ArticlePloS one2025
Morphological diversity in the honeyeater hyolingual apparatus and its relationship with nectarivory.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Honeyeaters (Aves, Meliphagidae) are a speciose clade of nectarivorous birds, and there is immense diversity in the degree to which different species within the family rely on nectar. Honeyeater tongues are commonly described as similar to a paintbrush, with this morphology being interpreted as an adaptation for increasing nectar extraction efficiency. However, there has been limited work documenting the degree of interspecific diversity in tongue morphology across the family or the extent to which such diversity correlates with dependance on nectar. This information is also lacking for the hyoid bones, the structures responsible for moving the tongue in and out of the mouth. We aimed to fill this knowledge gap by examining honeyeater tongues and hyoids from across the family. We found that there are six distinct tongue types across the Meliphagidae, and that certain genera such as Acanthorhynchus and Phylidonyris have a unique tongue morphologies. Using phylogenetic generalized least square regressions, we found that tongue length (not size corrected) and the proportion of tongue that is bristled were both positively correlated to degree of nectarivory, while tongue length (relative to bill length), tongue depth (relative to bill depth) and tongue width (relative to bill width) were not correlated to nectarivory. Finally, we found no correlation between hyoid length (relative to bill length) and nectarivory, suggesting that the capacity for further tongue protrusion is unrelated to nectar dependence in honeyeaters. Similar studies should be conducted across other groups of avian nectarivores to expand our understanding of dietary ecomorphology beyond bill shape, which has been the focus of the majority of research on food handling adaptations in birds thus far.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.