The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
BUTTERFLIES AND PLANTS: A PHYLOGENETIC STUDY
Open accessAbstract
A database on host plant records from 437 ingroup taxa has been used to test a number of hypotheses on the interaction between butterflies and their host plants using phylogenetic methods (simple character optimization, concentrated changes test, and independent contrasts test). The butterfly phylogeny was assembled from various sources and host plant clades were identified according to Chase et al.'s rbcL-based phylogeny. The ancestral host plant appears to be associated within a highly derived rosid clade, including the family Fabaceae. As fossil data suggest that this clade is older than the butterflies, they must have colonized already diversified plants. Previous studies also suggest that the patterns of association in most insect-plant interactions are more shaped by host shifts, through colonization and specialization, than by cospeciation. Consequently, we have focused explicitly on the mechanisms behind host shifts. Our results confirm, in the light of new phylogenetic evidence, the pattern reported by Ehrlich and Raven that related butterflies feed on related plants. We show that host shifts have generally been more common between closely related plants than between more distantly related plants. This finding, together with the possibility of a higher tendency of recolonizing ancestral hosts, helps to explain the apparent large-scale conservation in the patterns of association between insects and their host plants, patterns which at the same time are more flexible on a more detailed level. Plant growth form was an even more conservative aspect of the interaction between butterflies and their host plants than plant phylogeny. However, this is largely explained by a higher probability of colonizations and host shifts while feeding on trees than on other growth forms.
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
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793
The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology
Harvey, P. H., & Pagel, M. D. (1991) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198546412.001.0001 · Cited by 4,337
Maddison, W. P. (1990) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1990.tb05937.x · Cited by 533
CLADISTIC TESTS OF ADAPTATIONAL HYPOTHESES
Coddington, J. A. (1988) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1988.tb00465.x · Cited by 438
Cited by
Macroevolution and the biological diversity of plants and herbivores
Futuyma, D. J., & Agrawal, A. A. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0904106106 · Cited by 632
Macroevolution of plant defense strategies
Agrawal, A. A. (2007) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.10.012 · Cited by 458
Agosta, S. J., Janz, N., & Brooks, D. R. (2010) · Zoologia (Curitiba) · doi:10.1590/s1984-46702010000200001 · Cited by 316
Self-citation(1999) · doi:10.2307/1313476 · Cited by 309
Ehrlich and Raven revisited: mechanisms underlying codiversification of plants and enemies
Janz, N. (2011) · Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102710-145024 · Cited by 234
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Janz, N., & Nylin, S.
- Venue
- Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1998-04
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 486-502
- ISSN
- 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1971509985
- Cited by
- 255
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 3.98
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: BUTTERFLIES AND PLANTS: A PHYLOGENETIC STUDY. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1998.tb01648.x
- The paper
- Janz, N., & Nylin, S. (1998). BUTTERFLIES AND PLANTS: A PHYLOGENETIC STUDY. Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1998.tb01648.x
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.