Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38023768›Full record

ArticleZooKeys2023

An updated world checklist of velvet worms (Onychophora) with notes on nomenclature and status of names.

Ivo de Sena Oliveira

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ZooKeys, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

1 author.

Ivo de Sena OliveiraDepartment of Zoology, Institute of Biology, University of Kassel, Heinrich-Plett-Straße 40, D-34132, Kassel, Germany University of Kassel Kassel Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8340-7660

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

More than a decade has passed since the publication of the only world checklist available for Onychophora. During this period, numerous nomenclatural acts and taxonomic changes have been suggested within the group and a wealth of novel data has been published on many taxa. Herein, the up-to-date taxonomic scenario within Onychophora is presented, with appraisal of name status. This checklist covers both extant (Peripatidae and Peripatopsidae) and fossil taxa, and each species is accompanied by information on synonyms, type designation, holotype location, type locality, and language of original description. Additional remarks include nomenclatural inconsistencies, synonymizations, name misspellings, conflicting collecting event data, availability of taxonomically informative molecular data, etc. According to the data, 237 species are currently assigned to Onychophora: 140 of Peripatopsidae, 92 of Peripatidae, and five fossil species with unclear relationship to extant taxa. Since the previous checklist, 37 species have been added to Onychophora, representing an increase of 18.5% in the diversity described for the group. Yet, taxonomic descriptions seem slow-paced, with an average of 3.6 onychophoran species being described annually. From the taxonomic standpoint, 216 species are valid, although many of them require morphological revision and molecular characterization; 21 species exhibit major taxonomic ambiguities and have been regarded as nomina dubia. Recurrent taxonomic issues identified in the literature include inaccurate collecting event data, doubtful taxonomic assignment of molecular sequences, and non-observance of nomenclatural rules. These and other taxonomic aspects are addressed herein in the light of the directives established by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.

Indexed as

CatalogueextantfossilPeripatidaePeripatopsidaespecies listtaxonomy

Identifiers

PMID38023768
PMCPMC10680090

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.