ArticlePeerJ2016
Preserving and vouchering butterflies and moths for large-scale museum-based molecular research.
Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phylogeny and divergence time estimation of Io moths and relatives (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae:PeerJ · 2024Article
- Phylogenomics resolves major relationships and reveals significant diversification rate shifts in the evolution of silk moths and relatives.BMC evolutionary biology · 2019Article
- Article
- Anchored phylogenomics illuminates the skipper butterfly tree of life.BMC evolutionary biology · 2018Article
- Revisited larval morphology of Thanatophilus rugosus (Coleoptera: Silphidae).International journal of legal medicine · 2018Article
- A streamlined collecting and preparation protocol for DNA barcoding of Lepidoptera as part of large-scale rapid biodiversity assessment projects, exemplified by the Indonesian Biodiversity Discovery and Information System (IndoBioSys).Biodiversity data journal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera) comprise significant portions of the world's natural history collections, but a standardized tissue preservation protocol for molecular research is largely lacking. Lepidoptera have traditionally been spread on mounting boards to display wing patterns and colors, which are often important for species identification. Many molecular phylogenetic studies have used legs from pinned specimens as the primary source for DNA in order to preserve a morphological voucher, but the amount of available tissue is often limited. Preserving an entire specimen in a cryogenic freezer is ideal for DNA preservation, but without an easily accessible voucher it can make specimen identification, verification, and morphological work difficult. Here we present a procedure that creates accessible and easily visualized "wing vouchers" of individual Lepidoptera specimens, and preserves the remainder of the insect in a cryogenic freezer for molecular research. Wings are preserved in protective holders so that both dorsal and ventral patterns and colors can be easily viewed without further damage. Our wing vouchering system has been implemented at the University of Maryland (AToL Lep Collection) and the University of Florida (Florida Museum of Natural History, McGuire Center of Lepidoptera and Biodiversity), which are among two of the largest Lepidoptera molecular collections in the world.
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.