For this stemma, in the “metadata.txt” file, it is indicated that there is a contamination. However, in the picture of the original stemma, the contamination is not to be found. It also isn't indicated in the transcription of the stemma, in the “.gv” file. In the “metadata.txt” file, there is no text given for the “note” field, which could have explained that difference.
Furthermore, based on the picture of the original stemma only, it is hard to agree with the transcription of the stemma. It may thus be necessary to consult the paper in order to come to the same conclusion. The paper seems however not to be publicly available.
For this stemma, in the “metadata.txt” file, it is indicated that there is a contamination. However, in the picture of the original stemma, the contamination is not to be found. It also isn't indicated in the transcription of the stemma, in the “.gv” file. In the “metadata.txt” file, there is no text given for the “note” field, which could have explained that difference.
Furthermore, based on the picture of the original stemma only, it is hard to agree with the transcription of the stemma. It may thus be necessary to consult the paper in order to come to the same conclusion. The paper seems however not to be publicly available.