Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 297

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Species Delimitation Using Bayes Factors: Simulations and Application to the Sceloporus scalaris Species Group (Squamata: Phrynosomatidae)

Grummer, Jared A., Bryson, Robert W., Reeder, Tod W.·2014·Systematic Biology

Abstract

Current molecular methods of species delimitation are limited by the types of species delimitation models and scenarios that can be tested. Bayes factors allow for more flexibility in testing non-nested species delimitation models and hypotheses of individual assignment to alternative lineages. Here, we examined the efficacy of Bayes factors in delimiting species through simulations and empirical data from the Sceloporus scalaris species group. Marginal-likelihood scores of competing species delimitation models, from which Bayes factor values were compared, were estimated with four different methods: harmonic mean estimation (HME), smoothed harmonic mean estimation (sHME), path-sampling/thermodynamic integration (PS), and stepping-stone (SS) analysis. We also performed model selection using a posterior simulation-based analog of the Akaike information criterion through Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis (AICM). Bayes factor species delimitation results from the empirical data were then compared with results from the reversible-jump MCMC (rjMCMC) coalescent-based species delimitation method Bayesian Phylogenetics and Phylogeography (BP&P). Simulation results show that HME and sHME perform poorly compared with PS and SS marginal-likelihood estimators when identifying the true species delimitation model. Furthermore, Bayes factor delimitation (BFD) of species showed improved performance when species limits are tested by reassigning individuals between species, as opposed to either lumping or splitting lineages. In the empirical data, BFD through PS and SS analyses, as well as the rjMCMC method, each provide support for the recognition of all scalaris group taxa as independent evolutionary lineages. Bayes factor species delimitation and BP&P also support the recognition of three previously undescribed lineages. In both simulated and empirical data sets, harmonic and smoothed harmonic mean marginal-likelihood estimators provided much higher marginal-likelihood estimates than PS and SS estimators. The AICM displayed poor repeatability in both simulated and empirical data sets, and produced inconsistent model rankings across replicate runs with the empirical data. Our results suggest that species delimitation through the use of Bayes factors with marginal-likelihood estimates via PS or SS analyses provide a useful and complementary alternative to existing species delimitation methods.

Overview

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/sysbio/syt069

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 297

Metadata

Authors
Grummer, J. A., Bryson, R. W., & Reeder, T. W.
Venue
Systematic Biology
Published
2013-12-25
Volume
63
Issue
2
Pages
119-133
ISSN
  • 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
  • 1076-836X
OpenAlex
W2164890682
Cited by
297
References
5
FWCI
14.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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

How to cite

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

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Species Delimitation Using Bayes Factors: Simulations and Application to the Sceloporus scalaris Species Group (Squamata: Phrynosomatidae). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/sysbio/syt069
The paper
Grummer, J. A., Bryson, R. W., & Reeder, T. W. (2014). Species Delimitation Using Bayes Factors: Simulations and Application to the Sceloporus scalaris Species Group (Squamata: Phrynosomatidae). Systematic Biology. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syt069

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

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

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