ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2008
Problematica old and new.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fusion, fission, and scrambling of the bilaterian genome in Bryozoa.Genome research · 2025Article
- Three Cambrian fossils assembled into an extinct body plan of cnidarian affinity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017Article
- Detailed reconstruction of the nervous and muscular system of Lobatocerebridae with an evaluation of its annelid affinity.BMC evolutionary biology · 2015Article
- The nomenclature of the recent Pentastomida (Crustacea), with a list of species and available names.Systematic parasitology · 2012Article
- Phylogenetic relationships within the Opisthokonta based on phylogenomic analyses of conserved single-copy protein domains.Molecular biology and evolution · 2012Article
- Tentaculate fossils from the Cambrian of Canada (British Columbia) and China (Yunnan) interpreted as primitive deuterostomes.PloS one · 2010Article
- On the phylogenetic position of Myzostomida: can 77 genes get it wrong?BMC evolutionary biology · 2009Article
- Eumalacostracan phylogeny and total evidence: limitations of the usual suspects.BMC evolutionary biology · 2009Article
- The evolution of the animals: introduction to a Linnean tercentenary celebration.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Problematica are taxa that defy robust phylogenetic placement. Traditionally the term was restricted to fossil forms, but it is clear that extant taxa may be just as difficult to place, whether using morphological or molecular (nucleotide, gene or genomic) markers for phylogeny reconstruction. We discuss the kinds and causes of Problematica within the Metazoa, as well as criteria for their recognition and possible solutions. The inclusive set of Problematica changes depending upon the nature and quality of (homologous) data available, the methods of phylogeny reconstruction and the sister taxa inferred by their placement or displacement. We address Problematica in the context of pre-cladistic phylogenetics, numerical morphological cladistics and molecular phylogenetics, and focus on general biological and methodological implications of Problematica, rather than presenting a review of individual taxa. Rather than excluding Problematica from phylogeny reconstruction, as has often been preferred, we conclude that the study of Problematica is crucial for both the resolution of metazoan phylogeny and the proper inference of body plan evolution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.