2018
DOI: 10.1130/abs/2018se-312231
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Phylogenetic and Morphologic Analyses Elucidate Relationships in Paracrinoidea (Echinodermata)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, this tree likely represents a conservative estimate of the amount of homoplasy within echinoderms through the early Paleozoic. The tree was constructed using published phylogenies [62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77]. Many echinoderm taxa and clades have not been formally examined in a modern phylogenetic context, such that constructing a supertree would exclude a fair number of important taxa.…”
Section: Construction Of the Phylogenetic Treementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, this tree likely represents a conservative estimate of the amount of homoplasy within echinoderms through the early Paleozoic. The tree was constructed using published phylogenies [62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77]. Many echinoderm taxa and clades have not been formally examined in a modern phylogenetic context, such that constructing a supertree would exclude a fair number of important taxa.…”
Section: Construction Of the Phylogenetic Treementioning
confidence: 99%