Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29134086›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2017

Multiple optimality criteria support Ornithoscelida.

Luke A Parry, Matthew G Baron, Jakob Vinther

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Luke A ParryBristol Life Sciences Building, University of Bristol, 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TH, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3910-0346
Matthew G BaronDepartment of Earth Sciences, Natural History Museum, London, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9069-7638
Jakob VintherBristol Life Sciences Building, University of Bristol, 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TH, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3584-9616

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A recent study of early dinosaur evolution using equal-weights parsimony recovered a scheme of dinosaur interrelationships and classification that differed from historical consensus in a single, but significant, respect; Ornithischia and Saurischia were not recovered as monophyletic sister-taxa, but rather Ornithischia and Theropoda formed a novel clade named Ornithoscelida. However, these analyses only used maximum parsimony, and numerous recent simulation studies have questioned the accuracy of parsimony under equal weights. Here, we provide additional support for this alternative hypothesis using Bayesian implementation of the Mkv model, as well as through number of additional parsimony analyses, including implied weighting. Using Bayesian inference and implied weighting, we recover the same fundamental topology for Dinosauria as the original study, with a monophyletic Ornithoscelida, demonstrating that the main suite of methods used in morphological phylogenetics recover this novel hypothesis. This result was further scrutinized through the systematic exclusion of different character sets. Novel characters from the original study (those not taken or adapted from previous phylogenetic studies) were found to be more important for resolving the relationships within Dinosauromorpha than the relationships within Dinosauria. Reanalysis of a modified version of the character matrix that supports the Ornithischia-Saurischia dichotomy under maximum parsimony also supports this hypothesis under implied weighting, but not under the Mkv model, with both Theropoda and Sauropodomorpha becoming paraphyletic with respect to Ornithischia.

Indexed as

AvemetatarsaliaBayesiancladisticsDinosaurialikelihoodphylogenetics

Identifiers

PMID29134086
PMCPMC5666269

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.