SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Literature Cited

  • Abouheif, E. 1999. A method for testing the assumption of phylogenetic independence in comparative data. Evol. Ecol. Res. 1:895909.
  • Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., and J. L. Gittleman. 2000. Are pinnipeds functionally different from fissiped carnivores? The importance of phylogenetic comparative analysis. Evolution 54:10111023.
  • Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., J. L. Gittleman, and A. Purvis. 1999. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biol. Rev. 74:143175.
  • Cheverud, J. M., M. M. Dow, and W. Leutenegger. 1985. The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: sexual dimorphism in body weight among primates. Evolution 39:13351351.
  • Diaz-Uriarte, R., and T. Garland Jr. 1996. Testing hypotheses of correlated evolution using phylogenetically independent contrasts: sensitivity to deviations from Brownian motion. Syst. Biol. 45:2747.
  • Diaz-Uriarte, R., and T. Garland Jr. 1998. Effects of branch length errors on the performance of phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst. Biol. 45:2747.
  • Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., C. E. R. Sant'Ana, and L. M. Bini. 1998. An eigenvector method for estimating phylogenetic inertia. Evolution 52:12471262.
  • Edwards, S. V., and M. Kot. 1995. Comparative methods at the species level: geographic variation in morphology and group size in grey-crowned babblers (Pomatostomus temporalis). Evolution 49:11341146.
  • Felsenstein, J. 1988. Phylogenies and quantitative characters. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19:445471.
  • Garland, T., Jr., and R. Diaz-Uriarte. 1999. Polytomies and phylogenetically independent contrasts: examination of the bounded degrees of freedom approach. Syst. Biol. 48:547558.
  • Garland, T., Jr., and A. R. Ives. 2000. Using the past to predict the present: confidence intervals for regression equations in phylogenetic comparative methods. Am. Nat. 155:346364.
  • Garland, T., Jr., P. H. Harvey, and A. R. Ives. 1992. Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst. Biol. 41:1832.
  • Garland, T., Jr., A. W. Dickerman, C. M. Janis, and J. A. Jones. 1993. Phylogenetic analysis of covariance by computer simulation. Syst. Biol. 42:265292.
  • Geffen, E., M. E. Gompper, J. L. Gittleman, H.-K. Luh, D. W. MacDonald, and R. K. Wayne. 1996. Size, life-history traits and social organization in the canidae: a reevaluation. Am. Nat. 147:140160.
  • Gittleman, J. L., and M. Kot. 1990. Adaptation: statistics and a null model for estimating phylogenetic effects. Syst. Zool. 39:227241.
  • Gittleman, J. L., C. G. Anderson, M. Kot, and H.-K., Luh. 1996. Phylogenetic lability and rates of evolution: a comparison of behavioral, morphological and life history traits. Pp. 166205 in E. P.Martins, ed. Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford , U.K.
  • Hansen, T. F. 1997. Stabilizing selection and the comparative analysis of adaptation. Evolution 51:13411351.
  • Hansen, T. F., and E. P. Martins. 1996. Translating between microevolutionary process and macroevolutionary patterns: the correlation structure of interspecific data. Evolution 50:14041417.
  • Hansen, T. F., W. S. Armbruster, and L. Antonsen. 2000. Comparative analysis of character displacement and spatial adaptations as illustrated by the evolution of Dalechampia Blossoms. Am. Nat. 156:S17S34.
  • Harvey, P. H., and M. Pagel. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford , U.K.
  • Johnston, R. A., and D. W. Wichern. 1992. Applied multivariate statistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, London .
  • Legendre, P., F.-J. Lapoint, and P. Casgrain. 1994. Modeling brain evolution from behavior: a permutational regression approach. Evolution 48:14871499.
  • Leroi, A. M., M. R. Rose, and G. V. Lauder. 1994. What does the comparative method reveal about adaptations. Am. Nat. 149:381402.
  • Losos, J. B. 1999. Uncertain in the reconstruction of ancestral character states and limitations on the use of phylogenetic comparative methods. Anim. Behav. 58:13191324.
  • Manly, B. F. J. 1986. Multivariate statistical methods: a primer. Chapman and Hall, London .
  • Martins, E. P. 1994. Estimating rates of character change from comparative data. Am. Nat. 144:193209.
  • Martins, E. P. 1995. Phylogenies and comparative data: a microevolutionary perspective. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 349:8591.
  • Martins, E. P. 1996. Phylogenies, spatial autoregression and the comparative method: a computer simulation test. Evolution 50:17501765.
  • Martins, E. P. 2000. Adaptation and the comparative method. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15:296299.
  • Martins, E. P., and T. Garland Jr. 1991. Phylogenetic analyses of the correlated evolution of continuous characters: a simulation study. Evolution 45:534557.
  • Martins, E. P., and T. F. Hansen. 1996. The statistical analysis of interspecific data: a review and evaluation of phylogenetic comparative methods. Pp. 2275 in E. P.Martins, ed. Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford , U.K.
  • Maurer, B. 1994. Geographical population analysis. Blackwell, London .
  • Miles, D. B., and A. E. Dunham. 1993. Historical perspectives in ecology and evolutionary biology: the use of phylogenetic comparative analysis. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24:587619.
  • Mooers, A. Ø., and D. Schluter. 1998. Fitting macroevolutionary models to phylogenies: an example using vertebrate body size. Contrib. Zool. 68:318.
  • Mooers, A. Ø., S. M. Vamosi, and D. Schluter. 1999. Using phylogenies to test macroevolutionary hypothesis of trait evolution in cranes (Gruinae). Am. Nat. 154:249259.
  • Morales, E. 2000. Estimating phylogenetic inertia in Tithonia (Asteraceae): a comparative approach. Evolution 54:475484.
  • Pagel, M. D. 1999. Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature 401:877884.
  • Rohlf, F. J., W. S. Chang, R. R. Sokal, and J. Kim. 1990. Accuracy of estimated phylogenies: effects of tree topology and evolutionary model. Evolution 44:16711684.
  • Sokal, R. R., and G. M. Jacquez. 1991. Testing inferences about microevolutonary processes by means of spatial autocorrelation analysis. Evolution 45:152168.
  • Sokal, R. R., and N. L. Oden. 1978a. Spatial autocorrelation in biology1. Methodology. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 10:199228.
  • Sokal, R. R., and N. L. Oden. 1978b. Spatial autocorrelation in biology2. Some biological implications and four applications of evolutionary and ecological interest. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 10:229249.
  • Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry. 3rd ed. W. H. and Freeman, New York .
  • Sokal, R. R., N. L. Oden, and B. A. Thomson. 1997. A simulation study of microevolutionary inferences by spatial autocorrelation analysis. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 60:7393.
  • Wilkinson, L. 1989. SYSTAT: the system for statistics. Systat, Inc., Evanston , IL .