Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40078681›Full record

ReviewCambridge prisms. Extinction2023

Forty years later: The status of the "Big Five" mass extinctions.

Charles R Marshall

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cambridge prisms. Extinction, 2023. 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. Cambridge prisms. Extinction · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
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.

Charles R MarshallDepartment of Integrative Biology and University of California Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7832-0950

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over 40 years ago, Raup and Sepkoski identified five episodes of elevated extinction in the marine fossil record that were thought to be statistically distinct, thus warranting the term the "Big Five" mass extinctions. Since then, the term has become part of standard vocabulary, especially with the naming of the current biodiversity crisis as the "sixth mass extinction." However, there is no general agreement on which time intervals should be viewed as mass extinctions, in part because the Big Five turn out not to be statistically distinct from background rates of extinction, and in part, because other intervals of time have even higher extinction rates, in the Cambrian and early Ordovician. Nonetheless, the Big Five represent the five largest events since the early Ordovician, including in analyses that attempt to compensate for the incompleteness of the fossil and rock records. In the last 40 years, we have learned a great deal about the causes of many of the major and minor extinction events and are beginning to unravel the mechanisms that translated the initial environmental disturbances into extinction. However, for many of the events, further understanding will require going back to the outcrop, where the patchy distribution of environments and pervasive temporal gaps in the rock record challenge our ability to establish true extinction patterns. As for the current biodiversity crisis, there is no doubt that the rate of extinction is among the highest ever experienced by the biosphere, perhaps the second highest after the end-Cretaceous bolide impact. However (and fortunately), the absolute number of extinctions is still relatively small - there is still time to prevent this becoming a genuine mass extinction. Given the arbitrariness of calling out the Big Five, perhaps the current crisis should be called the "incipient Anthropocene mass extinction" rather than the "sixth mass extinction."

Indexed as

background extinctionincompleteness of the fossil recordmass extinctionpaleobiology databasesepkoski compendiumsequence stratigraphytemporal resolution

Identifiers

PMID40078681
PMCPMC11895713

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.