↓ Skip to main content

Phylogenetic classification of bony fishes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, July 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 (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
130 tweeters
facebook
11 Facebook pages
wikipedia
20 Wikipedia pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
239 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
477 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Phylogenetic classification of bony fishes
Published in
BMC Evolutionary Biology, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12862-017-0958-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ricardo Betancur-R, Edward O. Wiley, Gloria Arratia, Arturo Acero, Nicolas Bailly, Masaki Miya, Guillaume Lecointre, Guillermo Ortí

Abstract

Fish classifications, as those of most other taxonomic groups, are being transformed drastically as new molecular phylogenies provide support for natural groups that were unanticipated by previous studies. A brief review of the main criteria used by ichthyologists to define their classifications during the last 50 years, however, reveals slow progress towards using an explicit phylogenetic framework. Instead, the trend has been to rely, in varying degrees, on deep-rooted anatomical concepts and authority, often mixing taxa with explicit phylogenetic support with arbitrary groupings. Two leading sources in ichthyology frequently used for fish classifications (JS Nelson's volumes of Fishes of the World and W. Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes) fail to adopt a global phylogenetic framework despite much recent progress made towards the resolution of the fish Tree of Life. The first explicit phylogenetic classification of bony fishes was published in 2013, based on a comprehensive molecular phylogeny ( www.deepfin.org ). We here update the first version of that classification by incorporating the most recent phylogenetic results. The updated classification presented here is based on phylogenies inferred using molecular and genomic data for nearly 2000 fishes. A total of 72 orders (and 79 suborders) are recognized in this version, compared with 66 orders in version 1. The phylogeny resolves placement of 410 families, or ~80% of the total of 514 families of bony fishes currently recognized. The ordinal status of 30 percomorph families included in this study, however, remains uncertain (incertae sedis in the series Carangaria, Ovalentaria, or Eupercaria). Comments to support taxonomic decisions and comparisons with conflicting taxonomic groups proposed by others are presented. We also highlight cases were morphological support exist for the groups being classified. This version of the phylogenetic classification of bony fishes is substantially improved, providing resolution for more taxa than previous versions, based on more densely sampled phylogenetic trees. The classification presented in this study represents, unlike any other, the most up-to-date hypothesis of the Tree of Life of fishes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 130 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 477 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 477 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 86 18%
Student > Master 70 15%
Student > Bachelor 68 14%
Researcher 67 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 30 6%
Other 90 19%
Unknown 66 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 235 49%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 74 16%
Environmental Science 45 9%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 15 3%
Arts and Humanities 5 1%
Other 23 5%
Unknown 80 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 100. 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 03 September 2020.
All research outputs
#216,613
of 15,925,089 outputs
Outputs from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#51
of 2,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,470
of 268,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,925,089 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 268,515 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them