Phylogenies and the comparative method: A general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data

American Naturalist

Volumn 149, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 646-667

  Martins, Emília P ^a   Hansen, Thomas F ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANCESTRAL STATE; GENERALIZED LINEAR MODEL; PHENOTYPIC EVOLUTION; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 0030619995     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/286013     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Brooks, D. R., and D. A. McLennan. 1991. Phylogeny, ecology, and behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
2. Bulmer, M. 1991. Use of the method of generalized least squares in reconstructing phylogenies from sequence data. Molecular Biology and Evolution 8:868-883.
3. Cheverud, J. M., M. M. Dow, and W. Leutenegger. 1985. The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: sexual dimorphism in body weights among primates. Evolution 39:1335-1351.
4. de Queiroz, A., and P. H. Wimberger. 1993. The usefulness of behavior for phylogeny estimation: levels of homoplasy in behavioral and morphological characters. Evolution 47:46-60.
5. Dobson, A. J. 1990. An introduction to generalized linear models. Chapman & Hall, London.
6. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist 126:1-25.
7. _. 1988. Phylogenies and quantitative characters. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19:445-471.
8. Frumhoff, P. C., and H. K. Reeve. 1994. Using phylogenies to test hypotheses of adaptation: a critique of some current proposals. Evolution 48:172-180.
9. Garland, T., Jr., P. H. Harvey, and A. R. Ives. 1992. Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Systematic Biology 41:18-32.
10. Gittleman, J. L., and M. Kot. 1990. Adaptation: statistics and a null model for estimating phylogenetic effects. Systematic Zoology 39:227-241.
11. Gittleman, J. L., C. G. Anderson, M. Kot, and H.-K. Luh. 1996. Phylogenetic lability and rates of evolution: a comparison of behavioral, morphological and life history traits. Pages 166-205 i/i E. Martins, ed. Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
12. Grafen, A. 1989. The phylogenetic regression. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, Biological Sciences 326:199-157.
13. _. 1992. The uniqueness of the phylogenetic regression. Journal of Theoretical Biology 156:405-423.
14. Haldane, J. B. S. 1949. Suggestions as to quantitative measurement of rates of evolution. Evolution 3:51-56.
15. Hansen, T. F. 1996. Adaptation, phylogeny and the comparative method. Ph.D. diss. University of Oslo, Oslo.
16. Hansen, T. F., and E. P. Martins. 1996. Translating between microevolutionary process and macroevolutionary patterns: a general model of the correlation structure of interspecific data. Evolution 50:1404-1417.
17. Harvey, P. H., and M. D. Pagel. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
18. Irwin, R. 1996. The phylogenetic content of avian courtship display and song evolution. Pages 234-252 in E. Martins, ed. Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
19. Jordano, P. 1995. Angiosperm fleshy fruits and seed dispersers: a comparative analysis of adaptation and constraints in plant-animal interactions. American Naturalist 145:163-191.
20. Lande, R. 1976. Natural selection and random genetic drift in phenotypic evolution. Evolution 30:314-334.
21. Lauder, G. V., A. M. Leroi, and M. R. Rose. 1993. Adaptations and history. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 8:294-297.
22. Leroi, A. M., M. R. Rose, and G. V. Lauder. 1994. What does the comparative method reveal about adaptation? American Naturalist 143:381-402.
23. Losos, J. B. 1994. An approach to the analysis of comparative data when a phylogeny is unavailable or incomplete. Systematic Biology 43:117-123.
24. Lynch, M. 1990. The rate of morphological evolution in mammals from the standpoint of the neutral expectation. American Naturalist 136:727-741.
25. _. 1991. Methods for analysis of comparative data in evolutionary biology. Evolution 45:1065-1080.
26. Maddison, W. P. 1991. Squared-change parsimony reconstructions of ancestral states for continuous-valued characters on a phylogenetic tree. Systematic Zoology 40:304-314.
27. Martins, E. P. 1994. Estimating rates of character change from comparative data. American Naturalist 144:193-209.
28. _. 1995a. COMPARE: statistical analysis of comparative data, version 1.0. (Distributed by the author via the WWW at http://work.uoregon.edu/∼COMPARE or via anonymous ftp to work.uoregon.edu. Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene.)
29. _. 1995b. Phylogenies and comparative data, a microevolutionary perspective. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, Biological Sciences 349:85-91.
30. _. 1996. Conducting phylogenetic comparative analyses when the phylogeny is not known. Evolution 50:12-22.
31. Martins, E. P., and T. F. Hansen. 1996a. A microevolutionary link between phylogenies and comparative data. Pages 273-288 in P. H. Harvey, A. J. Leigh Brown, J. Maynard Smith, and S. Nee, eds. New uses for new phylogenies. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
32. _. 1996b. The statistical analysis of interspecific data: a review and evaluation of phylogenetic comparative methods. Pages 22-75 in E. Martins, ed. Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
33. McCullagh, M., and J. A. Neider. 1989. Generalized linear models. 2d ed. Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability. Vol. 37. Chapman & Hall, London.
34. Nee, S., A. F. Read, and P. H. Harvey. 1996. Why phylogenies are necessary for comparative analysis. Pages 399-411 in E. Martins, ed. Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
35. Ridley, M. 1983. The explanation of organic diversity: the comparative method and adaptations for mating. Clarendon, Oxford.
36. Ridley, M., and A. Grafen. 1996. How to study discrete comparative methods. Pages 76-103 in E. Martins, ed. Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
37. Ryan, M. J. 1990. Sexual selection, sensory systems, and sensory exploitation. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 7:158-195.
38. Sillé.n-Tullberg, B. 1988. Evolution of gregariousness in aposematic butterfly larvae: a phylogenetic analysis. Evolution 42:293-305.
39. _. 1993. The effect of biased inclusion of taxa on the correlation between discrete characters in phylogenetic trees. Evolution 47:1182-1191.
40. Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. 2d ed. W. H. Freeman, New York.
41. Spicer, G. 1993. Morphological evolution of the Drosophila virilis species group as assessed by rate tests for natural selection on quantitative characters. Evolution 47:1240-1254.
42. Turelli, M., J. H. Gillespie, and R. Lande. 1988. Rate tests for selection on quantitative characters during macroevolution and microevolution. Evolution 42:1085-1089.
43. Uyenoyama, M. K. 1995. A generalized least squares estimate for the origin of sporophytic self-incompatibility. Genetics 139:975-992.
44. Wilson, A. C. 1985. The molecular basis of evolution. Scientific American 253:164-173.
45. Wilson, A. C., G. L. Bush, S. M. Case, and M.-C. King. 1975. Social structuring of mammalian populations and the rate of chromosomal evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 72:5061-5065.
46. Wimberger, P. H., and A. de Queiroz. 1996. Comparting behavioral and morphological characters as indicators of phylogeny. Pages 206-233 in E. Martins, ed. Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
47. Wyles, J. S., J. G. Kunkel, and A. C. Wilson. 1983. Birds, behavior, and anatomical evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 80:4394-4397.