ArticleScientific reports2017
The Vicissicaudata revisited - insights from a new aglaspidid arthropod with caudal appendages from the Furongian of China.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- New specimens ofRoyal Society open science · 2024Article
- A vicissicaudatan arthropod from the Silurian Herefordshire Lagerstätte, UK.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Before trilobite legs:Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Article
- Injuries and molting interference in a trilobite from the Cambrian (Furongian) of South China.PeerJ · 2021Article
- Fine-scale appendage structure of the Cambrian trilobitomorphProceedings. Biological sciences · 2019Article
- The appendicular morphology of Sinoburius lunaris and the evolution of the artiopodan clade Xandarellida (Euarthropoda, early Cambrian) from South China.BMC evolutionary biology · 2019Article
- Burgess Shale fossils shed light on the agnostid problem.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2019Article
- Appendicular anatomy of the artiopodPeerJ · 2019Article
- Early fossil record of Euarthropoda and the Cambrian Explosion.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cambrian marine ecosystems were dominated by arthropods, and more specifically artiopods. Aglaspidids represent an atypical group amongst them, not the least because they evolved and rapidly diversified during the late Cambrian, a time interval between the two diversification events of the Early Palaeozoic. Recent phylogenetic analyses have retrieved aglaspidids within the Vicissicaudata, a potentially important, but difficult to define clade of artiopods. Here we describe a new aglaspidid from the Furongian Guole Konservat-Lagerstätte of South China. This taxon displays a pretelsonic segment bearing non-walking appendages, features as-yet known in all vicissicaudatans, but aglaspidids. A new comprehensive phylogenetic analysis provides strong support for the legitimacy of a monophyletic clade Vicissicaudata, and demonstrates the pertinence of new characters to define Aglaspidida. It also motivates important changes to the systematics of the phylum, including the elevation of Artiopoda to the rank of subphylum, and the establishment of a new superclass Vicissicaudata and a new aglaspidid family Tremaglaspididae. Two diversification pulses can be recognized in the early history of artiopods - one in the early Cambrian (trilobitomorphs) and the other in the late Cambrian (vicissicaudatans). The discrepancy between this pattern and that traditionally depicted for marine invertebrates in the Early Palaeozoic is discussed.
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.