The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Growing up with dinosaurs: molecular dates and the mammalian radiation
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“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).”
From The timing of eukaryotic evolution: Does a relaxed molecular clock reconcile proteins and fossils? (2004) · cites this paper as [51]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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 the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“Problems with the accuracy and precision of molecular clocks can be demonstrated by comparing studies that use different genes, calibrations or methods, and produce different date estimates for the same divergence 48 .”
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.
Citations
Cites
Evolutionary divergence and convergence in proteins.
ZUCKERKANDL, E., & PAULING, L. (1965) · Evolving Genes and Proteins · doi:10.1016/b978-1-4832-2734-4.50017-6 · Cited by 3,020
Moore, D. S., Hillis, D. M., Moritz, C. C., & Mable, B. K. (1996) · Copeia · doi:10.2307/1447682 · Cited by 2,372
A molecular timescale for vertebrate evolution
Kumar, S., & Hedges, S. B. (1998) · Nature · doi:10.1038/31927 · Cited by 1,936
Bryson, V., & Vogel, H. J. (1965) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.147.3653.68 · Cited by 1,343
Simple methods for testing the molecular evolutionary clock hypothesis.
Tajima, F. (1993) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/135.2.599 · Cited by 942
Atlas of Mesozoic and Cenozoic coastlines
(1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-1556 · Cited by 930
(1965) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2013-0-11981-2 · Cited by 747
Mammalian phytogeny: shaking the tree
Novacek, M. J. (1992) · Nature · doi:10.1038/356121a0 · Cited by 641
Synonymous and nonsynonymous rate variation in nuclear genes of mammals
Yang, Z., & Nielsen, R. (1998) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/pl00006320 · Cited by 640
Continental breakup and the ordinal diversification of birds and mammals
Hedges, S. B., Parker, P. H., Sibley, C. G., & Kumar, S. (1996) · Nature · doi:10.1038/381226a0 · Cited by 529
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome
Mouse Genome Sequencing Consortium (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01262 · Cited by 7,187
The delayed rise of present-day mammals
Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Cardillo, M., Jones, K. E., MacPhee, R. D. E., Beck, R. M. D., Grenyer, R., Price, S. A., Vos, R. A., Gittleman, J. L., & Purvis, A. (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05634 · Cited by 2,082
Getting the measure of biodiversity
Purvis, A., & Hector, A. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35012221 · Cited by 1,492
Zebrafish Comparative Genomics and the Origins of Vertebrate Chromosomes
Postlethwait, J. H., Woods, I. G., Ngo-Hazelett, P., Yan, Y.-L., Kelly, P. D., Chu, F., Huang, H., Hill-Force, A., & Talbot, W. S. (2000) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.164800 · Cited by 688
The timing of eukaryotic evolution: Does a relaxed molecular clock reconcile proteins and fossils?
Douzery, E. J. P., Snell, E. A., Bapteste, E., Delsuc, F., & Philippe, H. (2004) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0403984101 · Cited by 638
Metadata
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
