A method for testing the correlated evolution of two binary characters: are gains or losses concentrated on certain branches of a phylogenetic tree?
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793 · see citing works
CLADISTIC TESTS OF ADAPTATIONAL HYPOTHESES
Coddington, J. A. (1988) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1988.tb00465.x · Cited by 438 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
(1994) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.1994.0006 · Cited by 1,859 · see citing works
Rethinking phylogenetic comparative methods
Uyeda, J. C., Zenil-Ferguson, R., & Pennell, M. W. (2018) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syy031 · Cited by 313 · see citing works
Villmoare, B. A., Dunmore, C., Kilpatrick, S., Oertelt, N., Depew, M. J., & Fish, J. L. (2014) · Journal of Human Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.06.014 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
- Authors
- Maddison, W. P.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Corresponding author
- Maddison, Wayne P.
- ORCID
- Maddison, Wayne P.
- Venue
- Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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
- Licence
- 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