You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Random Trees and the Comparative Method: A Cautionary Tale
Vol. 52, No. 4 (Aug., 1998), pp. 1197-1204
Published by: Society for the Study of Evolution
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2411248
Page Count: 8
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
One of the toughest problems facing comparative biology is the paucity of robust phylogenetic hypotheses for many taxonomic groups. Martins (1996) proposed a method to analyze comparative data in the absence of a known phylogeny using randomly generated trees. Before applying this method, however, researchers should be aware that (1) parameter estimates derived from this method essentially assume a star phylogeny, and thus, estimate the same evolutionary regression or correlation coefficient as traditional cross-species analyses; and (2) statistical conclusions derived from this method may be so conservative as to mask evolutionary patterns, such as Rensch's rule, and should be interpreted with caution.
Evolution © 1998 Society for the Study of Evolution