ArticlePloS one2025
The Triassic turtle of Thailand - revision of 'Proganochelys' ruchae.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
True turtles (Testudinata) appeared in the Norian (Late Triassic) and quickly attained a worldwide distribution and relatively high diversity. Their remains are currently known from that time from Asia, Europe, North America, and South America, and represent at least three separate clades. Whereas the generic and suprageneric attribution of comparatively well-preserved and studied European and South American taxa, such as Proganochelys quenstedtii, Proterochersis robusta and Proterochersis porebensis, Palaeochersis talampayensis, and Waluchelys cavitesta sparks no controversy, the more fragmentary and less common species have been variably considered representatives of separate genera or referred to already existing ones - most commonly, Proganochelys. This uncertainty is unfortunate, as it severely muddles the picture of the evolution, diversity, and geographical distribution of the earliest turtles. One such problematic species, coming from the Norian Huai Hin Lat Formation of Thailand, was described in 1980s as Proganochelys ruchae. However, this generic attribution was subsequently put into question and the recent increase of available Triassic turtle material allows to remove the species ruchae from Proganochelys to a new genus, Thaichelys gen. nov., and place it in the clade of Proterochersidae, together with Proterochersis spp., Keuperotesta limendorsa, and Chinlechelys tenertesta. As a result, the genus Proganochelys is considered here to be solely a central Pangean (modern-day European) taxon. Moreover, Thaichelys ruchae exhibits in some respects a transitional morphology between other Triassic taxa and Proterochersis spp., and may constitute a sister taxon to the grouping of Proterochersis spp. and Keuperotesta limendorsa from Europe. This, in turn, considering the lack of a Carnian record of pantestudinates outside of Asia, suggests that Thaichelys ruchae could represent an early radiation of the Proterochersidae which branched off before the Testudinata dispersed into the western Pangea.
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.