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.
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.
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.
- The end of the line: competitive exclusion and the extinction of historical entities.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Bursts of amino acid replacements in protein evolution.Royal Society open science · 2019Article
- Closing the gap between palaeontological and neontological speciation and extinction rate estimates.Nature communications · 2018Article
- Evolutionary Transition in the Late Neogene Planktonic Foraminiferal Genus Truncorotalia.iScience · 2018Article
- Getting somewhere with the Red Queen: chasing a biologically modern definition of the hypothesis.Biology letters · 2018Review
- Future-proofing the Cenozoic macroperforate planktonic foraminifera phylogeny of Aze & others (2011).PloS one · 2018Article
- A new tyrannosaur with evidence for anagenesis and crocodile-like facial sensory system.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Identifying anagenesis and cladogenesis in the fossil record.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2013Article
- 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 · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.