The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A phylogenetic analysis of the arachnid orders based on morphological characters
Open accessAbstract
Morphological evidence for resolving relationships among arachnid orders was surveyed and assembled in a matrix comprising 59 euchelicerate genera (41 extant, 18 fossil) and 202 binary and unordered multistate characters. Parsimony analysis of extant genera recovered a monophyletic Arachnida with the topology (Palpigradi (Acaromorpha (Tetrapulmonata (Haplocnemata, Stomothecata nom. nov.)))), with Acaromorpha containing Ricinulei and Acari, Tetrapulmonata containing Araneae and Pedipalpi (Amblypygi, Uropygi), Haplocnemata (Pseudoscorpiones, Solifugae) and Stomothecata (Scorpiones, Opiliones). However, nodal support and results from exploratory implied weights analysis indicated that relationships among the five clades were effectively unresolved. Analysis of extant and fossil genera recovered a clade, Pantetrapulmonata nom nov., with the topology (Trigonotarbida (Araneae (Haptopoda (Pedipalpi)))). Arachnida was recovered as monophyletic with the internal relationships (Stomothecata (Palpigradi, Acaromorpha (Haplocnemata, Pantetrapulmonata))). Nodal support and exploratory implied weights indicated that relationships among these five clades were effectively unresolved. Thus, some interordinal relationships were strongly and/or consistently supported by morphology, but arachnid phylogeny is unresolved at its deepest levels. Alternative hypotheses proposed in the recent literature were evaluated by constraining analyses to recover hypothesized clades, an exercise that often resulted in the collapse of otherwise well-supported clades. These results suggest that attempts to resolve specific nodes based on individual characters, lists of similarities, evolutionary scenarios, etc., are problematic, as they ignore broader impacts on homoplasy and analytical effects on non-target nodes.
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
Cited by
Rota-Stabelli, O., Daley, A. C., & Pisani, D. (2013) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.01.026 · Cited by 360
Metadata
- Authors
- SHULTZ, J. W.
- Venue
- Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-06
- Volume
- 150
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 221-265
- ISSN
- 0024-4082 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-3642
- OpenAlex
- W2028948441
- Cited by
- 276
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
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.