ArticlePeerJ2026
The enigmatic historical record of the leaf beetle
Article in PeerJ, 2026. 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
Background: Natural History Collections (NHC) often contain exceptional specimens documenting unusual historical events, and these records can be valuable for detecting overlooked biological introductions. Here, we examine a striking case: a Neotropical leaf beetle, Methods: We reconstructed the circumstances of the collection event using the collector's personal archives. We conducted scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to document microscopic particles on the specimen's cuticle. We also analysed the content of the original specimen box to evaluate the likelihood of pollen cross-contamination, considering the geographical origin and family-level identity of all co-stored specimens. Results: Archival evidence confirms the collector's presence at the labelled locality and date. SEM revealed several pollen grains consistent with plant taxa occurring at the collection site. However, the original box also contained numerous Spanish specimens belonging to beetle families with known anthophilous habits, meaning that cross-contamination during storage cannot be fully excluded. As a result, the palynological evidence remains inconclusive. Conclusions: Together, the available evidence makes a failed historical introduction a plausible scenario, yet the inconclusive particle analysis prevents any confident confirmation. This case highlights both the potential and the limitations of NHC-derived data in invasion biology: while museum collections can preserve traces of otherwise "invisible" introductions, interpreting isolated and context-poor specimens remains inherently uncertain.
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.