Cited by 137Morphological variations and asymmetryEvolution and Paleontology StudiesAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

ASSESSING CURRENT ADAPTATION AND PHYLOGENETIC INERTIA AS EXPLANATIONS OF TRAIT EVOLUTION: THE NEED FOR CONTROLLED COMPARISONS

Hansen, Thomas F., Orzack, Steven Hecht·2005·Evolution

Abstract

The determination of whether the pattern of trait evolution observed in a comparative analysis of species data is due to adaptation to current environments, to phylogenetic inertia, or to both of these forces requires that one control for the effects of either force when making an assessment of the evolutionary role of the other. Orzack and Sober (2001) developed the method of controlled comparisons to make such assessments; their implementation of the method focussed on a discretely varying trait. Here, we show that the method of controlled comparisons can be viewed as a meta-method, which can be implemented in many ways. We discuss which recent methods for the comparative analysis of continuously distributed traits can generate controlled comparisons and can thereby be used to properly assess whether current adaptation and/or phylogenetic inertia have influenced a trait's evolution. The implementation of controlled comparisons is illustrated by an analysis of sex-ratio data for fig wasps. This analysis suggests that current adaptation and phylogenetic inertia influence this trait.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb00917.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • The precise assumptions of PCMs remain poorly understood to this day.

    “and remain poorly understood to this day (Hansen and Orzack 2005;Hansen and Bartoszek 2012).”

    From Rethinking phylogenetic comparative methods (2018) · cites this paper as Hansen and Orzack 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hansen, T. F., & Orzack, S. H.
Affiliations
  • Florida State University (US)
  • Fresh Pond Research Institute (US)
Corresponding author
  • Hansen, Thomas F.
  • Orzack, Steven Hecht
Venue
Evolution
Published
2005-10
Volume
59
Issue
10
Pages
2063-2072
ISSN
  • 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-5646
OpenAlex
W2179591763
Cited by
137
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 7
FWCI
7.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • National Institute on Aging (P01 AG 0225000-01)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
character evolution, phylogenetic inertia, controlled comparison, comparative analysis, meta-method, sex ratio, fig wasps
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Biological, Animals, Biological Evolution, Female, Male, Models, Genetic, Phylogeny, Sex Ratio, Wasps

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