Seeking the evolutionary regression coefficient: An analysis of what comparative methods measure

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Volumn 164, Issue 2, 1993, Pages 191-205

  Pagel, Mark ^a  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EVOLUTION; PHYLOGENY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ANIMAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVOLUTION; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PHYLOGENY; SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T;

EVOLUTION; PHYLOGENY; STATISTICAL TECHNIQUE;

EID: 0027338498     PISSN: 00225193     EISSN: 10958541     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jtbi.1993.1148     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Cheverud, J. M., Dow, M. M. & Leutenegger, W. (1985). The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: sexual dimorphism in body weight among primates. Evolution 39, 1335-1351.
2. Felsenstein, J. (1985). Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 125, 1-15.
3. Gittleman, JL. & Kot, M. (1990). Adaptation: statistics and a null model for estimating phylogenetic effects. Syst. Zool. 39, 227-241.
4. Grafen, A. (1989). The phylogenetic regression. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 326, 119-156.
5. Grafen, A. (1992). The uniqueness of the phylogenetic regression. J. theor. Biol. 156, 405-423.
6. Harvey, P. H. & Pagel, M. D. (1991). The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Harvey, P. H. & Purvis, A. (1991). Comparative methods for explaining adaptations. Nature, Lond. 351, 619-624.
8. Huey, R. B. & Bennett, A. F. (1987). Phylogenetic studies of co-adaptation: preferred temperatures versus optimal performance temperatures of lizards. Evolution 41, 1098-1115.
9. Lauder, G. V, (1981). Form and function: structural analysis in evolutionary morphology. Paleobiology 7, 430-442.
10. Lewontin, R. C. (1969). The bases of conflict in biological explanation. J. Hist. Biol. 2, 35-45.
11. Losos, J. B. (1990a). The evolution of form and function: morphology and locomotor performance in West Indian Anolis lizards. Evolution 44, 1189-1203.
12. Losos, J. B. (1996). Ecomorphology, performance capability, and scaling of West Indian Anolis lizards: an evolutionary analysis. Ecol. Mon. 60, 369-388.
13. Lynch, M. (1991). Methods for the analysis of comparative data in evolutionary biology. Evolution 45, 1065-1080.
14. Martins, E. P. & Garland, T., Jr. (1991). Phylogenetic analyses of the correlated evolution of continuous characters: a simulation study. Evolution 45, 534-557.
15. Pagel, M. (1992). A method for the analysis of comparative data. J. theor. Biol. 156, 431-442.
16. Pagel, M. D. & Harvey, P. H. (1988). Recent developments in the analysis of comparative data. Quart. Rev. Biol. 63, 413-440.
17. Pagel, M. D. & Harvey, P. H. (1989), Comparative methods for examining adaptation depend on evolutionary models. Folia Primal. 53, 203-220.
18. Session, S. K. & Larson, A. (1987). Developmental correlates of genome size in Plethodontid salamanders and their implications for genome evolution. Evolution 41, 1239-1251.
19. Stearns, S. C. (1983). The influence of size and phylogeny on patterns of covariation among life-history traits in mammals. Oikos 41, 173-187.
20. Walton, B. M. (1993). Physiology and phylogeny: the evolution oflocomotor energetics in hylid frogs. Am. Nat. 141, 26-50.