Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35747489›Full record

ArticleDiversity2022

The Phylogeny of Rays and Skates (Chondrichthyes: Elasmobranchii) Based on Morphological Characters Revisited.

Eduardo Villalobos-Segura, Giuseppe Marramà, Giorgio Carnevale, Kerin M Claeson, Charlie J Underwood, Gavin J P Naylor, Jürgen Kriwet

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diversity, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Eduardo Villalobos-SeguraEvolutionary Morphology Research Group, Department of Palaeontology, Faculty of Earth Sciences, Geography and Astronomy, University of Vienna, Josef-Holaubek-Platz 2,1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5475-6143
Giuseppe MarramàDipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università degli Studi di Torino, Via Valperga Caluso 35, 10125 Torino, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7856-5605
Giorgio CarnevaleDipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università degli Studi di Torino, Via Valperga Caluso 35, 10125 Torino, Italy.
Kerin M ClaesonPhiladelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19103, USA.
Charlie J UnderwoodSchool of Earth Sciences, Birkbeck College, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HX, UK.
Gavin J P NaylorFlorida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, 1659 Museum Road, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Jürgen KriwetEvolutionary Morphology Research Group, Department of Palaeontology, Faculty of Earth Sciences, Geography and Astronomy, University of Vienna, Josef-Holaubek-Platz 2,1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6439-8455
University of Turin · ITUniversity of Vienna · ATBirkbeck, University of London · GBFlorida Museum of Natural History · USPhiladelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine · US

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 33820Austrian Science Fund FWF P 35357
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Elasmobranchii are relatively well-studied. However, numerous phylogenetic uncertainties about their relationships remain. Here, we revisit the phylogenetic evidence based on a detailed morphological re-evaluation of all the major extant batomorph clades (skates and rays), including several holomorphic fossil taxa from the Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic, and an extensive outgroup sampling, which includes sharks, chimaeras and several other fossil chondrichthyans. The parsimony and maximum-likelihood analyses found more resolved but contrasting topologies, with the Bayesian inference tree neither supporting nor disfavouring any of them. Overall, the analyses result in similar clade compositions and topologies, with the Jurassic batomorphs forming the sister clade to all the other batomorphs, whilst all the Cretaceous batomorphs are nested within the remaining main clades. The disparate arrangements recovered under the different criteria suggest that a detailed study of Jurassic taxa is of utmost importance to present a more consistent topology in the deeper nodes, as issues continue to be present when analysing those clades previously recognized only by molecular analyses (e.g., Rhinopristiformes and Torpediniformes). The consistent placement of fossil taxa within specific groups by the different phylogenetic criteria is promising and indicates that the inclusion of more fossil taxa in the present matrix will likely not cause loss of resolution, therefore suggesting that a strong phylogenetic signal can be recovered from fossil taxa.

Indexed as

Cenozoiccharacter revisionfossilsMesozoicmorphologyphylogenetic analysis

Identifiers

PMID35747489
PMCPMC7612883
OpenAlexW4281702573

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.