Recent developments in the analysis of comparative data

Abstract

Comparative methods can be used to test ideas about adaptation by identifying cases of either parallel or convergent evolutionary change across taxa. Phylogenetic relationships must be known or inferred if comparative methods are to separate the cross-taxonomic covariation among traits associated with evolutionary change from that attributable to common ancestry. Only the former can be used to test ideas linking convergent or parallel evolutionary change to some aspect of the environment. The comparative methods that are currently available differ in how they manage the effects brought about by phylogenetic relationships. One method is applicable only to discrete data, and uses cladistic techniques to identify evolutionary events that depart from phylogenetic trends. Techniques for continuous variables attempt to control for phylogenetic effects in a variety of ways. One method examines the taxonomic distribution of variance to identify the taxa within which character variation is small. The method assumes that taxa with small amounts of variation are those in which little evolutionary change has occurred, and thus variation is unlikely to be independent of ancestral trends. Analyses are then concentrated among taxa that show more variation, on the assumption that greater evolutionary change in the character has taken place. Several methods estimate directly the extent to which ancestry can predict the observed variation of a character, and subtract the ancestral effect to reveal variation of phylogeny. Yet another can remove phylogenetic effects if the true phylogeny is known. One class of comparative methods controls for phylogenetic effects by searching for comparative trends within rather than across taxa. With current knowledge of phylogenies, there is a trade-off in the choice of a comparative method: those that control phylogenetic effects with greater certainty are either less applicable to real data, or they make restrictive or untestable assumptions. Those that rely on statistical patterns to infer phylogenetic effects may not control phylogeny as efficiently but are more readily applied to existing data sets.