The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Global Biodiversity Assessment and Hyper-Cryptic Species Complexes: More Than One Species of Elephant in the Room?
Open accessAbstract
Several recent estimates of global biodiversity have concluded that the total number of species on Earth lies near the lower end of the wide range touted in previous decades. However, none of these recent estimates formally explore the real "elephant in the room", namely, what proportion of species are taxonomically invisible to conventional assessments, and thus, as undiagnosed cryptic species, remain uncountable until revealed by multi-gene molecular assessments. Here we explore the significance and extent of so-called "hyper-cryptic" species complexes, using the Australian freshwater fish Galaxias olidus as a proxy for any organism whose taxonomy ought to be largely finalized when compared to those in little-studied or morphologically undifferentiated groups. Our comprehensive allozyme (838 fish for 54 putative loci), mtDNA (557 fish for 605 bp of cytb), and morphological (1963-3389 vouchers for 17-58 characters) assessment of this species across its broad geographic range revealed a 1500% increase in species-level biodiversity, and suggested that additional taxa may remain undiscovered. Importantly, while all 15 candidate species were morphologically diagnosable a posteriori from one another, single-gene DNA barcoding proved largely unsuccessful as an a priori method for species identification. These results lead us to draw two strong inferences of relevance to estimates of global biodiversity. First, hyper-cryptic complexes are likely to be common in many organismal groups. Second, no assessment of species numbers can be considered "best practice" in the molecular age unless it explicitly includes estimates of the extent of cryptic and hyper-cryptic biodiversity. [Galaxiidae; global estimates; hyper-diverse; mountain galaxias; species counts; species richness.].
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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
How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean?
Mora, C., Tittensor, D. P., Adl, S., Simpson, A. G. B., & Worm, B. (2011) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127 · Cited by 3,045
What we know and don’t know about Earth's missing biodiversity
Scheffers, B. R., Joppa, L. N., Pimm, S. L., & Laurance, W. F. (2012) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.05.008 · Cited by 437
Cited by
Cryptic species as a window into the paradigm shift of the species concept
Fišer, C., Robinson, C. T., & Malard, F. (2018) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.14486 · Cited by 574
Cryptic species conservation: a review
Hending, D. (2025) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.13139 · Cited by 113
Cahill, A. E., Meglécz, E., & Chenuil, A. (2024) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.13034 · Cited by 26
Austin, C. M., Ahyong, S. T., Miller, A., Raadik, T. A., Lintermans, M., McCormack, R., Zukowski, S., Hammer, M. P., Grandjean, F., Gilligan, D. M., et al. (2026) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.73428
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Adams, M., Raadik, T. A., Burridge, C. P., & Georges, A.
- Venue
- Systematic Biology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-03-13
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 518-533
- ISSN
- 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
- 1076-836X
- OpenAlex
- W2101917021
- Cited by
- 199
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 23.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Global Biodiversity Assessment and Hyper-Cryptic Species Complexes: More Than One Species of Elephant in the Room? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/sysbio/syu017
- The paper
- Adams, M., Raadik, T. A., Burridge, C. P., & Georges, A. (2014). Global Biodiversity Assessment and Hyper-Cryptic Species Complexes: More Than One Species of Elephant in the Room? Systematic Biology. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syu017
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.