Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39953986›Full record

ArticleSystematic biology2025

The Consequences of Budding Speciation on Trees.

Charles Tomomi Parins-Fukuchi, James G Saulsbury

Abstract 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. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Charles Tomomi Parins-FukuchiDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, 25 Willcocks Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3B2, Canada.
James G SaulsburyDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas, 1200 Sunnyside Avenue, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA.

Funding

National Sciences and Engineering Research Council RGPIN-2024-06289
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Paleobiologists have long sought to explain how alternative modes of speciation, including budding and bifurcating cladogenesis, shape patterns of evolution. Methods introduced over the past decade have paved the way for a renewed enthusiasm for exploring modes of speciation in the fossil record. However, the field does not yet have a strong intuition for how ancestor-descendant relationships, especially those that arise from budding speciation, might influence the shape of trees reconstructed for fossil or living clades. We developed a simulation approach based on classic paleobiological theory to ask what proportion of ancestral nodes in paleontological phylogenies are expected to correspond to sampled taxa under a range of preservational regimes. We compared our simulated results to empirical estimates of absolute fossil record completeness gathered from the literature and found that many fossilized clades of marine invertebrates are likely to display upwards of 80% sampled ancestors. Under a primarily budding model, phylogenies where 100% of the internal nodes correspond to named species are very possible for well-sampled clades at local and regional scales. We also leveraged our simulation approach to ask how budding might shape extant clades. We found that the ancestral signature of budding causes rampant hard polytomies (i.e., multifurcations), greatly impacting the shape of extant clades. Our results highlight how budding can yield dramatic and unrecognized effects on phylogenetic reconstruction of clades of both living and extinct organisms.

Indexed as

ClassificationGenetic SpeciationPhylogenyAnimalsComputer SimulationFossilsInvertebratesModels, BiologicalDiversificationfossilspaleobiologyphylogenyspeciation

Identifiers

PMID39953986
PMCPMC12162173

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.