Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34672346›Full record

ArticleSystematic biology2022

Species as a Heuristic: Reconciling Theory and Practice.

Tom Wells, Tom Carruthers, Pablo Muñoz-Rodríguez, Alex Sumadijaya, John R I Wood, Robert W Scotland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Notes onKew bulletin · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

6 authors.

Tom WellsDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Tom CarruthersThe Herbarium & ToL, Royal Botanic Garden, Kew, Richmond, UK.
Pablo Muñoz-RodríguezDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Alex SumadijayaDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
John R I WoodDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Robert W ScotlandDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/T001445/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council T001445/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Species are crucial to most branches of biological research, yet remain controversial in terms of definition, delimitation, and reality. The difficulty of resolving the "species problem" stems from the tension between their theoretical concept as groups of evolving and highly variable organisms and the practical need for a stable and comparable unit of biology. Here, we suggest that treating species as a heuristic can be consistent with a theoretical definition of what species are and with the practical means by which they are identified and delimited. Specifically, we suggest that theoretically species are heuristic since they comprise clusters of closely related individuals responding in a similar manner to comparable sets of evolutionary and ecological forces, whilst they are practically heuristic because they are identifiable by the congruence of contingent properties indicative of those forces. This reconciliation of the theoretical basis of species with their practical applications in biological research allows for a loose but relatively consistent definition of species based on the strategic analysis and integration of genotypic, phenotypic, and ecotypic data. [Cohesion; heuristic; homeostasis; lineage; species problem.].

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionHeuristicsHumansPhylogeny

Identifiers

PMID34672346
PMCPMC9366457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.