Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 225

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

Putting Anthropology Back Together Again: The Ethnogenetic Critique of Cladistic Theory

Moore, John H.·1994·American Anthropologist
DOI 10.1525/aa.1994.96.4.02a00110
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Cladistic theories of human evolution, derived from biological theories of speciation, are currently being advanced to explain worldwide distributions of language, culture, and physical type. Such theories are weak and inconsistent, and inappropriate for describing evolution within the boundaries of human species. Ethnogenetic theory, based on the idea that each human society and culture is built from elements derived from two or more antecedent societies, is ethnographically and logically superior in several important respects.

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 · 10.1525/aa.1994.96.4.02a00110

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 225

Metadata

Authors
Moore, J. H.
Venue
American Anthropologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1994-12
Volume
96
Issue
4
Pages
925-948
ISSN
  • 0002-7294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-1433
DOI
10.1525/aa.1994.96.4.02a00110
OpenAlex
W1830827258
Cited by
225
References
4
FWCI
78.92
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: Putting Anthropology Back Together Again: The Ethnogenetic Critique of Cladistic Theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1525/aa.1994.96.4.02a00110
The paper
Moore, J. H. (1994). Putting Anthropology Back Together Again: The Ethnogenetic Critique of Cladistic Theory. American Anthropologist. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.4.02a00110

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.