trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

The classification of turtles as anapsids is controversial because molecular evidence sometimes classifies them as diapsids.

the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
4 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that the classification of turtles as anapsids is controversial because molecular evidence sometimes classifies them as diapsids?

Yes. Molecular evidence consistently challenges the traditional classification of turtles as anapsids, grouping them instead within the diapsids as relatives of archosaurs.

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 4 sources for, 0 against · Last checked

The analysis

The retrieved papers provide strong molecular and genomic evidence (mitochondrial and nuclear DNA) supporting the placement of turtles within Diapsida as a sister group to archosaurs (birds and crocodiles), thereby directly supporting the claim that molecular evidence challenges their traditional classification as anapsids. There are no papers contradicting this scientific consensus in the provided list.

Evidence for · 4
Phylogenomic analyses support the position of turtles as the sister group of birds and crocodiles (Archosauria).
2012
Phylogenomic analysis places turtles as the sister group to archosaurs, challenging traditional anapsid classification.
Get citation
Y, C., V, C., N, G., & F, D. (2012). Phylogenomic analyses support the position of turtles as the sister group of birds and crocodiles (Archosauria).. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7007-10-65

See more details
More for · 3
Complete mitochondrial genome suggests diapsid affinities of turtles.
1998
Mitochondrial genome evidence supports diapsid affinities for turtles, challenging the classic view of them as primary anapsids.
Get citation
R, Z. & A, M. (1998). Complete mitochondrial genome suggests diapsid affinities of turtles.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.24.14226

The mitochondrial genomes of the iguana (Iguana iguana) and the caiman (Caiman crocodylus): implications for amniote phylogeny.
2001
Mitochondrial sequence data places turtles at the base of the bird-crocodile branch within diapsids.
Get citation
A, J., D, E., M, N., & U, A. (2001). The mitochondrial genomes of the iguana (Iguana iguana) and the caiman (Caiman crocodylus): implications for amniote phylogeny.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1402

The platypus is not a rodent: DNA hybridization, amniote phylogeny and the palimpsest theory.
1998
Discusses recent molecular evidence placing turtles within the Diapsida, contrasting with traditional anatomical views.
Get citation
JA, K. & GC, M. (1998). The platypus is not a rodent: DNA hybridization, amniote phylogeny and the palimpsest theory.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1998.0278

What does the evidence say?

The retrieved papers provide strong molecular and genomic evidence (mitochondrial and nuclear DNA) supporting the placement of turtles within Diapsida as a sister group to archosaurs (birds and crocodiles), thereby directly supporting the claim that molecular evidence challenges their traditional classification as anapsids. There are no papers contradicting this scientific consensus in the provided list.

Receipt History
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

See the evidence timeline

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work