ArticlePeerJ2024
A quantitative test of the "Ecomorphotype Hypothesis" for fossil true seals (Family Phocidae).
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Miocene sealRoyal Society open science · 2025Article
- A new seal from the Late Miocene of the Eastern Paratethys highlights the past regional diversity of true seals (Phocidae).Swiss journal of palaeontology · 2025Article
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
The fossil record of true seals (Family Phocidae) is mostly made up of isolated bones, some of which are type specimens. Previous studies have sought to increase referral of non-overlapping and unrelated fossils to these taxa using the 'Ecomorphotype Hypothesis', which stipulates that certain differences in morphology between taxa represent adaptations to differing ecology. On this basis, bulk fossil material could be lumped to a specific ecomorphotype, and then referred to species in that ecomorphotype, even if they are different bones. This qualitative and subjective method has been used often to expand the taxonomy of fossil phocids, but has never been quantitatively tested. We test the proposed ecomorphotypes using morphometric analysis of fossil and extant northern true seal limb bones, specifically principal components analysis and discriminant function analysis. A large amount of morphological overlap between ecomorphotypes, and poor discrimination between them, suggests that the 'Ecomorphotype Hypothesis' is not a valid approach. Further, the analysis failed to assign fossils to ecomorphotypes designated in previous studies, with some fossils from the same taxa being designated as different ecomorphotypes. The failure of this approach suggests that all fossils referred using this method should be considered to have unknown taxonomic status. In light of this, and previous findings that phocid limb bones have limited utility as type specimens, we revise the status of named fossil phocid species. We conclude that the majority of named fossil phocid taxa should be considered
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.