↓ Skip to main content

Review of the fossil matamata turtles: earliest well-dated record and hypotheses on the origin of their present geographical distribution

Overview of attention for article published in The Science of Nature, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Review of the fossil matamata turtles: earliest well-dated record and hypotheses on the origin of their present geographical distribution
Published in
The Science of Nature, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00114-016-1355-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriel S. Ferreira, Ascanio D. Rincón, Andrés Solórzano, Max C. Langer

Abstract

The matamata (Chelus fimbriatus) is a highly aquatic chelid turtle known exclusively from northern South America. Due to its extremely modified morphology, it is well circumscribed among living taxa, but that is not the case of the two extinct species ascribed to the taxon, Chelus colombianus and Chelus lewisi. These were originally described for the Miocene of Colombia and Venezuela, respectively, and are known mostly from post-cranial material. Few traits have been considered diagnostic for these fossil taxa, and their shared geographic and temporal distributions raise doubts about their distinctiveness. Here, we describe new turtle remains from the early Miocene Castillo Formation, at Cerro la Cruz, northwestern Venezuela, assigning them to C. colombianus. We also review the taxonomy and diagnostic features of the fossil species of Chelus, comparing them with the variation recognized within C. fimbriatus. All alleged differences between the fossil Chelus species were found in our sample of the extant species, and may represent intraspecific variation of a single fossil species. Further, we reviewed the fossil record of Chelus spp. and proposed a paleobiogeographic hypothesis to explain its present geographic range.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 37%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 8 27%
Environmental Science 4 13%
Unknown 7 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 December 2023.
All research outputs
#7,315,081
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from The Science of Nature
#756
of 2,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,572
of 300,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Science of Nature
#15
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,339 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.