Nothing wrong with the analysis of clades in comparative evolutionary studies: A reply to Poe et al.

2Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

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.

References Powered by Scopus

Phylogenies and the comparative method.

7643Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution

3950Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The delayed rise of present-day mammals

1667Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

The radiation continuum and the evolution of frog diversity

3Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Molecular systematics of tamarins with emphasis on genus Tamarinus (Primates, Callitrichidae)

2Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Baker, J., Meade, A., Pagel, M., & Venditti, C. (2021). Nothing wrong with the analysis of clades in comparative evolutionary studies: A reply to Poe et al. Systematic Biology, 70(1), 197–201. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syaa067

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 5

42%

Researcher 5

42%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

17%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10

71%

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 2

14%

Arts and Humanities 1

7%

Environmental Science 1

7%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free