↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

Why coelacanths are not ‘living fossils’

Overview of attention for article published in BioEssays, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#30 of 3,029)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
94 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
8 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
3 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Why coelacanths are not ‘living fossils’
Published in
BioEssays, February 2013
DOI 10.1002/bies.201200145
Pubmed ID
Authors

Didier Casane, Patrick Laurenti

Abstract

A series of recent studies on extant coelacanths has emphasised the slow rate of molecular and morphological evolution in these species. These studies were based on the assumption that a coelacanth is a 'living fossil' that has shown little morphological change since the Devonian, and they proposed a causal link between low molecular evolutionary rate and morphological stasis. Here, we have examined the available molecular and morphological data and show that: (i) low intra-specific molecular diversity does not imply low mutation rate, (ii) studies not showing low substitution rates in coelacanth are often neglected, (iii) the morphological stability of coelacanths is not supported by paleontological evidence. We recall that intra-species levels of molecular diversity, inter-species genome divergence rates and morphological divergence rates are under different constraints and they are not necessarily correlated. Finally, we emphasise that concepts such as 'living fossil', 'basal lineage', or 'primitive extant species' do not make sense from a tree-thinking perspective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 94 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 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 3 2%
United Kingdom 3 2%
Germany 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
India 2 1%
Sweden 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 137 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 35 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 16%
Student > Bachelor 25 16%
Student > Master 19 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 6%
Other 27 17%
Unknown 17 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 88 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 10%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 15 9%
Environmental Science 7 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 22 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 137. 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 05 March 2024.
All research outputs
#309,469
of 25,791,495 outputs
Outputs from BioEssays
#30
of 3,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,199
of 293,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioEssays
#1
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,791,495 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 3,029 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. 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 293,658 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 28 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 96% of its contemporaries.