Critical re-examination of known purported fossil Bombycoidea (Lepidoptera).

Maria Heikkilä, Joël Minet, Andreas Zwick, Anna Hundsdoerfer, Rodolphe Rougerie, Ian J Kitching

Open access · goldAbstract read

In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Maria HeikkiläFinnish Museum of Natural History, Luomus, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-9048-4381

Joël MinetInstitut de Systématique, Évolution, Biodiversité (ISYEB), Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, CNRS, EPHE, Sorbonne Université, Université des Antilles, Paris, France.

Andreas ZwickAustralian National Insect Collection, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia.

Anna HundsdoerferMolecular Laboratory, Museum of Zoology, Senckenberg Natural History Collections Dresden, Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5594-4154

Rodolphe RougerieInstitut de Systématique, Évolution, Biodiversité (ISYEB), Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, CNRS, EPHE, Sorbonne Université, Université des Antilles, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0937-2815

Ian J KitchingNatural History Museum, London, United Kingdom.

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation · AUNatural History Museum · GBSenckenberg Natural History Collections Dresden · DEUniversity of Helsinki · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We critically re-examine 17 records of fossils currently assigned to the lepidopteran superfamily Bombycoidea, which includes the silk moths, emperor moths and hawk moths. These records include subfossils, compression and impression fossils, permineralizations and ichnofossils. We assess whether observable morphological features warrant their confident assignment to the superfamily. None of the examined fossils displays characters that allow unequivocal identification as Sphingidae, but three fossils and a subfossil (

Indexed as

ManducaMothsAnimalsFossilsLarvaPhylogenyAttacus? fossilisBombycites buechiiBombycites oeningensisCocoonsCompression fossilsCuticular fragmentsMioclanis shanwangianaPupation chambersSphingidites weidneriSphingid proboscis

Identifiers

PMID37965290

DOI10.7717/peerj.16049

PMCPMC10642363

OpenAlexW4388572926

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.