ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2023
Revisiting the 'nuclear species' concept: do we really know what we think we know?
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acoustic and visual traits predict species nuclearity in Neotropical mixed-species bird flocks.Oecologia · 2026Article
- Revisiting the 'nuclear species' concept: do we really know what we think we know?Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- Mixed-species groups and aggregations: shaping ecological and behavioural patterns and processes.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The idea of 'nuclear species' has received a lot of attention in mixed-species flock research. Our impression of this literature is that referenced statements tend to cite the same papers in support of a small set of ideas, and often there is a mismatch between what papers contain and what they're cited for. Motivated by these impressions, we built and quantitatively examined a database of referenced statements about nuclearity in flocks. This confirmed our impression quantitatively, but more strikingly, a single paper stood out in its influence on ideas around nuclearity in flocks. Moynihan's 1962 monograph on mixed-species flocks in Panama, 'The organization and probable evolution of some mixed-species flocks of neotropical birds' published in Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, was cited twice as much as the next most-cited paper and was the most-cited paper for 10 out of 15 most-discussed ideas related to nuclearity. Further, a number of other highly cited papers are strongly influenced by Moynihan's ideas, i.e. its influence is much greater than what a count of citations conveys. We also found that Moynihan was mis-cited frequently. We juxtapose what we found from the citation analysis with what the paper actually contains to better understand the nature of support that Moynihan provides, and discuss the implications of our findings for what we know about and how we research nuclearity in flocks. This article is part of the theme issue 'Mixed-species groups and aggregations: shaping ecological and behavioural patterns and processes'.
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.