Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40026292›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology2025

Species Delimitation Using Genomic Data: Options and Limitations.

Bernhard Hausdorf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

1 author.

Bernhard HausdorfLeibniz Institute for the Analysis of Biodiversity Change, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1604-1689

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The most effective approaches for species discovery and species validation with genomic data remain underexplored. This study evaluates the merits and limitations of phylogenetic approaches based on the multispecies coalescent model and population genetic approaches for species discovery, i.e., species delimitation in the absence of prior knowledge, using genomic datasets from four well-known radiations. Furthermore, it demonstrates how geographic data can be integrated with the genomic data for species validation, i.e., for testing primary species hypotheses. The multispecies coalescent model-based approaches tr2 and soda resulted in high over-splitting of species, low percentages of species delimited according to the current classification, and low percentages of individuals assigned to the same species as in the current classification across all four species complexes studied. Conversely, the species numbers were slightly underestimated based on the structure results. Although the proportion of species delimited according to the current classification and the proportion of individuals assigned to the same species as in the current classification in the classifications based on the structure results is approximately twice that of the classifications proposed by the multispecies coalescent model-based approaches, it remains unsatisfactory. A slight over-splitting of species into population groups can be corrected by species validation with isolation-by-distance tests if a sufficient number of populations have been sampled for each species. Sampling design is an essential step in any taxonomic study, as it has a significant impact on the delimitation of the species and the possibility of their validation.

Indexed as

Genetic SpeciationGenetics, PopulationGenomicsModels, GeneticPhylogenyAnimalsDNA taxonomyisolation by distancemultispecies coalescentpopulation geneticsspecies delimitationspecies validation

Identifiers

PMID40026292
PMCPMC11974488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.