↓ Skip to main content

Fuzzy Boundaries: Color and Gene Flow Patterns among Parapatric Lineages of the Western Shovel-Nosed Snake and Taxonomic Implication

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Fuzzy Boundaries: Color and Gene Flow Patterns among Parapatric Lineages of the Western Shovel-Nosed Snake and Taxonomic Implication
Published in
PLoS ONE, May 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0097494
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dustin A. Wood, Robert N. Fisher, Amy G. Vandergast

Abstract

Accurate delineation of lineage diversity is increasingly important, as species distributions are becoming more reduced and threatened. During the last century, the subspecies category was often used to denote phenotypic variation within a species range and to provide a framework for understanding lineage differentiation, often considered incipient speciation. While this category has largely fallen into disuse, previously recognized subspecies often serve as important units for conservation policy and management when other information is lacking. In this study, we evaluated phenotypic subspecies hypotheses within shovel-nosed snakes on the basis of genetic data and considered how evolutionary processes such as gene flow influenced possible incongruence between phenotypic and genetic patterns. We used both traditional phylogenetic and Bayesian clustering analyses to infer range-wide genetic structure and spatially explicit analyses to detect possible boundary locations of lineage contact. Multilocus analyses supported three historically isolated groups with low to moderate levels of contemporary gene exchange. Genetic data did not support phenotypic subspecies as exclusive groups, and we detected patterns of discordance in areas where three subspecies are presumed to be in contact. Based on genetic and phenotypic evidence, we suggested that species-level diversity is underestimated in this group and we proposed that two species be recognized, Chionactis occipitalis and C. annulata. In addition, we recommend retention of two subspecific designations within C. annulata (C. a. annulata and C. a. klauberi) that reflect regional shifts in both genetic and phenotypic variation within the species. Our results highlight the difficultly in validating taxonomic boundaries within lineages that are evolving under a time-dependent, continuous process.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
Portugal 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 28 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Professor 3 10%
Other 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 74%
Unspecified 3 10%
Environmental Science 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%

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 06 January 2015.
All research outputs
#3,331,034
of 12,089,158 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#45,238
of 132,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,767
of 196,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#1,213
of 3,372 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,089,158 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 132,970 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. 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 196,833 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,372 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.