Cited by 533Evolution and Paleontology StudiesGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesMorphological variations and asymmetry

A method for testing the correlated evolution of two binary characters: are gains or losses concentrated on certain branches of a phylogenetic tree?

Maddison, Wayne P.·1990·Evolution

Abstract

A method is presented for assessing whether changes in a binary character are more concentrated than expected by chance on certain branches of a phylogenetic tree. It can be used to test for correlated evolution of two characters by asking whether changes in the first character are significantly concentrated on those branches on which the second character has a specified state. Thus, one could test whether this specified state is associated with, and thus might enable or select, gains or losses in the first character. The probability of achieving a concentration as or more extreme than that observed under the null hypotheses that changes are distributed randomly on the cladogram is obtained by calculating (a) the number of ways that n gains and m losses can be distributed on the cladogram and (b) the number of ways that p gains q losses can be distributed on the branches of interest given n gains and m losses in the cladogram overall. Summing (b) for appropriate p and q then dividing by (a) yields the desired probability. Simulations suggest that biases resulting from errors in parsimony reconstructions of ancestral states are not extreme.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1990.tb05937.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?

  • Maddison and FitzJohn (2015) simulated comparative data and reported a preponderance of significant results using Pagel's correlation test (1994) and Maddison's (1990) concentrated changes test.

    “In their article, Maddison and FitzJohn (2015) simulated comparative data and reported a preponderance of significant results using Pagel's correlation test (1994) and Maddison's (1990) concentrated changes test.”

    From Rethinking phylogenetic comparative methods (2018) · cites this paper as Maddison (1990)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maddison, W. P.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Maddison, Wayne P.
Venue
Evolution
Published
1990-05
Volume
44
Issue
3
Pages
539-557
ISSN
0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2040708857
Cited by
533
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
36.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
Keywords
correlated evolution, binary characters, character transformation, gain and loss, phylogenetic tree, cladogram, ancestral state reconstruction, parsimony, statistical tests, character state transitions

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