The effects of topological inaccuracy in evolutionary trees on the phylogenetic comparative method of independent contrasts

Systematic Biology

Volumn 51, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 541-553

  Symonds, Matthew R E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Comparative method; Computer simulation; Independent contrasts; Phylogenetic error; Random phylogenies; Topological inaccuracy

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; PHYLOGENY;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 0036700909     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150290069977     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Abouheif, E. 1998. Random trees and the comparative method: A cautionary tale. Evolution 52:1197-1204.
2. Bauwens, D., and R. Díaz-Uriarte. 1997. Covariation of life-history traits in lacertid lizards: A comparative study. Am. Nat. 149:91-111.
3. Björklund, M. 1997. Are 'comparative methods' always necessary? Oikos 80:607-612.
4. Cheverud, J. M., M. M. Dow, and W. Leutenegger. 1985. The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: Sexual dimorphism in body weight among primates. Evolution 39:1335-1351.
5. Díaz-Uriarte, R., and T. Garland, Jr. 1996. Testing hypotheses of correlated evolution using phylogenetically independent contrasts: Sensitivity to deviations from Brownian motion. Syst. Biol. 45:27-47.
6. Díaz-Uriarte, R., and T. Garland, Jr. 1998. Effects of branch length errors on the performance of phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst. Biol. 47:654-672.
7. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 125:1-15.
8. Garland, T., Jr., P. H. Harvey, and A. R. Ives. 1992. Procedures for the analyses of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst. Biol. 41:18-32.
9. Grafen, A. 1989. The phylogenetic regression. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 326:119-157.
10. Harvey, P. H. 1991. Comparing uncertain relationships: The Swedes in revolt. Trends Ecol. Evol. 6:38-39.
11. Harvey, P. H., and M. D. Pagel. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
12. Harvey, P. H., A. F. Read, and S. Nee. 1995. Further remarks on the role of phylogeny in comparative ecology. J. Ecol. 83:733-734.
13. Huey, R. B. 1987. Phylogeny, history and the comparative method. Pages 76-101 in New directions in ecological physiology (M. E. Feder, A. F. Bennett, W. W. Burggren, and R. B. Huey, eds.). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.
14. Klingenberg, C. P. 1996. Multivariate allometry. Pages 23-49 in Advances in morphometrics (L. F. Marcus, M. Corti, A. Loy, G. J. P. Naylor, and D. E. Slice, eds.). Plenum, New York.
15. Losos, J. B. 1994. An approach to the analysis of comparative data when a phylogeny is unavailable or incomplete. Syst. Biol. 43:117-123.
16. Lynch, M. 1991. Methods for the analysis of comparative data in evolutionary biology. Evolution 45:1065-1080.
17. Martins, E. P. 1996. Conducting phylogenetic comparative studies when the phylogeny is not known. Evolution 50:12-22.
18. Martins, E. P. 2000. Adaptation and the comparative method. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15:296-299.
19. Martins, E. P., and T. Garland, Jr. 1991. Phylogenetic analyses of the correlated evolution of continuous characters: A simulation study. Evolution 45:534-556.
20. Møller, A. P., and T. R. Birkhead. 1994. A pairwise comparative method as illustrated by copulation frequency in birds. Am. Nat. 138:644-656.
21. Oakley, T. H., and C. W. Cunnigham. 2000. Independent contrasts succeed where ancestor reconstruction fails in a known bacteriophage phylogeny. Evolution 54:397-405.
22. Pagel, M. D. 1992. A method for the analysis of comparative data. J. Theor. Biol. 156:431-442.
23. Price, T. 1997. Correlated evolution and independent contrasts. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 352:519-529.
24. Purvis, A., and T. Garland, Jr. 1993. Polytomies in comparative analyses of continuous characters. Syst. Biol. 42:569-575.
25. Purvis, A., J. L. Gittleman, and H.-K. Luh. 1994. Truth or consequences: Effects of phylogenetic accuracy on two comparative methods. J. Theor. Biol. 167:293-300.
26. Purvis, A., and A. Rambaut. 1995. Comparative analysis by independent contrasts (CAIC): An Apple Macintosh application for analysing comparative data. Comp. Appl. Biosci. 11:247-251.
27. Ridley, M., and A. Grafen. 1996. How to study discrete comparative methods. Pages 76-103 in Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior (E. P. Martins, ed.). Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
28. Schluter, D., T. Price, A. Ø. Mooers, and D. Ludwig. 1997. Likelihood of ancestor states in adaptive radiation. Evolution 51:1699-1711.
29. Yang, Z., N. Goldman, and A. Friday. 1995. Maximum likelihood trees from DNA sequences: A peculiar statistical estimation problem. Syst. Biol. 44:384-399.
30. Zar, J. H. 1996. Biostatistical analysis, 3rd edition. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.