Cited by 127Evolution and Paleontology StudiesPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyPlant Diversity and Evolution

Growing up with dinosaurs: molecular dates and the mammalian radiation

Open access
Bromham, Lindell, Phillips, Matthew J., Penny, David·1999·Trends in Ecology & Evolution

Abstract

Dates of divergence derived from molecular data have been used to place the beginning of the radiation of modern mammalian orders in the Cretaceous, long before the final extinction of the dinosaurs. These molecular dates have been used to challenge the idea that the ordinal diversification of mammals was triggered by the availability of 'empty niches' left vacant by the disappearance of the dinosaurs. However, the broad discrepancies between molecular date estimates from different studies warn that molecular dates should not be accepted uncritically. Consideration of the wide confidence intervals around molecular date estimates, and the potential for geographic bias in the fossil record, could lessen the discrepancy between molecular and palaeontological data but might still prompt a re-evaluation of the timing and causes of the mammalian radiation.

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/s0169-5347(98)01507-9

Cites

48 of 48 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?

  • Deeper molecular dates are expected because the fossil record documents only the first appearance of a morphologically recognizable (crown) group and not the actual time of genetic divergence.

    “Deeper molecular dates are actually expected, because the fossil record documents only the first appearance of a morphologically recognizable (crown) group and not the actual time of genetic divergence (51).”
  • The choice of calibration date is crucial to the accuracy of molecular dates.

    “The choice of calibration date is crucial to the accuracy of molecular dates, as shown by the difference in date estimates from studies using the same data and methods but different calibration dates 48 .”

    From The modern molecular clock (2003) · cites this paper as [48]

  • The variation in rate of molecular evolution between lineages warns against using a calibration rate calculated for one lineage to date another, often distantly related, lineage.

    “The variation in rate of molecular evolution between lineages warns against using a calibration rate calculated for one lineage to date another, often distantly related, lineage 1,28,48 .”

    From The modern molecular clock (2003) · cites this paper as [48]

  • Published molecular dates for the split between rodents and primates vary by as much as 100%.

    “For example, published molecular dates for the split between rodents and primates vary by as much as 100% (REF. 48).”

    From The modern molecular clock (2003) · cites this paper as [48]

  • In some cases, molecular dates produced by different methods contradict each other.

    “In some cases, molecular dates produced by different methods contradict each other 1,48,49 .”

    From The modern molecular clock (2003) · cites this paper as [48]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bromham, L., Phillips, M. J., & Penny, D.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Massey University (NZ)
Corresponding author
  • Bromham, Lindell
  • Phillips, Matthew J.
  • Penny, David
Venue
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-03
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
113-118
ISSN
0169-5347 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2152400281
Cited by
127
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trends in Ecology & Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • reroDoc Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Marsden Fund
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Diversity and Evolution
Keywords
mammalian radiation, divergence time estimation, divergence time, Cretaceous, dinosaur extinction, fossil record bias, mammalian evolution

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