A comment on phylogenetic correction

Evolution

Volumn 60, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 1509-1515

  Rohlf, F James ^a  

^a STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; Comparative methods; Generalized least squares; Independent contrasts

Indexed keywords

CORRECTION; PHYLOGENETICS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ARTICLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; PHYLOGENY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; LEAST-SQUARES ANALYSIS; PHYLOGENY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICS;

EID: 33748203042     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1554/05-550.1     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Abouheif, E. 1999. A method for testing the assumption of phylogenetic independence in comparative data. Evol. Ecol. Res. 1:895-909.
2. Beauchamp, G., and E. Fernandez-Juricic. 2004. Is there a relationship between forebrain size and group size in birds? Evol. Ecol. Res. 6:833-842.
3. Blomberg, S. P., T. Garland, and A. R. Ives. 2003. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57:717-745.
4. Desdevises, Y., P. Legendre, L. Azouzi, and S. Morand. 2003. Quantifying phylogenetically structured environmental variation. Evolution 57:2647-2652.
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. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 125:1-15.
7. _. 2004. Inferring phylogenies. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
8. Garland, T., Jr.,and A. R. Ives. 2000. Using the past to predict the present: confidence intervals for regression equations in phylogenetic comparative methods. Am. Nat. 155:346-364.
9. Garland, T., Jr., P. E. Midford, and A. R. Ives. 1999. An introduction to phylogenetically based statistical methods, with a new method for confidence intervals on ancestral values. Am. Zool. 39:374-388.
10. Gittleman, J. L., and M. Kot. 1990. Adaptation: statistics and a null model for estimating phylogenetic effects. Syst. Zool. 39:227-241.
11. Gregory, T. R. 2003. Variation across amphibian species in the size of the nuclear genome supports a pluralistic, hierarchical approach to the C-value enigma. Biol. Linn. Soc. 79:329-339.
12. Harvey, P. H. 2000. Why and how phylogenetic relationships should be incorporated into studies of scaling. Pp. 253-265 in J. H. Brown and G. B. West, eds. Scaling in biology. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
13. Housworth, E. A., E. P. Martins, and M. Lynch. 2004. The phylogenetic mixed model. Am. Nat. 163:84-96.
14. Lynch, M. 1991. Methods for the analysis of comparative data in evolutionary biology. Evolution 45:1065-1080.
15. Martins, E. P. 1996. Phylogenies, spatial autoregression, and the comparative method: a computer simulation test. Evolution 50:1750-1765.
16. Martins, E. P., and T. Garland Jr. 1991. Phylogenetic analyses of the correlated evolution of continuous characters: a simulation study. Evolution 45:534-557.
17. Martins, E. P., and T. F. Hansen. 1997. Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. Am. Nat. 149:646-667.
18. Pagel, M. 1993. Seeking the evolutionary regression coefficient: an analysis of what comparative methods measure. J. Theor. Biol. 164:191-205.
19. Paradis, E., and J. Claude. 2002. Analysis of comparative data using generalized estimating equations. J. Theor. Biol. 218:175-185.
20. Rao, C. R., and H. Toutenburg. 1999. Linear models: least squares and alternatives. Springer, New York.
21. Rheindt, F. E., T. U. Grafe, and E. Abouheif. 2004. Rapidly evolving traits and the comparative method: How important is testing for phylogenetic signal? Evol. Ecol. Res. 6:377-396.
22. Ricklefs, R. E., and J. M. Starck. 1996. Applications of phylogenetically independent contrasts: a mixed progress report. Oikos 77:167-172.
23. Rohlf, F. J. 2001. Comparative methods for the analysis of continuous variables: geometric interpretations. Evolution 55:2143-2160.
24. _. 2004. tpsTree: fitting shapes to trees. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY.
25. Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry: the principals and practice of statistics in biological research. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA.
26. Sokal, R. R., and P. H. A. Sneath. 1963. Principles of numerical taxonomy. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA.
27. Westoby, M., M. Leishman, and J. Lord. 1995a. Further remarks on phylogenetic correction. J. Ecol. 83:727-729.
28. Westoby, M., M. Leishman, and J. Lord. 1995b. Issues of interpretation after relating comparative datasets to phylogeny. J. Ecol. 83:892-893.