↓ Skip to main content

A new hypothesis of dinosaur relationships and early dinosaur evolution

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
121 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
498 Mendeley
Title
A new hypothesis of dinosaur relationships and early dinosaur evolution
Published in
Nature, March 2017
DOI 10.1038/nature21700
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew G. Baron, David B. Norman, Paul M. Barrett

Abstract

For 130 years, dinosaurs have been divided into two distinct clades-Ornithischia and Saurischia. Here we present a hypothesis for the phylogenetic relationships of the major dinosaurian groups that challenges the current consensus concerning early dinosaur evolution and highlights problematic aspects of current cladistic definitions. Our study has found a sister-group relationship between Ornithischia and Theropoda (united in the new clade Ornithoscelida), with Sauropodomorpha and Herrerasauridae (as the redefined Saurischia) forming its monophyletic outgroup. This new tree topology requires redefinition and rediagnosis of Dinosauria and the subsidiary dinosaurian clades. In addition, it forces re-evaluations of early dinosaur cladogenesis and character evolution, suggests that hypercarnivory was acquired independently in herrerasaurids and theropods, and offers an explanation for many of the anatomical features previously regarded as notable convergences between theropods and early ornithischians.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,025 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 498 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 1%
United Kingdom 5 1%
Canada 3 <1%
Colombia 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 472 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 106 21%
Researcher 90 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 88 18%
Student > Master 57 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 4%
Other 83 17%
Unknown 53 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 191 38%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 117 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 45 9%
Environmental Science 18 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 3%
Other 42 8%
Unknown 71 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1959. 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 15 May 2021.
All research outputs
#2,440
of 17,940,342 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#324
of 80,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51
of 275,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#9
of 840 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,940,342 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 80,702 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 91.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 275,014 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 840 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.