Cited by 51Comparative Animal Anatomy StudiesEvolution and Paleontology StudiesMorphological variations and asymmetry

Morphological evolution of the mammalian cecum and cecal appendix

Open access
Smith, Heather F., Parker, William, Kotzé, Sanet H., Laurin, Michel·2017·Comptes Rendus Palevol

Abstract

Les pressions sélectives qui ont mené à l’apparition de l’appendice du cæcum, les relations entre cet appendice et le cæcum, ainsi que les liens entre ces caractères gastro-intestinaux et l’écologie demeurent discutés. Nous avons compilé des données sur la présence et la taille de l’appendice, d’autres caractères gastro-anatomiques et des variables écologiques, alimentaires et sociales pour 533 espèces de mammifères. À l’aide d’analyses prenant en compte la phylogénie, nous avons obtenu de premiers résultats en faveur d’une corrélation positive entre la présence de l’appendice et l’épaisseur de l’apex du cæcum, ainsi qu’une corrélation avec la morphologie de ce dernier, ce qui suggère que l’appendice et le cæcum évoluent comme un module, le complexe cæco-appendiculaire. Une corrélation entre la présence de l’appendice et la concentration de tissus lymphoïdes dans le cæcum corrobore l’hypothèse selon laquelle l’appendice a une fonction immunologique. D’autres résultats nouveaux incluent une relation inverse entre la longueur relative du cæcum et la largeur d’habitat, ainsi que des relations positives entre la longueur du cæcum et la taille moyenne du groupe, ainsi qu’entre la longueur du côlon et l’âge au sevrage.

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 · 10.1016/j.crpv.2016.06.001

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Large-scale studies that accounted for phylogeny did not confirm an association between diet and intestinal length.

    “By contrast, large-scale studies that accounted for phylogeny did not confirm an association between diet and intestinal length [15-19] or GIT complexity [20].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Brown, J.H., 1995. Macroecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  2. Honeycutt, R.L., 2009. Rodents (Rodentia). In: Hedges, S.B., Kumar, S. (Eds.), The timetree of life. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 490-494.
  3. Hume, I., 1999. Marsupial nutrition. Cambridge University Press, New York (434 p.).
  4. Meredith, R.W., Westerman, M., Springer, M.S., 2008. A phylogeny and timescale for the living genera of kangaroos and kin (Macropodi- formes: Marsupialia) based on nuclear DNA sequences. Aust. J. Zool. 56, 395-410.
  5. Meredith, R.W., Westerman, M., Springer, M.S., 2009. A phylogeny of Diprotodontia (Marsupialia) based on sequences for five nuclear genes. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 51, 554-571.
  6. Meredith, R.W., Mendoza, M.A., Roberts, K.K., Westerman, M., Springer, M.S., 2010. A phylogeny and timescale for the evolution of Pseu- docheiridae (Marsupialia: Diprotodontia) in Australia and New Guinea. J. Mamm. Evol. 17, 75-99.
  7. Mitchell, P.C., 1905. On the intestinal tract of mammals. Trans. Zool. Soc. London 17, 437-536.
  8. Phillips, M.J., Bennett, T.H., Lee, M.S.Y., 2009. Molecules, morphology, and ecology indicate a recent, amphibious ancestry for Echidnas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 17089-17094.
  9. Stevens, C.E., Hume, I.D., 1995. Comparative physiology of the vertebrate digestive system. Cambridge University Press, New York.
  10. Teeling, E., 2009. Bats (Chiroptera). In: Hedges, S.B., Kumar, S. (Eds.), The timetree of life. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 499-503.
  11. Verneau, O., Catzeflis, F., Furano, A.V., 1998. Determining and dating recent rodent speciation events by using L1 (LINE-1) retrotransposons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 95, 11284-11289.
  12. West-Eberhard, M.J., 2003. Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press, New York.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, H. F., Parker, W., Kotzé, S. H., & Laurin, M.
Affiliations
  • Midwestern University (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • Stellenbosch University (ZA)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
Smith, Heather F.
Venue
Comptes Rendus Palevol
Published
2017-01
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
39-57
ISSN
1631-0683 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2516820381
Cited by
51
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
8.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Comptes Rendus Palevol (publishedVersion)
Funders
Panthera
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Comparative Animal Anatomy Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
Keywords
cecum, cecal appendix, morphological evolution, phylogenetic comparative analysis, lymphoid tissue, group size, weaning age, colon length, diet, social behavior

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