↓ Skip to main content

A multilocus phylogeny reveals deep lineages within African galagids (Primates: Galagidae)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
A multilocus phylogeny reveals deep lineages within African galagids (Primates: Galagidae)
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-14-72
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luca Pozzi, Todd R Disotell, Judith C Masters

Abstract

Bushbabies (Galagidae) are among the most morphologically cryptic of all primates and their diversity and relationships are some of the most longstanding problems in primatology. Our knowledge of galagid evolutionary history has been limited by a lack of appropriate molecular data and a paucity of fossils. Most phylogenetic studies have produced conflicting results for many clades, and even the relationships among genera remain uncertain. To clarify galagid evolutionary history, we assembled the largest molecular dataset for galagos to date by sequencing 27 independent loci. We inferred phylogenetic relationships using concatenated maximum-likelihood and Bayesian analyses, and also coalescent-based species tree methods to account for gene tree heterogeneity due to incomplete lineage sorting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 77 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 21%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Postgraduate 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 13 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 49%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 12%
Environmental Science 5 6%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 12 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 March 2024.
All research outputs
#3,169,647
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#827
of 3,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,554
of 242,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#13
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,772 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 242,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.