↓ Skip to main content

A revision of brain composition in Onychophora (velvet worms) suggests that the tritocerebrum evolved in arthropods

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, August 2010
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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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 revision of brain composition in Onychophora (velvet worms) suggests that the tritocerebrum evolved in arthropods
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, August 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-10-255
Pubmed ID
Authors

Georg Mayer, Paul M Whitington, Paul Sunnucks, Hans-Joachim Pflüger

Abstract

The composition of the arthropod head is one of the most contentious issues in animal evolution. In particular, controversy surrounds the homology and innervation of segmental cephalic appendages by the brain. Onychophora (velvet worms) play a crucial role in understanding the evolution of the arthropod brain, because they are close relatives of arthropods and have apparently changed little since the Early Cambrian. However, the segmental origins of their brain neuropils and the number of cephalic appendages innervated by the brain--key issues in clarifying brain composition in the last common ancestor of Onychophora and Arthropoda--remain unclear.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 4 4%
United States 3 3%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Australia 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 87 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 21%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Master 9 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 5%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 16 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 60 61%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 8 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Unspecified 2 2%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 20 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 26 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,795,083
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#744
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,539
of 104,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#11
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 104,258 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.