Cited by 118Evolution and Paleontology StudiesPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyPlant Diversity and Evolution

Impact of increased character sampling on the phylogeny of Cetartiodactyla (Mammalia): combined analysis including fossils

O'Leary, Maureen A., Gatesy, John·2008·Cladistics

Abstract

The phylogenetic position of Cetacea (whales, dolphins and porpoises) is an important exemplar problem for combined data parsimony analyses because the clade is ancient and includes many well-known and relatively complete fossil species. We combined data for 71 terminal taxa (43 extinct/28 extant) to test where Cetacea fits within Cetartiodactyla, and where various fossil hoofed mammals (e.g., †entelodonts, "†anthracotheriids" and †mesonychians) are positioned. We scored 635 phenotypic characters (osteology, dentition, soft tissue, behavior), approximately three times the number of characters in the last major analysis of this clade, and combined these with > 40 000 molecular characters, including new data from 10 genes. The analysis supported a topology consistent with the majority of recently published molecular studies. Cetacea was the extant sister taxon of Hippopotamidae, followed successively by Ruminantia, Suina and Camelidae. Several extinct taxa were phylogenetically unstable, upsetting resolution of the strict consensus and limiting branch support, but the positions of several key fossils were consistently resolved. The wholly extinct †Mesonychia was more closely related to Cetacea than was any "artiodactylan.""†Anthracotheriids" were paraphyletic, and, with the exception of one species, were more closely related to Hippopotamidae than to any other living taxon. The total evidence analysis overturned a highly nested position for Moschus supported by molecular data a…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2007.00187.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Cetartiodactyla was proposed as the taxon name for the group formed by Hippopotamidae and Cetacea.

    “Cetartiodactyla was proposed as the taxon name for the group (Montgelard et al. 1997) and subsequently more clearly defined (O' Leary and Gatesy 2008).”

    From Choeropsis liberiensis (Artiodactyla: Hippopotamidae) (2019) · cites this paper as O' Leary and Gatesy 2008

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
O'Leary, M. A., & Gatesy, J.
Affiliations
University of California, Riverside (US)
Venue
Cladistics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-08
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
397-442
ISSN
  • 0748-3007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-0031
OpenAlex
W2051705573
Cited by
118
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
7.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cladistics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Diversity and Evolution
Keywords
Cetartiodactyla, cetaceans, cetacean phylogeny, fossil mammals, character sampling, Anthracotheriidae, hippopotamus, ruminants, camelids, Moschus, osteology, dentition, ankle bone, monophyly, total evidence analysis

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