“…This approach reveals novel insights into data incongruence currently plaguing squamate phylogeny, with direct implications for other scenarios of phylogenetic incongruence. I NCONGRUENCE between molecular and morphological-based phylogenetic hypotheses have been reported across a wide range of taxa, including woodcreepers (Irestedt et al, 2004), cetaceans and artiodactylans (O'Leary et al, 2003;O'Leary and Gatesy, 2008), placental mammals (Lee and Camens, 2009), haplosporidians (Burreson and Reece, 2006), pickerelweed (Graham et al, 1998), hexapods (Bitsch et al, 2004), fishes (Betancur-R., 2009), and squamates (Vidal and Hedges, 2005;Losos et al, 2012). Numerous aspects of analyses (e.g., taxon sampling, outgroup selection, number and types of characters/genes included, chosen method of analysis, species vs. gene trees) may help explain the discordance between phylogenies derived from these different data types; however, the issue still receives considerable attention in the literature, and deservedly so, as it is largely unresolved (Hermsen and Hendricks, 2008;Lee and Camens, 2009;Losos et al, 2012).…”