ArticlePeerJ2024
Fossil-informed biogeographic analysis suggests Eurasian regionalization in crown Squamata during the early Jurassic.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Squamata (lizards, snakes, and amphisbaenians) is a Triassic lineage with an extensive and complex biogeographic history, yet no large-scale study has reconstructed the ancestral range of early squamate lineages. The fossil record indicates a broadly Pangaean distribution by the end- Cretaceous, though many lineages (e.g., Paramacellodidae, Mosasauria, Polyglyphanodontia) subsequently went extinct. Thus, the origin and occupancy of extant radiations is unclear and may have been localized within Pangaea to specific plates, with potential regionalization to distinct Laurasian and Gondwanan landmasses during the Mesozoic in some groups. Methods: We used recent tectonic models to code extant and fossil squamate distributions occurring on nine discrete plates for 9,755 species, with Jurassic and Cretaceous fossil constraints from three extinct lineages. We modeled ancestral ranges for crown Squamata from an extant-only molecular phylogeny using a suite of biogeographic models accommodating different evolutionary processes and fossil-based node constraints from known Jurassic and Cretaceous localities. We hypothesized that the best-fit models would not support a full Pangaean distribution (i.e., including all areas) for the origin of crown Squamata, but would instead show regionalization to specific areas within the fragmenting supercontinent, likely in the Northern Hemisphere where most early squamate fossils have been found. Results: Incorporating fossil data reconstructs a localized origin within Pangaea, with early regionalization of extant lineages to Eurasia and Laurasia, while Gondwanan regionalization did not occur until the middle Cretaceous for Alethinophidia, Scolecophidia, and some crown Gekkotan lineages. While the Mesozoic history of extant squamate biogeography can be summarized as a Eurasian origin with dispersal out of Laurasia into Gondwana, their Cenozoic history is complex with multiple events (including secondary and tertiary recolonizations) in several directions. As noted by previous authors, squamates have likely utilized over-land range expansion, land-bridge colonization, and trans-oceanic dispersal. Tropical Gondwana and Eurasia hold more ancient lineages than the Holarctic (Rhineuridae being a major exception), and some asymmetries in colonization (e.g., to North America from Eurasia during the Cenozoic through Beringia) deserve additional study. Future studies that incorporate fossil branches, rather than as node constraints, into the reconstruction can be used to explore this history further.
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.