The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative Methods with Sampling Error and Within‐Species Variation: Contrasts Revisited and Revised
Abstract
Comparative methods analyses have usually assumed that the species phenotypes are the true means for those species. In most analyses, the actual values used are means of samples of modest size. The covariances of contrasts then involve both the covariance of evolutionary changes and a fraction of the within-species phenotypic covariance, the fraction depending on the sample size for that species. Ives et al. have shown how to analyze data in this case when the within-species phenotypic covariances are known. The present model allows them to be unknown and to be estimated from the data. A multivariate normal statistical model is used for multiple characters in samples of finite size from species related by a known phylogeny, under the usual Brownian motion model of change and with equal within-species phenotypic covariances. Contrasts in each character can be obtained both between individuals within a species and between species. Each contrast can be taken for all of the characters. These sets of contrasts, each the same contrast taken for different characters, are independent. The within-set covariances are unequal and depend on the unknown true covariance matrices. An expectation-maximization algorithm is derived for making a reduced maximum likelihood estimate of the covariances of evolutionary change and the within-species phenotypic covariances. It is available in the Contrast program of the PHYLIP package. Computer simulations show that the covariances are biased when the finiteness of sample size is not taken into account and that using the present model corrects the bias. Sampling variation reduces the power of inference of covariation in evolution of different characters. An extension of this method to incorporate estimates of additive genetic covariances from a simple genetic experiment is also discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793
Self-citationLauritzen, S. L. (1996) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198522195.001.0001 · Cited by 2,976
Cited by
Methodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysis
Nakagawa, S., & Santos, E. S. A. (2012) · Evolutionary Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10682-012-9555-5 · Cited by 1,032
A Linear-Time Algorithm for Gaussian and Non-Gaussian Trait Evolution Models
Tung Ho, L. S., & Ané, C. (2014) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syu005 · Cited by 1,085
Phylogenetic signal and linear regression on species data: Phylogenetic regression
Revell, L. J. (2010) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00044.x · Cited by 931
Use and misuse of the reduced major axis for line‐fitting
Smith, R. J. (2009) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.21090 · Cited by 724
Functional traits, the phylogeny of function, and ecosystem service vulnerability
Díaz, S., Purvis, A., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Mace, G. M., Donoghue, M. J., Ewers, R. M., Jordano, P., & Pearse, W. D. (2013) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.601 · Cited by 644
Metadata
- Authors
- Felsenstein, J.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2008-06
- Volume
- 171
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 713-725
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W2083114520
- Cited by
- 242
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 23.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative Methods with Sampling Error and Within‐Species Variation: Contrasts Revisited and Revised. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/587525
- The paper
- Felsenstein, J. (2008). Comparative Methods with Sampling Error and Within‐Species Variation: Contrasts Revisited and Revised. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/587525
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.