I can understand your confusion. You are looking at phylogenetic trees as some absolute. They are not. They are hypothesis.
Scientists may disagree whether one species of beetle is more or less closely related to another but they all classify both of those beetles as sub-order Myxophaga instead of sub-order Polyphaga. It's sorta almost the same as some long lost relatives disagreeing on who was born first, you or your brother. Everyone knows you both are from the same family born of the same parents. Except instead of you and your brother we're dealing with species of bugs.
The importance in getting the right bug in its proper slot in relation to all the other bugs is one of accuracy and pride at being an entomologist and having all your colleagues agreeing with you.
And while there may still be some controversy over some placements in the tree they are in the deep fine details. The more robust pictures we have today, especially with the advent of genetic information to build from these last 20 years, have pretty much solidified the major relationships.
The importance to the field of evolution is in the nested hierarchies and the evolutionary relationships revealed. We can see with great confidence that these 1500 species of Polyphaga are quite far removed from the 280 species of Carnivora.
Probably a bad example.
The fact that relationships of organisms fall among species, genus, family, order and beyond, when accurately portrayed is one of the strongest evidences of the theory of evolution and the determination of common ancestry.
What did you think the phylogenetic tree would tell us? What were you looking for that might be missing?
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.