322 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20937759)
1. Assessment of the relative merits of a few methods to detect evolutionary trends.
Laurin M
Syst Biol; 2010 Dec; 59(6):689-704. PubMed ID: 20937759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Adaptive constraints and the phylogenetic comparative method: a computer simulation test.
Martins EP; Diniz-Filho JA; Housworth EA
Evolution; 2002 Jan; 56(1):1-13. PubMed ID: 11913655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Foundations of the new phylogenetics].
Pavlinov IIa
Zh Obshch Biol; 2004; 65(4):334-66. PubMed ID: 15490579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparative methods as a statistical fix: the dangers of ignoring an evolutionary model.
Freckleton RP; Cooper N; Jetz W
Am Nat; 2011 Jul; 178(1):E10-7. PubMed ID: 21670572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparative methods with sampling error and within-species variation: contrasts revisited and revised.
Felsenstein J
Am Nat; 2008 Jun; 171(6):713-25. PubMed ID: 18419518
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSES OF THE CORRELATED EVOLUTION OF CONTINUOUS CHARACTERS: A SIMULATION STUDY.
Martins EP; Garland T
Evolution; 1991 May; 45(3):534-557. PubMed ID: 28568838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Poor statistical performance of the Mantel test in phylogenetic comparative analyses.
Harmon LJ; Glor RE
Evolution; 2010 Jul; 64(7):2173-8. PubMed ID: 20163450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Testing gradual and speciational models of evolution in extant taxa: the example of ratites.
Laurin M; Gussekloo SW; Marjanović D; Legendre L; Cubo J
J Evol Biol; 2012 Feb; 25(2):293-303. PubMed ID: 22107024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Phylogeny, regression, and the allometry of physiological traits.
O'Connor MP; Agosta SJ; Hansen F; Kemp SJ; Sieg AE; McNair JN; Dunham AE
Am Nat; 2007 Sep; 170(3):431-42. PubMed ID: 17879193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparing evolutionary rates for different phenotypic traits on a phylogeny using likelihood.
Adams DC
Syst Biol; 2013 Mar; 62(2):181-92. PubMed ID: 23024153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The effect of intraspecific sample size on type I and type II error rates in comparative studies.
Harmon LJ; Losos JB
Evolution; 2005 Dec; 59(12):2705-10. PubMed ID: 16526516
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effects of branch length errors on the performance of phylogenetically independent contrasts.
Díaz-Uriarte R; Garland T
Syst Biol; 1998 Dec; 47(4):654-72. PubMed ID: 12066309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Phylogenetic logistic regression for binary dependent variables.
Ives AR; Garland T
Syst Biol; 2010 Jan; 59(1):9-26. PubMed ID: 20525617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Multiple hypothesis testing to detect lineages under positive selection that affects only a few sites.
Anisimova M; Yang Z
Mol Biol Evol; 2007 May; 24(5):1219-28. PubMed ID: 17339634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Distinguishing terminal monophyletic groups from reticulate taxa: performance of phenetic, tree-based, and network procedures.
Reeves PA; Richards CM
Syst Biol; 2007 Apr; 56(2):302-20. PubMed ID: 17464885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. An empirical assessment of long-branch attraction artefacts in deep eukaryotic phylogenomics.
Brinkmann H; van der Giezen M; Zhou Y; Poncelin de Raucourt G; Philippe H
Syst Biol; 2005 Oct; 54(5):743-57. PubMed ID: 16243762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The effects of topological inaccuracy in evolutionary trees on the phylogenetic comparative method of independent contrasts.
Symonds MR
Syst Biol; 2002 Aug; 51(4):541-53. PubMed ID: 12227998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Phylogenetic signal in bone microstructure of sauropsids.
Cubo J; Ponton F; Laurin M; de Margerie E; Castanet J
Syst Biol; 2005 Aug; 54(4):562-74. PubMed ID: 16085575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. AN EIGENVECTOR METHOD FOR ESTIMATING PHYLOGENETIC INERTIA.
Diniz-Filho JAF; de Sant'Ana CER; Bini LM
Evolution; 1998 Oct; 52(5):1247-1262. PubMed ID: 28565378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A comparison of methods to handle skew distributed cost variables in the analysis of the resource consumption in schizophrenia treatment.
Kilian R; Matschinger H; Löeffler W; Roick C; Angermeyer MC
J Ment Health Policy Econ; 2002 Mar; 5(1):21-31. PubMed ID: 12529567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
