Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 290

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 233 of the 233 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Higher-level metazoan relationships: recent progress and remaining questions

Open access
Edgecombe, Gregory D., Giribet, Gonzalo, Dunn, Casey W., Hejnol, Andreas, Kristensen, Reinhardt M., Neves, Ricardo C., Rouse, Greg W., Worsaae, Katrine, Sørensen, Martin V.·2011·Organisms Diversity & Evolution

Abstract

Metazoa comprises 35–40 phyla that include some 1.3 million described species. Phylogenetic analyses of metazoan interrelationships have progressed in the past two decades from those based on morphology and/or targeted-gene approaches using single and then multiple loci to the more recent phylogenomic approaches that use hundreds or thousands of genes from genome and transcriptome sequencing projects. A stable core of the tree for bilaterian animals is now at hand, and instability and conflict are becoming restricted to a key set of important but contentious relationships. Acoelomorph flatworms (Acoela + Nemertodermatida) and Xenoturbella are sister groups. The position of this clade remains controversial, with different analyses supporting either a sister-group relation to other bilaterians (=Nephrozoa, composed of Protostomia and Deuterostomia) or membership in Deuterostomia. The main clades of deuterostomes (Ambulacraria and Chordata) and protostomes (Ecdysozoa and Spiralia) are recovered in numerous analyses based on varied molecular samples, and also receive anatomical and developmental support. Outstanding issues in protostome phylogenetics are the position of Chaetognatha within the protostome clade, and the monophyly of a group of spiralians collectively named Platyzoa. In contrast to the broad consensus over key questions in bilaterian phylogeny, the relationships of the five main metazoan lineages—Porifera, Ctenophora, Placozoa, Cnidaria and Bilateria—remain subject to conflicting topologies according to different taxonomic samples and analytical approaches. Whether deep bilaterian divergences such as the split between protostome and deuterostome clades date to the Cryogenian or Ediacaran (and, thus, the extent to which the pre-Cambrian fossil record is incomplete) is sensitive to dating methodology.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13127-011-0044-4

Cites

233 of 233 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 233 references

Cited by

See all 290

Metadata

Authors
Edgecombe, G. D., Giribet, G., Dunn, C. W., Hejnol, A., Kristensen, R. M., Neves, R. C., Rouse, G. W., Worsaae, K., & Sørensen, M. V.
Venue
Organisms Diversity & Evolution
Published
2011-03-17
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
151-172
ISSN
  • 1439-6092 (ISSN-L)
  • 1618-1077
OpenAlex
W2041631084
Cited by
290
References
233
FWCI
24.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Higher-level metazoan relationships: recent progress and remaining questions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s13127-011-0044-4
The paper
Edgecombe, G. D., Giribet, G., Dunn, C. W., Hejnol, A., Kristensen, R. M., Neves, R. C., Rouse, G. W., Worsaae, K., & Sørensen, M. V. (2011). Higher-level metazoan relationships: recent progress and remaining questions. Organisms Diversity & Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13127-011-0044-4

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.