ArticlePloS one2017
Let's jump in: A phylogenetic study of the great basin springfishes and poolfishes, Crenichthys and Empetrichthys (Cyprinodontiformes: Goodeidae).
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- ZooKeys · 2024Article
- Distribution and current conservation status of the Mexican Goodeidae (Actinopterygii, Cyprinodontiformes).ZooKeys · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
North America's Great Basin has long been of interest to biologists due to its high level of organismal endemicity throughout its endorheic watersheds. One example of such a group is the subfamily Empetricthyinae. In this paper, we analyzed the relationships of the Empetrichtyinae and assessed the validity of the subspecies designations given by Williams and Wilde within the group using concatenated phylogenetic tree estimation and species tree estimation. Samples from 19 populations were included covering the entire distribution of the three extant species of Empetricthyinae-Crenichthys nevadae, Crenichthys baileyi and Empetricthys latos. Three nuclear introns (S8 intron 4, S7 intron 1, and P0 intron 1) and one mitochondrial gene (Cytb) were sequenced for phylogenetic analysis. Using these sequences, we generated two separate hypotheses of the evolutionary relationships of Empetrichtyinae- one based on the mitochondrial data and one based on the nuclear data using Bayesian phylogenetics. Haplotype networks were also generated to look at the relationships of the populations within Empetrichthyinae. After comparing the two phylogenetic hypotheses, species trees were generated using *BEAST with the nuclear data to further test the validity of the subspecies within Empetrichthyinae. The mitochondrial analyses supported four lineages within C. baileyi and 2 within C. nevadae. The concatenated nuclear tree was more conserved, supporting one clade and an unresolved polytomy in both species. The species tree analysis supported the presence of two species within both C. baileyi and C. nevadae. Based on the results of these analyses, the subspecies designations of Williams and Wilde are not valid, rather a conservative approach suggests there are two species within C. nevadae and two species within C. baileyi. No structure was found for E. latos or the populations of Empetricthyinae. This study represents one of many demonstrating the invalidity of subspecies and their detriment to species identification, conservation, and understanding.
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.