Comparative methods with sampling error and within-species variation: Contrasts revisited and revised

American Naturalist

Volumn 171, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 713-725

  Felsenstein, Joseph ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative method; Contrasts; Phenotypic variance; Phylogeny; Sampling error; Statistics

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COVARIANCE ANALYSIS; ERROR ANALYSIS; EVOLUTION; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ANALYSIS; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NUMERICAL MODEL; PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY; PHYLOGENY; SAMPLING;

ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVOLUTION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; PHYLOGENY; REVIEW; SPECIES DIFFERENTIATION;

ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION; GENETIC SPECIATION; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY; SELECTION BIAS; VARIATION (GENETICS);

EID: 43949115169     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/587525     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Cheverud, J. M., M. M. Dow, and W. Leutenegger. 1985. The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: sexual dimorphism of body weight among primates. Evolution 39:1335-1351.
2. Christman, M. C., R. W. Jernighan, and D. Culver. 1997. A comparison of two models for estimating phylogenetic effect on trait variation. Evolution 51:262-266.
3. Dempster, A. P., N. M. Laird, and D. B. Rubin. 1977. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 39:1-38.
4. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist 125:1-15.
5. _. 1988. Phylogenies and quantitative characters. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19:445-471.
6. _. 2002a. Contrasts for a within-species comparative method. Pages 118-129 in M. Slatkin and M. Veuille, eds. Modern developments in theoretical population genetics: the legacy of Gustave Malécot. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
7. _. 2002b. Quantitative characters, phylogenies, and morphometrics. Pages 27-44 in N. MacLeod and P. L. Forey, eds. Morphology, shape, and phylogenetics. Taylor & Francis, London.
8. _. 2004. Inferring phylogenies. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
9. Grafen, A. 1989. The phylogenetic regression. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 326:119-157.
10. Harmon, L. J., and J. B. Losos. 2005. The effect of intraspecific sample size on Type I and Type II error rates in comparative studies. Evolution 59:2705-2710.
11. Housworth, E. A., E. P. Martins, and M. Lynch. 2004. The phylogenetic mixed model. American Naturalist 163:84-96.
12. Ives, A. R., P. E. Midford, and T. Garland Jr. 2007. Within-species variation and measurement error in phylogenetic comparative methods. Systematic Biology 56:252-270.
13. Lauritzen, S. L. 1996. Graphical models. Clarendon, Oxford.
14. Lynch, M. 1991. Methods for the analysis of comparative data in evolutionary biology. Evolution 45:1065-1080.
15. Purvis, A., and T. Garland Jr. 1993. Polytomies in comparative analyses of continuous characters. Systematic Biology 42:569-575.
16. Ricklefs, R. E., and M. J. Starck. 1996. Applications of phylogenetically independent contrasts: a mixed progress report. Oikos 77:167-172.