Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 216

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Single-locus species delimitation: a test of the mixed Yule–coalescent model, with an empirical application to Philippine round-leaf bats

Open access
Esselstyn, Jacob A., Evans, Ben J., Sedlock, Jodi L., Anwarali Khan, Faisal Ali, Heaney, Lawrence R.·2012·Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Prospects for a comprehensive inventory of global biodiversity would be greatly improved by automating methods of species delimitation. The general mixed Yule–coalescent (GMYC) was recently proposed as a potential means of increasing the rate of biodiversity exploration. We tested this method with simulated data and applied it to a group of poorly known bats ( Hipposideros ) from the Philippines. We then used echolocation call characteristics to evaluate the plausibility of species boundaries suggested by GMYC. In our simulations, GMYC performed relatively well (errors in estimated species diversity less than 25%) when the product of the haploid effective population size ( N e ) and speciation rate (SR; per lineage per million years) was less than or equal to 10 5 , while interspecific variation in N e was twofold or less. However, at higher but also biologically relevant values of N e × SR and when N e varied tenfold among species, performance was very poor. GMYC analyses of mitochondrial DNA sequences from Philippine Hipposideros suggest actual diversity may be approximately twice the current estimate, and available echolocation call data are mostly consistent with GMYC delimitations. In conclusion, we consider the GMYC model useful under some conditions, but additional information on N e , SR and/or corroboration from independent character data are needed to allow meaningful interpretation of results.

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 · 10.1098/rspb.2012.0705

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 216

Metadata

Authors
Esselstyn, J. A., Evans, B. J., Sedlock, J. L., Anwarali Khan, F. A., & Heaney, L. R.
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2012-07-04
Volume
279
Issue
1743
Pages
3678-3686
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2140959662
Cited by
216
References
2
FWCI
21.12
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: Single-locus species delimitation: a test of the mixed Yule–coalescent model, with an empirical application to Philippine round-leaf bats. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rspb.2012.0705
The paper
Esselstyn, J. A., Evans, B. J., Sedlock, J. L., Anwarali Khan, F. A., & Heaney, L. R. (2012). Single-locus species delimitation: a test of the mixed Yule–coalescent model, with an empirical application to Philippine round-leaf bats. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0705

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.