Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39864055›Full record

ArticleSystematic biology2025

A Phylogenetic Approach to Delimitate Species in a Probabilistic Way.

Xia Hua, Craig Moritz

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Xia HuaMathematical Sciences Institute, 145 Science Road, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3485-789X
Craig MoritzDivision of Ecology & Evolution, Research School of Biology, 46 Sullivans Creek Road, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.

Funding

Australian Research Council DE190100491
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Different species concepts and their associated criteria have been used to delimit species boundaries, such as the absence of gene flow for the biological species concept and the presence of morphological distinction for the morphological species concept. The need for different delimitation criteria largely reflects the fact that species are generated under various speciation mechanisms. A key question is how to make species delimitation consistent in a species group, especially when we want to delimit the species boundaries over many newly discovered evolutionary lineages and add these new lineages into a comparative analysis. Instead of forcing a single definition of "species," we can acknowledge different delimitation criteria by modeling how fast lineages in a species group evolve to meet these criteria along a phylogenetic tree. This study presents such a new model and a new delimitation approach that calculates the probability of each possible species identity of a lineage. We use simulations to show that our likelihood function gives accurate estimates of parameters in the model and our approach has high power to correctly identify species identities. We apply the approach to lineages in 2 real species groups that already have genomic and morphological evidence for their species identities. Our approach gives consistent inference of species identities with these existing pieces of evidence. We also demonstrate how to use our model to test a popular hypothesis about speciation process across all lineages in a species group and discuss further extension of the model to study speciation.

Indexed as

ClassificationModels, BiologicalPhylogenyAnimalsComputer SimulationGenetic SpeciationLikelihood FunctionsProSSEprotracted birth-death processspeciation-based delimitationspeciation completion rateThe Bateson-Dobzhansky-Muller model

Identifiers

PMID39864055
PMCPMC12699996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.