|
| |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
|
Fig. 3. (A) Illustration of what conventional statistical analyses assume when
applied to comparative data (`star' phylogeny with equal-length branches).
This model implies that values at tips of the tree (phenotypic means for some
trait for 10 species) are statistically independent and identically
distributed. (B) Phylogenetic tree that might be inferred from taxonomic
information, e.g. if five genera within a single family were represented that
contained, from left to right, one, one, three, three and two species in the
data set. This assumes that the genera are an unrelated series of `mini-stars'
with no hierarchical structure within any of them. It also assumes that the
taxa actually represent separate evolutionary lineages (monophyletic groups or
clades), but such is not always the case for taxonomies. (C) Estimates of real
phylogenies usually indicate hierarchical relationships and branches that do
not necessarily line up along the tips of the tree. Non-contemporaneous tips
can indicate that extinct taxa are included in the data set or that the rate
of evolution has varied among branches. Real phylogenies like this cause
various statistical problems, stemming from the non-independence of species'
phenotypes, so phylogenetically based statistical methods are required for
proper analyses. Modified from Garland
(2001) and Rezende and Garland
(2003).
|
