Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18508972›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2008

The evolution of imperfect floral mimicry.

Nicolas J Vereecken, Florian P Schiestl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Sensory bias and signal detection trade-offs maintain intersexual floral mimicry.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Parapheromones for Thynnine Wasps.Journal of chemical ecology · 2016
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nicolas J VereeckenBehavioral and Evolutionary Ecology, Free University of Brussels, CP 160/12, Avenue F. D. Roosevelt 50, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium.
Florian P Schiestl

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The theory of mimicry predicts that selection favors signal refinement in mimics to optimally match the signals released by their specific model species. We provide here chemical and behavioral evidence that a sexually deceptive orchid benefits from its mimetic imperfection to its co-occurring and specific bee model by triggering a stronger response in male bees, which react more intensively to the similar, but novel, scent stimulus provided by the orchid.

Indexed as

BeesBiological EvolutionOdorantsPollinationSelection, GeneticAnimalsFemaleFlowersMaleModels, BiologicalOrchidaceae

Identifiers

PMID18508972
PMCPMC2396721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.