On the accuracy and theoretical underpinnings of the multiple variance Brownian motion approach for estimating variable rates and inferring ancestral states
Abstract In a recent contribution, Griffin & Yapuncich (2016) (‘G&Y’) report on purported inaccuracies and lack of theoretical underpinnings of our recently proposed ancestral estimation procedure. Our method is designed to provide a good overall fit with the data when different branches may...
Saved in:
Published in | Biological journal of the Linnean Society Vol. 121; no. 1; pp. 229 - 238 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
UK
Oxford University Press
01.05.2017
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 0024-4066 1095-8312 |
DOI | 10.1093/biolinnean/blx003 |
Cover
Summary: | Abstract
In a recent contribution, Griffin & Yapuncich (2016) (‘G&Y’) report on purported inaccuracies and lack of theoretical underpinnings of our recently proposed ancestral estimation procedure. Our method is designed to provide a good overall fit with the data when different branches may be subject to different rates of change (multiple variance Brownian motion, or ‘mvBM’). Here we demonstrate that G&Y’s theoretical concerns stem from a misinformed account of basic statistical concepts and procedures, a misinterpretation of the primary literature and a circular adherence to a restrictive model of evolution (standard Brownian motion, or ‘standard BM’) whose usefulness has long been considered inappropriate for modelling branch-specific evolutionary patterns. We further apply a series of simple tests that falsify G&Y’s claims on every account. Finally, we show that including a range of sample sizes (from 4 through 100) to G&Y’s own suggested simulation procedure further substantiates what they purport to falsify: the validity of mvBM when modelling potential deviations from standard BM in trait evolution. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0024-4066 1095-8312 |
DOI: | 10.1093/biolinnean/blx003 |