Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 280

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Phylogenetic patterns and diversification in the caesalpinioid legumesThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in the Special Issue on Systematics Research.

Bruneau, Anne, Mercure, Marjorie, Lewis, Gwilym P., Herendeen, Patrick S.·2008·Botany

Abstract

Subfamily Caesalpinioideae is a paraphyletic grade of 171 genera that comprises the first branches of the Leguminosae and from which are derived the monophyletic subfamilies Mimosoideae and Papilionoideae. We have sequenced the chloroplast matK gene, and the trnL and 3′-trnK introns for 153 genera of caesalpinioid legumes. Parsimony and Bayesian phylogenetic analyses of these data support the monophyly of several major groups within the caesalpinioid legumes: the Cercideae, Detarieae, Detarieae s. str., Prioria , Amherstieae, Dialiinae, Cassia , Caesalpinia , Peltophorum , and Tachigali clades. Relationships among the first branching lineages of the legumes are not well supported, with Cercideae, Detarieae, and the genus Duparquetia alternatively resolved as sister group to all of the legumes. The division of certain large genera (e.g., Caesalpinia s. l., Bauhinia s. l.) into segregate genera generally is supported by our molecular data. Using 18 well-documented fossils as calibration points, fixing the stem node of the legumes at 65 Ma, and using the Penalised Likelihood method, we estimate the crown node of the Leguminosae at 64 Ma and the crown age of each of the major caesalpinioid lineages varying from 34 to 56 Ma. Fossil cross-validation suggests that none of the 18 fossil calibrations is internally inconsistent. Analyses done without fossil calibrations yield much younger divergence times. The age estimates for the Detarieae clade are more sensitive to the presence of calibration points than other caesalpinioid clades, a situation which we attribute to the slow rate of chloroplast DNA evolution in this group.

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 · 10.1139/b08-058

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 280

Metadata

Authors
Bruneau, A., Mercure, M., Lewis, G. P., & Herendeen, P. S.
Venue
Botany
Published
2008-07
Volume
86
Issue
7
Pages
697-718
ISSN
  • 1916-2790 (ISSN-L)
  • 1916-2804
OpenAlex
W2053410480
Cited by
280
References
4
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Phylogenetic patterns and diversification in the caesalpinioid legumesThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in the Special Issue on Systematics Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1139/b08-058
The paper
Bruneau, A., Mercure, M., Lewis, G. P., & Herendeen, P. S. (2008). Phylogenetic patterns and diversification in the caesalpinioid legumesThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in the Special Issue on Systematics Research. Botany. https://doi.org/10.1139/b08-058

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.