Baum, D. A., and Smith, S. D. (2013). Tree Thinking: An Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology. Greenwood Village: Roberts. An excellent upper-level university text about phylogenies and tree thinking. Lots of detailed information about how to infer trees, how to study the evolution of characters, etc. Includes specifics about cladograms, chronograms, timetrees, phylograms, and other ways of depicting and interpreting phylogenetic information.Google Scholar

Omland, K. E. (2013). Interpretation of phylogenetic trees. In Losos, J. B. (ed.), Princeton Guide to Evolution (pp. 51–59). Princeton: Princeton University Press. A short chapter on the basics of phylogenetic trees; written for university students who do not know about evolution and trees.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Omland, K. E., Cook, L. G., and Crisp, M. D. (2008). Tree thinking for all biology: the problem with reading phylogenies as ladders of progress. BioEssays 30: 854–867. A review article intended for biologists who do not work on evolutionary trees.10.1002/bies.20794CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Baum, D. A., and Offner, S. (2008). Phylogenetics and tree-thinking. American Biology Teacher 70: 222–229. A great accessible article on the basics of trees and tree thinking.Google Scholar

Baum, D. A., and Smith, S. D. (2013). Tree Thinking: An Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology. Greenwood Village: Roberts.Google Scholar

Darwin, C. (1859). Origin of Species. London: John Murray. Darwin’s classic book outlining his ideas about evolution by natural selection and common descent. Complete name: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.Google Scholar

Divan, A., and Royds, J. (2016). Molecular Biology: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. An accessible source for extra background on molecular biology, DNA, proteins, etc.10.1093/actrade/9780198723882.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Freeman, S., Quillin, K., Allison, L., et al. (2020). Biological Science. New York: Pearson. An excellent general biology textbook.Google Scholar

Futuyma, D., and Kirkpatrick, M. (2022). Evolution (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. A classic evolutionary biology textbook aimed at advanced university-level students.10.1093/hesc/9780197619629.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gregory, T. R. (2008). Understanding evolutionary trees. Evolution Education and Outreach 1: 121–137. Very clear explanations of the basics of how to read trees, and explanation of major misconceptions.10.1007/s12052-008-0035-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haeckel, E. (1866). Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Berlin: Georg Reimer. The German biologist’s early work in which he first drew a tree of life.10.1515/9783110848281CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kampourakis, K. (2020). Understanding Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A great general introduction to the process of evolution and misunderstandings about evolution and religion, etc. Part of this series.10.1017/9781108778565CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayr, E. (1942). Systematics and the Origin of Species, from the Viewpoint of a Zoologist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. A classic book in which Ernst Mayr outlines his ideas for geographic speciation and species concepts.Google Scholar

Moody, E. R. R., Álvarez-Carretero, S., Mahendrarajah, T. A., et al. (2024). The nature of the last universal common ancestor and its impact on the early Earth system. Nature Ecology and Evolution 8: 1654–1666. New findings came out during the final stages of writing, suggesting that LUCA existed earlier than previous estimates, perhaps as early as 4.2 billion years ago. I have used the earlier rough estimate of 3.5 billion years in this book.10.1038/s41559-024-02461-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ragan, M. A. (2009). Trees and networks before and after Darwin. Biology Direct 4: 1–38. Discusses the history of evolutionary trees in detail. Jean Baptiste Lamarck drew an early tree-like diagram in his 1809 book Zoological Philosophy.10.1186/1745-6150-4-43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ruse, M. (2022). Understanding Natural Selection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A readable introduction to the history and details of evolution by natural selection.10.1017/9781009090865CrossRefGoogle Scholar

San Mauro, D., and Agorreta, A. (2010). Molecular systematics: a synthesis of the common methods and the state of knowledge. Cellular and Molecular Biology Letters 15: 311–341. A summary of molecular phylogenetic methods.10.2478/s11658-010-0010-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Villa, P., and Roebroeks, W. (2014) Neandertal demise: an archaeological analysis of the modern human superiority complex. PLoS One 9: e96424. One of many articles published on the fallacy of human superiority. More broadly, when thinking about human superiority, it is important to ask what measuring stick are we using and who chose that measuring stick? For example, whales have large mass, some species of phytoplankton excel at rapid photosynthesis, cheetahs run faster than any other land animals, mantis shrimp see many more colors than we do, and of course dogs have an amazing sense of smell. Different definitions of what is important lead to a different sense of what is most “advanced.” Humans usually think intelligence is what is most important, but who defined that as the essence of existence? And what kind of intelligence? Salmon can navigate back to their native stream, a type of songbird called a Clark’s nutcracker can recover over 20,000 of the seeds it buried, and hummingbird brains are precisely wired to process rapid movement. Furthermore, our intelligence has not enabled us to figure out how to stop wars nor how to eliminate SARS-CoV-2 or countless other human pathogens.10.1371/journal.pone.0096424CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Weiss, M., Sousa, F., Mrnjavac, N., et al. (2016). The physiology and habitat of the last universal common ancestor. Nature Microbiology 1: 16116. Details about the biology of LUCA.10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.116CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wilkins, J. S. (2023). Understanding Species. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A detailed accessible book examining the many different definitions of species and the biological and philosophical challenges in defining species.10.1017/9781108982764CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cann, R. L., Stoneking, M., and Wilson, A. C. (1987). Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution. Nature 325: 31–36. An early article demonstrating the origin of human mtDNA diversity in Africa. Based on an early method called restriction mapping. Predecessor to the 1991 article by Vigilant et al. that used direct DNA sequencing.10.1038/325031a0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cherry, L M., Case, S. M., and Wilson, A. C. (1978). Frog perspective on the morphological difference between humans and chimpanzees. Science 200: 209–211. One of several research articles from Alan Wilson’s lab at the University of California, Berkeley that measured variation in rates of evolution of the skeleton and other morphological and physiological traits. In spite of this, they argued strongly that rates of molecular evolution were more constant. They argued for the existence of a molecular clock – that is, that at the level of DNA, generally mutations accumulate at a fairly regular rate, thus allowing us to use DNA differences to estimate time to common ancestry. Importantly, no overall genome measures, for example total size of the genome, correspond to species that we often label as more “advanced,” “evolved,” or “complex.”10.1126/science.635583CrossRefGoogle Scholar

DeSilva, J. (2022). First Steps: How Upright Walking Made Us Human. New York: Harper Collins. A very readable book about the early evolution of humans.Google Scholar

Green, R. E., Krause, J., Briggs, A. W., et al. (2010). A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome. Science 328: 710–722. An original research publication describing the first Neanderthal genome.10.1126/science.1188021CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Harvey, A. (2022) What is a second cousin? Live Science. November 15. A good explanation of the basics of ancestry terminology, including the definitions of different degrees of cousinship. “First cousins share a grandparent, second cousins share a great-grandparent, third cousins share a great-great-grandparent, and so on. The degree of cousinhood (“first,” “second,” etc.) denotes the number of generations between two cousins’ parents and their nearest common ancestor.” By this counting, siblings are like zeroth cousins. The terms once or twice removed etc., refer to one or two generations ahead of or behind the present generation. In this book, the focus is on the present generation of individuals and species – especially extant species.Google Scholar

Mendez, F. L., Krahn, T., Schrack, B., et al. (2013). An African American paternal lineage adds an extremely ancient root to the human Y chromosome phylogenetic tree. American Journal of Human Genetics 92: 454–459. A second-generation study of Y chromosome genetic variation that described a new variant that was very different from all previously sequenced individuals.10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newson, L., and Richerson, P. (2021). A Story of Us: A New Look at Human Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. A accessible and authoritative story of seven million years of human evolution.10.1093/oso/9780190883201.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pääbo, S. (2014). Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes. New York: Basic Books. A book written by the winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Medicine about the work that he and his colleagues have been doing for the last 30+ years.Google Scholar

Reich, D., Green, R., Kircher, M., et al. (2010). Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia. Nature 468: 1053–1060. An original publication describing the discovery of a new lineage of hominids, the Denisovans.10.1038/nature09710CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tattersall, I. (2022). Understanding Human Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A summary of the major findings of human evolution, with an emphasis on the long history of fossil discoveries.Google Scholar

Van Someren, L. (2024). 27 prehistoric animals that are still alive today. Far and Wide. December 27. A fairly typical news article listing animals that they consider “ancient” or “primitive,” including species like the echidna and Komodo dragon.Google Scholar

Vigilant, L., Stoneking, M., Harpending, H., Hawkes, K., and Wilson, A. C. (1991). African populations and the evolution of human mitochondrial DNA. Science 253: 1503–1507. A classic research paper describing variation in maternally inherited mtDNA sequences across the planet; it shows evidence for a quite recent out-of-Africa dispersal. Also see the 1987 paper by Cann et al. that used an earlier method known as restriction mapping.10.1126/science.1840702CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Adame, F. (2023). Dear scientists: stop calling America the ‘New World’. It’s new to you – but not to me or anyone else who grew up here. Nature. April 4. Recently many have pointed out the problematic colonial perspective of the terms “New World” and “Old World.” Unfortunately, I cannot find suitable alternatives. “American Primates” might imply that they live in the United States. And I know of no terminology that groups Africa and Asia other than “Old World.” It is worth thinking of alternatives, and within the scientific community we can use the scientific names: Platyrrhini for monkeys of the Americas, and Cercopithecidae for the monkeys of Africa and Asia.Google Scholar

Baum, D. (2008). Reading a phylogenetic tree: the meaning of monophyletic groups. Nature Education 1: 1. Written for a broad audience, this article explains how to identify monophyletic groups and other principles of tree interpretation.Google Scholar

Crisp, M., and Cook, L. (2005) Do early branching lineages signify ancestral traits? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20: 122–128. An early important scholarly review paper on tree-reading misconceptions.10.1016/j.tree.2004.11.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

de Waal, F. (2005). Our Inner Ape. New York: Riverhead Books. An exciting book focused on what bonobos can tell us about our own biology.Google Scholar

Hillis, D. M., Moritz, C., and Mable, B. K. (1996). Molecular Systematics (2nd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. A classic and intense textbook focused on the methods of building trees with DNA data.Google Scholar

Rosenberger, A. L. (2024). Primates: An Introduction. London: Routledge. An accessible text providing an introduction to primates.Google Scholar

Takemoto, H., Kawamoto, Y., and Furuichi, T. (2017). The formation of Congo River and the origin of bonobos: a new hypothesis. In Hare, B. and Yamamoto, S. (eds.), Bonobos (pp. 235–248). Oxford: Oxford University Press. A chapter about the speciation event that apparently split the common chimpanzee lineage and the bonobo lineage.10.1093/oso/9780198728511.003.0016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Van Schaik, C. (2004). Among Orangutans: Red Apes and the Rise of Human Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. A readable study of orangutans of Sumatra, where their dense population makes them highly social.Google Scholar

Zallinger, R. (1965). Early Man. New York: Time Life Books. The source of the famous “March of Progress” illustration. The original illustration showed more species and was less problematic than the abbreviated version that is so well known.Google Scholar

Albert, T. G., Schiel, N., and Souto, A. (2020). The white-eared opossum failed to understand the parallel strings task: studying a primitive mammal under natural conditions. Animal Cognition 23: 871–880. A recent article that even uses the term “primitive mammal” in the title.10.1007/s10071-020-01392-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ashby, J. (2022). Platypus Matters: The Extraordinary Story of Australian Mammals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. An accessible book about Australia’s unique mammals; it argues that dated Eurocentric perspectives result in the labeling of many Australian mammals as “primitive.”10.7208/chicago/9780226789392.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

BBC (2023). Echidnas stay cool with snot bubbles and belly flops according to new research. BBC Newsround. January 19. A summary of interesting new results about echidnas, but there was no need to claim that they are the “oldest living mammal.”Google Scholar

Benton, M. J. (2000). Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is Linnaeus dead? Biological Reviews 75: 633–648. An older commentary criticizing rank-free classification.10.1111/j.1469-185X.2000.tb00055.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Berta, A. (2023) Sea Mammals: The Past and Present Lives of Our Oceans’ Cornerstone Species. Princeton: Princeton University Press. An illustrated introduction to the world’s living and extinct sea mammals; it contains excellent illustrations of whale evolutionary history.Google Scholar

Chakrabarty, P. (2023). Explaining Life Through Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. An accessible book on the broad concept and processes of evolution. It offers an excellent explanation of why we should not think of a kangaroo or platypus as primitive. Also, for later chapters, it covers how vertebrates fit in with fishes.Google Scholar

Crisp, M. D., and Cook, L. G. (2005). Do early branching lineages signify ancestral traits? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20: 122–128. A key early academic review paper on tree thinking. It emphasizes several Australian examples, including the platypus.10.1016/j.tree.2004.11.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

de Queiroz, K., and Cantino, P. (2020). International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature (PhyloCode) (1st ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. A detailed description of how clades would be named using rank-free classification.Google Scholar

De Queiroz, K., and Gauthier, J. (1992). Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23: 449–480. An early academic review article by two original proponents of rank-free classification.10.1146/annurev.es.23.110192.002313CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dos Reis, M., Donoghue, P. C. J., and Yang, Z. (2014). Neither phylogenomic nor paleontological data support a Palaeogene origin of placental mammals. Biology Letters 10: 20131003. The main source for crown ages of key mammal clades, especially for Table 4.1 and Figures 4.1 and 4.2.10.1098/rsbl.2013.1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gingrich, P. D. (2015). Evolution of whales from land to sea. In Dial, K. P., Shubin, N., and Brainerd, E. L. (eds.), Great Transformations in Vertebrate Evolution (pp. 239–256). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. A detailed academic overview of the fossil record documenting the transition back to water.Google Scholar

Gregory, R. (2012). The Platypus fallacy. See the Sandwalk blog (https://sandwalk.blogspot.com) by Laurence Moran. The excellent story of a platypus professor teaching to a class of young monotremes: “The lineage of which humans are a part is a very ancient offshoot of our mammalian family tree, so it was 166 million years ago that we last shared a common ancestor with humans, and that puts them somewhere between mammals and reptiles.”Google Scholar

Inoue, J., Miya, M., Lam, K., et al. (2010). Evolutionary origin and phylogeny of the modern holocephalans (Chondrichthyes: Chimaeriformes): a mitogenomic perspective. Molecular Biology and Evolution 27: 2576–2586. Detailed information of timing of diversification in sharks and their relatives.10.1093/molbev/msq147CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kummer, T. A., Whipple, C. J., and Jensen, J. L. (2016) Prevalence and persistence of misconceptions in tree thinking. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education 17: 389–398. Excellent biology education research on misconceptions involving tree thinking versus ladder thinking in university students.10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1156CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kurosaki, M., Bolis, M., Fratelli, M., et al. (2013). Structure and evolution of vertebrate aldehyde oxidases: from gene duplication to gene suppression. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 70: 1807–1830. Just one of many examples of articles by mainstream academic publishers that incorrectly label monotremes as “primitive mammals.”10.1007/s00018-012-1229-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Linnaeus, C. (1758). Systema Naturae (10th ed.). Stockholm: Salvius. The edition in which Linnaeus first proposes his system of taxonomic ranking, a system for the classification of life.Google Scholar

Nowak, R. M. (1999). Walker’s Mammals of the World (6th ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. A detailed two-volume classic description of all the world’s mammal groups.10.56021/9780801857898CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nowak, R. M. (2018). Walker’s Mammals of the World: Monotremes, Marsupials, Afrotherians, Xenarthrans, and Sundatherians. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. A detailed description of the less diverse clades of mammals. Note: not all marsupials have pouches.10.1353/book.59141CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Phillips, M. J., and Fruciano, C. (2018). The soft explosive model of placental mammal evolution. BMC Evolutionary Biology 8: 104. A authoritative recent molecular clock analysis of mammal divergence times. Many estimates in this paper are more recent than the dates used in the text.10.1186/s12862-018-1218-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reshetiloff, K., (2008). “Playing possum” is serious business for North America’s marsupial. Bay Journal. An article on the Virginia opossum as an example of problematic tree-thinking terminology.Google Scholar

Shaw, G. (1800). General Zoology or Systematic Natural History. London: G. Kearsley. This book contains the original description of the platypus in which George Shaw views the animal as so strange that he even wonders if the specimen is a hoax.10.5962/bhl.title.53459CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simpson, G. G. (1931). A new classification of mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 59: 419–430. An original publication where Simpson proposed his traditional “orders” of mammals.Google Scholar

Smith, L. (2007). Existence of rare animal confirmed by man who ate one. The Times, London. July 16. Exciting evidence that an echidna species thought to be extinct was still present in New Guinea – there’s no need to call it a “primitive mammal,” however.Google Scholar

Song, S., Liu, L., Edwards, S. V., and Wu, S. (2012). Resolving conflict in eutherian mammal phylogeny using phylogenomics and the multispecies coalescent model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 14942–14947. A detailed molecular phylogeny of all mammals based on recent multi-gene methods.10.1073/pnas.1211733109CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Suh, A., Weber, C. C., Kehlmaier, C., et al. (2014). Early Mesozoic coexistence of amniotes and Hepadnaviridae. PLoS Genetics 10: e1004559. The source for crown ages of extant Crocodilia for Table 4.1.10.1371/journal.pgen.1004559CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Swartz, B., and Mishler, B. D. (2022). Speciesism, science, and society. In Swartz, B. and Mishler, B. D. (eds.), Speciesism in Biology and Culture. Cham: Springer. A philosophical and biological exploration of the fallacy of human superiority. Uses similar approaches to this book including cousin trees. Part of a whole book on this topic of human exceptionalism.10.1007/978-3-030-99031-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zhou, Y., Shearwin-Whyat, L., Li, J., et al. (2021). Platypus and echidna genomes reveal mammalian biology and evolution. Nature 589: 284–289. A detailed genomic analysis of two monotreme genomes; includes Monotremata stem and crown ages.Google Scholar

Barker, F. K., Cibois, A., Schikler, P., and Cracraft, J. (2004). Phylogeny and diversification of the largest avian radiation. Proceedings of the National Academy of National Sciences USA 101: 11040–11045. The source of key songbird phylogeny demonstrating oscine passerine origin in Australasia.10.1073/pnas.0401892101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Braun, E. L., and Kimball, R. T. (2021). Data types and the phylogeny of Neoaves. Birds 2: 1–22. A recent summary of advances in the molecular phylogeny of birds.10.3390/birds2010001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Catchpole, C. K., and Slater, P. J. (1995). Bird Song: Biological Themes and Variations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This book defines bird song in a way that is biased toward males in Northern Hemisphere long-distance migrants: “long complex vocalizations produced by males during the breeding season.”Google Scholar

Chari, S., Wilson, M. A., and Varki, A. (2012). Genome-wide comparisons of amino acid changes in primate evolution suggest a shift in selective pressures in mammals. Science Advances 3: e1701495. Mammal divergence time estimates.Google Scholar

Claramunt, S., and Cracraft, J. (2015). A new time tree reveals Earth history’s imprint on the evolution of modern birds. Science Advances 1: e1501005. Crown age estimates for birds.10.1126/sciadv.1501005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Clements, J. F., Rasmussen, P. C., Schulenberg, T. S., et al. (2023). The eBird/Clements checklist of Birds of the World: v2023. One of the most widely used checklists for birds; used as an example of a linear classification.Google Scholar

Dunn, J. (2017). National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of North America (7th ed.). Washington, DC: National Geographic. A good recent bird field guide, and an example of birds being covered in “taxonomic order.”Google Scholar

Emyr Huw Jones, M. (2017). Not a lizard nor a dinosaur, tuatara is the sole survivor of a once-widespread reptile group. The Conversation, May 11. An accessible summary of the unique position of this “lizard-like” reptile from islands near New Zealand. The tuatara is the sole survivor of a lineage that was once more diverse – its sister linage has over 10,000 species (lizards and snakes). Another species mislabeled as primitive, a living fossil, etc.Google Scholar

Gemmell, N. J., Rutherford, K., Prost, S., et al. (2020).The tuatara genome reveals ancient features of amniote evolution. Nature 584: 403–409. A recent genome published for the tuatara, another species-poor lineage that is sister to the snake/lizard clade. It is not discussed in the text for space reasons, although it illustrates many of the same points as other Southern Hemisphere species-poor lineages.10.1038/s41586-020-2561-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hofmann, C. M., Cronin, T. W., and Omland, K. E. (2008). Evolution of sexual dichromatism. I. Convergent losses of elaborate female coloration in New World orioles (Icterus spp.). Auk 125: 778–798. An academic paper from our lab showing how phylogenies can be used to reconstruct ancestral character states.10.1525/auk.2008.07112CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kaufman, K. (2020) Which birds are most like their dinosaur ancestors. Audubon. June 30. This article repeats the misconception that ostriches and their kin are “primitive.”Google Scholar

Klicka, J., Burns, K. J., and Spellman, G. M. (2007). Defining a monophyletic Cardinalini: a molecular perspective. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 45: 1014–1032. A detailed molecular phylogeny of the cardinals and their relatives, which now includes the North American “Scarlet Tanager” and relatives.10.1016/j.ympev.2007.07.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Krell, F.-T., and Cranston, P. S. (2004). Which side of the tree is more basal? Systematic Entomology 29: 279–281. An early paper pointing out the problems with the term basal and the associated misperceptions of the evolutionary process.10.1111/j.0307-6970.2004.00262.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gao, K. W., Vinther, J., Shawkey, M. D., et al. (2010). Plumage color patterns of an extinct dinosaur. Science 327: 1369–1372. A paper that used a well-preserved dinosaur fossil to infer the coloration of the feathers!Google Scholar

Gow, C. E., and Kitching, J. W. (1988). Early Jurassic crocodilomorphs from the Stormberg of South Africa. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Monatshefte 1988: 517–536. A description of fossils of long-legged mammal-like crocodylomorph Litargosuchus.10.1127/njgpm/1988/1988/517CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Norell, M. A. (2019). The World of Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Tour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. A detailed illustrated tour of dinosaurs by a leading paleontologist.10.7208/chicago/9780226622866.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Odom, K. J., Hall, M. L., Riebel, K., Omland, K. E., and Langmore, N. E. (2014). Female song is widespread and ancestral in songbirds. Nature Communications 5: 3379. Work using ancestral state reconstruction to study the history of vocal behavior in songbirds.10.1038/ncomms4379CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sackton, T. B., Grayson, P., Cloutier, A., et al. (2019). Convergent regulatory evolution and loss of flight in paleognathous birds. Science 364: 74–78. Recent publication that confirms “ratites” are not a monophyletic group; thus, flight was lost multiple times. It details the exciting molecular mechanisms that caused these independent losses of flight.10.1126/science.aat7244CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tzika, A. C., Helaers, R., Schramm, G., and Milinkovitch, M. C. (2015). Reptilian transcriptomes vouch for changes in selective pressures in reptiles. BMC Biology 13: 50. Reptile divergence time estimates.Google Scholar

Baum, D. A., Smith, S. D., and Donovan, S. S. (2005). Evolution: the tree-thinking challenge. Science 310: 979–980. A classic short article using vertebrate clades to demonstrate the importance of node rotation for clear reading of trees.10.1126/science.1117727CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Daeschler, E., Shubin, N., and Jenkins, F. (2006). A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan. Nature 440: 757–763. The original publication describing the discovery of the Tiktaalik transitional vertebrate fossil.10.1038/nature04639CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dial, K. P., Shubin, N., and Brainerd, E. L. (2015). Great Transformations in Vertebrate Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. A detailed collection of academic articles on vertebrate evolutionary changes.10.7208/chicago/9780226268392.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shubin, N. (2009). Your Inner Fish. New York: Random House. A bestselling accessible book on the discovery of the Tiktaalik transitional fossil and how it helps us understand our long evolutionary history.Google Scholar

Brownstein, C. D., MacGuigan, D. J., Kim, D., et al. (2024). The genomic signatures of evolutionary stasis. Evolution 78: 821–834. A new research article reporting very low rates of molecular evolution in gars (family Lepisosteidae), perhaps due to novel DNA repair mechanisms.10.1093/evolut/qpae028CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Casane, D., and Laurenti, P. (2013). Why coelacanths are not “living fossils”: a review of molecular and morphological data. BioEssays 35: 332–338. An accessible article arguing that the morphological stability of coelacanths is not supported by fossil evidence.10.1002/bies.201200145CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cavin, L., and Guinot, G. (2014). Coelacanths as “almost living fossils.” Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 2: 49. Reviews evidence and finds some support for slow molecular and morphological evolution.10.3389/fevo.2014.00049CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, S. A., and Bronner, M. E. (2014). The lamprey: a jawless vertebrate model system for examining the origin of the neural crest and other vertebrate traits. Differentiation 87: 44–51. An excellent research article using lampreys and hagfishes to determine shared derived characters uniting those species with jawed vertebrates – tetrapods and “fishes.”10.1016/j.diff.2014.02.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Heidt, A. (2024). Gars truly are “living fossils” massive DNA data set shows. Science 383: 1041 A news article about the recent findings that gars apparently have very low rates of genome evolution, although the article argues that many other lineages (e.g., coelacanths) do not seem to have lower rates of molecular evolution.10.1126/science.adp0474CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kadarusman, , Sugeha, H. Y., Pouyaud, L., et al. (2020). A thirteen-million-year divergence between two lineages of Indonesian coelacanths. Scientific Reports 10: 192. A report of a new population of coelacanth in Indonesia; the lineage is so divergent, it might warrant recognition as a distinct species.10.1038/s41598-019-57042-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Maisey, J. (2024). Modern sharks may not be “living fossils” after all. Scientific American. April 16. An important article for the lay audience about a new shark fossil that demonstrates that thinking of sharks as unchanged “living fossils” is misleading.Google Scholar

Miyashita, T., Coates, M. I., Farrar, R., et al. (2019). Hagfish from the Cretaceous Tethys Sea and a reconciliation of the morphological–molecular conflict in early vertebrate phylogeny. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116: 2146–2151. A report on a new fossil that challenges the old story that hagfish represent a lineage that simply retained the characteristics of ancestral vertebrates.10.1073/pnas.1814794116CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Werth, A. J., and Shear, W. A. (2014). The evolutionary truth about living fossils. American Scientist 102: 434–443. Argues that there is merit in the term “living fossil” and goes through classic examples.Google Scholar

Yang, X. U., Si-Wei, Z. H. U., and Qing-Wei, L. I. (2016). Lamprey: a model for vertebrate evolutionary research. Zoological Research 37: 263. A review article that points out some of the advantages of studying lampreys, although it repeats many misconceptions about lampreys as “living fossils.”Google Scholar

Yong, E. (2013). The falsity of living fossils. The Scientist. April 2. A short summary of new research, especially on tadpole shrimp and coelacanths, debunking the idea that they are living fossils.Google Scholar

HickmanJr., C., Larson, A., Keen, S., Eisenhour, D., and Roberts, L. (2021). Animal Diversity (9th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. A general text on animal diversity, including the smaller groups of animals (“minor phyla”) not mentioned in this book, including acorn worms (Hemichordata) and lancelets (Cephalochordata).Google Scholar

Nielsen, C. (2011). Animal Evolution: Interrelationships of the Living Phyla (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. A well-known general text of animal evolution and diversity.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199606023.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Overgaard, E. (2023). Comb jelly ancestor may have been first animal to branch from tree of life. science.org. May 17. A news article summarizing further evidence that comb jellies are sister to the rest of the animals. Although the article does a good job summarizing the main point of the new findings, it repeats problematic tree thinking by saying that comb jellies “branched off” (from something like a “trunk” of the animal tree).Google Scholar

Phillips, B. T., Shipley, O. N., Halvorson, J., Sternlicht, J. K., and Gallagher, A. J. (2019). First in situ observations of the sharpnose sevengill shark (Heptranchias perloff), from the Tongue of the Ocean, Bahamas. Journal of the Ocean Science Foundation 32: 17–22. A primary research article about the behavior of a deep-sea shark.Google Scholar

Rokhsar, D. S., and Schultz, D. T. (2023) Chromosomal comparisons reveal comb jellies as the sister group to all other animals. Nature. May 17. An accessible summary of the recent comb jelly research by Schultz et al.Google Scholar

Schultz, D. T., Haddock, S. H. D., Bredeson, J. V., et al. (2023). Ancient gene linkages support ctenophores as sister to other animals. Nature 618: 110–117. Recent research paper showing strong support for comb jellies as sister to the rest of the animals. This paper uses the useful word “sister” 74 times. It uses the confusing word “basal” zero times.10.1038/s41586-023-05936-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Burki, F., Roger, A. J., Brown, M. W., and Simpson, A. G. B. (2020). The new tree of eukaryotes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 35: 43–55. Research article summarizing new findings on eukaryote relationships, with lots of recent new changes; it argues that the loose rank-like term “supergroup” is arbitrary.10.1016/j.tree.2019.08.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Carrijo, T. F., Engel, M. S., Chouvenc, T., et al. (2023). A call to termitologists: it is time to abandon the use of “lower” and “higher” termites. Insectes Sociaux 70: 295–299. An opinion article arguing that entomologists should stop using outdated terms in their science.10.1007/s00040-023-00929-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cavalier-Smith, T. (1981). Eukaryote kingdoms: seven or nine? Biosystems 14: 461–481. Early summary of Cavalier-Smith’s proposed kingdoms.10.1016/0303-2647(81)90050-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cerón-Romero, M. A., Fonseca, M. M., de Oliveira Martins, L., Posada, D., and Katz, L. A. (2022). Phylogenomic analyses of 2,786 genes in 158 lineages support a root of the eukaryotic tree of life between opisthokonts and all other lineages. Genome Biology and Evolution 14: 8. Detailed recent phylogeny of eukaryotes.10.1093/gbe/evac119CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Freeman, S., Quillin, K., Allison, L., et al. (2020). Biological Science. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar

Jiang, Z., Wang, Y., Philippe, M., et al. (2016). A Jurassic wood providing insights into the earliest step in Ginkgo wood evolution. Scientific Reports 6: 38191. A research report of a new ancient fossil from the ginkgo family. Displays the characteristic general features of modern Ginkgo. However, the researchers found some differences, so evolution has not stopped in the wood of this lineage.10.1038/srep38191CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

McDaniel, S. F. (2021). Bryophytes are not early diverging land plants. New Phytologist 230: 1300–1304. An excellent opinion piece in a botanical journal arguing against the use of terms such as “basal,” “early diverging,” and “lower plants” in referring to mosses. Advocates clear tree thinking to promote clear understanding of phylogenies.10.1111/nph.17241CrossRefGoogle Scholar

One Thousand Plant Transcriptomes Initiative (2019). One thousand plant transcriptomes and the phylogenomics of green plants. Nature 574: 679–685. Phylogeny of plants supporting the main relationships discussed in this book.10.1038/s41586-019-1693-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pennisi, E. (2013). Humble shrub sheds light on history of flowering plants. Science 342: 1461–1462. A news article summarizing implications of the publication of the Amborella genome.Google Scholar

Popper, Z. A., Michel, G., Hervé, C., et al. (2011). Evolution and diversity of plant cell walls: from algae to flowering plants. Annual Review of Plant Biology 62: 567–590. Argues that complex multicellularity evolved in plants, fungi, and animals, as well as in brown algae, red algae, and green algae.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Whittaker, R. H. (1969). New concepts of kingdoms of organisms. Science 163: 150–160. The original proposal for a five-kingdom system of classification.10.1126/science.163.3863.150CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doolittle, W. F. (1999). Phylogenetic classification and the universal tree. Science 284: 2124–2128. The source of Doolittle’s famous “reticulated tree” showing lateral gene transfer within and between the three “domains.”10.1126/science.284.5423.2124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ehrlich, P., and Walker, B. (1998). Rivets and redundancy. BioScience 48: 387–392. The famous ecologist and conservationist Paul Ehrlich explains his analogy comparing popping rivets on a plane to species extinctions on spaceship Earth.10.2307/1313377CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Freeland, S. (2022). Undefining life’s biochemistry: implications for abiogenesis. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 19: 20210814. A broad review article that argues to conceptualize the emergence of life as a continuous process rather than a sharp shift from “non-life” to “life.”10.1098/rsif.2021.0814CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mindell, D. P. (2024). The Network of Life: A New View of Evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press. A new book that argues that it is important to view life as a network of interrelated organisms and genes, especially to show horizontal gene flow between lineages.Google Scholar

Mora, C., Tittensor, D. P., Adl, S., Simpson, A. G. B., and Worm, B. (2011) How many species are there on Earth and in the Ocean? PLoS Biology 9: e1001127. A detailed research paper extrapolating from the current number of described species to estimate the number of undescribed species. There are currently approximately 2.5 million described species on the planet. Mora and colleagues estimated that there are roughly 8.75 million species of eukaryotes alone. Species definitions for Archaea and Bacteria are controversial, but estimates range from millions to billions of distinct species-like lineages in the non-eukaryotes.10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Parfrey, L. W., and Lahr, D. J. G. (2013). Multicellularity arose several times in the evolution of eukaryotes. BioEssays 35: 339–347. A review article indicating that multicellularity of one sort or another likely arose 25 times or more.10.1002/bies.201200143CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Van Schaik, C. (2004). Among Orangutans: Red Apes and the Rise of Human Culture. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. A detailed study of highly social orangutans of Sumatra, Indonesia.Google Scholar

Smith, S. (2016). The ancestors are not among us. For the Love of Trees. September 19. https://for-the-love-of-trees.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-ancestors-are-not-among-us.html. An excellent blog post by one of the leading thinkers in the field. Smith writes: “Terms like ‘basal,’ ‘early diverging,’ and ‘first branching’ reflect persistent misconceptions about evolution and phylogenetics.”Google Scholar

Wallace, A. (2022). Understanding Life in the Universe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. An excellent general introduction to the search for life in the universe, including discussion of the early steps in the evolution of life on Earth.Google Scholar

Woese, C. R., Kandler, O., and Wheelis, M. L. (1990). Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 87: 4576–4579. A research article promoting the three-domain system of classification.10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Yarza, P., Yilmaz, P., Pruesse, E., et al. (2014). Uniting the classification of cultured and uncultured bacteria and archaea using 16S rRNA gene sequences. Nature Reviews Microbiology 12: 635–645. A review article that points out that there are hundreds or thousands of lineages of Bacteria and Archaea that have the same amount of genetic divergence in ribosomal DNA sequence as many “phyla” of animals.10.1038/nrmicro3330CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed