Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32110477›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

The systematics of the Cervidae: a total evidence approach.

Nicola S Heckeberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The Grouping Patterns ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  8. ZooKeys · 2025
    Article
  9. Increased incidences of cervical ribs in deer indicate extinction risk.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Hair Coat of the Water Deer Hydropotes inermis (Cervidae, Artiodactyla), a New Species in the Russian Fauna.Doklady biological sciences : proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Biological sciences sections · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Evolution and development of the cetacean skull roof: a case study in novelty and homology.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibodies in Free-Ranging Fallow Deer (Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2023
    Article
  20. Revalidation ofZooKeys · 2023
    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

1 author.

Nicola S HeckebergMuseum für Naturkunde Berlin, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6542-8719

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic relationships of cervids have been controversial for decades. Despite new input from molecular systematics, consensus could only be partially reached. The initial, gross (sub) classification based on morphology and comparative anatomy was mostly supported by molecular data. The rich fossil record of cervids has never been extensively tested in phylogenetic frameworks concerning potential systematic relationships of fossil cervids to extant cervids. The aim of this work was to investigate the systematic relationships of extant and fossil cervids using molecular and morphological characters and make implications about their evolutionary history based on the phylogenetic reconstructions. To achieve these objectives, molecular data were compiled consisting of five nuclear markers and the complete mitochondrial genome of 50 extant and one fossil cervids. Several analyses using different data partitions, taxon sampling, partitioning schemes, and optimality criteria were undertaken. In addition, the most extensive morphological character matrix for such a broad cervid taxon sampling was compiled including 168 cranial and dental characters of 41 extant and 29 fossil cervids. The morphological and molecular data were analysed in a combined approach and other comprehensive phylogenetic reconstructions. The results showed that most Miocene cervids were more closely related to each other than to any other cervids. They were often positioned between the outgroup and all other cervids or as the sister taxon to Muntiacini. Two Miocene cervids were frequently placed within Muntiacini. Plio- and Pleistocene cervids could often be affiliated to Cervini, Odocoileini or Capreolini. The phylogenetic analyses provide new insights into the evolutionary history of cervids. Several fossil cervids could be successfully related to living representatives, confirming previously assumed affiliations based on comparative morphology and introducing new hypotheses. New systematic relationships were observed, some uncertainties persisted and resolving systematics within certain taxa remained challenging.

Indexed as

Combined analysesEvolutionary historyMorphologyPhylogenyRuminantia

Identifiers

PMID32110477
PMCPMC7034380

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.