( ( These authors ) ( ( found ( that ( ( ( 55 % ) ( of ( ( Sepkoski 's ) ( ( ( -LRB- ( 1982 -RRB- ) ) families ) ( of ( ( echinoderms and ) fishes ) ) ) ) ) ) ( were ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( not clades ) , ) but ) monotypic ) , ) paraphyletic ) , ) or ) ( even polyphyletic ) ) groupings ) ) ) ) ) . ) )
(ROOT (S (NP (DT These) (NNS authors)) (VP (VBD found) (SBAR (IN that) (S (NP (NP (CD 55) (NN %)) (PP (IN of) (NP (NP (NNP Sepkoski) (POS 's)) (NP (NP (PRN (-LRB- -LRB-) (CD 1982) (-RRB- -RRB-)) (NNS families)) (PP (IN of) (NP (NNS echinoderms) (CC and) (NNS fishes))))))) (VP (VBD were) (NP (ADJP (ADJP (RB not) (JJ clades)) (, ,) (CC but) (ADJP (JJ monotypic)) (, ,) (ADJP (JJ paraphyletic)) (, ,) (CC or) (ADJP (RB even) (JJ polyphyletic))) (NNS groupings)))))) (. .)))
These authors found that 55% of Sepkoski's (1982) families of echinoderms and fishes were not clades, but monotypic, paraphyletic, or even polyphyletic groupings.
(ROOT (S (NP (VBG Living) (NNS echinoderms)) (VP (VBD aredivided) (PP (IN into) (NP (CD five) (NNS clades)))) (. .)))