The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 26 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Ancient mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals complexity of indigenous North American turkey domestication
Open accessAbstract
Although the cultural and nutritive importance of the turkey ( Meleagris gallopavo ) to precontact Native Americans and contemporary people worldwide is clear, little is known about the domestication of this bird compared to other domesticates. Mitochondrial DNA analysis of 149 turkey bones and 29 coprolites from 38 archaeological sites (200 BC–AD 1800) reveals a unique domesticated breed in the precontact Southwestern United States. Phylogeographic analyses indicate that this domestic breed originated from outside the region, but rules out the South Mexican domestic turkey ( Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo ) as a progenitor. A strong genetic bottleneck within the Southwest turkeys also reflects intensive human selection and breeding. This study points to at least two occurrences of turkey domestication in precontact North America and illuminates the intensity and sophistication of New World animal breeding practices.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Ancient mitochondrial DNA from 149 turkey bones and 29 coprolites across 38 Southwestern archaeological sites reveals a distinct domestic turkey lineage (H1) that was not descended from South Mexican or local Merriam’s wild turkeys, implying at least two independent turkey domestications in precontact North America. The Southwest domestic lineage was genetically uniform for over a millennium, consistent with intensive breeding and trade.
Key findings
- Twelve mitochondrial haplotypes in three haplogroups were observed. Haplogroup H1 contained over 85% of the 143 successfully sequenced archaeological samples, with 116 of 143 sharing the single haplotype aHap1; H2 contained 14.7%; H3 contained all modern commercial turkeys and historic wild South Mexican turkeys (*M. g. gallopavo*).
- H1 was distinct from the primary Merriam’s wild turkey clade and from *M. g. gallopavo*, and was closely related to present-day Eastern, Rio Grande, and Florida wild turkey populations. H2 was identical or closely related to contemporary Merriam’s and Gould’s wild turkey haplotypes.
- The data support at least two precontact turkey domestication events: a Southwest H1 lineage and a Mesoamerican H3 lineage, separated by 2–3 D-loop polymorphic sites with no shared haplotypes.
- The Southwest domestic lineage persisted from ca. 200 BC–AD 450 through AD 1200–1500 and likely until the 18th–19th century decline, spreading over several thousand square miles; aHap1 occurs at <4% in present-day Merriam’s populations, suggesting limited introgression.
Methods
- The study analyzed 200 turkey samples: 149 archaeological bones from 36 Southwest U.S. and one North Mexican archaeological sites, 29 coprolites from Turkey Pen Ruins, 10 historic wild *M. g. gallopavo* specimens, and 12 commercially raised turkeys. It targeted 438 bp of control-region mitochondrial DNA and, for a subset, 165 bp of cytochrome b.
- Complete 438-bp sequences from 159 samples were combined with 276 GenBank *Meleagris* sequences, yielding 435 individuals. Ancient DNA was extracted in dedicated ancient DNA laboratories with authentication controls; sequences were analyzed using median-joining networks and phylogenetic trees (MEGA 3.1 and MrBayes 3.1.2).
Limitations
- The paper states that the wild progenitor of the H1 Southwest domestic turkey cannot be assigned to either *M. g. silvestris* or *M. g. intermedia*, that there is no reliable data on prehistoric distributions of these subspecies, and that DNA alone cannot determine the domestic or wild status of each archaeological individual.
- The paper states that support for two domestication centers is weakened by the relative paucity of comparative data from *M. g. gallopavo* and that subspecies’ geographic proximity to *M. g. intermedia*; it calls for securely dated Mesoamerican archaeological samples and broader modern turkey breed sampling.
- Evident from the text: no ancient Mesoamerican archaeological samples were analyzed, modern wild turkey sampling was limited in northern Texas, northeastern Mexico, and western Oklahoma/Kansas, and complete sequences were obtained from only 143 of 178 ancient samples (126 of 149 bones and 17 of 29 coprolites).
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
41 Own interpretation · 28 Own result · 9 No full text of the sources · 7 Own method · 4 Sources not found · 4 No basis given · 3 Partly supported · 2 Not checked yet · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“A limited amount of introgression between domestic birds and local wild turkeys is supported by the presence of the predominant ancient domestic haplotypes (aHap1) in present-day Merriam’s populations (albeit at a very low frequency) (15).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [15] Mock KE, Theimer TC, Rhodes OE, Greenberg DL, Keim P. Genetic variation across the historical range of the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Mol Ecol. 2002;11:643–657. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2002.01467.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that domestic turkeys shared haplotype AAAC and that it also occurred in wild turkeys. But the paper does not identify an ancient domestic haplotype called aHap1, establish its presence at very low frequency in present-day Merriam’s populations, or infer limited domestic-to-wild introgression from that finding. The Discussion notes that domestic and wild turkeys are genetically similar, without establishing that proposed direction of introgression. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, even “relic” populations of wild turkeys, with no history of extirpation or human-mediated reintroductions, show limited phylogeographic subspecies patterning (15, 16), which may also reflect a postglacial colonization into a relatively continuous habitat, especially for the Eastern and Rio Grande subspecies (15).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [15] Mock KE, Theimer TC, Rhodes OE, Greenberg DL, Keim P. Genetic variation across the historical range of the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Mol Ecol. 2002;11:643–657. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2002.01467.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods section describes source populations across the subspecies’ original ranges with no recorded history of reintroduction. The Discussion reports that phylogenetic analysis did not support the subspecies classifications. The paper does not establish that those populations had no history of extirpation, and its reintroduction criterion is limited to recorded history. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] Szalanski AL, Church K, Oates D, Bischof R, Powers TO. Mitochondrial DNA variation within and among wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) subspecies. Trans Nebr Acad Sci. 2000;26:47–53. [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, even “relic” populations of wild turkeys, with no history of extirpation or human-mediated reintroductions, show limited phylogeographic subspecies patterning (15, 16), which may also reflect a postglacial colonization into a relatively continuous habitat, especially for the Eastern and Rio Grande subspecies (15).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [15] Mock KE, Theimer TC, Rhodes OE, Greenberg DL, Keim P. Genetic variation across the historical range of the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Mol Ecol. 2002;11:643–657. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2002.01467.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods describe source populations without a recorded history of reintroduction, and the Discussion reports no genetic correlation with subspecies classification. But our copy does not propose postglacial colonization into a relatively continuous habitat as an explanation, including for the Eastern and Rio Grande subspecies (searched: postglacial, colonization, continuous habitat). (LLM, conf=0.86)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A strong genetic bottleneck within the Southwest turkeys also reflects intensive human selection and breeding.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most common H1 haplotype observed in the archaeological samples (aHap1) also occurs at a low frequency (<4% of tested individuals) in present-day populations of Merriam’s wild turkeys (Fig. 3), indicating some limited introgression with Merriam’s populations in the past (see SI Text for detailed discussion).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The second haplogroup (H2), included 14.7% of the successfully sequenced archaeological samples.”
plainn = 143- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When compared to modern wild turkey populations, these three haplogroups maintain their distinction, grouping with separate wild turkey clades (Fig. 3).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Complete aHap1 sequences were recovered from 102 of the ancient bone samples and 14 of the ancient coprolite samples.”
plainn = 102- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These three haplogroups were separated from one another by at least 2 to 3 bp (Fig. 2).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The third group (H3) contained all of the modern commercial turkey (both from our analyses and from GenBank data) as well as the museum specimens of the wild South Mexican turkey.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Haplogroup H2, on the other hand, contains sequences identical, or closely related, to haplotypes typical of contemporary populations of Merriam’s wild turkey (M. g. merriami) and Gould’s wild turkey (M. g. mexicana), the local wild turkeys of the Southwest and northwestern Mexico, respectively.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Archaeological investigations have not yet indicated a possible origin for these H1 turkeys.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Analysis of the more conserved cytochrome b gene also demonstrated a clear distinction between the H2 Southwest types and all other analyzed turkeys, providing strong support for two distinct ancestral clades—those native to the Southwest (i.e., M. g. merriami and possibly mexicana) and those originating outside the Southwest (including M. g. silvestris, intermedia, and gallopavo) (Fig. S2).”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The genetic data demonstrates that the domestic H1 haplogroup is distinct from the primary Merriam’s clade, thus falsifying the hypothesis that extant Merriam’s wild turkeys are simply descendants of escaped domestic birds.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the basis of the mtDNA evidence collected in this study, it is not possible to assign the wild progenitor of the H1 Southwest domestic turkey to either M. g. silvestris or M. g. intermedia.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite a strong focus on the exploitation of H1 domestic birds, 14.7% of the Southwest archaeological samples were identified as Merriam’s wild turkey (H2), demonstrating that the local subspecies was also exploited.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The genetic uniformity of the turkeys within the Greater Southwestern culture area for well over a millennium is remarkable and represents robust evidence for the intensive breeding of a single population through time.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is little evidence, however, to support gene flow between Merriam’s wild turkey and populations of other subspecies, as would have occurred if ranges overlapped.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the fact that the H2 birds in our samples have a persistent presence throughout all time periods, their low numbers suggests they were not major constituents of domestic flocks despite their availability through hunting or capture.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Expedient use of local birds is supported by the observation that of the 38 archaeological sites sampled, all but 2 of the 10 sites that yielded H2 bone and coprolite specimens are located within or near pinyon-juniper woodland and/or ponderosa pine forest, the natural habitat of Merriam’s wild turkey.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Merriam's wild turkey's natural habitat is pinyon-juniper woodland and/or ponderosa pine forest.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Archaeologically, small numbers of H2 (Merriam’s) types appear in early contexts along with the H1 domesticates.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Archaeological explorations have not yet uncovered evidence for turkey capture or domestication on the eastern/southeastern peripheries of the Southwest, although this may change with future investigations.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A strong genetic bottleneck within the Southwest turkeys also reflects intensive human selection and breeding.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The presence of these two distinct haplogroups within the Southwest archeological turkey samples is consistent with a scenario in which prehistoric farmers were primarily exploiting a turkey population initially introduced from outside the region (H1), in addition to local wild turkeys (H2).”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This result is also consistent with our historical understanding that today’s commercial birds originate from southern Mexico (4).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] Crawford RD. Introduction to Europe and the diffusion of domesticated turkeys from the Americas. Archivos de Zootecnia. 1992;41:307–314. [Google Scholar]
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, the current distinction between the H3 Mesoamerican clade and the H1 and H2 Southwest clades, does suggest that the turkeys exploited in the Southwest have a separate history and origin from Mesoamerican and modern domestic turkeys.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the two clades within the Southwest, haplogroup H1 arguably displays the genetic signature of a domestic breed.”
hedgedcorrelationaln = 143- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instead, the phylogeographic, archaeological, and ancient DNA evidence support the introduction of H1 turkeys into the Southwest as early as the Basketmaker II period (200 BC−500 AD) from a progenitor population genetically similar to present-day M. g. silvestris and/or intermedia.”
plaindirectn = 143- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This study points to at least two occurrences of turkey domestication in precontact North America and illuminates the intensity and sophistication of New World animal breeding practices.”
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · boosted
“Although the origin of the Southwest domestic turkeys remains unconfirmed, the clear genetic distinction between the Southwest (H1) and Mesoamerican (H3) turkeys supports two incidences of turkey domestication involving two geographically distinct progenitor populations, one involving ancestral M. g. silvestris and/or intermedia (origin as yet unknown), and the other with M. g. gallopavo in south-”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · boosted
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most common H1 haplotype observed in the archaeological samples (aHap1) also occurs at a low frequency (<4% of tested individuals) in present-day populations of Merriam’s wild turkeys (Fig. 3), indicating some limited introgression with Merriam’s populations in the past (see SI Text for detailed discussion).”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The uniformity of the H1 group points to a severe genetic bottleneck and breeding isolation most certainly associated with the domestication process (20).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] Bradley DG. Documenting domestication: Reading animal genetic texts. In: Zeder MA, Bradley DG, Emshwiller E, Smith BD, editors. Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms. Berkeley, CA: Univ of California Press; 2006. pp. 273–278. [Google Scholar] source
boostedcorrelationaln = 143- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Phylogeographic analyses indicate that this domestic breed originated from outside the region, but rules out the South Mexican domestic turkey (Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo) as a progenitor.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two distinct haplogroups are found in the Southwest archaeological turkeys (H1 and H2), indicating the exploitation of two different turkey populations in the precontact Southwest.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Archaeologically, the evidence for turkey husbandry such as turkey pens, turkey droppings, eggshells, increased number of turkey remains, and/or gizzard stones are found at sites in conjunction with H1 samples (2).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2] Munro ND. The role of turkey in the Southwest. In: Sturtevant WC, editor. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 3, Environment, Origins and Populations. Washington: Smithsonian Institution; 2006. pp. 463–469. [Google Scholar]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite a strong focus on the exploitation of H1 domestic birds, 14.7% of the Southwest archaeological samples were identified as Merriam’s wild turkey (H2), demonstrating that the local subspecies was also exploited.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This gene flow was likely the result of escaped domestic hens being incorporated into local wild populations.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“DNA analysis alone cannot determine the domestic or wild status of each archaeological individual.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the combined genetic and archaeological evidence supports the probable long-term presence of Merriam’s turkey in the upland Southwest.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the support for two turkey domestication centers is weakened somewhat by the relative paucity of comparative data from M. g. gallopavo and this subspecies’ relative geographic proximity to M. g. intermedia in northeastern Mexico.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Analysis of the more conserved cytochrome b gene also demonstrated a clear distinction between the H2 Southwest types and all other analyzed turkeys, providing strong support for two distinct ancestral clades—those native to the Southwest (i.e., M. g. merriami and possibly mexicana) and those originating outside the Southwest (including M. g. silvestris, intermedia, and gallopavo) (Fig. S2).”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The genetic data demonstrates that the domestic H1 haplogroup is distinct from the primary Merriam’s clade, thus falsifying the hypothesis that extant Merriam’s wild turkeys are simply descendants of escaped domestic birds.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Merriam’s may have been present as early as 8000 BP, when suitable turkey habitat became available on the Colorado Plateau and Mogollon Rim (25).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [25] Shaw HG. In: Merriam’s Turkey Prehistory: A Biologist’s Perspective. Culture and Environment in the American Southwest: Essays in Honor of Robert C. Euler, SWCA Anthropological Research Paper Number 8. Phillips DA Jr, Ware J, editors. Phoenix, AZ: SWCA Environmental Consultants; 2002. pp. 69–78. [Google Scholar] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although it is likely that the H1 turkeys originated from an area east/southeast of the Southwest United States (within the historic range of the Eastern and Rio Grande wild turkey), these two subspecies occupy an enormous geographic range.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Although maize and squash agriculture seems to have moved into the Southwest from central Mexico via northwestern Mexico (ca. 2100 BC) (26, 27), the conspicuous lack of turkey remains in Early Agricultural sites of northwestern Mexico, and southern Arizona and New Mexico indicates that turkeys did not enter the Southwest via this same route (2).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2] Munro ND. The role of turkey in the Southwest. In: Sturtevant WC, editor. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 3, Environment, Origins and Populations. Washington: Smithsonian Institution; 2006. pp. 463–469. [Google Scholar]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The uniformity of the evidence indicates trade of turkeys between different linguistic and cultural groups and the intensive husbandry of a single turkey breed.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the data more strongly suggest that the H1 turkeys were introduced into the Southwest through human-mediated exchange of domestic (or at least captive) birds.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the H1 wild progenitor appears related to both the Eastern and Rio Grande wild turkey, it is extremely difficult to pinpoint the origin of the H1 birds using phylogeographic analysis alone.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lack of strong phylogeographic patterning may be in part, a result of drastic changes in the numbers and habitats of North American wild turkeys over the last century, including decimation of wild turkey populations beginning in the 16th century and culminating with increased hunting during the 1930s depression.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The uniformity of the evidence indicates trade of turkeys between different linguistic and cultural groups and the intensive husbandry of a single turkey breed.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Expedient use of local birds is supported by the observation that of the 38 archaeological sites sampled, all but 2 of the 10 sites that yielded H2 bone and coprolite specimens are located within or near pinyon-juniper woodland and/or ponderosa pine forest, the natural habitat of Merriam’s wild turkey.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Merriam's wild turkey's natural habitat is pinyon-juniper woodland and/or ponderosa pine forest.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the fact that the H2 birds in our samples have a persistent presence throughout all time periods, their low numbers suggests they were not major constituents of domestic flocks despite their availability through hunting or capture.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the capture and provisioning of local wild birds may have been synchronous with the introduction of the domestic birds into the region.”
hedgedcorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The genetic uniformity of the turkeys within the Greater Southwestern culture area for well over a millennium is remarkable and represents robust evidence for the intensive breeding of a single population through time.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent results were obtained for all replications.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This in-depth study presents conclusive evidence for the domestication of an indigenous North American animal.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Previous DNA studies have exposed multiple domestications of Old World animals such as cattle, pig, sheep (30), and this study supports a similar multicenter model for the New World.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 12
- It may state two separate claims as one. 34
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Domestication is a complex process, with human–animal interactions that vary considerably in terms of their intensity and their degree of human intervention (33).”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [33] Zeder MA. Central questions in the domestication of plants and animals. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues. News Rev (Melb) 2006;15:105–117. [Google Scholar] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction discusses progressive alignment of nucleotide and amino acid sequences, not domestication. Searches for the quoted sentence and for human–animal interactions and human intervention found no passage addressing the claim in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This group includes the majority of the Southwest archaeological samples (85.3%), and demonstrates remarkable genetic uniformity, with 116 of the 143 sequenced archaeological samples sharing a single haplotype (aHap1).”
boostedcorrelationaln = 143- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first haplogroup (H1) contained over 85% of the 143 successfully sequenced archaeological samples, and was dominated by a single haplotype (aHap1).”
plainn = 143- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The D-loop analyses indicate a clear division between the Southwest and Mesoamerican populations, with all Southwest archaeological turkeys falling into two haplogroups (H1 and H2) and all wild M. g. gallopavo and contemporary domestic turkey samples falling into a third haplogroup (H3).”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Twelve different mitochondrial haplotypes were observed within the sequenced samples (Table S1 and Fig. S1) falling roughly into 3 haplogroups (Fig. 2).”
plainn = 143- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“H2 contained six haplotypes, the most common of which, aHap2, was found in 12 archaeological turkey bones and three turkey coprolites.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mitochondrial DNA analysis of 149 turkey bones and 29 coprolites from 38 archaeological sites (200 BC–AD 1800) reveals a unique domesticated breed in the precontact Southwestern United States.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The other four haplotypes were present in three (aHap1a) and one samples each (aHap1b, aHap1c, and aHap1d), all differing from aHap1 by single base pair mutations.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Haplogroup H1 contains the majority of the Southwest samples, and its haplotypes are closely related (although not identical) to those occurring in present-day Eastern (M. g. silvestris), Rio Grande (M. g. intermedia), and Florida (M. g. osceola) wild turkey populations that currently occur outside the Southwest (Fig. 4 and Fig. S1) (15, 16).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] Mock KE, Theimer TC, Rhodes OE, Greenberg DL, Keim P. Genetic variation across the historical range of the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Mol Ecol. 2002;11:643–657. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2002.01467.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] Szalanski AL, Church K, Oates D, Bischof R, Powers TO. Mitochondrial DNA variation within and among wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) subspecies. Trans Nebr Acad Sci. 2000;26:47–53. [Google Scholar] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The DNA evidence from this study indicates that the same matriline of domestic turkey predominates from the earliest periods of domestication (ca. 200 BC–AD 450), through the peak of turkey husbandry (AD 1200–1500), and likely until the decline of domestic turkey stocks in the 18th and 19th centuries.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · hedged
“Moreover, the DNA data indicate this Southwest domestic turkey lineage (H1) was maintained and propagated for well over a millennium, despite significant shifts in the geographic distribution and settlement patterns of Southwestern farming populations.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At its maximum extent, this domestic lineage occurred over several thousand square miles, from Tonto National Monument in Southern Arizona, to Pecos Pueblo in east-central New Mexico, and north to the San Juan region of southwest Colorado and southeast Utah, incorporating the territories of several cultural traditions including the Ancestral Puebloan (Anasazi), Salado, Mimbres, and Mogollon.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Southwest H1 and Mesoamerican H3 turkeys are distinguished by two to three D-loop polymorphic sites, and the current data display no shared haplotypes between the two varieties.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although our analysis indicates the H1 haplotypes are closely related to those found in present-day Eastern and Rio Grande wild turkey populations, specific H1 haplotypes have not yet been found in these modern populations.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These coprolites occurred in a thick dry midden dating almost entirely to the Basketmaker II period (ca. 200 BC–AD 450) with one H2 specimen appearing in the earliest dated stratum (Fig. S3 Table S2).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The DNA data point to at least two occurrences of turkey domestication in precontact America, one involving the South Mexican wild turkey, likely in south-central Mexico, and a second involving Rio Grande/Eastern wild turkey populations, with a subsequent introduction of domesticated stocks into the Southwest proper.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The overall genetic uniformity of the Mesoamerican clade may be due to the limited mtDNA data available for wild M. g. gallopavo and the current lack of mtDNA data for the many modern domestic turkey breeds worldwide.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The archaeological samples were extracted in dedicated ancient DNA laboratories following published protocols for analysis and authentication (12–14).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Kemp BM, et al. Genetic analysis of early Holocene skeletal remains from Alaska and its implications for the settlement of the Americas. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2007;132:605–621. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.20543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [13] Yang DY, Cannon A, Saunders SR. DNA species identification of archaeological salmon bone from the Pacific Northwest Coast of North America. J Archaeol Sci. 2004;31:619–631. [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [14] Yang DY, Eng B, Waye JS, Dudar JC, Saunders SR. Improved DNA extraction from ancient bones using silica-based spin columns. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1998;105:539–543. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199804)105:4<539::AID-AJPA10>3.0.CO;2-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Archaeological investigations into turkey domestication have proven inconclusive, especially regarding the geographic origin(s) of the domestic birds, the number of domestications, and how humans spread the domestic stocks (2).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2] Munro ND. The role of turkey in the Southwest. In: Sturtevant WC, editor. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 3, Environment, Origins and Populations. Washington: Smithsonian Institution; 2006. pp. 463–469. [Google Scholar]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The presence of a distinct “Mesoamerican” clade (H3), including both commercially raised birds and historic wild M. g. gallopavo, is consistent with our historical understanding of south-central Mexico as the domestication center for the Mesoamerican turkey, with the South Mexican wild turkey as the progenitor subspecies.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The South Mexican turkey (Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo) is the wild progenitor of the domestic turkey stocks established in the Tehuacán valley by at least AD 180.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Phylogeographic analyses indicate that this domestic breed originated from outside the region, but rules out the South Mexican domestic turkey (Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo) as a progenitor.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Complete sequences (i.e., spanning the entire 438 bp) were obtained from all 12 modern samples, 126 of 149 archaeological bones, 17 of 29 coprolites, and 4 of 10 skin specimens of M. g. gallopavo.”
plainn = 12- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Wild South Mexican turkeys (M. g. gallopavo) are now extinct.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The H1 haplogroup is distinct from the primary Merriam’s clade, suggesting that indigenous wild birds (M. g. merriami) were not the progenitors of these Southwest domestic flocks.”
hedgeddirectn = 143- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although present-day Eastern and Rio Grande wild turkeys can usually be differentiated phenotypically (21), mtDNA analysis indicates that the subspecies do not form distinct phylogenetic clades (15).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [21] Eaton SW. Wild turkey. The Birds of North America. 1992;1:1–27. [Google Scholar]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] Mock KE, Theimer TC, Rhodes OE, Greenberg DL, Keim P. Genetic variation across the historical range of the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Mol Ecol. 2002;11:643–657. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2002.01467.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our best evidence that “wild” birds were being kept at habitation sites comes from the H2 coprolites found at Turkey Pen Ruins in Utah, indicating that H2 birds were present and presumably confined at the site.”
hedgedcorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The wild status of the birds may be further supported by the relatively wide geographic distribution of the H2 samples and the low frequency of H2 birds within each site, as well as within the total archaeological sample (<15%).”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two biologically independent occurrences of turkey domestication do not seem unlikely and may have been facilitated by cultural knowledge relating to bird capture and breeding exchanged throughout these areas of North America.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These two subspecies do not cluster in monophyletic clades, but share several common haplotypes with each other and with their neighboring subspecies (15) (Figs. 3 and 4 and Fig. S1).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] Mock KE, Theimer TC, Rhodes OE, Greenberg DL, Keim P. Genetic variation across the historical range of the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Mol Ecol. 2002;11:643–657. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2002.01467.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Instead, the earliest evidence for turkeys seems to appear within archaeological sites distributed around the north-central Southwest, often in conjunction with compelling evidence for turkey husbandry (e.g., on-site turkey dung, eggshells) (28).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [28] McKusick CR. Three groups of turkeys from Southwestern archaeological sites. Contrib Sci Nat Hist Mus Los Angeles Co. 1980;330:225–235. [Google Scholar]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Introgression could have occurred at any time after the first appearance of domestic turkeys in the Southwest, but conditions in the late AD 1200s would have favored this process, as Ancestral Puebloan groups migrated out of the Colorado Plateau, perhaps abandoning some of their flocks to fend for themselves (29).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [29] Rea AM. Late Pleistocene and Holocene turkeys in the Southwest. Contrib Sci Nat Hist Mus Los Angeles Co. 1980;330:209–224. [Google Scholar] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the current data may not be able to pinpoint the geographic origin of the Southwest H1 domestic lineage, the DNA data generally rule out two previously proposed wild progenitors, i.e., M. g. gallopavo from south-central Mexico, and M. g. merriami, from the Southwest.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“This is convergent with practices in the Old World, where multiple domestication centers have been recorded for several domesticates e.g., cattle, donkeys, pigs, and sheep (30, 31).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [30] Bruford MW, Bradley DG, Luikart G. DNA markers reveal the complexity of livestock domestication. Nat Rev Genet. 2003;4:900–910. doi: 10.1038/nrg1203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [31] Zeder MA, Emshwiller E, Smith BD, Bradley DG. Documenting domestication: The intersection of genetics and archaeology. Trends Genet. 2006;22:139–155. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2006.01.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The occurrence of H2 bones at our sample of sites could have resulted from hunting wild birds, from confining captured birds at habitation sites, or from rearing clutches of eggs found in the locality.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ancient DNA and archaeological evidence collected in this study reveals a wide range of past human–animal interactions within the Southwest United States, ranging from the hunting and/or capture of local wild turkeys, to the intensive husbandry and breeding of an imported domestic turkey lineage.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the origin of the Southwest domestic turkeys remains unconfirmed, the clear genetic distinction between the Southwest (H1) and Mesoamerican (H3) turkeys supports two incidences of turkey domestication involving two geographically distinct progenitor populations, one involving ancestral M. g. silvestris and/or intermedia (origin as yet unknown), and the other with M. g. gallopavo in south-”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The South Mexican turkey (Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo) is the wild progenitor of the domestic turkey stocks established in the Tehuacán valley by at least AD 180.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This long history of turkey use undoubtedly reflects the economic and symbolic importance of domestic turkey for the Ancestral Puebloans, and other precontact Southwestern cultures.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This may well be a result of limited sampling within northern Texas, northeastern Mexico, and western Oklahoma and Kansas.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, the genetic distinction between Merriam’s wild turkey and the geographically closest subspecies suggests that Merriam’s has been genetically isolated for a long period, perhaps even since the Late Pleistocene (15, 25).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] Mock KE, Theimer TC, Rhodes OE, Greenberg DL, Keim P. Genetic variation across the historical range of the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Mol Ecol. 2002;11:643–657. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2002.01467.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not matchedcites [25] Shaw HG. In: Merriam’s Turkey Prehistory: A Biologist’s Perspective. Culture and Environment in the American Southwest: Essays in Honor of Robert C. Euler, SWCA Anthropological Research Paper Number 8. Phillips DA Jr, Ware J, editors. Phoenix, AZ: SWCA Environmental Consultants; 2002. pp. 69–78. [Google Scholar]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ancient DNA extraction was conducted in two dedicated ancient DNA laboratories, one located at Washington State University, Pullman, WA (WSU) and the other at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, BC, Canada (SFU), using strict contamination control protocols for the extraction of degraded DNA samples.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition to significantly redirecting future research into North American domestication centers, this extensive study demonstrates the complexity and sophistication of ancient husbandry and breeding practices for one of the New World’s few domesticated animals.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The authenticity of the analyzed data was secured by multiple criteria, including: (i) the use of dedicated ancient DNA facilities; (ii) a vigorous decontamination protocol of the bone samples before DNA extraction; (iii) the inclusions of blank extracts and PCR negative controls; (iv) multiple haplotypes were obtained within the study as a whole, as well as within most extraction batches; (v) the”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“Previous DNA studies have exposed multiple domestications of Old World animals such as cattle, pig, sheep (30), and this study supports a similar multicenter model for the New World.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [30] Bruford MW, Bradley DG, Luikart G. DNA markers reveal the complexity of livestock domestication. Nat Rev Genet. 2003;4:900–910. doi: 10.1038/nrg1203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The modern turkey samples were extracted using DNeasy blood and tissue kit or the DNA investigator kit (Qiagen), according to the manufacturer’s instructions in separate laboratories from the ancient samples.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No polymorphic areas were noted in sequences surrounding these 438 bp, thus truncating the sequences did not eliminate any potentially useful phylogenetic information.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The South Mexican turkey (Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo) is the wild progenitor of the domestic turkey stocks established in the Tehuacán valley by at least AD 180.
“Domestic turkey stocks were established by at least AD 180 within the Tehuacán valley (3), with the South Mexican turkey (Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo) as their assumed wild progenitor (4).”
The paper relies on this without support.
No prior studies have compared the genetic diversity of modern or archaeological domestic turkeys to their wild counterparts to verify Mesoamerican turkey domestication or identify the wild progenitors of the Southwest domestic turkey.
“To date, no studies have compared the genetic diversity of modern (or archaeological) domestic turkeys to their wild counterparts, either to verify our historic understanding of Mesoamerican turkey domestication, or to identify the wild progenitors of the Southwest domestic turkey.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Wild South Mexican turkeys (M. g. gallopavo) are now extinct.
“As the wild South Mexican turkeys are now thought to be extinct, mtDNA variation was characterized for this subspecies using 10 historic wild specimens, which were morphologically identified and cataloged as M. g. gallopavo by the Division of Birds at the Smithsonian Institution.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Merriam's wild turkey's natural habitat is pinyon-juniper woodland and/or ponderosa pine forest.
“the natural habitat of Merriam’s wild turkey.”
Citations
Cites
Thompson, J. D., Higgins, D. G., & Gibson, T. J. (1994) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/22.22.4673 · Cited by 64,617
Hall, T. A. (1999) · Nucleic Acids Symposium Series · doi:10.14601/phytopathol_mediterr-14998u1.29 · Cited by 38,156
MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models
Ronquist, F., & Huelsenbeck, J. P. (2003) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180 · Cited by 29,194
Median-joining networks for inferring intraspecific phylogenies
Bandelt, H. J., Forster, P., & Rohl, A. (1999) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026036 · Cited by 11,742
MEGA3: Integrated software for Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis and sequence alignment
Kumar, S. (2004) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/5.2.150 · Cited by 11,674
Documenting Domestication. New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms
Clement, C. R. (2006) · Economic Botany · doi:10.1663/0013-0001(2006)60[398a:ddngaa]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 633
DNA markers reveal the complexity of livestock domestication
Bruford, M. W., Bradley, D. G., & Luikart, G. (2003) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg1203 · Cited by 599
Documenting domestication: The intersection of genetics and archaeology
Zeder, M. A., Emshwiller, E., Smith, B. D., & Bradley, D. G. (2006) · Trends in Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.tig.2006.01.007 · Cited by 447
Central questions in the domestication of plants and animals
Zeder, M. A. (2006) · Evolutionary Anthropology Issues News and Reviews · doi:10.1002/evan.20101 · Cited by 264
The Wild Turkey: Biology and Management
Sisson, D. C., & Dickson, J. G. (1993) · Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3809302 · Cited by 262
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- RJ Muir, JC Driver, Identifying ritual use of animals in the northern American Southwest. Behaviour Behind Bones, 9th ICAZ Conference Durham, eds S O’Day, W Van Neer, A Ervynck (Oxbow Books, Oxford), pp. 128–143 (2002).
- ND Munro, The role of turkey in the Southwest. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 3, Environment, Origins and Populations, ed WC Sturtevant (Smithsonian Institution, Washington), pp. 463–469 (2006).
- KV Flannery, Vertebrate fauna and hunting practices. Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, Vol 1: Environment and Subsistence, ed DS Byers (Univ of Texas Press, Austin), pp. 132–177 (1967).
- CR McKusick Southwest Birds of Sacrifice (Arizona Archaeological Society, Tucson, 2001).
- SJ Marsden, JH Martin Turkey Management (The Interstate, 4th Ed, Danville, IL, 1946).
- JB Lewis, The Eastern turkey in mid-western oak-hickory forests. The Wild Turkey: Biology and Management, ed JG Dickson (Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA), pp. 286–305 (1992).
- GA Wunz, JC Pack, Eastern turkey in eastern oak-hickory and northern hardwood forests. The Wild Turkey: Biology and Management, ed JG Dickson (Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA), pp. 232–286 (1992).
- HG Shaw Merriam’s Turkey Prehistory: A Biologist’s Perspective. Culture and Environment in the American Southwest: Essays in Honor of Robert C. Euler, SWCA Anthropological Research Paper Number 8, eds DA Phillips, J Ware (SWCA Environmental Consultants, Phoenix, AZ), pp. 69–78 (2002).
- LL Hargrave, Archaeological bird bones from Chapin Mesa. Am Antiq 31, 156–160 (1965).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zeder, M. A. (2012) · Journal of Anthropological Research · doi:10.3998/jar.0521004.0068.201 · Cited by 406
Using palaeoenvironmental DNA to reconstruct past environments: progress and prospects
Rawlence, N. J., Lowe, D. J., Wood, J. R., Young, J. M., Churchman, G. J., Huang, D. Y., & Cooper, A. (2014) · Journal of Quaternary Science · doi:10.1002/jqs.2740 · Cited by 125
“…behalf of Quaternary Research Association J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 29(7) 610–626 (2014) studies mainly focused on palaeoecology and archaeology (e.g. Speller et al., 2010; Lejzerowicz et al., 2013), with recent but limited work on tephras (Haile et al., 2007) and soils (e.g. Andersen et al., 2012;…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSmith, B. D. (2015) · Journal of Archaeological Research · doi:10.1007/s10814-015-9081-4 · Cited by 114
Whole genome SNP discovery and analysis of genetic diversity in Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)
Aslam, M. L., Bastiaansen, J. W. M., Elferink, M., Megens, H., Crooijmans, R. P. M. A., Blomberg, L. A., Fleischer, R. C., Tassell, C. P. V., Sonstegard, T. S., Schroeder, S., et al. (2012) · BMC Genomics · doi:10.1186/1471-2164-13-391 · Cited by 91
Thornton, E. K., Emery, K. F., Steadman, D. W., et al. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042630 · Cited by 81
“The exact timing and location of New World turkey domestication are still unknown: recent evidence points to at least two separate domestication events in northern or central Mexico and the North American Southwest [9].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Speller, C. F., Kemp, B. M., Wyatt, S. D., Monroe, C., Lipe, W. D., Arndt, U. M., & Yang, D. Y.
- Affiliations
- Simon Fraser University (CA)
- Washington State University (US)
- University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2010-02
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 2807-2812
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC2840336
- OpenAlex
- W2074623198
- Semantic Scholar
- 8c2ccc1e196825e3c0779ec3ae782f39c9b8f7f2
- Cited by
- 200
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 18.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Smithsonian Institution
- Arizona State University
- Washington State University
- Simon Fraser University
- Directorate for Biological Sciences
- National Museum of Natural History
- National Park Service
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Archeology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
- Keywords
- Meleagris gallopavo, mitochondrial DNA, coprolites, phylogeography, population bottleneck, human selection, southwestern United States, animal breeding, zooarchaeology
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Animals, Domestic, Base Sequence, Bone and Bones, Breeding, Demography, DNA, Mitochondrial, Feces, Fossils, Geography, Humans, Molecular Sequence Data, Phylogeny, Species Specificity, Turkeys, Southwestern United States, Cluster Analysis, Sequence Analysis, DNA, DNA Primers, Founder Effect
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
