ArticlePloS one2020
The treeness of the tree of historical trees of life.
Article in PloS one, 2020. 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, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- How oral traditions develop: a cautionary tale on cultural evolution from the Quechuan-speaking Andes.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2025Article
- African harps as units of cultural evolution: a cladistic analysis on their morphology.Evolutionary human sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper compares and categorizes historical ideas about trees showing relationships among biological entities. The hierarchical structure of a tree is used to test the global consistency of similarities among these ideas; in other words we assess the "treeness" of the tree of historical trees. The collected data are figures and ideas about trees showing relationships among biological entities published or drawn by naturalists from 1555 to 2012. They are coded into a matrix of 235 historical trees and 141 descriptive attributes. From the most parsimonious "tree" of historical trees, treeness is measured by consistency index, retention index and homoplasy excess ratio. This tree is used to create sets or categories of trees, or to study the circulation of ideas. From an unrooted network of historical trees, treeness is measured by the delta-score. This unrooted network is used to measure and visualize treeness. The two approaches show a rather good treeness of the data, with respectively a retention idex of 0.83 and homoplasy excess ratio of 0.74, on one hand, and a delta-score of 0.26 on the other hand. It is interpreted as due to vertical transmission, i.e. an inheritance of shared ideas about biological trees among authors. This tree of trees is then used to test categories previously made. For instance, cladists and gradists are « paraphyletic ». The branches of this tree of trees suggest new categories of tree-thinkers that could have been overlooked by historians or systematists.
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.