Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23378632›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2013

Assessing the role of cladogenesis in macroevolution by integrating fossil and molecular evidence.

Luke C Strotz, Andrew P Allen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Identifying anagenesis and cladogenesis in the fossil record.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2013
    Article
  9. Reply to Aze et al.: Distinguishing speciation modes based on multiple lines of evidence.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Luke C StrotzDepartment of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia. luke.strotz@mq.edu.au
Andrew P Allen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessing the extent to which population subdivision during cladogenesis is necessary for long-term phenotypic evolution is of fundamental importance in a broad range of biological disciplines. Differentiating cladogenesis from anagenesis, defined as evolution within a species, has generally been hampered by dating precision, insufficient fossil data, and difficulties in establishing a direct link between morphological changes detectable in the fossil record and biological species. Here we quantify the relative frequencies of cladogenesis and anagenesis for macroperforate planktic Foraminifera, which arguably have the most complete fossil record currently available, to address this question. Analyzing this record in light of molecular evidence, while taking into account the precision of fossil dating techniques, we estimate that the fraction of speciation events attributable to anagenesis is <19% during the Cenozoic era (last 65 Myr) and <10% during the Neogene period (last 23 Myr). Our central conclusion--that cladogenesis is the predominant mode by which new planktic Foraminifera taxa become established at macroevolutionary time scales--differs markedly from the conclusion reached in a recent study based solely on fossil data. These disparate findings demonstrate that interpretations of macroevolutionary dynamics in the fossil record can be fundamentally altered in light of genetic evidence.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionFossilsGenetic Speciation

Identifiers

PMID23378632
PMCPMC3581934

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.