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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baker, Joanna, Meade, Andrew, Pagel, Mark, Venditti, Chris
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