ArticlePloS one2021
The effects of fossil taxa, hypothetical predicted ancestors, and a molecular scaffold on pseudoextinction analyses of extant placental orders.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Toward a Comprehensive Anatomical Matrix for Crown Birds: Phylogenetic Insights from the Pectoral Girdle and Forelimb Skeleton.Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pseudoextinction analyses, which simulate extinction in extant taxa, use molecular phylogenetics to assess the accuracy of morphological phylogenetics. Previous pseudoextinction analyses have shown a failure of morphological phylogenetics to place some individual placental orders in the correct superordinal clade. Recent work suggests that the inclusion of hypothetical ancestors of extant placental clades, estimated by ancestral state reconstructions of morphological characters, may increase the accuracy of morphological phylogenetic analyses. However, these studies reconstructed direct hypothetical ancestors for each extant taxon based on a well-corroborated molecular phylogeny, which is not possible for extinct taxa that lack molecular data. It remains to be determined if pseudoextinct taxa, and by proxy extinct taxa, can be accurately placed when their immediate hypothetical ancestors are unknown. To investigate this, we employed molecular scaffolds with the largest available morphological data set for placental mammals. Each placental order was sequentially treated as pseudoextinct by exempting it from the molecular scaffold and recoding soft morphological characters as missing for all its constituent species. For each pseudoextinct data set, we omitted the pseudoextinct taxon and performed a parsimony ancestral state reconstruction to obtain hypothetical predicted ancestors. Each pseudoextinct order was then evaluated in seven parsimony analyses that employed combinations of fossil taxa, hypothetical predicted ancestors, and a molecular scaffold. In treatments that included fossils, hypothetical predicted ancestors, and a molecular scaffold, only 8 of 19 pseudoextinct placental orders (42%) retained the same interordinal placement as on the molecular scaffold. In treatments that included hypothetical predicted ancestors but not fossils or a scaffold, only four placental orders (21%) were recovered in positions that are congruent with the scaffold. These results indicate that hypothetical predicted ancestors do not increase the accuracy of pseudoextinct taxon placement when the immediate hypothetical ancestor of the taxon is unknown. Hypothetical predicted ancestors are not a panacea for morphological phylogenetics.
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.