bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Eurosid I
Authors: Forest Félix , Chase Mark W 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
Rosids represent another example of a group vastly reorganized following the inPux of DNA sequence data in phylogenetic analyses and angiosperm classification. To a group known as Subclass Rosidae or Superorder Rosanae in earlier classifications (1–3) were added some former members of Magnoliidae, Dilleniidae, and Hamamelidae. Additionally, some families previously thought to be of rosid a1nity were found to be better placed within asterids (4). Although strong support is found for the rosid group as a whole (5, 6), deeper relationships within rosids remain unclear despite considerable additional data and eBorts. In addition, morphological characters uniting rosids have yet to be identified (4). theca. 68,000 species assigned to rosids, which represent about a quarter of all angiosperm species and 39% of all eudicots (7), are divided into seven orders and 124 families (8). The great majority of the species are assigned to two main groups, Eurosid I and Eurosid II, also known as fabids and malvids, respectively. Species not included in the two eurosid groups are found in three orders (Myrtales, Geraniales, and Crossosomatales) and six families (Aphloiaceae, Geissolomataceae, Ixerbaceae, Picramniaceae, Strasburgeriaceae, and Vitaceae) of uncertain placement within rosids. Here, relationships and divergence times of the Arst group, Eurosid I, are reviewed. Myrtales will be discussed with Eurosid I because it has been placed in some studies as the closest relative to this group (5), as well as in the timetree considered here based on the study by Wikström et al. (9).
Lacewings (Neuroptera)
Authors: Wintertona Shaun L , Wiegmann Brian M 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
The lacewings comprise a moderately sized group of insects whose adults are characterized by delicate wings, oJen large in size, with highly reticulate or lacelike venation (Fig. 1). theorder is presently divided into 17, mostly well deAned, families with 5700 species worldwide. Lacewings, together with Megaloptera and Raphidioptera, constitute the Superorder Neuropterida, which is assumed to be the closest relative of Coleoptera. 7ree unique larval characters distinguish Neuroptera from other insects: modified jaws for sucking, incomplete gut, and modified Malphigian tubules for spinning a silken cocoon in which the immature pupates (1). Here, we review the relationships and divergence times of the families of lacewings (Fig. 2). Elucidating the evolutionary history of lacewings has proven to be highly problematic. Neuroptera classification has traditionally been founded largely on the intuitive phylogenies by Handlirsch (2) for fossils and by Withycombe (3) for larval anatomy and morphology. From these works a number of higher-level groups have been identified, but they usually diBer greatly between subsequent authors with regard to membership of families in each (1).
Sea urchins (Echinoidea)
Authors: Smith Andrew B 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
The Phylum Echinodermata is a clade of marine invertebrate deuterostomes that includes such well-known animals as the starAshes and sea urchins. All echinoderms possess a calcitic endoskeleton with a distinctive and unique three-dimensional structure, a stereom, and they all undergo an unusual asymmetrical development in which right larval coelomic components are suppressed and lost. 7ere are Ave living classes of echinoderm, of which the Echinoidea or sea urchins (Fig. 1) is probably the best known and certainly the one that has leJ the most complete fossil record. Living echinoids have a mesodermal skeleton constructed of 10 columns of plates, all of which bear tubercles and spines. Them odern taxonomy of echinoids was established by Mortensen (1), based primarily on the detailed arrangement of plates making up the skeleton. 7is has the great advantage of allowing fossils to be placed with confidence into any taxonomic scheme constructed for the living species. About 900 living species of echinoids have been described and placed in 50 families (1, 2), not all of which are considered monophyletic.
Cartilaginous fishes (Chondrichthyes)
Authors: Heinickea Matthew P , Naylorb Gavin J P , Hedgesa S Blair 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
Living members of the Subclasses Holocephali (chimaeras, including ratAshes, spookAshes, and rabbitAshes, 43 sp.) and Elasmobranchii (sharks, rays, skates, sawAshes, and guitarAshes, 1125 sp.) together comprise the extant representatives of the Class Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous Ashes) (1). Holocephali includes only a single living order with three families (1, 2). Elasmobranchs are more diverse, with 17 orders and 52 families (there is some disagreement in ordinal and familial limits, especially among rays) (1, 3–5). Chondrichthyans can be diBerentiated from their closest living relatives, Osteichthyes (bony vertebrates), by possession of a skeleton of prismatic cartilage and internal fertilization via modiAed male pelvic Ans (claspers). Other characters common to the group are possession of placoid (toothlike) scales and, in many lineages, a heterocercal tail An. While most sharks and chimaeras have a generally cylindrical “Ashlike” body form (Fig. 1), some sharks and all batoids (rays, skates, sawAshes, and guitarAshes) are dorsoventrally Pattened and benthic in habit. Although early chondrichthyans included many freshwater forms, living species are overwhelmingly marine in distribution, excluding a few euryhaline sharks and rays and some freshwater stingrays. Here, we review the relationships of the subclasses, orders, and families of cartilaginous Ashes. Additionally, molecular divergence times of these groups are estimated from publicly available sequence data and presented.
Ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii)
Authors: Neara Thomas J , Miyab Masaki 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
Actinopterygii, or ray-Anned Ashes, are one of the two major lineages of osteichthyan vertebrates, the other being Sarcopterygii (1). 7ere are more than 26,890 species of actinopterygian Ashes and the group has diversiAed into a wide range of marine and freshwater habitats (2). Typically Ave major clades are recognized in Actinopterygii: Polypteriformes (bichirs), Acipenseriformes (sturgeons and paddleAshes), Lepisosteiformes (gars), Amiiformes (BowAn), and Teleostei. In this account, we review the evidence presented for the monophyly of Actinopterygii, the phylogenetic hypotheses of relationships among the major actinopterygian clades, and the inferences of divergence times resulting from analyses of DNA sequence data sampled from whole mitochondrial genomes and nuclear genes.
the only plausible skepticism regarding the monophyly of actinopterygians was directed specifically at the phylogenetic relationships of Polypteriformes. Since the early part of the twentieth century polypteriforms have been considered actinopterygians (3) however, doubts have been raised regarding the phylogenetic a1nities of polypteriforms within Actinopterygii with an alternative hypothesis that they are more closely related to sarcopterygians (4–6). Phylogenetic analyses of morphological characters have supported the hypothesis that Polypteriformes is most closely related to all other extant actinopterygians (1, 7–15). thephylogenetic position of Polypteriformes consistently inferred from morphological data has also been supported in phylogenetic analyses of nuclear encoded 28S rRNA gene sequences (16, 17), DNA sequences from whole mitochondrial genomes (18, 19), and a combined data analysis of seven singlecopy nuclear genes (20).
Labyrinth fishes (Anabantoidei)
Authors: Rüber Lukas 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
Labyrinth fishes (Anabantoidei) are grouped into three families (Osphronemidae, Helostomatidae, and Anabantidae) within the teleost Order Perciformes. Recent phylogenetic analyses have resulted in major changes in their classification. The Family Belontiidae is no longer recognized. The pike-head Luciocephalus, previously considered a separate family (Luciocephalidae) and closest relative of the remaining anabantoids, is now placed in a derived position within the Osphronemidae. The anabantoid timetree shows that the three families diverged either in the Middle Eocene (40 million years ago, Ma) or in the late Cretaceous (90 Ma) depending on the assignment of the only available anabantoid fossil. Labyrinth Ashes form a natural (monophyletic) group of teleost Ashes, the Suborder Anabantoidei. 7ey are arranged into three families: Osphronemidae (120 species; gouramies, paradise Ashes, and Aghting Ashes; Fig. 1), Helostomatidae (one species, Kissing Gourami), and Anabantidae (28 species; climbing gouramies and bushAshes). Although a comparatively small group, anabantoids exhibit a striking variation in size, ranging from dwarfed forms such as Parosphromenus ornaticauda, with 19 mm standard length, to large forms such as the giant gouramies of the genus Osphronemus, with up to 70 cm standard length (1, 2). A number of species play an important role as food Ashes and are widely used in aquaculture, whereas others are important and highly colorful aquarium Ashes. Labyrinth Ashes show an astonishing diversity in breeding behavior that is rarely found in any other Ash group (3, 4). Parental care is dominant and occurs in 16 of the 19 anabantoid genera.
Armadillos, anteaters, and sloths (Xenarthra)
Authors: Delsuca Frédéric , Douzerya Emmanuel J P 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
Despite their heterogeneous morphologies, armadillos (Cingulata), anteaters (Vermilingua), and sloths (Folivora) form a monophyletic group of curious placental mammals, the Order Xenarthra. Indeed, all living and extinct members share the presence of supplementary intervertebral articulations termed “xenarthrales” in the posterior dorsal vertebrae (1). Extant xenarthrans are currently represented by 31 species of South American origin (2). 7is reduced taxonomic diversity is the result of the last mass extinction event just 10,000 years ago that wiped out most of the product of an evolutionary radiation triggered by the isolation of South America during most of the Cenozoic era, 65–3 Ma (3). Five families are generally recognized: Dasypodidae (armadillos; Fig. 1), Cyclopedidae and Myrmecophagidae (anteaters), and Bradypodidae and Megalonychidae (sloths) (4). Here, we review the phylogenetic relationships and divergence times among the Ave families of extant xenarthrans. Few studies have been dedicated to reconstructing the phylogenetic relationships of xenarthrans. The Arst attempts based on morphological and anatomical characters have conPicted regarding the interrelationships of the three xenarthran lineages: some grouped armadillos and sloths together (5, 6), whereas others suggested that anteaters are the closest relatives of sloths (7, 8). Early molecular studies based on evolutionary comparisons of protein sequences of alpha crystallin-A (9) and immunological distances derived from serum albumins.
Rodents (Rodentia)
Authors: Honeycutt Rodney L 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
The Order Rodentia (represented by squirrels, mice, rats, guinea pigs, and others) contains 42% (2277) of all species and 39% (481) of all genera described for the Class Mammalia (1) (Fig. 1). If one includes the recently discovered extant Family Diatomyidae (2), the order contains 34 families (1). All early classifications of mammals and more recent cladistic analysis of morphological variation (craniodental, postcranial, fetal membrane) (4) support a monophyletic Rodentia. Although several early molecular phylogenetic studies questioned the validity of a monophyletic Rodentia (5, 6), more recent molecular data, based on either nuclear DNA (7–9) or a more thorough analysis of sequences of whole mitochondrial genomes (10), reveal support in favor of monophyly. In this review I will address phylogenetic relationships and divergence times for families within Rodentia.
Hedgehogs, shrews, moles, and solenodons (Eulipotyphla)
Authors: Douadya Christophe J , Douzeryd Emmanuel J P 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
Hedgehogs, shrews (Fig. 1), moles, and solenodons form a single, natural group of small mammals, the Order Eulipotyphla. the452 currently recognized species (1) belong to four living families: Erinaceidae (hedgehogs; two subfamilies, 10 genera, and 24 species), Soricidae (shrews; three subfamilies, 26 genera, and 376 species), Talpidae (moles; three subfamilies, 17 genera, and 39 species), Solenodontidae (solenodons; one genus and four species), and the recently extinct Nesophontidae (West Indian shrews; one genus and nine species). Shared morphological characters include a simple hindgut without a caecum, typically long narrow snouts, and reduced to absent eyes. However, the lack of unique derived characters has convinced many zoologists that they resemble the basic stock that gave rise to most eutherian lineages. Here, we review the relationships and divergence times of these four living families. We begin by Arst placing them in the context of what has long been considered as a taxonomic wastebasket, the Insectivora.
Oxford Studies in Metaethics
Authors: Shafer-Landau Russ 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
Oxford Studies in Metaethics is the only publication devoted exclusively to original philosophical work in the foundations of ethics. It provides an annual selection of much of the best new scholarship being done in the field. Its broad purview includes work being done at the intersection of ethical theory and metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind. The essays included in the series provide an excellent basis for understanding recent developments in the field; those who would like to acquaint themselves with the current state of play in metaethics would do well to start here.
Defending Divine Freedom
Authors: Senor Thomas D 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
In a series of articles and most recently in his book Can God Be Free?, William Rowe has argued that the traditional theistic view of the nature of God is fundamentally incoherent. In particular, Rowe believes that: constitute an inconsistent tetrad. Furthermore, Rowe argues, the theist should not be prepared to give up (iv) because if God’s creative acts are not free, then God is not praiseworthy and it is not the case that God is properly thanked for his goodness towards his creatures. In this paper, I’ll examine Rowe’s argument for this inconsistency.
‘What’S the Matter With Prime Matter?’
Authors: Lewis Frank A 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
Critics of the notion of prime matter traditionally found in Aristotle have challenged not only its coherence, but also the very propriety of the attribution to Aristotle. In this paper I argue that prime matter has a real place in Aristotle’s metaphysics, and that much if not all of the traditional view of it is genuinely his. I place my account in the broader context of what it means, in general, to say of something that it counts as matter, prime or otherwise. As I see it, Aristotle’s views can best be framed in terms of what satisfies the property of being matter, conceived as a second-level functional property. This is admittedly a philosophical reconstruction rather than a direct account of Aristotle’s ideas; and the reconstruction I offer does not extend to a defence of ‘bare substrate’ theory as such. But I do mean to defend the ‘fit’ of prime matter, much as traditionally conceived, in what I take to be its Aristotelian context. I begin with some main features of the traditional view, along with their apparently Aristotelian credentials.
Elemental Teleology in Aristotle’S Physics 2.8
Authors: Scharle Margaret 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
The role of nature in Aristotle’s account of natural teleology has been widely misunderstood, and as a result Aristotle has been interpreted with an excessively biological focus. Scholars have thought that his natural teleology applies exclusively to biological things (plants and animals) and that the elements (earth, air, fire, and water) either are not teleological or are teleological only in so far as they play a role in biological processes.
Implicational hierarchies and grammatical complexity
Authors: Miestamo Matti 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
This chapter examines the usability of Greenbergian implicational hierarchies (Greenberg 1966) in cross-linguistic research on language complexity. Recently an increasing number of linguists have started to question the conventional wisdom according to which all languages are equally complex. McWhorter (2001a) proposes a metric for measuring the overall complexity of grammars of languages. One of the criteria employed in the metric pays attention to the number of grammatically expressed semantic or pragmatic distinctions: for example, a language that has a singular, a plural, and a dual is more complex in this respect than a language where only two number categories, singular and plural, are found. McWhorter further argues (p. 160) that such complexity differences can be translated into implicational hierarchies. Thus, the existence of number categories is regulated by the implicational hierarchy in (1) (adapted from Greenberg 1963; Greenberg formulated his Universal 34 as follows: ‘‘No language has a trial number unless it has a dual. No language has a dual unless it has a plural.“).
Complexity in core argument marking and population size
Authors: Ki Kaius SinnemÄ 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
A widely accepted presupposition among linguists is that language structure has nothing to do with its geographical or sociocultural setting (e.g. Kaye 1989: 48).1 However, this claim has not been supported by empirical evidence. On the contrary, there seems to be a growing body of evidence indicating a relationship between, for example, structural complexity of language and its geographical or sociocultural setting. Nichols (1992), for one, has argued that morphological complexity varies geographically. Perkins (1992) has argued that grammatical complexity of deictic categories correlates negatively with cultural complexity. Sociolinguistic aspects of the speech community have also been suggested as causing complexity variation (Nettle 1999; Kusters 2003; Trudgill 1996b, 2004a, b). This chapter develops the ideas of Johanna Nichols (in Chapter 8 above and other recent writing) by studying whether a specific morphosyntactic area, core argument marking, shows complexity varying with speech community size.
Introduction: A Guided Tour of Metametaphysics
Authors: Manley David 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
Metaphysics is concerned with the foundations of reality. It asks questions about the nature of the world, such as: Aside from concrete objects, are there also abstract objects like numbers and properties? Does every event have a cause? What is the nature of possibility and necessity? When do several things make up a single bigger thing? Do the past and future exist? And so on.
Composition, Colocation, and Metaontology1
Authors: Bennett Karen 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
Some of the things we metaphysicians think about strike others — and, in some moods, ourselves— as a trifile silly. Are there numbers? If I say that my shirt is blue, am I committed to the existence of a universal, namely blueness? If you have two objects, are you guaranteed to also have a third object entirely composed of the first two? And so on and so forth.
Ethical issues around evidence-based patient choice and shared decision-making
Authors: Holm Søren , Davies Myfanwy 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
Evidence-based patient choice brings together the movements to promote evidence-based medicine and patient-centred medicine. While proponents of evidence-based medicine contend that interventions need to be based on evidence of effectiveness, patient-centred medicine is concerned with emphasizing the central role of patients in decisions about their care (Parker, 2001). Evidence-based patient choice may help to address the power imbalance inherent in many medical consultations and may serve to promote more effective patient care (Hope, 1997).
Conceptual variation and iteration in shared decision-making: The need for clarity
Authors: Clayman Marla L , Gregory Makoul 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
The medical encounter is filled with potential decision points. How best to make decisions about tests, medications, procedures, referrals, or behaviours and whom to involve in these decisions are questions that have received increasing attention over the last several decades. Shared decision-making (SDM) is frequently advocated in teaching and research about the provider – patient interaction. Interest in SDM, in particular, has grown over the last several years (Makoul and Clayman, 2006), and recent articles have highlighted the conceptual variation that has become evident as educators and researchers grapple with the topic (Makoul and Clayman, 2006; Moumjid et al., 2007b).
What’s happening around the world?
Authors: Coulter Angela 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
In democracies, those responsible for health care must ensure that they retain public support for the way health care is organized and delivered. For many governments and health authorities, this means searching for ways to ensure that health services are sufficiently responsive to patients’ needs and preferences. Often there is a perceived need to respond to ‘consumer pressure’ and make health care more like other consumer experiences. But the need for ‘patient engagement’, where the patient is encouraged to take an active role as a key player in choosing appropriate treatments for episodes of ill-health and managing chronic disease, has often been ignored in the past. As other chapters in this volume show, substantial evidence now exists that this not only improves patients’ experience and satisfaction, but can also be clinically and economically effective. As a result, the issue is creeping up the health policy agenda. This chapter looks at approaches adopted in a number of countries to promote and support shared decision-making.
Decision aids in diabetes
Authors: Lenz Matthias , Mühlhauser Ingrid 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
Diabetes is usually not considered a typical disease for shared decision-making (SDM) even by protagonists of SDM (O’Connor et al., 2003). The belief is still widely held that control of blood glucose and other cardiovascular risk factors is beyond any doubt beneficial, and therefore, supporting patients in adherence increasing behaviour rather than SDM has been standard procedure in diabetes care (IDF, 2005; Nathan et al., 2006; ADA, 2008).
Population-Level Bioethics: Mapping a New Agenda
Authors: Wikler Daniel , Brock Dan W 
Published: November 2023

Abstract
Bioethics was long focused on ethical issues arising in the relationships and interactions of individual patients and their physicians, as well as individual investigators and their research subjects. Ethical issues arising at the population level are no less acute, but are much less visible to lay people, to health professionals, and to many bioethicists. The issues come into focus only when one adopts a bird’s-eye view that looks at populations. From this perspective, new issues become visible, and their close kinship to long-debated ethical questions in other fields such as population policy, environmental health, and political philosophy becomes apparent. Even as investigation, debate, and education continue in the clinical settings in which bioethics has been most at home, an extensive, new, and largely unexplored region of bioethics is coming into view. The bird’s-eye perspective of this population-level bioethics includes consideration not only of health care but of other social determinants of health, including socio-economic standing, environmental and working conditions, and social exclusion. Its subject therefore is health rather than health care alone, insofar as health can be affected by conditions and interventions in any of these domains.