ArticleSystematic biology2015
Bias and sensitivity in the placement of fossil taxa resulting from interpretations of missing data.
Article in Systematic biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dental Data Perform Relatively Poorly in Reconstructing Mammal Phylogenies: Morphological Partitions Evaluated with Molecular Benchmarks.Systematic biology · 2017Pooled it
- Competing methods of divergence time estimation recover diverse evolutionary timescales.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2026Article
- Head anatomy and phylogenomics show the Carboniferous giantScience advances · 2024Article
- Quantifying the effects of exceptional fossil preservation on the global availability of phylogenetic data in deep time.PloS one · 2024Article
- Multivariate mapping of ontogeny, taphonomy and phylogeny to reconstruct problematic fossil taxa.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Impact of increasing morphological information by micro-CT scanning on the phylogenetic placement of Darwin wasps (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae) in amber.Swiss journal of palaeontology · 2023Article
- Craniodental and Postcranial Characters of Non-Avian Dinosauria Often Imply Different Trees.Systematic biology · 2020Article
- Inferring the mammal tree: Species-level sets of phylogenies for questions in ecology, evolution, and conservation.PLoS biology · 2019Article
- A common arthropod from the Late Ordovician Big Hill Lagerstätte (Michigan) reveals an unexpected ecological diversity within Chasmataspidida.BMC evolutionary biology · 2019Article
- Parsimony, not Bayesian analysis, recovers more stratigraphically congruent phylogenetic trees.Biology letters · 2018Article
- The evolution of giant flightless birds and novel phylogenetic relationships for extinct fowl (Aves, Galloanseres).Royal Society open science · 2017Article
- The Effect Of microbial Mats In The Decay Of Anurans With Implications For Understanding Taphonomic Processes In The Fossil Record.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Preservation and phylogeny of Cambrian ecdysozoans tested by experimental decay of Priapulus.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- The first iguanian lizard from the Mesozoic of Africa.Royal Society open science · 2016Article
- The evolution of methods for establishing evolutionary timescales.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2016Review
- Preservation of three-dimensional anatomy in phosphatized fossil arthropods enriches evolutionary inference.eLife · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The utility of fossils in evolutionary contexts is dependent on their accurate placement in phylogenetic frameworks, yet intrinsic and widespread missing data make this problematic. The complex taphonomic processes occurring during fossilization can make it difficult to distinguish absence from non-preservation, especially in the case of exceptionally preserved soft-tissue fossils: is a particular morphological character (e.g., appendage, tentacle, or nerve) missing from a fossil because it was never there (phylogenetic absence), or just happened to not be preserved (taphonomic loss)? Missing data have not been tested in the context of interpretation of non-present anatomy nor in the context of directional shifts and biases in affinity. Here, complete taxa, both simulated and empirical, are subjected to data loss through the replacement of present entries (1s) with either missing (?s) or absent (0s) entries. Both cause taxa to drift down trees, from their original position, toward the root. Absolute thresholds at which downshift is significant are extremely low for introduced absences (two entries replaced, 6% of present characters). The opposite threshold in empirical fossil taxa is also found to be low; two absent entries replaced with presences causes fossil taxa to drift up trees. As such, only a few instances of non-preserved characters interpreted as absences will cause fossil organisms to be erroneously interpreted as more primitive than they were in life. This observed sensitivity to coding non-present morphology presents a problem for all evolutionary studies that attempt to use fossils to reconstruct rates of evolution or unlock sequences of morphological change. Stem-ward slippage, whereby fossilization processes cause organisms to appear artificially primitive, appears to be a ubiquitous and problematic phenomenon inherent to missing data, even when no decay biases exist. Absent characters therefore require explicit justification and taphonomic frameworks to support their interpretation.
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.