Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30344435›Full record

ArticleZooKeys2018

The phylogeny of pholcid spiders: a critical evaluation of relationships suggested by molecular data (Araneae, Pholcidae).

Bernhard A Huber, Jonas Eberle, Dimitar Dimitrov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ZooKeys, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Diversity survey ofZooKeys · 2025
    Article
  11. Old WorldZooKeys · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. A new spider species of theBiodiversity data journal · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Tip of the iceberg: species diversity ofZoological research · 2021
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Bernhard A HuberAlexander Koenig Research Museum of Zoology, Adenauerallee 160, 53113 Bonn, Germany Alexander Koenig Research Museum of Zoology Bonn Germany.
Jonas EberleAlexander Koenig Research Museum of Zoology, Adenauerallee 160, 53113 Bonn, Germany Alexander Koenig Research Museum of Zoology Bonn Germany.
Dimitar DimitrovCenter for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark University of Copenhagen Copenhagen Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With almost 600 species, the latest molecular phylogeny of pholcid spiders (Eberle et al. 2018, BMC Evolutionary Biology) more than triples the largest previously available molecular phylogeny of the family. At the level of genera, the coverage is high (86%, i.e., 75 of the 87 named genera), and at the level of subfamilies it is complete. The present paper is an effort to critically evaluate the implications of this phylogeny for pholcid systematics. The analyses largely support the division of Pholcidae into five subfamilies: Ninetinae, Arteminae, Modisiminae, Smeringopinae, and Pholcinae. Their compositions are largely unchanged except that

Indexed as

Biogeographyphylogenysystematicstaxonomy

Identifiers

PMID30344435
PMCPMC6193417

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.