Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 306

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Testing Hypotheses of Correlated Evolution Using Phylogenetically Independent Contrasts: Sensitivity to Deviations from Brownian Motion

Open access
Díaz-Uriarte, Ramón, Garland, Theodore·1996·Systematic Biology

Abstract

We examined the statistical performance (in terms of type I error rates) of Felsenstein's (1985, Am. Nat. 125:1–15) comparative method of phylogenetically independent contrasts for testing hypotheses about evolutionary correlations of continuous-valued characters. We simulated data along two different phylogenies, one for 15 species of plethodontid salamanders and the other for 49 species of Carnivora and ungulates. We implemented 15 different models of character evolution, 14 of which deviated from Brownian motion, which is in effect assumed by the method. The models studied included the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process and punctuated equilibrium (change allowed in only one daughter at each bifurcation) both with and without trends and limits on how far phenotypes could evolve. As has been shown in several previous simulation studies, a nonphylogenetic Pearson correlation of species' mean values yielded inflated type I error rates under most models, including that of simple Brownian motion. Independent contrasts yielded acceptable type I error rates under Brownian motion (and in preliminary studies under slight deviations from this model), but they were inflated under most other models. This new result confirms the model dependence of independent contrasts. However, when branch lengths were checked and transformed, then type I error rates of independent contrasts were reduced. Moreover, the maximum observed type I error rates never exceeded twice the nominal P value at α = 0.05. In comparison, the nonphylogenetic correlation tended to yield extremely inflated (and highly variable) type I error rates. These results constitute another demonstration of the general superiority of phylogenetically based statistical methods over nonphylogenetic ones, even under extreme deviations from a Brownian motion model. These results also show the necessity of checking the assumptions of statistical comparative methods and indicate that diagnostic checks and remedial measures can substantially improve the performance of the independent contrasts method.

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 · 10.1093/sysbio/45.1.27

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 306

Metadata

Authors
Díaz-Uriarte, R., & Garland, T.
Venue
Systematic Biology
Published
1996-03-01
Volume
45
Issue
1
Pages
27-47
ISSN
  • 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
  • 1076-836X
OpenAlex
W2133706208
Cited by
306
References
2
FWCI
19.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Testing Hypotheses of Correlated Evolution Using Phylogenetically Independent Contrasts: Sensitivity to Deviations from Brownian Motion. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/sysbio/45.1.27
The paper
Díaz-Uriarte, R., & Garland, T. (1996). Testing Hypotheses of Correlated Evolution Using Phylogenetically Independent Contrasts: Sensitivity to Deviations from Brownian Motion. Systematic Biology. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/45.1.27

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.