ReviewZoological research2018
Species delimitation based on diagnosis and monophyly, and its importance for advancing mammalian taxonomy.
Review in Zoological research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revalidation of Manis aurita based on integrative genomic and morphological evidence.Communications biology · 2026Article
- Unraveling hidden species diversity of talpid moles using phylogenomics and skull-based deep learning.Communications biology · 2026Article
- Article
- How many mammal species are there now? Updates and trends in taxonomic, nomenclatural, and geographic knowledge.Journal of mammalogy · 2025Article
- A new species of the genusZooKeys · 2024Article
- Integrative systematics and evolutionary history ofEcology and evolution · 2023Article
- A new species of forest hedgehog (ZooKeys · 2023Article
- A new species of shrew moles, genusZooKeys · 2023Article
- Deep Genotypic Species Delimitation ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Expert range maps of global mammal distributions harmonised to three taxonomic authorities.Journal of biogeography · 2022Article
- A new species of Asiatic shrew of the genusZooKeys · 2022Article
- Article
- Inferring the mammal tree: Species-level sets of phylogenies for questions in ecology, evolution, and conservation.PLoS biology · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recently proposed taxonomic classification of extant ungulates sparked a series of publications that criticize the Phylogenetic Species Concept (PSC) claiming it to be a particularly poor species concept. These opinions reiteratively stated that (1) the two fundamental elements of the "PSC", i.e., monophyly and diagnosability, do not offer objective criteria as to where the line between species should be drawn; and (2) that extirpation of populations can lead to artificial diagnosability and spurious recognitions of species. This sudden eruption of criticism against the PSC is misleading. Problems attributed to the PSC are common to most approaches and concepts that modern systematists employ to establish species boundaries. The controversial taxonomic propositions that sparked criticism against the PSC are indeed highly problematic, not because of the species concept upon which they are based, but because no evidence (whatsoever) has become public to support a substantial portion of the proposed classification. We herein discuss these topics using examples from mammals. Numerous areas of biological research rest upon taxonomic accuracy (including conservation biology and biomedical research); hence, it is necessary to clarify what are (and what are not) the real sources of taxonomic inaccuracy.
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.