ArticlePloS one2021
Description of a new halophilic tiger beetle in the genus Eunota (Coleoptera, Cicindelidae, Cicindelini) identified using morphology, phylogenetics and biogeography.
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.
- Species delimitation, discovery and conservation in a tiger beetle species complex despite discordant genetic data.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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
Tiger beetles are a popular group of insects amongst amateur naturalists, and are well-represented in museum and private collections. New species descriptions plateaued in the 19th century, but there is a recent resurgence of discoveries as integrative taxonomy methods, guided by molecular systematics, uncover "cryptic" tiger beetle diversity. In this paper, we describe a new species using multiple data types. This new species, Eunota mecocheila Duran and Roman n. sp., is in the tribe Cicindelini, and is described from specimens collected in saline muddy ditches in northern Mexico. This species is closely related to E. circumpicta (LaFerté-Sénectère, 1841), but is separated based on morphological differences, geographic range, and genetic differentiation. Little is known about the biology or distribution of this species and it has only been collected from two sites in the state of Coahuila. Given the location of this new species, and its genetic divergence from its closest relative, E. circumpicta, we discuss the historical biogeography that may have led to isolation and speciation. The male and female dorsal, lateral and frontal habitus and the male aedeagus are shown.
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.