Cargando…
Nothing Wrong with the Analysis of Clades in Comparative Evolutionary Studies: A Reply to Poe et al
In a recent paper, Poe et al. assert that scientists should abandon clade-based approaches, particularly those using named taxonomic ranks. Poe et al. attempt to demonstrate that clade selection can have effects on the results of evolutionary analyses but unfortunately fall short of making any robus...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7744035/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32845334 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syaa067 |
_version_ | 1783624353728954368 |
---|---|
author | Baker, Joanna Meade, Andrew Pagel, Mark Venditti, Chris |
author_facet | Baker, Joanna Meade, Andrew Pagel, Mark Venditti, Chris |
author_sort | Baker, Joanna |
collection | PubMed |
description | In a recent paper, Poe et al. assert that scientists should abandon clade-based approaches, particularly those using named taxonomic ranks. Poe et al. attempt to demonstrate that clade selection can have effects on the results of evolutionary analyses but unfortunately fall short of making any robust conclusions. Here, we demonstrate that the assertions made by Poe et al. have two important flaws: (i) an erroneous view of modern phylogenetic comparative methods; and (ii) a lack of statistical rigor in their analyses. We repeat Poe et al.’s analysis but using appropriate phylogenetic comparative approaches. We demonstrate that results remain consistent regardless of the clade definition. We go on to discuss the value of taxonomic groupings and how they can provide meaningful units of comparison in evolutionary study. Unlike the disheartening suggestion to abandon the use of clades, scientists can instead continue to use phylogenetic “ corrections” that are already the standard for most comparative evolutionary analyses. [Comparative methods; evolution; phylogeny; taxonomy.] |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7744035 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77440352020-12-22 Nothing Wrong with the Analysis of Clades in Comparative Evolutionary Studies: A Reply to Poe et al Baker, Joanna Meade, Andrew Pagel, Mark Venditti, Chris Syst Biol Points of View In a recent paper, Poe et al. assert that scientists should abandon clade-based approaches, particularly those using named taxonomic ranks. Poe et al. attempt to demonstrate that clade selection can have effects on the results of evolutionary analyses but unfortunately fall short of making any robust conclusions. Here, we demonstrate that the assertions made by Poe et al. have two important flaws: (i) an erroneous view of modern phylogenetic comparative methods; and (ii) a lack of statistical rigor in their analyses. We repeat Poe et al.’s analysis but using appropriate phylogenetic comparative approaches. We demonstrate that results remain consistent regardless of the clade definition. We go on to discuss the value of taxonomic groupings and how they can provide meaningful units of comparison in evolutionary study. Unlike the disheartening suggestion to abandon the use of clades, scientists can instead continue to use phylogenetic “ corrections” that are already the standard for most comparative evolutionary analyses. [Comparative methods; evolution; phylogeny; taxonomy.] Oxford University Press 2020-08-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7744035/ /pubmed/32845334 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syaa067 Text en © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercialre-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Points of View Baker, Joanna Meade, Andrew Pagel, Mark Venditti, Chris Nothing Wrong with the Analysis of Clades in Comparative Evolutionary Studies: A Reply to Poe et al |
title | Nothing Wrong with the Analysis of Clades in Comparative Evolutionary Studies: A Reply to Poe et al |
title_full | Nothing Wrong with the Analysis of Clades in Comparative Evolutionary Studies: A Reply to Poe et al |
title_fullStr | Nothing Wrong with the Analysis of Clades in Comparative Evolutionary Studies: A Reply to Poe et al |
title_full_unstemmed | Nothing Wrong with the Analysis of Clades in Comparative Evolutionary Studies: A Reply to Poe et al |
title_short | Nothing Wrong with the Analysis of Clades in Comparative Evolutionary Studies: A Reply to Poe et al |
title_sort | nothing wrong with the analysis of clades in comparative evolutionary studies: a reply to poe et al |
topic | Points of View |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7744035/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32845334 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syaa067 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bakerjoanna nothingwrongwiththeanalysisofcladesincomparativeevolutionarystudiesareplytopoeetal AT meadeandrew nothingwrongwiththeanalysisofcladesincomparativeevolutionarystudiesareplytopoeetal AT pagelmark nothingwrongwiththeanalysisofcladesincomparativeevolutionarystudiesareplytopoeetal AT vendittichris nothingwrongwiththeanalysisofcladesincomparativeevolutionarystudiesareplytopoeetal |