Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 242

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

Felsenstein, Joseph·2008·The American Naturalist

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/587525

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 242

Metadata

Authors
Felsenstein, J.
Venue
The American Naturalist
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.