Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35732784›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Incongruences between morphology and molecular phylogeny provide an insight into the diversification of the Crocidura poensis species complex.

Inessa Voet, Christiane Denys, Marc Colyn, Aude Lalis, Adam Konečný, Arnaud Delapré, Violaine Nicolas, Raphaël Cornette

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Fungal systematics and evolution · 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

8 authors.

Inessa VoetInstitut de Systématique, Evolution, Biodiversité (ISYEB), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, EPHE, Université des Antilles, CP51, 57 rue Cuvier, 75005, Paris, France. inessa.voet@mnhn.fr.
Christiane DenysInstitut de Systématique, Evolution, Biodiversité (ISYEB), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, EPHE, Université des Antilles, CP51, 57 rue Cuvier, 75005, Paris, France.
Marc ColynECOBIO UMR 6553, CNRS-Université de Rennes 1, Paimpont, France.
Aude LalisInstitut de Systématique, Evolution, Biodiversité (ISYEB), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, EPHE, Université des Antilles, CP51, 57 rue Cuvier, 75005, Paris, France.
Adam KonečnýDepartment of Botany and Zoology, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Arnaud DelapréInstitut de Systématique, Evolution, Biodiversité (ISYEB), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, EPHE, Université des Antilles, CP51, 57 rue Cuvier, 75005, Paris, France.
Violaine NicolasInstitut de Systématique, Evolution, Biodiversité (ISYEB), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, EPHE, Université des Antilles, CP51, 57 rue Cuvier, 75005, Paris, France. violaine.colin@mnhn.fr.
Raphaël CornetteInstitut de Systématique, Evolution, Biodiversité (ISYEB), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, EPHE, Université des Antilles, CP51, 57 rue Cuvier, 75005, Paris, France. raphael.cornette@mnhn.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Untangling the factors of morphological evolution has long held a central role in the study of evolutionary biology. Extant speciose clades that have only recently diverged are ideal study subjects, as they allow the examination of rapid morphological variation in a phylogenetic context, providing insights into a clade's evolution. Here, we focus on skull morphological variability in a widely distributed shrew species complex, the Crocidura poensis species complex. The relative effects of taxonomy, size, geography, climate and habitat on skull form were tested, as well as the presence of a phylogenetic signal. Taxonomy was the best predictor of skull size and shape, but surprisingly both size and shape exhibited no significant phylogenetic signal. This paper describes one of the few cases within a mammal clade where morphological evolution does not match the phylogeny. The second strongest predictor for shape variation was size, emphasizing that allometry can represent an easily accessed source of morphological variability within complexes of cryptic species. Taking into account species relatedness, habitat preferences, geographical distribution and differences in skull form, our results lean in favor of a parapatric speciation model within this complex of species, where divergence occurred along an ecological gradient, rather than a geographic barrier.

Indexed as

EcosystemShrewsAnimalsClimateHumansPhylogenySkull

Identifiers

PMID35732784
PMCPMC9217945

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.