Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26154175›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

The Taxonomic and Phylogenetic Affinities of Bunopithecus sericus, a Fossil Hylobatid from the Pleistocene of China.

Alejandra Ortiz, Varsha Pilbrow, Catalina I Villamil, Jessica G Korsgaard, Shara E Bailey, Terry Harrison

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Alejandra OrtizCenter for the Study of Human Origins, Department of Anthropology, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America; New York Consortium in Evolutionary Primatology (NYCEP), New York, New York, United States of America.
Varsha PilbrowDepartment of Anatomy and Neuroscience, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Catalina I VillamilCenter for the Study of Human Origins, Department of Anthropology, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America; New York Consortium in Evolutionary Primatology (NYCEP), New York, New York, United States of America.
Jessica G KorsgaardCenter for the Study of Human Origins, Department of Anthropology, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America.
Shara E BaileyCenter for the Study of Human Origins, Department of Anthropology, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America; New York Consortium in Evolutionary Primatology (NYCEP), New York, New York, United States of America.
Terry HarrisonCenter for the Study of Human Origins, Department of Anthropology, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America; New York Consortium in Evolutionary Primatology (NYCEP), New York, New York, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fossil hylobatids are rare, but are known from late Miocene and Pleistocene sites throughout East Asia. The best-known fossil hylobatid from the Pleistocene of China is a left mandibular fragment with M2-3 (AMNH 18534), recovered from a pit deposit near the village of Yanjinggou in Wanzhou District, Chongqing Province. Matthew and Granger described this specimen in 1923 as a new genus and species, Bunopithecus sericus. Establishing the age of Bunopithecus has proved difficult because the Yanjinggou collection represents a mixed fauna of different ages, but it likely comes from early or middle Pleistocene deposits. Although the Bunopithecus specimen has featured prominently in discussions of hylobatid evolution and nomenclature, its systematic status has never been satisfactorily resolved. The present study reexamines the taxonomic and phylogenetic relationships of Bunopithecus by carrying out a detailed comparative morphometric study of its lower molars in relation to a large sample of modern hylobatids. Our results show that differences in M2 and M3 discriminate extant hylobatids fairly well, at least at the generic level, and that AMNH 18534 is not attributable to Hylobates, Nomascus or Symphalangus. Support for a close relationship between Bunopithecus and Hoolock is more equivocal. In most multivariate analyses, Bunopithecus presents a unique morphological pattern that falls outside the range of variation of any hylobatid taxon, although its distance from the cluster represented by extant hoolocks is relatively small. Our results support the generic distinction of Bunopithecus, which most likely represents an extinct crown hylobatid, and one that may possibly represent the sister taxon to Hoolock.

Indexed as

FossilsAnimalsBiological EvolutionChinaHylobatesMandiblePhylogeny

Identifiers

PMID26154175
PMCPMC4495929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.