Comparative methods based on species mean values

Mathematical Biosciences

Volumn 187, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 135-154

  Kelly, Colleen ^a   Price, Trevor D ^b  

^a SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative methods; Errors in variables; Fixed effects; Hypothesis testing; Linear regression; Maximum likelihood estimation; Random effects

Indexed keywords

ERROR ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS; PHYLOGENY;

BIODIVERSITY;

COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVOLUTION; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; PHYLOGENY; REGRESSION;

ACER; ANALYTIC METHOD; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOMETRY; CALCULATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVOLUTION; HISTOLOGY; LIZARD; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PHYLOGENY; SONGBIRD; SPECIES COMPARISON; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

EID: 0347301660     PISSN: 00255564     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.mbs.2003.11.003     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Riska B. Regression models in evolutionary allometry. Am. Natural. 138:1991;283.
2. Martin R.D., Harvey P.H. Brain size allometry. Jungers W.L. Size and Scaling in Primate Biology. 1985;147 Plenum, New York.
3. Pagel M.D., Harvey P.H. Taxonomic differences in the scaling of brain on body weight among mammals. Science. 244:1989;1589.
4. Harvey P.H., Pagel M.D. The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. 1991;Oxford University, New York.
5. Martins E.P., Hansen T.F. The statistical analysis of comparative data: a review and evaluation of phylogenetic comparative methods. Martins E. Phylogenies and the Comparative method in Animal Behaviour. 1996;22 Oxford University, New York.
6. Felsenstein J. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Natural. 125:1985;1.
7. Kuhry B., Marcus L.F. Bivariate linear models in biometry. Systemat. Zool. 26:1977;201.
8. P.H. Harvey, G.M. Mace, Comparisons between taxa and adaptive trends: problems of methodology, in: King's College Sociobiology Group, (Eds.), Current Problems in Sociobiology, Cambridge University, Cambridge 1982, p. 343.
9. Seim E., Saether B.-E. On rethinking allometry: which regression model to use? J. Theor. Biol. 104:1983;161.
10. Barnett V.D. Fitting straight lines - the linear functional relationship with replicated observations. Appl. Stat. 19:1970;135.
11. Ackerly D.D. Taxon sampling, correlated evolution and independent contrasts. Evolution. 54:2000;1480.
12. Diaz-Uriarte R., Garland T. Testing hypotheses of correlated evolution using phylogenetically independent contrasts: sensitivity to deviations from Brownian motion. Syst. Biol. 45:1996;27.
13. Martins E.P., Diniz J.A.F., Hounsworth E.A. Adaptive constraints and the phylogentic comparative method: a computer simulation test. Evolution. 56:2002;1.
14. Abouheif E. Random trees and the comparative method: a cautionary tale. Evolution. 52:1998;1197.
15. Price T. Correlated evolution and independent contrasts. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. 352:1997;519.
16. Losos J.B., Jackman T.R., Larson A., de Queiroz K., Rodriguez-Schettino L. Contingency and determinism in replicated adaptive radiations of island lizards. Science. 279:1998;2115.
17. Harvey P.H., Rambaut A. Comparative analyses for adaptive radiations. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. 355:2000;1599.
18. West-Eberhard M.J. Sexual selection, social competition and speciation. Quart. Rev. Biol. 58:1983;155.
19. Hansen T.F. Stabilizing selection and the comparative analysis of adaptation. Evolution. 51:1977;1341.
20. Lynch M. The rate of morphological evolution in mammals from the standpoint of the neutral theory. Am. Natural. 136:1991;727.
21. Richman A., Price T. Evolution of ecological differences in the old-world leaf warblers. Nature. 335(6363):1992;817.
22. Losos J.B., Leal M., Glor R.E., de Queiroz K., Hertz P.E., Rodriguez-Schettino L., Lara A.C., Jackman T.R., Larson A. Niche liability in the evolution of a Caribbean lizard community. Nature. 424:2003;542.
23. Garland T., Adolph S.C. Why not to do two-species comparative tests - limitations on inferring adaptation. Physiol. Zool. 67:1994;797.
24. Martin R.D. Relative brain size and basal metabolic rate in terrestrial vertebrates. Nature. 293:1981;57.
25. MathWorks, Inc., MATLAB Reference Guide, 1992.
26. Sokal R.R., Rohlf F.J. Biometry. 3rd Ed. 1995;W.H. Freeman, New York. p. 543.
27. MacArthur R.H. Population ecology of some warblers of northeastern coniferous forests. Ecology. 39:1958;599.
28. Price T., Lovette I.J., Bermingham E., Gibbs H.L., Richman A.D. The imprint of history on communities of North American and Asian warblers. Am. Natural. 156:2000;354.
29. Ackerly D.D., Donoghue M.J. Leaf size, sapling allometry, and Corner's rules: phylogeny and correlated evolution in maples (Acer). Am. Natural. 152:1998;767.
30. Losos J.B., Chu L.-R. Examination of factors potentially affecting dewlap size in Caribbean Anoles. Copeia. 1998;430.
31. Ridley M. Why not to use species in comparative tests. J. Theor. Biol. 136:1989;361.
32. Nee S., Read A.F., Harvey P. Why phylogenies are necessary for comparative analysis. Martins E. Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behavior. 1996;399 Oxford University, New York.
33. Freedman D. From association to causation: some remarks on the history of statistics. Statist. Sci. 14:1999;243.