Why not to use species in comparative tests
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Species, genomes, and genes cannot be considered independent data points within statistical tests.
“However, species, genomes and genes cannot be considered as independent data points within statistical tests.”
From A phylogenetic approach to comparative genomics (2025) · cites this paper as [20]
Closely related species tend to be similar because they share genes by common descent.
“Closely related species tend to be similar because they share genes by common descent, which must be accounted for in analyses.”
From A phylogenetic approach to comparative genomics (2025) · cites this paper as [20]
Closely related species share many features of their ecology and life history.
“Closely related species share many features of their ecology and life history.”
From A phylogenetic approach to comparative genomics (2025) · cites this paper as [20]
There is an almost unlimited number of unknown 'third' variables which might influence the trait of interest.
“Consequently, there is an almost unlimited number of unknown ‘third’ variables which might influence the trait of interest20.”
From A phylogenetic approach to comparative genomics (2025) · cites this paper as [20]
Collecting many more data points from the same phylogenetic cluster could increase any bias due to phylogenetic non-independence.
“Collecting many more data points from the same phylogenetic cluster could increase any bias due to phylogenetic non-independence (Fig. 1)16,18,20.”
From A phylogenetic approach to comparative genomics (2025) · cites this paper as [20]
There is now no doubt that phylogenetic methods have revolutionized the field.
“there is now no doubt that they have revolutionized the field20,34,42,127,128”
From A phylogenetic approach to comparative genomics (2025) · cites this paper as [20]
There was initially resistance and misunderstanding about the application of phylogenetic methods to study adaptation at the organismal level.
“while there was initially resistance and misunderstanding about the application of phylogenetic methods to study adaptation at the organismal level”
From A phylogenetic approach to comparative genomics (2025) · cites this paper as [20]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A phylogenetic approach to comparative genomics
Dewar, A. E., Belcher, L. J., & West, S. A. (2025) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41576-024-00803-0 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ridley, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Ridley, Mark
- Venue
- Journal of Theoretical Biology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1989-02
- Volume
- 136
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 361-364
- ISSN
- 0022-5193 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2071688650
- Cited by
- 84
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 27.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Theoretical Biology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Keywords
- species rarity, local abundance, frugivorous birds, food utilization, dietary specialization, resource availability, resource overlap, habitat use, fruit availability, lowland tropical forest, Sulawesi, comparative ecology, phylogenetic bias, independent contrasts
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
