Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41218785›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2025

Persistent body size bias in the fossil record of Cenozoic North American mammals.

Adam Lindholm, Roger A Close

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Adam LindholmDepartment of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5498-7619
Roger A CloseDepartment of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3302-9902

Funding

ILESELA doctoral training program UKRI scholarship grantRoyal Society University Research Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Body size is a key organismal trait with profound implications ranging from individual physiology to large-scale macroecological or macroevolutionary phenomena. Among extant terrestrial vertebrates, peak diversity commonly occurs at small body size. Similarities between the body size distributions of fossil and extant mammals have been used to argue that fossil record signals are robust, yet preservation and collector biases disproportionately favour the sampling of large taxa and probably under-represent small-sized diversity. Here, we quantify the effects of these biases on the body size distributions of North American mammals through the Cenozoic. We assess how these distributions have changed with new palaeontological discoveries and evaluate sampling standardization as a potential correction for body size bias. Our results show bias in the mammal record to be persistent and severe. Sampling standardization has no consistent effect on recovered distribution shape probably because sample coverage estimators cannot account for changes in the scope of the sampling universe driven by a combination of historical worker interest and the preservational characteristics of a small pool of formations. Short of a novel standardization method that can account for publication biases, deriving non-artefactual fossil body size signals may ultimately depend on targeted, systematic sampling of exceptional deposits.

Indexed as

Body SizeFossilsMammalsAnimalsBiological EvolutionNorth AmericaPaleontologybody sizemacroecologysampling biastaphonomy

Identifiers

PMID41218785
PMCPMC12614791

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.