1,721,023 research outputs found
Reanalysis of Philippe et al. 2009 using ReproPhylo
No full text<p>Reanalysis of the data from </p>
<p>Philippe, Hervé, Romain Derelle, Philippe Lopez, Kerstin Pick, Carole Borchiellini, Nicole Boury-Esnault, Jean Vacelet et al. "Phylogenomics revives traditional views on deep animal relationships." Current Biology 19, no. 8 (2009): 706-712. </p>
<p>done for a blog post</p
Methods and results of reanalysis of Philippe et al. 2009
No full text<p>Reanalysis of data from</p>
<p>Philippe, Hervé, Romain Derelle, Philippe Lopez, Kerstin Pick, Carole Borchiellini, Nicole Boury-Esnault, Jean Vacelet et al. "Phylogenomics revives traditional views on deep animal relationships." Current Biology 19, no. 8 (2009): 706-712.</p
Systematics and evolution of Demospongiae
No full textSystematic and evolutionary studies of Demospongiae Sollas, 1885 are a very dynamic field of research. The scientific knowledge pertaining to Demospongiae systematics has been recently assembled in the collective book Systema Porifera. However, a general consensus among spongologists has not yet been achieved regarding this group and the phylogenetic relationships within Demospongiae and between Demospongiae and other clades of Porifera and metazoans are still unresolved. The two traditional subclasses Tetractinomorpha and Ceractinomorpha are polyphyletic and it is proposed that they be abandoned. Since the publication of Systema Porifera, several works have suggested the polyphyly of Halichondrida and the paraphyly of Haplosclerida, as well as the monophyly of Tetractinellida (Astrophorida + Spirophorida), Keratosa (Dictyoceratida + Dendroceratida), and Myxospongiae (Chondrosida + Verongida + Halisarcida). Within all the classical orders, whether they are monophyletic or not, families and even genera have also been found to be polyphyletic. For example, Ancorinidae, Geodiidae, and Axinellidae are clearly polyphyletic. No single data set is able to resolve all the problems; thus, it is absolutely necessary that the classification of Demospongiae be examined from all angles and with as many data sets as possible.Les études sur la systématique et l'évolution des Demospongiae Sollas, 1885 sont un champ de recherche très dynamique. La connaissance scientifique concernant la systématique des Demospongiae a été récemment rassemblée dans un ouvrage collectif Systema Porifera. Cependant il faut souligner qu'un consensus général entre spécialistes n'est toujours pas atteint sur ce groupe et que les relations phylogénétiques à l'intérieur de Demospongiae ou entre les Demospongiae et les autres clades d'éponges ou de métazoaires ne sont pas résolues. Les deux sous-classes traditionnelles Tetractinomorpha et Ceractinomorpha sont polyphylétiques et doivent être abandonnées. Depuis la publication de Systema Porifera, plusieurs travaux ont suggéré la polyphylie des Halichondrida, la paraphylie des Haplosclerida, la monophylie des Tetractinellida (Astrophorida + Spirophorida), Keratosa (Dictyoceratida + Dendroceratida) et Myxospongiae (Chondrosida + Verongida + Halisarcida). A l'intérieur des ordres classiques qu'ils soient monophylétiques ou polyphylétiques, des familles et même des genres se sont révélés être polyphylétiques (par exemple : les familles Ancorinidae, Geodiidae, Axinellidae). Aucun jeu de données seul ne permet de résoudre ces problèmes. Il est absolument nécessaire de réexaminer l'ensemble de la classification des Demospongiae sous toutes ses facettes, en utilisant le plus grand nombre possible de jeux de données
Glycogen storage and transfer in primitive invertebrates: Demospongea and Actiniaria. In: Lévi, C. & Boury-Esnault, N. (eds) Biologie des Spongiaires. Sponge Biology.
No full textInternational audienc
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
