The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms
Open accessAbstract
We present a consensus classification of life to embrace the more than 1.6 million species already provided by more than 3,000 taxonomists' expert opinions in a unified and coherent, hierarchically ranked system known as the Catalogue of Life (CoL). The intent of this collaborative effort is to provide a hierarchical classification serving not only the needs of the CoL's database providers but also the diverse public-domain user community, most of whom are familiar with the Linnaean conceptual system of ordering taxon relationships. This classification is neither phylogenetic nor evolutionary but instead represents a consensus view that accommodates taxonomic choices and practical compromises among diverse expert opinions, public usages, and conflicting evidence about the boundaries between taxa and the ranks of major taxa, including kingdoms. Certain key issues, some not fully resolved, are addressed in particular. Beyond its immediate use as a management tool for the CoL and ITIS (Integrated Taxonomic Information System), it is immediately valuable as a reference for taxonomic and biodiversity research, as a tool for societal communication, and as a classificatory "backbone" for biodiversity databases, museum collections, libraries, and textbooks. Such a modern comprehensive hierarchy has not previously existed at this level of specificity.
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
Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life
Dunn, C. W., Hejnol, A., Matus, D. Q., Pang, K., Browne, W. E., Smith, S. A., Seaver, E., Rouse, G. W., Obst, M., Edgecombe, G. D., et al. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature06614 · Cited by 1,921 · cited 1×
“The numbers of phyla and classes with extant species in kingdom Animalia differ according to molecular and morphological partitioning in phylogenies [49–59] as well as the preferred treatments of specialists of particular traditional phyla and where to “draw the line” between related taxa and how to rank them—the rank…”
BackgroundThe Revised Classification of Eukaryotes
Adl, S. M., Simpson, A. G. B., Lane, C. E., Lukeš, J., Bass, D., Bowser, S. S., Brown, M. W., Burki, F., Dunthorn, M., Hampl, V., et al. (2012) · Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology · doi:10.1111/j.1550-7408.2012.00644.x · Cited by 1,680
Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotic evolution
Keeling, P. J., & Palmer, J. D. (2008) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2386 · Cited by 1,355
Assessing the root of bilaterian animals with scalable phylogenomic methods
Hejnol, A., Obst, M., Stamatakis, A., Ott, M., Rouse, G. W., Edgecombe, G. D., Martinez, P., Baguñà, J., Bailly, X., Jondelius, U., et al. (2009) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0896 · Cited by 747 · cited 1×
“The numbers of phyla and classes with extant species in kingdom Animalia differ according to molecular and morphological partitioning in phylogenies [49–59] as well as the preferred treatments of specialists of particular traditional phyla and where to “draw the line” between related taxa and how to rank them—the rank…”
BackgroundKeeling, P. J., Burger, G., Durnford, D. G., Lang, B. F., Lee, R. W., Pearlman, R. E., Roger, A. J., & Gray, M. W. (2005) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.09.005 · Cited by 579
The New View of Animal Phylogeny
Halanych, K. M. (2004) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.112202.130124 · Cited by 489
Six major steps in animal evolution: Are we derived sponge larvae?
Nielsen, C. (2008) · Evolution & Development · doi:10.1111/j.1525-142x.2008.00231.x · Cited by 343 · cited 6×
“(1) Porifera—one phylum or three? Nielsen [62] argued that ‘The three apparently monophyletic sponge groups Silicea, Calcarea, and Homoscleromorpha do not constitute a monophyletic group, and the “phylum Porifera” thus has to be abandoned.”
BackgroundInfluentialThe evolutionary history of haptophytes and cryptophytes: phylogenomic evidence for separate origins
Burki, F., Okamoto, N., Pombert, J.-F., & Keeling, P. J. (2012) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.2301 · Cited by 240
Sperling, E. A., Peterson, K. J., & Pisani, D. (2009) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msp148 · Cited by 172 · cited 1×
“’More recent studies alternatively support paraphyly [63] or holophyly [58, 64] of sponges.”
BackgroundNo longer Demospongiae: Homoscleromorpha formal nomination as a fourth class of Porifera
Gazave, E., Lapébie, P., Ereskovsky, A. V., Vacelet, J., Renard, E., Cárdenas, P., & Borchiellini, C. (2012) · Hydrobiologia · doi:10.1007/s10750-011-0842-x · Cited by 126
Cited by
Phylogenetic classification of bony fishes
Betancur-R, R., Wiley, E. O., Arratia, G., Acero, A., Bailly, N., Miya, M., Lecointre, G., & Ortí, G. (2017) · BMC Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1186/s12862-017-0958-3 · Cited by 857
Self-citationPlasmodium—a brief introduction to the parasites causing human malaria and their basic biology
Sato, S. (2021) · Journal of Physiological Anthropology · doi:10.1186/s40101-020-00251-9 · Cited by 404
Muñoz-Gómez, S. A., Mejía-Franco, F. G., Durnin, K., Colp, M., Grisdale, C. J., Archibald, J. M., & Slamovits, C. H. (2017) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.054 · Cited by 114
Leyland, B., Leu, S., & Boussiba, S. (2017) · Fungal Biology · doi:10.1016/j.funbio.2017.07.006 · Cited by 107
To increase trust, change the social design behind aggregated biodiversity data
Franz, N. M., & Sterner, B. W. (2018) · Database · doi:10.1093/database/bax100 · Cited by 57
Metadata
- Authors
- Ruggiero, M. A., Gordon, D. P., Orrell, T. M., Bailly, N., Bourgoin, T., Brusca, R. C., Cavalier-Smith, T., Guiry, M. D., & Kirk, P. M.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2015-04-29
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e0119248
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2005951061
- Cited by
- 596
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 19.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0119248
- The paper
- Ruggiero, M. A., Gordon, D. P., Orrell, T. M., Bailly, N., Bourgoin, T., Brusca, R. C., Cavalier-Smith, T., Guiry, M. D., & Kirk, P. M. (2015). A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119248
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.
