ArticleCurrent zoology2020
Do key innovations unlock diversification? A case-study on the morphological and ecological impact of pharyngognathy in acanthomorph fishes.
Article in Current zoology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physiology mediates transcontinental radiations of freshwater fishes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- The convergent evolution of the pelvic suction cup: A unique key innovation in spiny-finned fishes.Science advances · 2026Article
- Echoes of Evolution in Holocentridae: Harmony Between Phylogeny, Morphology and Acoustics.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Developmental and Functional Interactions Structure Patterns of Variational Modularity in the Lunar Wrasse Skull.Integrative and comparative biology · 2025Article
- A classic key innovation constrains oral jaw functional diversification in fishes.Evolution letters · 2025Article
- Transgressive hybrids as hopeful holobionts.Microbiome · 2025Article
- The macroevolutionary dynamics of pharyngognathy in fishes fail to support the key innovation hypothesis.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Opportunity begets opportunity to drive macroevolutionary dynamics of a diverse lizard radiation.Evolution letters · 2024Article
- The rise of biting during the Cenozoic fueled reef fish body shape diversification.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Key innovations may allow lineages access to new resources and facilitate the invasion of new adaptive zones, potentially influencing diversification patterns. Many studies have focused on the impact of key innovations on speciation rates, but far less is known about how they influence phenotypic rates and patterns of ecomorphological diversification. We use the repeated evolution of pharyngognathy within acanthomorph fishes, a commonly cited key innovation, as a case study to explore the predictions of key innovation theory. Specifically, we investigate whether transitions to pharyngognathy led to shifts in the rate of phenotypic evolution, as well as shifts and/or expansion in the occupation of morphological and dietary space, using a dataset of 8 morphological traits measured across 3,853 species of Acanthomorpha. Analyzing the 6 evolutionarily independent pharyngognathous clades together, we found no evidence to support pharyngognathy as a key innovation; however, comparisons between individual pharyngognathous lineages and their sister clades did reveal some consistent patterns. In morphospace, most pharyngognathous clades cluster in areas that correspond to deeper-bodied morphologies relative to their sister clades, whereas occupying greater areas in dietary space that reflects a more diversified diet. Additionally, both Cichlidae and Labridae exhibited higher univariate rates of phenotypic evolution compared with their closest relatives. However, few of these results were exceptional relative to our null models. Our results suggest that transitions to pharyngognathy may only be advantageous when combined with additional ecological or intrinsic factors, illustrating the importance of accounting for lineage-specific effects when testing key innovation hypotheses. Moreover, the challenges we experienced formulating informative comparisons, despite the ideal evolutionary scenario of multiple independent evolutionary origins of pharyngognathous clades, illustrates the complexities involved in quantifying the impact of key innovations. Given the issues of lineage specific effects and rate heterogeneity at macroevolutionary scales we observed, we suggest a reassessment of the expected impacts of key innovations may be warranted.
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.