-gods nurse the exposed prince but are not his biological parents. Other versions of Vikramaditya are not combined with this translated witness.

Parentage stated directly in the narrative; the unnamed son is retained as a source-specific node.

The boy’s uncle is explicit, but his maternal or paternal side is unstated and therefore omitted from this branching representation. Garawada’s witch mother-in-law is a marriage relative, not established as her biological mother. Crab transformation and ginger nourishment are not additional parentage.

Explicit parentage and half-brother statements in Cole’s English collection; editor’s alias identification retained.

These are source-specific translated narratives, not one universal Philippine pantheon. Unnamed attendants are not relatives. Alias equivalence does not erase differences between episodes.

Both women are explicitly identified as Geirrod’s daughters in the prose.

The collective profile links from both named daughters; it is not a third child. No mother or additional descendants are supplied. Textual parentage only.

The youth’s explicit little sister and father’s only daughter designations.

Father, brother and husband are unnamed. No mother or children of Giauna are supplied. A-Sung’s cousin relationship is explicit, but its maternal or paternal side is not. Kung’s like-a-brother friendship is excluded from the descent branches.

The narrator explicitly identifies the woman as mother and the emerging boy as son.

Divine granting of conception is not separately stated paternal parentage. The pot is the extraordinary birth and dwelling vessel, not another organism or parent. No father or siblings are inserted.

The snake explicitly identifies both parents; family addresses to the woman are excluded from biological branching.

All three serpent-household figures are unnamed. The human woman’s actual parents and brother occur in a distinct opening household. Father/mother/brother language following rescue does not establish biological kinship across those households or a formal adoption ceremony.

Explicit mother of Vídarr the Silent designation in the prose introduction.

No father or additional children are supplied by this episode. Grídr’s help to Thor is not a maternal relationship. Prose Loki and verse Thjálfi companion differences are not kinship and are not harmonised here.

A joint-parent heading branches to Guiomar; her final husband is labelled beside her.

Both parents and the prince are personally unnamed. The father is not explicitly called a witch. No offspring of Guiomar’s marriage are supplied; disguises are appearances of the fugitives, not extra relatives.

Parent-to-child branching follows the explicit birth and father/son identification. Marriage is recorded in the son’s label, not drawn as offspring.

Unnamed relatives retain source roles. The first king’s rejected daughter is not labelled a wife. Skin removal changes Hans’s appearance, not his stated parentage; the king giving him the realm is his father-in-law, not his birth father.

Repeated narrator and mother designations of her fledglings as her children.

No father, personal names or total brood count is given. Two fledglings are surrendered; the number remaining is unspecified. Varis is a friend, and Mikko is a predator, not a relative.

The mother notice names her only child; the Geshe notice independently calls him Haukachi’s father.

Joint root groups two parents. Other children she nursed are not added as births. Yerima’s protective care does not make him another biological parent. This is source-specific religious genealogy, not biological descent or universal contemporary doctrine.

Parallel branches show stated siblings under a grouping heading, not an ancestor.

No parents or birth generations are supplied here. Grandfather and grandson forms of address elsewhere are not used to invent a wider pedigree. This is Curtin’s English narrative witness, not a universal account of Wintu relationships.

Explicit named father and son.

The unnamed young second wife is not assigned as !Urisip’s mother. No first wife’s name, additional child or maternal ancestor is supplied. The account’s death and recovery are narrative events, not a general biological model.

Explicit named joint parentage and three individually named children.

Aello and Ocypetes represent this text’s Harpy pair; no later added Harpy names or descendants are imported. Iris is a separate sibling. Birth order is unstated, and no natural bird genealogy is implied.

Explicit relationships in the named source witness.

This collector’s witness is kept separate from Werner’s synthesis and other tellings; it does not establish ancestry of a real weasel species.

The maternal generation chain follows the stated mother–daughter relationships.

Source-specific narrative family, not a modern pedigree. Taro and human forms are one daughter; wooden-image form is the child’s birth appearance. Puuonale is the named spouse, but the tree does not independently infer a paternity statement. Hawaimake is a caregiver; his biological parentage of Pili remains unspecified. Hawaiian original not independently translated.

Express two-sons-by-wife and one-son-by-concubine statements; subsequent naming of Kil Tong.

Allen’s English literary rendering is this tree’s witness, not an exhaustive genealogy of all Hong Gildong versions. The elder sons share one mother; Kil Tong has another. The plotting dancing-girl concubine is not his mother. Hong Pansa is used for father and later son, not evidence they are one person. No dragon ancestry is inferred from the father’s dream.

Explicit fatherhood and eldest/youngest designations.

The grouped terminal represents five daughters, not one child. Mother unspecified. Sa Kyah refuses the promised marriage; bird address does not establish kinship.

Explicit father–son identification and the Mountain Lord’s express identification of grandchildren.

The father and grandchildren have no personal names, and the children’s number and sexes are unstated. The text says nearly all children die, not all. The Mountain Lord and river-god’s separate family is not joined to this pedigree.

Explicit parent and birth statements.

This Hina is not equated with other Polynesian figures. No modern descendants are asserted. Tuapuu’s separately named account is not merged.

Explicit relationships in the named source witness.

This alternative is not merged with the child-in-the-tree pedigree. Werner’s colonial framing is not adopted.

Explicit relationships in the named source witness.

Creation from clay is a separate version. No mother or birth mechanism is invented.

Parent-to-child branches follow the shared deceased parents; spouses are recorded beside siblings rather than drawn as descendants.

Princess Marya and Marya Morevna are separate characters. Falcon, Eagle and Raven are brothers-in-law through marriage; shared biological parentage between them is unstated. No children of these marriages are supplied.

The expressly narrated woman→daughter→son succession, with paternal claims excluded.

The two women are unnamed. The opening specialist attributes the earlier pregnancies to a great snake; Izi’s own mother identifies no father after eating fruit. The sun’s my-son address is not adopted as paternity. This witness is not merged with the separately printed Dacé/Tukano account or presented as contemporary community genealogy.

Official Lucasfilm text explicitly identifies Rotta as Jabba’s son.

Character genealogy, not species evolution. Mother and exact connections to the Twins are excluded.

Explicit sister directions and description of the oldest helper.

Sibling grouping, not a parent node. Only the first helper has a name; no common named parent, children or biological relationship to the princess is stated.

Janmachitra explicitly consults his father and mother before transferring the Amogha-chain.

Joint parent label is a grouping of two stated parents, not a single organism. Neither parent is named. No original-language manuscript collation or wider Nāga pedigree is implied.

Individual notices explicitly name Jigo as father of Gajere, Dan Jigo and Mahalbiya.

No mother is named. The generic praise Father of the Hunters does not add all hunters as offspring. Disputed Gajere / Sarikin Bakka identity is not harmonized. These are attributed historical religious relationships, not biological phylogeny or a universal contemporary doctrine.

The two descendant generations are shown collectively; Tsunade is labelled as wife alongside Jiraiya.

No mother of Jiraiya is supplied. Grandchildren are a collective generation, not children of a specified individual child. Magical mentors are not parents; the source gives no descendant names or counts.

Explicit father, daughter and two sons in this one collected account.

No mother or personal family names are supplied. The two giant brothers are not merged with Badawk and Psawk-tankapic in the separately collected marriage account. Leland’s proposed Arctic or Norse connections are not treated as established origin.

Explicit parents, three daughters, later-born son and three distinct husbands.

The brides’ birth order is unspecified. The grouped entry represents the three husbands without claiming that they are biological brothers. No children of those marriages are stated. Notes’ Pedro-and-giants variant and human restoration in Basile remain separate; Fansler’s proposed transmission history is not proved by this graph.

Explicit father revelation, adoption, marriage and children statements.

Textual family, not verification of current community ancestry. Foster father U Mylliem Ngap is distinct from biological divine father. Her mother is not individually named. Children remain one unnamed collective with no exact count or invented descendants.

Explicit relationships in the named source witness.

The five names are examples within the thousand, not five extra sons. Other scriptural genealogies are separate witnesses. No claim is made about all nāga traditions or natural snake ancestry. The collective brood node groups named examples visually; it is not an intervening generation.

Explicitly named parents.

Versions vary. Unnamed grandmother and siblings are excluded. This is genealogy, not animal ancestry.

Sibling grouping with Yonot’s own family shown beneath her.

The grouping root is not an ancestor. Parents of these siblings and Yonot’s birth order are unspecified. Tilikus is Yonot’s husband and Pohila’s father, not another sibling.

Explicit opening parentage and birth order; ending marriage statement.

Source-specific narrative genealogy, not a modern pedigree. Unprofiled relatives remain names. Kaulu’s rope form is the same child, not an additional relative. Kekele is his later wife; the text explicitly denies children. Similar names elsewhere are not merged. Hawaiian original not independently translated.

Branches record the account’s creation-parent relationship, not biological descent.

No mother is supplied. Sons remain grouped as ten smoothed-stick and ten rough-stick figures. Narrative wolf appearances do not establish natural ancestry; the final prose and collection note disagree over indoor versus outdoor appearances.

Explicit shared mother and father in the opening, followed by reunion with the surviving mother.

Parents and brothers have no personal names. The younger brother who investigates is one of the nine, not an additional son. Suyettar’s false sisterhood and Musti’s companionship are excluded. This is Fillmore’s literary retelling, not a literal transcript of a Finnish narrator.

Repeated daughter designation; marriage is a separate relationship.

Neither father nor princess has a personal name in this witness. Bird attendants are subjects and captors, not relatives. The feather-removal episode does not establish biological bird ancestry. Other Solomon traditions are not combined.

Explicit maternal relationships; Wahma’s fatherhood retained only for the boy.

The first girl’s death is an editorial guess. Her father is not assigned. No marriage is inferred from captivity, and the narrative’s origin claim is not verified ancestry of modern communities. Unnamed maternal aunt and four uncles are described separately, without invented parent generations.

Explicit household, birth and marriage statements in the translated account.

The opening identifies a Maui version translated and condensed from Moke Manu by M. K. Nakuina. Ku-ula and Hina-pu-ku-ia’s parents are expressly unknown. Ku-ula-uka’s meeting with La-ea does not establish a marriage. Puniaiki’s later wife is inconsistently introduced as Kikihale’s daughter and then called Kikihale, daughter of Kou; that disputed household is omitted. Fish form is a transformation of Puniaiki, not biological evolution.

Explicit mother–daughter statements and completed royal marriage.

Kwallabbe’s father and offspring unstated. Mother’s species unknown in the main witness; comparative elephant mother, gourd birth and Atafa remain separate tellings. The older king is father-in-law, not a completed second husband. Daughter’s changed appearance preserves her identity.

Explicit birth to Laptitza and the emperor; repeated identification as twin brothers.

The boys are unnamed. Their forms preserve identity rather than representing biological descent. The emperor’s stepmother and second wife belong to a separate stepfamily; no offspring of the second marriage are stated. Romanian originals have not been collated.

Explicit parentage in the named source witness.

The other children are not individually described here and are omitted. Father and historical identities are not reconstructed. A legend’s family is distinct from verified human genealogy.

Grandparent-to-grandchild links; each displayed edge skips an unspecified intervening generation.

No intervening parents are supplied, and no brotherhood between the grandsons is inferred. Version A’s continuation was elicited after the collector read a Brazilian parallel; version B has a different contributor and is not merged. This is narrative kinship, not animal evolution.

Named parents and repeatedly explicit sibling relationship support the two-child branch.

Ke-ao-lewa is an ancestress of unspecified distance and excluded from immediate branches. Grandparent fostering and Kamamo’s adoption are separate relationships. No animal phylogeny implied.

Two explicitly stated parent–child links.

The mother and child remain unnamed; Limo’s father and the child’s other parent are unspecified. Maliepetsane impersonates the mother but is not added as a relative. This is Jacottet’s English rendering of the account credited to A. Sekese, not an independently collated original edition.

Explicit family statements in the named Jacobs retelling.

Oifa is their maternal aunt and later stepmother, not biological mother. Dearg fosters Oilell’s daughters; fostering is not biological parentage. Historical spellings Ove/Oifa are retained for this witness.

The woman gives birth to a son, names him Litaolane and is addressed as mother in the next scene.

The mother is unnamed and no father is identified. Rapid maturation is a narrative marvel, not biological descent evidence. Casalis’s subsequent Christian analogy is editorial interpretation and is not adopted as the tale’s origin.

Shared mother connected to her separately described children.

The earlier children’s father and number are unstated. Litokotoko’s father appears in the ending but is not automatically their father. The grandmother’s maternal or paternal side is not specified and is omitted from this parentage graph. All relatives remain unnamed; literal loss and restoration of limbs in the tale is not a modern medical claim.

A jointly labelled parental branch records their only son.

The mother is unnamed. Little Thunder’s bride is separately the daughter of Keukw; she is not a daughter of his own parents. Glooscap and the travelling helpers are hosts or companions, not additional parents. No further generations are supplied.

Narrator’s explicit parents designation after the couple care for a wooden baby that becomes living.

This is social caregiving, not a biological birth lineage. The couple and princess have no personal names. Log’s bride later marries the commissioning home king, distinct from her own father; no children or descendants are stated.

Explicit opening father–son and elder-brother wording; Lumawig subsequently recognizes his sons’ flooding.

Both sons reuse their collective profile. Their mother is not supplied. The human survivor siblings who later marry are distinct, and are not described as Lumawig’s children. His dog and deer are helpers, not children.

The verse directly designates the first man as Makonaima’s son.

The unnamed Acawoi narrator’s account is mediated by Brett’s English verse and missionary framing. No mother or biological mechanism is supplied, and creator status does not make all created animals his children. Other Makonaima narratives are not merged.

Sister grouping, with each named as a wife of the same husband.

The grouping root is not an ancestor. Maliane’s chief father and mother are explicit, but the younger sister’s parentage is not separately narrated, so common biological parents are not added. Monyohe is their husband, not a sibling. No children are supplied; XIX’s baby is not imported into XX.

Explicit mother–son link, followed by the son’s stated child with Senkepeng.

Monyohe’s father and the baby’s name and sex are unstated. XIX’s later deaths remain separate from XVIII’s marriage ending. XVIII’s song has an uncertain translation; its apparent “child of my sister” address is not used as an aunt–nephew pedigree. No original-version claim from the collector’s comparative notes is adopted.

Explicit shared-mother and sibling statements, with seven earlier sons collapsed as a named-count group.

The mother and seven earlier sons are unnamed. The opening father is stated for the seven sons and Mamza; the later birth does not separately name Madjitâtâ’s father, so this is a maternal tree. Mamza remains alive despite the old woman’s contradictory claim. No biological chameleon ancestry or ogre offspring is inferred.

Opening only-daughter statement and crab’s explicit self-identification as Maria’s mother.

The mother and Maria’s biological father have no personal names. Juana is a later stepmother; Rosa and Damiana are her own daughters. The narrator’s aunt/sister terminology does not override the explicit remarriage setup. No descendants of Maria’s marriage are supplied.

Explicit parents, marriage and son designations before and after Marusia’s flower return.

Parents, husband and son are unnamed. The grandmother’s maternal/paternal side is not stated and is not attached to a guessed parent. The fiend’s earlier betrothal is not completed marriage. Parents remain dead; husband and child are explicitly revived. Original Russian source not independently collated.

Explicit family statements in the named Jacobs retelling.

Mary also calls the black dog her son. The episode supplies no narrated dog-to-piper transformation; that scene is not invented here. This is a tale-specific family, not a species genealogy.

Explicit daughter and three children in Roth’s historical English account.

The three children and human father are unnamed. Collector translation and attribution are retained; contemporary belief and independent oral provenance are not asserted. The heading is visually confirmed as122 despite OCR123.

Explicit maternal statement under All-Maudra (Mayrin), glossary A.

No father, birth order or genealogy of the wider Gelfling people is supplied by this passage. Political authority over clans is not a descent relationship.

Explicit named parentage in the 1892 literary retelling.

A source-specific narrative family, not biological phylogeny. Elinas’s earlier marriage and son Nathas are recorded separately as a connection; other Melusine versions may differ.

The top heading groups two parentage sets; it is not an ancestor of the parents. Joint-parent headings branch to their children.

Sotchet is Olelbis’s son despite being born and raised in Kahit’s home. Kahit’s two sons are unnamed. These are Curtin’s translated narrative relationships, not independently verified biological descent or a universal account.

The chief’s three daughters and the youngest daughter’s completed marriage and later baby are directly stated.

This represents Leland’s edited composite, not an independently recovered single narrator’s version. The baby’s sex is unstated. The uncle–nephew relation with Glooskap is explicitly disputed as biological versus adoptive and is excluded from this branch. No real turtle ancestry is inferred.

Explicit parentage and adoption statements; node labels distinguish biological descent from adoption.

Mogarzea’s father, orphan and children are unnamed; child count is unspecified. Adoption is not biological descent. The fairy’s coerced capture precedes marriage. The three soul-stealing elves have no stated kinship, and the fairies are not stated sisters. Romanian originals have not been collated.

Explicit father and two sons; two sister wives retained as a spouse annotation, with collective maternal language qualified.

The text does not assign each son to an individual mother or give the sons personal names. The separate Mooregoo–Bahloo chapter is not joined to this household. Bird forms, the whirlwind and sky placement are narrative identities, not natural evolutionary relationships.

Explicit parentage and birth order in the primary narrative.

The stepmother is explicitly separate from the deceased mother. The shared mother is stated; no unnamed father is inferred.

Each of the two wives is explicitly said to give birth to one offspring; later references identify each mother.

The common husband is not separately asserted to father either child in this extracted topology. The root groups two maternal branches, not a shared ancestor. Partly eaten Cake remains the same child; Mouse and Cake are not real biological taxa.

Explicit parentage.

No other relatives supplied.

The prose explicitly identifies Kayura as Mugasha’s son.

No mother, sibling or descendants are supplied. Storm birds are controlled agents, not stated offspring. The missing leg’s appearance in clouds has no explanation in Werner’s account; none is invented. This is a source-specific religious genealogy mediated by a historical compilation, not biological descent or a universal modern community doctrine.

The opening distinguishes a wife from her mother, both called Moodai.

The two women share a name without being one person. Mullyan is represented through the wife’s spouse annotation, not as the elder woman’s biological child. No children are stated, and Buttergah’s wider group connection is not converted into a personal pedigree.

Prose states Sarikin Rafi → Dodo Ibrahima → Dubabi; Ba-Kabba is expressly Dubabi’s full-sister.

Ba-Kabba’s paternal branch follows the explicit full-sibling relation; no mother is named. Kadda and Baddo similarity is not converted into extra children. Rain and crocodile associations are performance/belief context, not zoological ancestry. These are attributed historical religious relationships, not biological phylogeny or a universal contemporary doctrine.

Named marriage, expected child and birth explicitly link Kamohoaliʻi and Kalei to Nanaue.

Joint-parent node represents two parents, not a separate being. No shark species, additional children or natural reproductive process inferred. Other accounts remain separate.

The mother identifies her daughter directly.

The woman, tortoise and singing tree are successive identities, not generations. Historical English retelling; no universal Shan genealogy.

Explicit adoption plus narrator and character identification of Qîñgi as father.

Adoptive relationship only. The earlier already-born child whose skin Raven enters is not treated as Raven’s biological birth. Other episodes, names and tellings are not harmonized. Historical transcription follows Swanton’s selected witness; contemporary Haida authority is not displaced by this collector edition.

Explicit parentage in the named source witness.

One remembered version, not all La Llorona traditions. Sons and husband are unnamed; no father is inferred from marriage alone.

Explicit parentage in the named source witness.

The child count is indefinite; the collective node is not a generation. Separate from Acosta’s two-son telling.

Direct mother and son wording in Junod’s collected French telling, p. 201.

The mother is unnamed. She must not be merged with the later surviving mother of Bokényane, Bonuambéri and Bochuruane; the text does not equate those women. No father is supplied.

Explicit son, brother, two daughters and aunt statements.

Nomagoda’s parents, Magoda’s father and the girls’ mother unstated. The girls have a younger/elder order but no names. Ntengu and the father’s dogs are rescuers, not family members. The wounded half-bodied survivor is not another relative or biological population.

Parallel branches display a sibling group, not parent-to-child descent.

No parents are named. The brother, uncle and cousin addresses to other visitors are not expanded into a wider pedigree. Their different final destinations do not create a second pair of brothers.

The prenatal teaching and birth account, followed by explicit father–son action and final return to the mother.

Both father and son are called Nouamoubia; Junod’s note explains the community descent label. Moubia is not identified as this child’s immediate father. The son’s later wives belong to the ogre settlement; no children from those marriages are stated.

The joint-parent heading branches to the ten expressly stated children collectively.

No children’s names or individual sex assignments are supplied. O-Yuki and the snow woman are the same narrative individual. Her introductory account of deceased parents is a character’s claim, not a basis for a larger reconstructed pedigree; other versions remain separate.

Explicit father, sons and daughter statements; spellings modernized in node labels.

No mother, birth order or wider genealogy inferred. Skadi’s marriage settlement is not treated as descent. This is textual genealogy, not biological phylogeny.

One father-to-collective-sons branch preserves the stated total.

No mother or names for the sons are given. Their deaths and one earlier restoration do not create new individuals. The visiting man’s adoption or succession appears only in Rand’s conjectural appended ending, p. 149, and is excluded. Friendly younger-brother greetings to visitors are not biological sibling evidence.

A joint-parent heading branches to their stated son.

Both parents are unnamed. The serpent mother’s lake residence and the son’s transformation are distinct facts; neither establishes a natural species hybrid or a wider pedigree.

Guest’s text directly names Orddu as the witch Orwen’s daughter.

No father, siblings or further ancestry are stated in this passage. Arthur’s attendants and adversaries are not treated as relatives.

Explicit opening brother and sister, with the ending’s marriage retained as an annotation.

Sibling-group root is not an invented parent. No parental personal names, birth order or descendants are supplied. Suyettar is an impersonator, Pilka a dog companion, and the Sea King’s Son’s refused proposal is distinct from the human prince’s completed marriage.

Opening expressly identifies Bleargah as Ouyan’s mother.

Hosted text later spells the mother Beeargah. Other camp women are not assigned kinship, and no father is supplied. The tale’s animal names and bird-form identity are not a scientific genealogy.

Explicit parentage.

Parents unnamed; narrative birth, not biological verification.

Explicit wife’s childbirth and Pekka’s repeated children designations.

Mother dies after giving birth. The three cubs are unnamed and all are eaten by Mikko; no survival or revival is narrated. Mikko’s paid nursing role does not make him a parent. Animal brother/cousin addresses elsewhere are not used as birth evidence.

The first man and woman explicitly emerge from the Great Spirit Spider’s eggs after the earth forms around them.

Cosmological narrative origin, not biological phylogeny. Subsequent peoples are not expanded into modern ethnic genealogies. The source does not name a father or specify one egg per child.

Explicit egg emergence and later childbirth in the named tale.

The bulbul’s mate is not represented as a father. The magical origin is narrative parentage, not a biological human–bird phylogeny. The murdered infant is not described as restored.

Joint parental branch to their named child.

These are characters in this telling, not biological taxa. No wider natural-ancestor chain is inferred from their fire or plant identities. Olelbis’s Pakchuso grandmother addresses do not establish an intervening birth pedigree.

Explicit Thoosa–Phorcys and Thoosa–Polyphemus statements form the maternal line; Poseidon’s paternity is retained in the child label.

No mother of Thoosa, siblings of Polyphemus or offspring are supplied here. Sexual union is not labelled a marriage. This one Cyclops’s genealogy does not establish the parentage of all Cyclopes.

Narrator distinguishes the witch’s own children from abducted children raised in her household.

No child’s personal name or individually named father is supplied. The stolen boy is excluded from the biological branch. Noel Josephs’s attribution is not extended to the whole preceding Pitcher narrative; the chief’s bear mother is a separate family.

Two parallel branches show the stated sibling relationship in their earlier human lives.

The heading is a sibling grouping, not an ancestor. No parents are named; the branches associate each human brother with his subsequent animal rebirth, not biological descent. The 1906 English translation is the inspected witness.

Literal two-parent statement and repeated husband/daughter-in-law descriptions.

The parents and prince lack personal names. The wife’s six brothers belong to her separate human household; her youngest rescuer is not a snail sibling. No offspring of the marriage are supplied. The concluding animal-origin explanation is narrative, not biological phylogeny. The original Tate manuscript has not been collated.

Opening children-of-Punga designation and explicit elder/younger brother order.

Source-scoped narrative, not modern animal phylogeny or universal Māori genealogy. Colenso’s footnote calls Punga father or former; no mother or further ancestors supplied. Tū association and Darwin comparison remain separate from parentage and species identification.

Named joint parents, their daughter, and her explicitly stated children with Masilo.

The younger child has no name or specified sex and is not identified with the rescue boy. The pool guardian is a caregiver, not a biological ancestor. Masilo’s unnamed cannibal father is distinct from Rahlabakoane. Recurring Thakane and Masilo names are not merged with other tales. The rock is a narrative transformation, not geological evolution.

The branch is an adoptive relationship, not biological parentage.

Bimbo and Kanemochi are names of one foster father. The wife is unnamed; neither biological parent is explicitly identified. Rai-taro’s human and white-dragon appearances are one narrative individual.

Rescue, upbringing and explicit adoption in tale XXII.

These are foster-care branches, not a shared biological ancestor. Nang Cháyang’s birth father is the unnamed fairy king; the bamboo boy’s parents are not supplied. The main telling marries the princess to Samura Muda; the foundlings’ marriage occurs only in the variant note. The narrator is identified only as a Malay in Patāni Town. Descendant and taboo claims remain this tale’s origin explanation, not a verified modern pedigree.

One father-to-daughter branch follows the narrative’s repeated relationship statements.

Mother and daughter’s personal name are unstated. The rejected peacock is a suitor, not a completed spouse. This is the 1906 English translation; Tibetan and German originals were not independently collated.

Explicit spouse, daughter, son/brother, marriage and child statements.

Names of the two children, Hare’s mother and the grandchild unstated. The grandchild’s sex is not supplied. Hare’s mother is a separate maternal relation, not Raven’s wife. Raven’s first death is explicitly simulated and final death real; no revival is inferred. This account is not a universal Raven genealogy.

One joint-parent branch records stated parentage; the final spouse is labelled beside the son.

No parent names or children of the prince’s marriage are supplied. Horse-headed, knight and crow appearances belong to the same prince; no animal ancestor is inferred.

Opening father, three sons and daughter; later explicit eldest-brother references.

Glooskap’s formally adopted ties are excluded from the biological branch. Only the father and three sons are transformed into fish at the ending; the daughter’s fate is unstated. No natural fish ancestry or Leland cross-cultural origin theory is inferred.

Explicit shared father and separately identified mothers in the narrator’s account.

The unnamed Brahman is the shared father. The Rakshasi’s initial claim to a forgotten childhood wedding is deception; subsequent birth and half-brother statements are explicit. Her affectionate address to the human wife does not establish biological sisterhood. Keshavati marries Champa Dal, not Sahasra Dal.

One branch records the stated parentage.

No father is supplied. Sanihas Yupchi and Tsaroki Sakahl are identified as the same person here, not siblings. Curtin’s English account is the inspected witness.

Two separate notices explicitly identify this father–daughter relationship.

No mother or children of Yar-Maso are supplied. The collector’s differing religious classifications remain source qualifications. These are attributed historical religious relationships, not biological phylogeny or a universal contemporary doctrine.

Explicit relationships in the named source witness.

The mother’s identity is unspecified here. Different published or community versions are not combined with this witness.

Explicit human birth and the wolves’ account of nurturing the child; foster relationship only.

The root is a joint caregiver pair. Schalû’s biological mother is the unnamed maiden; no father is identified. His later adoption by the queen and adoptive brotherhood with Vikramâditja are distinct stages, not biological generations or separate identities.

Explicit mother–daughter statement in Circe’s reply.

No father, siblings or descendants are given here. Charybdis is not made a relative through proximity. The displayed maternal name follows this translation’s spelling; later alternative genealogies are not blended in.

Parallel branches distinguish the lost daughters from the eventually successful sons.

Created narrative parentage, not biological descent. Both daughters permanently revert to sticks; the twenty successful sons follow a later attempt. Kinship greetings elsewhere are not used to reconstruct unnamed shared ancestors.

Marriage, birth and repeated daughter/father wording.

This represents earthly parentage only. The Sea King later describes Sim Hyun as her former star-lover; that past-life relation is not another biological edge. Mother is unnamed, and the later earthly king is not her father. Other Sim Cheong versions are not merged.

One maternal branch records the nestlings collectively.

No father, offspring count, names or sexes are supplied. The human traveller is a rescuer and beneficiary, not another child. This Bakhtiari collected version remains distinct from the Shahnameh’s Zal episode.

Explicit husband, wife and baby statements; social greetings excluded.

Parents are grouped jointly, not as a new organism. Baby’s name and sex are unstated. Wife’s brothers and parents are not inserted as ancestors of Siwara. Roth’s historical mediation remains explicit.

Attributed six-child list, corroborating Mai-Lema song and explicit twin notice.

Ba-Jin-Chiwu alternatively has Sarikin Rafi as father. Geshe is explicitly Kaura’s foster-father. The first account’s different four-child placement list is not merged here; its wording does not independently establish all birth parents. Mothers are generally unstated except the twins’ unnamed concubine mother.

Explicit family statements in the named Jacobs retelling.

The two husbands are unnamed and distinct; no joint father is invented. The cat identifies herself as the murdered mother. This transformation is textual identity, not biological evolution.

The narrator explicitly calls the tower ogress’s captive her daughter.

The opening pitcher-gathering ogress is not explicitly equated with this mother. The prince’s sister address does not supply shared parents; he later marries the heroine. No father or descendants are stated.

Explicit married parents and two boys and one girl, later individually named.

The mother and two later spouses are unnamed. The ogre rescuer and ruler are not assigned kinship. The note’s identification with a real Ceylon population is prejudicial editorial interpretation, excluded from the family facts; animal-like personal names are not biological species.

Opening mother-and-cub statements, reciprocal care arrangement, supplied cub names and mothers’ express brotherhood instruction.

The root groups caregivers; it does not imply a shared parent or marriage between them. Solid nested relations show each cub’s biological mother; reciprocal nursing makes the cubs foster brothers. No father is supplied. The preceding lion-and-bull story is a separate version, and the jackal’s uncle address does not establish biological kinship.

The passage names Suketu’s daughter Tārakā and her son Māricha.

Historical translation spellings Tārakā/Māricha correspond to the local Tāṭakā/Mārīca profiles. Sunda is explicitly her husband; the displayed maternal chain does not infer another parent from marriage alone. The curse changes appearance/status in the narrative, not biological evolution.

Opening marriage statement followed by first-child and another-child wording; note 23 supplies the crab’s name.

The parent node represents the married pair, not a single being. No additional personal name is supplied for the star-child. The divided pieces become stars in the narrative; they are not separately named children. Note 24’s comparative eclipse discussion does not establish shared descent or historical influence across traditions.

Repeated explicit Suyettar mother/sons statements and serpent brotherhood.

No father is supplied. The retelling’s ordinal descriptions vary, so head counts identify the sons without establishing birth order. Suyettar’s companions are not assigned biological sisterhood merely from address, and the false-bride profile from another tale is not used as the mother endpoint.

Explicit married parents and seven children, with one designated eldest brother.

Both parents unnamed. Six younger children are retained collectively without invented names, sexes or order. Ueré’s uncle address supplies no maternal/paternal placement; the footnote identifies only another star. No link to the distinct Cyiuce household or vulture ancestry is inferred.

Explicit relationships in the named source witness.

Her unnamed husband is called king of Fiji, but is not explicitly designated the sons’ father in the inspected passage. Turner’s missionary-era account is not the voice of all contemporary Samoan tellers.

Deitari emerges from Tari’s stored blood; the account then repeatedly calls Tari his father and Deitari his child.

The extraordinary blood origin is a story mechanism. Tari’s wife cares for the emerging child, but this passage supplies no maternal origin; Taepupuliti is a captor, not a relative.

Explicit family relationships in the named translated tale.

The queen explicitly gives birth to both girls. The earlier foster-daughter and beggar girl are different children; they are not substituted for either twin. The diagram records maternity without inferring a father.

Retain each stated parent-child relationship, grouping the independent families under a non-ancestral heading.

The root heading groups independent families and is not an ancestor. Mothers are not individually identified in this list. The male Tārā here is not silently equated with Vāli’s wife in other episodes. Translator spellings are retained. Epic divine generation is distinct from biological evolution; other textual versions may differ.

Explicit parentage in the named collected tale.

The descendant line follows the mother. Eyamba is the child’s separately stated father, not an additional child of Adiaha’s parents. Unnamed members stay unnamed. These are narrative relationships in Dayrell’s mediated collection, not natural species ancestry or verified historical households.

Explicit parentage in the named collected tale.

The father is not named. The husband and his other wife are not inserted as descendants. These are narrative relationships in Dayrell’s mediated collection, not natural species ancestry or verified historical households.

Explicit parentage in the named collected tale.

Neither the Skull’s father nor further children are supplied. Afiong remains his wife, not his mother’s biological daughter. These are narrative relationships in Dayrell’s mediated collection, not natural species ancestry or verified historical households.

Explicit eggs, birth sequence and named mother within the Kasyapa household.

The first child is identified as Surya’s charioteer but unnamed in this section. Its birth interval is narrated time, not a zoological estimate. Kadru’s serpent brood is a separate maternal family. No universal Garuda genealogy is inferred.

Retain the story’s explicit identification of Kweku Tsin as Anansi’s eldest son.

Selected textual kinship, not biological evolution. Other children and the wife are present but unnamed here; this is not a complete family tree. The collectors selected and retold contributor versions, and their colonial framing is not treated as a modern account of Akan communities or all diaspora traditions.

Use the explicit statement that Medusa had Pegasus and Chrysaor by Poseidon, rather than inferring parentage from the beheading scene alone.

A supernatural birth narrative in this particular text. Perseus causes the emergence by beheading Medusa but is not identified as a parent. Chrysaor has no local profile yet and is retained as a named node. No direct biological ancestry is implied.

Follow the translator's named production of Shu and Tefnut, their joint offspring Geb and Nut, and the latter pair's enumerated children. Paired nodes identify two parents; they are not single organisms.

A divine genealogy in one translated recension, not biological evolution or a harmonized account of all Egyptian traditions. Creation B differs. The source's Heru-khent-an-maati, glossed Blind Horus, remains an unlinked named node to avoid confusing him with later Horus parentage. Budge's historical translation and commentary are not a modern consensus edition.

Use the explicitly repeated Ceto–Phorcys parentage of the guarding snake in Evelyn-White's translation.

The poem describes the dragon without naming Ladon; the local Ladon profile covers this guardian. This parentage conflicts with the Typhon–Echidna pair in Library 2.5.11, so the two source versions are separate trees. This is not a biological phylogeny and does not settle all later traditions.

Preserve the stated father and three sons; retain local links for Fafnir and Otter, with Regin as an external named node.

Selected saga-text parentage, not biological phylogeny. Mother and further ancestry are not supplied. Different animal forms do not define a zoological family. Grani’s separate association with Sleipnir’s kin is deliberately excluded because no exact generation is stated.

Read the named parental pair and its enumerated children in Brodeur's translation. A joint-parent node represents two parents, not a single ancestor.

A relationship in this medieval narrative, not a biological phylogeny or a synthesis of every Norse source. Hel is a named figure here, distinct from uses of Hel as a place. Other children of Loki are outside this selected branch.

Opening father references and the translator’s note 1 identify the parent and child.

One transcribed and translated narrative witness; no mother or further descendants are supplied. The narrator’s characters are not a biological mantis lineage. Historical transcription symbols are retained.

Follow the bird’s egg-laying and explicit naming of her daughter, then the final page’s named marriage and son; retain the two generations of Andriambahòaka as distinct people.

Selected supernatural textual genealogy, not biological evolution. Other eggs hatch into unnamed birds and are not individually reconstructed. The father of Ramàitsoanàla is not supplied, while her own son’s father is named. Missionary translation mediates the account; unidentified contributors and the earlier missing narrative page remain unresolved.

Combine four explicit parentage statements within one named work, keeping each creature under the stated Typhon–Echidna pair.

This is a selected version attributed to Pseudo-Apollodorus. The Hesperides' dragon is identified with the Ladon profile, although this passage calls it the dragon rather than using that name. Hesiod gives that dragon different parents; the alternative remains separate. Sphinx means the Greek figure. Fosterers, killers and owners are not parents.

Identify the foal introduced in the Sleipnir discussion: Loki, in mare form, encounters the stallion Svadilfari and later gives birth.

The root names the two narrative parents. Loki's mare form is a transformation of that character, not a separate ancestor. Odin's later possession of the horse is not parentage. This is textual genealogy, not biological evolution.

Retain Thunder as the old mother sheep and Lightning as her ram son; the collective entry represents both figures.

Narrative kinship rather than biological phylogeny or atmospheric science. No father or additional descendants are named. Colonial collection and editorial mediation do not establish a first oral date or consensus across contemporary communities. The root entry link points to the collective storm-family profile.

Follow the explicitly named pairing of Typhaon and Echidna and the first, second and third offspring in Evelyn-White's translation.

Selected parentage in Hesiod. Typhaon is the name used here for Typhon. Later Chimera and Sphinx passages involve interpretive pronoun questions; those are not silently appended. Hera's nourishment of Hydra is not maternity. No claim of zoological ancestry.

Explicit own little son wording.

The son’s father is unspecified. The king’s remarriage does not prove paternity. The queen kills the boy in her basilisk form; no revival or descendants are supplied. Her thirteen stepchildren remain in the separate first-marriage tree.

Two child-group branches distinguish stated cubs from a human child cared for in the den.

The human branch denotes nourishment and shelter, not biological birth or a formal adoption ceremony. The main story is attributed through Benjamin Brooks to his grandfather’s second wife; the separate addition is attributed to Mrs. Jim Paul at Dartmouth, 10 May 1870. No birth parents or subsequent named descendants of the human child are supplied.

Explicit marriage, birth and paternal kinship in the complete named tale.

Jhades Jogi is an abductor, not father. The Bohmae birds hold his life; they are not his children. Six aunts provide care, not birth motherhood. Names of the human brothers are not supplied.

Direct father–mother–daughter introduction and explicitly identified grandson at departure.

Dukhu’s father Bhagrit is a father-in-law, not the bonga wife’s birth father. Tigers, leopards and snakes in her parents’ house are not called kin. The fish transformation does not introduce another mother. No universal bonga lineage is inferred.

Explicit sisterhood, youngest sister’s childbirth and her son’s children in the named chapter.

The three-sister profile is collective; only the youngest births Golden Family Stem. No father is supplied for his miraculous conception. Mrs. Crinkles is a story character, not a verified informant. Dynastic claims are literary narrative, not verified biological ancestry of living peoples.

The foal explicitly follows its mother, through their coordinated changes of form.

Forms are not descendants. The prince’s reward horse is a separate selection and is not stated to be the foal; the mare’s owner is not her mother. Historical English retelling, 1921 reprint of the 1914 publication.

The father identifies both sons; their mothers are individually described as sisters.

Mothers are named by relationship, not invented personal names. Their sisterhood also makes the sons maternal cousins. The unnamed sister’s precise parentage remains unstated, so she is omitted here. Snake disguise does not indicate snake descent.

Explicit sibling identification on p. 34, following the complete tale.

The two avenging sisters are unnamed. This is a sibling group, not an invented common-parent genealogy. The seven-headed tigress contains the external-life egg but is not called a relative. Captive maidens’ Mamma address is not biological parentage.

The branch directly represents grandmother-to-grandson kinship; it skips an unspecified intermediate generation.

No intervening parent, other ancestor or personal name for the grandmother is supplied. The visitor’s temporary ant appearance is a disguise, not descent from either figure.

One maternal branch records the three offspring collectively.

The fish’s portions precede the births; the fish is not identified as a parent. No lion father or personal names are supplied. This narrative genealogy makes no zoological claim.

Explicit parentage and birth order in the primary narrative.

The second king later becomes a father-in-law and is not substituted for the prince’s own father. Animal form is a literary condition, not zoological hybridity.

Explicit king–brother relation, named uncle, king and queen’s daughter, later completed marriage and son.

The root represents two brothers, not an invented parent. The princess’s older siblings are unstated individually. Her former Ging Dschou marriage is distinct from the later Liu I marriage; no son is assigned to the former husband. The separate princesses in XLV and XLVI are not merged.

Horse’s brother identification and the Giant-Head’s confirming account, pp. 43–46.

Sibling grouping, not a parent node. Parents and birth order unnamed. Different giant/dwarf bodies do not imply different families or a natural taxonomy. Ladna rejects the dwarf; her completed marriage is to Dobrotek, not her captor. Both brothers are destroyed before the final wedding.

Blind mother explicitly calls the elephant her eldest son.

No father or named sibling is supplied. The human wife and her two brothers are affinity relations, excluded from this biological branch. This story family is not natural zoological ancestry or a pedigree of a contemporary community.

Explicit daughter from the stepmother’s first marriage and subsequent second royal marriage.

This is the father’s stepfamily, not the twins’ biological maternal lineage. No father of the emperor or children of his second marriage are newly inferred. The stepmother’s brother is stated but has no supplied parentage.

The speaking Cock explicitly identifies daughters whose proposed marriages he refused.

Unnamed daughters remain collective. The rejected suitors are not spouses. All subjects enchanted into fowls are not thereby children of the chief. Human and cock forms are one narrative identity, not separate generations. This is a source-specific historical literary witness, not a universal genealogy or independently verified contemporary oral account.

Explicit family statements in the named Jacobs retelling.

The top node groups sibling households; it is not a parent or ancestor. The children’s father is not stated. The pursuing hawk is the sister’s transformed appearance, not an additional relative.

The Princess expressly identifies her father and mother; both appear to greet her.

Joint-parent label groups two stated people, not an organism. Bird and human forms remain identities, not generations. Rabbit Prince is her chosen husband, not a child or sibling; magical companions are not relatives.

The narrative expressly identifies two daughters and differentiates elder and younger.

No father or personal names of daughters are supplied. The younger daughter marries Nohi-abassi; a branching parent–child tree does not draw that marriage as descent. The female witness is not conflated with the unrelated same-named old man. This is a historical collected narrative, not biological phylogeny or a universal community genealogy.

Two descendant generations are shown collectively, without inventing individual households.

No names, counts or sex assignments are supplied for descendants. Collective branches do not mean every child had children. Helga is specific to this telling; same-named heroines in other tales are not merged.

The princess’s explicit mother identification on p. 7.

No father or siblings supplied. Seven handmaidens are attendants, not daughters or sisters. The king is her father-in-law, and resemblance to his deceased queen is not parentage. No Vasilisa identity inferred.

The three women are explicitly daughters of the sultan, and Sayadaatee Shems is designated youngest.

No mother is identified. The birds and women are forms of the same daughters, not generations. Jan Shah is a husband, not a child; the old man’s affection as if Jan Shah were his son is a simile, not stated descent.

Narrator-stated children and later care for the previously existing human child; labels distinguish fostering from birth.

The bird is initially described uncertainly as vulture or griffin; no lion anatomy is supplied. Own offspring number and other parent are unknown. Wild-Rose appears beside the old man after he eats the apple half, with no narrated pregnancy; the archangel is a rescuer, not an inferred parent. Romanian originals have not been collated.

Explicit mother, father and three young in the English narrative.

The joint-parent grouping is not a new creature. Individual names and the young’s sexes are unstated. The human rescuer is a guest, not adopted offspring. Historical collector mediation remains explicit.

Narrator’s explicit king and daughter designations.

No mother, siblings, spouse or children of the princess are stated. The priest’s son and advising old woman are unrelated participants; granny address is not a genealogical proof. Original Russian source not independently collated.

Explicit family statements in the named Jacobs retelling.

Unnamed tale characters remain unnamed. The unrelated king of the Big Men is not their father or clan ancestor.

The Jinn’s explicit care from egg sheltering through marriage consent.

This represents guardianship and fostering, not birth descent. Later bird forms of the Jinn and Pepperina are transformations, not additional family members.

Parentage stated in the opening; the ending confirms the bird’s restored identity as the boy.

Marriage nodes explain different mothers, not extra ancestors. The boy and bird are one narrative identity. Unnamed parents remain unnamed; no taxonomic bird identification is inferred.

Explicit mother connected to her son and separate unnamed daughters.

The King’s father and the number of daughters are unstated. Bird and human appearances are one character. Rosella’s newborn has no supplied name or sex; this graph does not infer additional parents. The seven ogresses are a sibling set, while the letter recipient is separately a friend. No identity with Classical Eros is asserted.

The restored ruler explicitly remembers his father and says he is long dead.

Hostile king and magician are enemies, not family. The ruler’s serpent and human forms are one individual. No mother or children are stated; Timba’s marriage is separate from descent.

Explicit family relationships in the named translated tale.

The princes explicitly call the princess their sister; the king subsequently calls them his sons. The queen or other parent is not named. Boots is the princess’s bridegroom, not one of the brothers.

Explicit parentage in Ker’s historical English telling.

No father is identified. The eaten snake is not represented as a father. The later taro transformation is distinct from parentage.

The merrow’s stated parents lead to their daughter; her marriage is labelled alongside her and her own three children branch below.

The sea parents and the merrow herself are personally unnamed; siblings have no count or individual pedigree and are not added as invented leaves. The two boys are unnamed. This version-specific family is not a genealogy of merrows as a class, and Dick’s explanation for her absence remains his belief.

Explicit father declaration and mother–children statements establish two generations.

The daughter and two children are unnamed; child genders and birth order are unstated. The black bird is not expressly the magician in another shape. Later variant healing sequences and donors are not blended into this family.

Repeated father/son wording in the narrative, its opening note and the reunion scene.

Bleek and Lloyd’s historical English translation mediates this witness. The household also uses grandfather and grandson addresses; those addresses alone do not establish additional biological generations here. Other Mantis traditions and the distinct Great Star narrative are not combined.

Explicit coupling and birth statements establish the named maternal and bull paternal relationship.

Minos is not the biological father in this account. The child Asterius is distinct from Europa’s husband of the same name. No later offspring, zoological ancestry or merger with rationalizing accounts is inferred.

Repeated literal mother designation and explicit former-man identification.

The mother has no personal name and no father is supplied. The promised restoration to life is not performed in the account. Transformation into a hare does not create a separate son or establish natural zoological descent.

Mother and offspring named directly in the narrative; birth sequence retained.

The Mouse initially lives with a husband, but the births do not explicitly identify a father. Prayers do not establish divine parentage. Recruited tigers and peacocks are not additional siblings. This is a translated literary witness, not biological evolution.

Explicit elder brother succession and revenant’s brother address.

Parents and descendants unspecified. The ferryman’s two elder brothers belong to a separate family. The revenant vanishes after the younger brother dies; no continuing restored reign is implied.

Repeated explicit father–daughter statements in the named tale.

Three daughters share one profile. No mother is identified, and daughter-to-transformation or daughter-to-husband mappings are unspecified. The human princes’ father is a different king.

The narrator expressly calls the large ogre father of the surrounding small ogres.

The apparent death is reversed in the story. The offspring vanish when the feather-ball is recovered, but the passage does not explain their birth or name a mother. Their collective branch does not fabricate individual names or exact counts.

Explicit household parentage and the daughter’s mother-addressed letter.

Seven daughters are distinct from the seven human princesses. One daughter is accidentally eaten; no daughter names are supplied. The main tale does not give the queen an external-life bird or narrate her death.

The opening and journey explicitly establish the chief and his wife as parents of the two girls.

Girls remain one pair through bird transformation. The later Fairy is an adoptive grandmother, not established biological ancestor; her intervening claimed descent is kept distinct from the narrator’s adoption wording. No individual names, modern species lineage or general regional pedigree is inferred.

The opening birth account and the reunion with father and mother on p. 236.

The parent pair is grouped because this is a descendant tree, not a biological species tree. No personal names are invented. The offered damsel departs after rejection on p. 237; no completed marriage is shown.

Explicit mother and three separately narrated male births; grandparents follow the opening royal household.

The earlier keepsakes are later identified as the boys, but no transformation mechanism or coherent chronology is supplied. No human restoration is narrated. Fatherhood is not assigned merely from the prince’s partnership. The maternal queen is distinct from the prince’s hostile mother.

Explicit family relationships in the named translated tale.

The daughter’s double name denotes one girl, not the two Grimm sisters. No unnamed father is supplied. Transformations are narrative events, not biological evolution.

The queen’s direct identification of the older Rakshasi as her mother.

The hero pretends to be a grandson, so he is excluded. The caged bird contains the queen’s life and is not a relative. This is one named tale; the mother’s death is not stated.

The restored hero’s explicit statement that he is married and has children.

The wife and children are unnamed, and the children’s exact number and ages are unstated. No reunion is narrated. Fox and human hero are the same individual; the prince and his sworn brother belong to other families. Romanian originals have not been collated.

Explicit wife, childbirth and son designations.

Neither parent nor infant has a personal name. The hired caregiver is not another birth parent. Both mother and son are dead by the ending; no performed resurrection or descendants are supplied. Original Russian source not independently collated.

The youth released from fish form is explicitly called the sea-dragon’s son.

This two-person parentage belongs to this named tale, not every Chinese dragon. Sworn brotherhood with the human rescuer and reciprocal social fatherhood are excluded from the biological branch. No mother, personal names or further dragon generations are supplied.

Seven girls expressly called sisters, divided temporarily into two abducted and five departed sisters.

The root represents sibling membership, not a parent. No individual names, parental identities or birth order are supplied. Wurrunnah’s coercive wife claim is not incorporated as a consensual marriage.

The original snake brings forth many young, of whom Betawerai and Walolo are expressly the two chief ones.

The snake parent is unnamed. The separate pregnant human survivor and her twin boys belong to a different household; neither human twin is a child of the snake. Historical translated narrative, not biological species ancestry.

A joint-parent heading branches to the two named daughters in their stated birth order.

No further ancestors or offspring are supplied. The human visitor’s later adopted son belongs to his own household; he is not another sparrow sibling. No Japanese-language witness was independently collated.

Five eggs from one mother hatch in a specified order; later narration and dialogue identify the hatchlings as brothers.

Narrative family only, not real interspecies reproduction or evolution. Sa Kyah protects the eggs but is not called their father. No modern animal species identification is supplied.

Narrator and household conversation identify mother and son.

Father, siblings, spouse and children of the Sun unstated. The ferryman is a visitor; sea maiden’s help and beloved label do not establish a completed wedding.

The parents and children follow the text’s family terms; the daughter’s later spouse is recorded in her label.

Unnamed characters retain descriptive labels. Repeated child counts are uneven, so no fixed census or invented names are supplied. The bird’s marriage is not drawn as biological parentage. French translation inspected; original Louyi not independently translated.

The snake covering yields ten children; the recognition dialogue explicitly affirms their father and mother. The first two are named in the emergence sequence.

A joint-parent root groups two stated parents, not one organism. The single snake birth and ten emergent children form one narrative event, not a separate snake ancestor followed by human descendants. Boa is the historical translation, not verified zoological identification. Maternal grandmother is explicitly attested separately but not drawn as parent of the joint root. Eight unnamed siblings stay collective rather than fabricated individual profiles.

Explicit parentage and birth order in the primary narrative.

No father is specified. Eye count labels identify individual sisters, not distinct peoples or medical categories.

A sibling cluster records the explicitly identified two sisters and their brother; its heading represents a group, not a parent.

No parent or individual personal name is supplied. Only the two sisters’ relative age is stated. The visitor’s prospective marriage remains incomplete; turtles and uktena mounts are excluded from genealogy.

The children follow the narrative’s repeated daughter references.

No father is named. The human princess is a kidnapped servant, not a twelfth daughter. Sleeping arrangements with the princes do not establish marriages.

Male troll’s explicit daughters designation; wife relationship stated separately.

The daughters are unnamed and all are killed. No completed marriages to the human brothers are stated. The female troll is his wife, but her biological motherhood is not independently supplied. Other troll guests are not assumed kin.

Opening first-couple family count and explicit stepchildren distinction.

Both first-marriage parents and all children unnamed. The second queen is stepmother, not the deceased biological mother. Her own son is separate, without stated paternal identity. Eagle and dove forms preserve identities; no natural bird genealogy is implied.

Joint-parent branching follows the opening and the later father’s recognition.

The men and ox forms are one set of twelve sons. Thorsteinn is another household’s son, and succession by gratitude does not make him a biological son of this king. No individual brother names are supplied.

Explicit mother and son, with the son’s two named spouses retained as an annotation.

Mother and son share a name but are separate people. Guddah and Beereeun are spouses, not biological children of the doctor; their sisterhood and offspring are unstated. Narrative healing is not medical guidance.

Opening explicitly names family roles: father, his wife and their two daughters.

No individual teller, parental names or daughters’ birth order are supplied. This variant is kept distinct from the preceding two water-snakes story. Leland’s identification of the unnamed hair-cutter with Lox and his Norse borrowing theory are not adopted.

Two explicit sibling branches.

The grouping root is not a parent. No names for their birth parents are supplied. Other allies’ familial addresses do not expand this literal two-person group into a shared biological household.

Explicit mother–daughter and mother–children statements; Osip is recorded as spouse in the daughter’s label.

All human relatives are unnamed. The son and daughter’s birth order is unstated. Bird forms preserve narrative identities, not zoological genealogy. No extended snake family, Water King identity or Nāga ancestry is inferred from the translator’s commentary. Physical edition date is not supplied here.

The householder calls the fisherman’s wife his daughter and another individual his son. Only those stated parent–child relations form the branching tree.

Unnamed story participants are not universal ancestors of Ho-aránni. No mother is stated. The human husband is an affinal relation, not a child, and the requested second marriage is not shown completed. The tale’s sickness explanation is preserved as narrative testimony, not medical causation or a statement about all contemporary Warao beliefs.

The king explicitly calls Goldfrog his daughter and the rescued serpent his only son.

No mother is identified. The red dog is a gift, not a stated daughter; transformed forms are not separate generations.

Explicit king’s statement and subsequent appearance with his middle daughter.

Mother and other daughters’ names are unstated. Bird and fairy forms are identities of the same characters. The collector’s historical translation is the witness; no Tibetan-language original or individual narrator is independently checked.

Explicit childbirth, kinship and family recognition in the named tale.

Distinct from Day’s related Rakshasi tale. The hero’s blood revived by the old witch does not make her his biological mother.

One paternal branch records the prince; his wife is labelled alongside him.

The king, prince and maiden are personally unnamed. No mother or offspring are supplied. Fish appearance is the prince’s enchantment, not an animal parent. The king’s proposal to the maiden is not a completed marriage.

Explicit master’s children and daughter’s later childbirth in the named tale.

All individual names remain unspecified. The master’s two sons are not his daughter’s two sons. Her mother appears as the visitor’s mother-in-law, but motherhood of the two older boys is not independently stated. Age comparisons to animals do not imply transformations.

Opening father/three-son statement and the bone’s changing father/brother addresses.

All four family members are unnamed. Mother and elder sons’ relative ages are unstated. The bone represents the murdered youngest prince; no resurrection or separate fourth child is narrated. The griffin and helpful old man are excluded from kinship.

Each maternal branch follows an explicit mother-and-son exchange. The top heading groups selected households, not a common ancestor.

The mothers are unnamed. No father or sibling relationship between the three winds is stated, and the maiden is a visitor, not a daughter.

Explicit sister statements, relative elder/youngest labels and completed wedding.

Parents and personal names are unstated. Wing theft and conditional release precede the wedding; the later reunion does not erase that coercive beginning. No offspring or kinship with the miller, birds or monkeys is supplied. Appendix Note IV expressly describes this English version as freely translated and shortened, with the miller conversation changed.

Explicit sisters and completed marriage to the youngest.

Parentage and names unstated. The text combines same-age wording with elder/youngest labels; no birth interval is inferred. Only the youngest marries the prince, and no offspring are stated. The returning horse is a companion, not kin. Romanian originals have not been collated.

Sibling grouping and maternal descent expressly stated in this narrative.

The group node represents a stated sibling relationship, not an identified parent. Relatives remain unnamed. The twin sons are distinct from the killed baby of §146; this witness is not a universal Black Tiger genealogy.

Two sibling groupings; spouse names appear on individual labels rather than connecting grouped profiles as undifferentiated couples.

Grouping roots are not ancestors. Both pairs have living parents, but names and a complete pedigree are not supplied. The closing father Tornado and his younger brother Wave remain distinct from the opening sons with those same names. No children of the two marriages are stated.

The diagram is a sibling group, not a parent-to-child pedigree.

The group heading is not an ancestor. Parents and any wider troll genealogy are unstated; the younger sister remains unnamed. Hlinik’s final wife is Thora, so the coerced and deceptive troll wedding arrangements are not recast as completed marriage.

Explicit widow, daughter, older son and two children establish the maternal branches. Tsulʻkălû is the daughter’s stated husband and explicitly identifies the first girl as their child.

Relatives are unnamed. Only the first child is explicitly a girl; the second birth is implicit and its gender and separate paternal declaration are unstated. The alternate parental fragment is excluded. No ritual protocol is reproduced in this family record.

The text names Sinailele as mother and repeatedly calls both Mauis the child’s fathers.

This extraordinary narrative paternity is not a biological reproduction model. Atalanga and Kijikiji are themselves father and son in the preceding episode. They are grouped as jointly stated parents here, not equated or turned into a linear ancestor chain. Later living-family descendant lists are excluded.

Explicit parentage.

Father unnamed; turtle appearances are narrative identities.

One unnamed maternal branch records the two expressly narrated twins.

Rand explicitly doubts that this account concerns Glooscap. The diagram retains its printed attribution without resolving that doubt. No father or name for the younger twin is provided. Other Glooscap accounts and differently named twin narratives are not merged.

Keep Dodo’s stated son separate from the human youngest wife’s two explicitly identified daughters. The marriage connects the branches affinally.

The root is a diagram grouping, not an ancestor. The human king is husband and bargain-maker but not separately inserted as biological father here. The children playing with the bride are other river-dwellers’ children, not hers. The story’s marriage bargain is coercive; no universal Dodo genealogy is inferred.

Direct speech and narration identify the two horses as brothers.

Root groups siblings and does not represent an invented parent. No shared father or mother is named; their ownership and riders are separate relations.

Explicit statement identifying the later monster as the earlier monster’s offspring.

Neither monster has a personal name, and the older parent’s sex and other parent are unknown. This is narrative parentage, not a natural-species phylogeny. Bird Garment is a warrior, not an identified son of the chief. Eagle and killer-whale victims belong to separate stated households; no lineage across species is inferred.

The French narrator and surviving tarente both explicitly identify the other as her sister.

The two sisters have no personal names, named parents or birth order. They are separate from the human paternal half-brothers. The ogress’s son address is not biological parentage. No modern taxonomic species identification is imposed on the source word tarente.

Sister recognition and Goldmore’s own-sister identification.

Parents and sibling order unspecified. The sea maiden’s proposed royal marriage is not completed. No children or relationship to the Sun’s mother is supplied.

Literal parent–child links only.

Thlen’s father is unidentified. Umwai’s courtship does not establish paternity. Suidnoh’s “uncle” address is a disguise, not kinship. The unnamed maternal uncle is omitted.

Parentage stated in note 63 on printed p. 221.

The ox’s mother is not named. The prince’s father-of-Ubongopa title is separately interpreted as ownership in note 67, not incorporated as biological parentage.

Named fathers and birth episodes, followed by an explicit wedding.

The root groups two households, not a shared ancestor. Both mothers are unnamed wives of the respective fathers. Birth dreams concern banished attendants; the human lovers are not the prelude’s Ching Yuh and Kyain Oo. The king sponsors the wedding without becoming a biological parent.

Two children explicitly assigned to the named mother.

Children’s names, sexes and father are unstated. The third child staying with them is excluded because parentage is not stated. Animal-helper “mother” addresses do not establish ancestry.

Sibling grouping, with the sister’s spouse named on her label and their descendants below.

The two spouses share a name but remain different people. The grouping root is not an ancestor; no shared parents are inferred for Vasuki and his sister here. Descendants are unnamed and uncounted. XIV’s closing formula mistakenly says thirteenth; its heading is SECTION XIV. No wider nāga genealogy is inferred.

The passage expressly names Zipacna and Cabrakan as Vukub-Cakix’s two sons.

Chimalmat is called spouse but her motherhood is not separately stated in this passage, so she is not inserted as joint parent. Source-specific spellings retained; no modern Indigenous people’s ancestry or universally harmonized genealogy is claimed.

Parallel branches show stated siblings under a grouping heading, not an ancestor.

No parents or birth generations are supplied here. Grandfather and grandson forms of address elsewhere are not used to invent a wider pedigree. This is Curtin’s English narrative witness, not a universal account of Wintu relationships.

Parallel branches show stated siblings under a grouping heading, not an ancestor.

No parents or birth generations are supplied here. Grandfather and grandson forms of address elsewhere are not used to invent a wider pedigree. This is Curtin’s English narrative witness, not a universal account of Wintu relationships.

Two separate helpers’ explicit brother identifications, without inferred parents or birth order.

Page 179 describes the first snake returning with three others, while p. 185 says three of us. This rendering includes only the first snake and two specifically identified brothers, not a resolved family total. Human appearances are narrative presentations, not proof of a biological human–snake lineage. The flying Marid is excluded from kinship.

Horse’s explicit sibling identification and narrator-stated daughters.

Parents are unnamed and no parent is linked to an unrelated tale. The daughters’ father is unstated, and the prince declines the proposed marriage. No natural bird/scorpion evolutionary relationship is implied. Romanian originals have not been collated.

Only expressly stated parentage and the daughter/son relationship are represented.

All relatives are unnamed in this graph. Bird transformation belongs to the narrative, not natural classification. Pinon is excluded because the interlinear and Portuguese ending use conflicting gendered pronouns. The complete Nheengatu wording has not been independently translated.

The Alhaji entry explicitly calls him Yerima’s father.

The later Yerima notice names Dundurusu instead. These conflicting witnesses are displayed separately; no mother or shared ancestor is invented. This is source-specific religious genealogy, not biological descent or universal contemporary doctrine.

The prince’s own entry explicitly names Dundurusu as father.

The earlier Alhaji notice differs. The grouped target profile retains disputed Makeri identification; this branch names only Dundurusu, and does not assert two fathers or settle alias identity. This is source-specific religious genealogy, not biological descent or universal contemporary doctrine.

Explicit family relationships in the named translated tale.

The grouping represents a stated brother relationship, not an invented parent. Dyfnedig is named as Custennin’s father, but the text here does not explicitly assign him as Yspaddaden’s father. Custennin’s wife reports twenty-three killed sons; their individual names are not supplied.