SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Abouheif, E. 1999. A method to test the assumption of phylogenetic independence in comparative data. Evol. Ecol. Res 1: 895909.
  • Antonovics, J. & Van Tienderen, P.H. 1991. Ontoecogenophyloconstraints? The chaos of constraint terminology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 6: 166168.
  • Autumn, K., Ryan, M.J. & Wake, D.B. 2002. Integrating historical and mechanistic biology enhances the study of adaptation. Quart. Rev. Biol. 77 (in press).
  • Barton, R.A., Byrne, R.W. & Whiten, A. 1996. Ecology, feeding competition and social structure in baboons. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 38: 321329.
  • Baum, D.A. & Larson, A. 1991. Adaptation reviewed: a phylogenetic methodology for studying character macroevolution. Syst. Zool. 40: 118.
  • Berger, J. 1988. Social systems, resources, and phylogenetic inertia: an experimental test and its limitations. In: The Ecology of Social Behavior (C. N.Slobodchikoff, ed.), pp. 157186. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
  • Blomberg, S.P., Ives, A.R. & Garland, T. Jr 2001. Detecting phylogenetic signal in comparative data. Am. Zool. 41: 1395.
  • Blomberg, S.P., Garland, T. Jr & Ives, A.R. (in press). Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data. Evolution.
  • Bon, R., Joachim, J. & Maublanc, M.L. 1995. Do lambs affect feeding habitat use by lactating female mouflons in spring areas fee of predators? J. Zool., Lond. 235: 4351.
  • Brooks, D.R. 1996. Explanations of homoplasy at different levels of biological organization. In: Homoplasy. The Recurrence of Similarity in Evolution (M. J.Sanderson & L.Hufford, eds), pp. 336. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
  • Brooks, D.R. & McLennan, D.A. 1991. Phylogeny, Ecology, and Behavior. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
  • Burt, A. 1989. Comparative methods using phylogenetically independent contrasts. In: Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology(P. H.Harvey & L.Partridge, eds), pp. 3353. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Burt, B.B. 2001. Evolutionary stasis, constraint and other terminology describing evolutionary patterns. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 72: 509517.
  • Cain, A.J. 1964. The perfection of animals. In: Viewpoints in biology (J. D.Carthy & C. L. Duddington, eds), pp. 3663. Butterworth, London.
  • Cheverud, J.M. & Dow, M.M. 1985. An autocorrelation analysis of genetic variation due to lineal fission in social groups of rhesus macaques. Am. J. Phys. Anthr. 67: 113121.
  • Cheverud, J.M., Dow, M.M. & Leutenegger, W. 1985. The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: sexual dimorphism in body weight among primates. Evolution 39: 13351351.
  • Christman, M.C., Jernigan, R.W. & Culver, D. 1997. A comparison of two models for estimating phylogenetic effect on trait variation. Evolution 51: 262266.
  • Chu, P.C. 1994. Historical examination of delayed plumage maturation in the shorebirds (Aves: Charadriiformes). Evolution 48: 327350.
  • Coddington, J.A. 1988. Cladistic tests of adaptational hypotheses. Cladistics 4: 322.
  • Cooper, W.E. Jr 1995. Strike-induced chemosensory searching by the anguid lizard Elgaria coerulea. Amphib.-Reptilia 16: 147156.
  • Darlington, C.D. 1939. The Evolution of Genetic Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Darlington, C.D. & Mather, K. 1949. Elements of Genetics. George Allen and Unwin, London.
  • Deaner, R.O. & Nunn, C.L. 1999. How quickly do brains catch up with bodies? A comparative method for detecting evolutionary lag. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 266: 687694.
  • Derrickson, E.M. & Ricklefs, R.E. 1988. Taxon-dependent diversification of life-history traits and the perception of phylogenetic constraints. Funct. Ecol. 2: 417423.
  • Diniz-Filho, J.A.F. 2001. Phylogenetic autocorrelation under distinct evolutionary processes. Evolution 55: 11041109.
  • Diniz-Filho, J.A., De Sant'Ana, C.E.R.D. & Bini, L.M. 1998. An eigenvector method for estimating phylogenetic inertia. Evolution 52: 12471262.
  • Doughty, P. 1996. Statistical analysis of natural experiments in evolutionary biology: comments on recent criticisms of the use of comparative methods to study adaptation. Am. Nat. 148: 943956.
  • Edwards, S.V. & Naeem, S. 1993. The phylogenetic component of cooperative breeding in perching birds. Am. Nat. 141: 754789.
  • Eggleton, P. & Vane-Wright, R.I. (eds) 1994. Phylogenetics and Ecology. Linnean Society Symposium Series. Academic Press, London.
  • Ely, J. & Kurland, J.A. 1989. Spatial autocorrelation, phylogenetic constraints and the causes of sexual dimorphism in primates. Int. J. Primatol. 10: 157171.
  • Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 125: 115.
  • Freckleton, R.P., Harvey, P.H. & Pagel, M. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence. Am. Nat. (in press).
  • Freeman, S. & Herron, J.C. 2001. Evolutionary Analysis. 2nd edn,704 pp. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
  • Futuyma, D.J. 1998. Evolutionary Biology, 2nd edn, 763 pp. Sinauer and Associates, Sunderland, MA.
  • Garland, T. Jr 1992. Rate tests for phenotypic evolution using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Am. Nat. 140: 509519.
  • Garland, T. Jr & Adolph, S.C. 1994. Why not to do two-species comparative studies: limitations on inferring adaptation. Physiol. Zool. 67: 797828.
  • Garland, T. Jr & Carter, P.A. 1994. Evolutionary physiology. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 56: 579621.
  • Garland, T. Jr & Ives, A.R. 2000. Using the past to predict the present: confidence intervals for regression equations in phylogenetic comparative methods. Am. Nat. 155: 346364.
  • Garland, T. Jr, Bennett, A.F. & Daniels, C.B. 1990. Heritability of locomotor performance and its correlates in a natural population of vertebrates. Experientia 46: 530533.
  • Garland, T. Jr, Harvey, P.H. & Ives, A.R. 1992. Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst. Biol. 41: 1832.
  • Garland, T. Jr, Dickerman, A.W., Janis, C.M. & Jones, J.A. 1993. Phylogenetic analysis of covariance by computer simulation. Syst. Biol. 42: 265292.
  • Garland, T. Jr, Midford, P.E. & Ives, A.R. 1999. An introduction to phylogenetically based statistical methods, with a new method for confidence intervals on ancestral values. Am. Zool. 39: 374388.
  • Gittleman, J.L. & Kot, M. 1990. Adaptation: statistics and a null model for estimating phylogenetic effects. Syst. Zool. 39: 227241.
  • Gittleman, J.L. & Luh, H.-K. 1994. Phylogeny, evolutionary models and comparative methods: a simulation study. In: Phylogenetics and Ecology (P.Eggleton & D.Vane-Wright, eds), pp. 103122. Academic Press, London.
  • Gittleman, J.L., Anderson, C.G., Kot, M. & Luh, H.-K. 1996a. Phylogenetic lability and rates of evolution: a comparison of behavioral, morphological and life history traits. In: Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behavior (E. P.Martins, ed.), pp. 166205. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Gittleman, J.L., Anderson, C.G., Kot, M. & Luh, H.-K. 1996b. Comparative tests of evolutionary lability and rates using molecular phylogenies. In: New Uses for New Phylogenies (P. H.Harvey & A. J.Leigh Brown, J.Maynard Smith & S.Nee, eds), pp. 289307. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Gould, S.J. & Lewontin, R.C. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 205: 581598.
  • Grafen, A. 1989. The phylogenetic regression. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 326: 119156.
  • Griffiths, P.E. 1996. The historical turn in the study of adaptation. Br. J. Phil. Sci. 47: 511532.
  • Hansen, T.F. 1997. Stabilizing selection and the comparative analysis of adaptation. Evolution 51: 13411351.
  • Harvey, P.H. & Pagel, M.D. 1991. The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology: Oxford Series in Ecology and Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Hillis, D.M. & Huelsenbeck, J.P. 1992. Signal, noise, and reliability in molecular phylogenetic analyses. J. Heredity 83: 189195.
  • Hosken, D.J., Jones, K.E., Chipperfield, L. & Dixson, A. 2001. Is the bat os penis sexually selected? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50: 450460.
  • Huxley, J.S. 1958. Evolutionary processes and taxonomy with special reference to grades. Uppsala University Arssks. 6: 2139.
  • Iwaniuk, A.N., Pellis, S.M. & Whishaw, I.Q. 1999. Brain size is not correlated with forelimb dexterity in fissiped carnivores (Carnivora): a comparative test of the principle of proper mass. Brain, Behav. Evol. 54: 167180.
  • Janson, C.H. 1992. Measuring evolutionary constraints: a Markov model for phylogenetic transitions among seed dispersal syndromes. Evolution 46: 136158.
  • Leroi, A.M., Rose, M.R. & Lauder, G.V. 1994. What does the comparative method reveal about adaptation? Am. Nat. 143: 381402.
  • Lucas, P.W., Corlett, R.T. & Luke, D.A. 1986. Sexual dimorphism and tooth size in anthropoids. Human Evol. 1: 2339.
  • Lynch, M. 1991. Methods for the analysis of comparative data in evolutionary biology. Evolution 45: 10651080.
  • Maddison, W.P. & Slatkin, M. 1991. Null models for the number of evolutionary steps in a character on a phylogenetic tree. Evolution 45: 11841197.
  • Manning, J.T. & Chamberlain, A.T. 1993. Fluctuating asymmetry, sexual selection and canine teeth in primates. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 251: 8387.
  • Manning, J.T. & Chamberlain, A.T. 1994. Sib competition and sperm competitiveness: an answer to ‘Why so many sperms?’ and the recombination/sperm number correlation. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 256: 177182.
  • Martins, E.P. & Garland, T Jr 1991. Phylogenetic analyses of the correlated evolution of continuous characters: a simulation study. Evolution 45: 534557.
  • Martins, E.P. & Hansen, T.F. 1996. The statistical analysis of interspecific data: a review and evaluation of phylogenetic comparative methods. In: Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behaviour (E. P.Martins, ed.), pp. 2275. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Martins, E.P. & Hansen, T.F. 1997. Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. Am. Nat. 149: 646667.
  • Martins, E.P., Diniz-Filho, J.A.F. & Housworth, E.A. 2002. Adaptive constraints and the phylogenetic comparative method: a computer simulation test. Evolution 56: 113.
  • Maynard Smith, J., Burian, R., Kauffman, S., Alberch, P., Campbell, J., Goodwin, B., Lande, R., Raup, D. & Wolpert, L. 1985. Developmental constraints and evolution. Quart. Rev. Biol. 60: 265287.
  • Mayr, E. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • McKitrick, M.C. 1993. Phylogenetic constraint in evolutionary theory – has it any explanatory power? Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24: 307330.
  • Morales, E. 2000. Estimating phylogenetic inertia in Tithonia (Asteraceae): a comparative approach. Evolution 54: 475484.
  • Orzack, S.H. & Sober, E. 2001. Adaptation, phylogenetic inertia, and the method of controlled comparisons. In: Adaptationism and Optimality (S. H.Orzack & E.Sober, eds), pp. 4563. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Pagel, M. 1999. Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature 401: 877884.
  • Peterson, A.T. 1991. Sociality and ontogeny of coloration in the blue-and-black jays. Wilson Bull. 103: 5967.
  • Plavcan, J.M. & Van Schaik, C.P. 1992. Intrasexual competition and canine dimorphism in anthropoid primates. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 87: 461477.
  • Price, P.W. 1996. Biological Evolution, 429 pp. Saunders College Publishing, New York, NY.
  • De Queiroz, A. & De Queiroz, K. 1987. Prey handling behavior of Eumeces gilberti with comments on headfirst ingestion in squamates. J. Herp. 21: 5763.
  • De Queiroz, A. & Wimberger, P.H. 1993. The usefulness of behavior for phylogeny estimation: levels of homoplasy in behavioral and morphological characters. Evolution 47: 4660.
  • Reeve, H.K. & Sherman, P.W. 2001. Optimality and phylogeny. A critique of current thought. In: Adaptationism and Optimality (S. H.Orzack & E.Sober, eds), pp. 64113. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Ridley, M. 1983. The Explanation of Organic Diversity: the Comparative Method and Adaptations for Mating. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Ridley, M. 1996. Evolution, 2nd edn. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, MA.
  • Rohlf, F.J. 2001. Comparative methods for the analysis of continuous variables: geometric interpretations. Evolution 55: 21432160.
  • Rose, M.R. & Lauder, G.V. (eds) 1996. Adaptation, 511 pp. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
  • Schluter, D. 1996. Adaptive radiation along genetic lines of least resistance. Evolution 50: 17661774.
  • Schwenk, K. 1995. A utilitarian approach to constraint. Zoology 98: 251262.
  • Sessions, S.K. & Larson, A. 1987. Developmental correlates of genome size in plethodontid salamanders and their implications for genome evolution. Evolution 41: 12391251.
  • Shapiro, A.M. 1981. The pierid red–egg syndrome. Am. Nat. 117: 276294.
  • Sherman, P.W. 1988. The levels of analysis. Anim. Behav. 36: 616619.
  • Sih, A., Kats, L.B. & Maurer, E.F. 2000. Does phylogenetic inertia explain the evolution of ineffective antipredator behavior in a sunfish-salamander system? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 49: 4856.
  • Simpson, G.G. 1944. Tempo and Mode in Evolution. Columbia University Press, New York.
  • Simpson, G.G. 1961. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.
  • Smith, R.J. & Cheverud, J.M. 2002. Scaling of sexual size dimorphism in body mass: a phylogenetic analysis of Rensch's rule in primates. Int. J. Primatol. 23: 10951135.
  • Strickberger, M.W. 2000. Evolution, 721 pp. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA.
  • Wagner, G.P. & Schwenk, K. 2000. Evolutionarily stable configurations: functional integration and the evolution of phenotypic stability. Evol. Biol. 31: 155217.
  • Wake, D. 1991. Homoplasy – the result of natural selection, or evidence of design limitations? Am. Nat. 138: 543567.
  • Wilson, E.O. 1975. Sociobiology. The New Synthesis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
  • Wimberger, P.H. & De Queiroz, A. 1996. Comparing behavioral and morphological characters as indicators of phylogeny. In: Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behavior. (E. P. Martins, ed.), pp. 206233.Oxford University Press, Oxford.