Cited by 98Evolution and Paleontology StudiesEvolution and Genetic DynamicsGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Inference from binary comparative data

Read, Andrew F., Nee, Sean·1995·Journal of Theoretical Biology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/jtbi.1995.0047

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This is a clear case of phylogenetic pseudoreplication.

    “This seems to be a clear case of phylogenetic pseudoreplication (Read and Nee 1995;Maddison and FitzJohn 2015).”

    From Rethinking phylogenetic comparative methods (2018) · cites this paper as Read and Nee 1995

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Read, A. F., & Nee, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1995-03
Volume
173
Issue
1
Pages
99-108
ISSN
0022-5193 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2103301389
Cited by
98
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Theoretical Biology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
character association, phylogenetic comparative analysis, pseudoreplication, sister taxa, aposematism, butterflies, hybrid fitness, Haldane's rule, heterogamety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review