ReviewPeerJ2024
A review of fossil scorpion higher systematics.
Review in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scorpions (Arachnida: Scorpiones) are a diverse and widespread arachnid order with a rich and deep fossil record. Here we review the, sometimes complex, historical development of fossil scorpion higher classification. We present a chronological account of family and genus names, together with an overview of higher taxa as potential clade names. In 1884 Thorell & Lindström divided scorpions based on whether the legs were short and pointed (Apoxypoda) or ended in paired claws (Dionychopoda). Pocock in 1911 used the morphology of the ventral mesosomal sclerites, which could either be bilobed (Lobosterni) or of a modern configuration (Orthosterni). Petrunkevitch in 1949 attached importance to a putative first opisthosomal tergite being present (Protoscorpionina) or absent (Euscorpionina). Kjellesvig-Waering in 1986 recognised four major groups (Holosternina, Meristosternina, Lobosternina and Bilobosternina) based on the shape of the ventral mesosomal sclerites. The Stockwell/Jeram schemes from the 1980s and 1990s proposed a cladistic progression from early branching lineages, for which the names Protoscorpiones and Palaeoscorpiones were used, towards Scorpiones
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.