de Queiroz Alan, Wimberger Peter H
Section of Ecology and Systematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Evolution. 1993 Feb;47(1):46-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1993.tb01198.x.
It is widely believed that behavior is more evolutionarily labile and/or more difficult to characterize than morphology, and thus that behavioral characters are not as useful as morphological characters for estimating phylogenetic relationships. To examine the relative utility of behavior and morphology for estimating phylogeny, we compared levels of homoplasy for morphological and behavioral characters that have been used in systematic studies. In an analysis of 22 data sets that contained both morphological and behavioral characters we found no significant difference between mean consistency indices (CIs, which measure homoplasy) within data sets for the two types of characters. In a second analysis we compared overall CIs for 8 data sets comprised entirely of behavioral characters with overall CIs for 32 morphological data sets and found no significant difference between the two types of data sets. For both analyses, 95% confidence limits on the difference between the two types of characters indicate that, even if given the benefit of the doubt, morphological characters could not have substantially higher mean CIs than behavioral characters. These results do not support the idea that behavioral characters are less useful than morphological characters for the estimation of phylogeny.
人们普遍认为,行为在进化上比形态更不稳定且/或更难描述,因此行为特征在估计系统发育关系方面不如形态特征有用。为了检验行为和形态在估计系统发育方面的相对效用,我们比较了系统研究中使用的形态和行为特征的同塑性水平。在对22个同时包含形态和行为特征的数据集的分析中,我们发现数据集中这两种特征的平均一致性指数(衡量同塑性的CI)之间没有显著差异。在第二项分析中,我们将8个完全由行为特征组成的数据集的总体CI与32个形态数据集的总体CI进行了比较,发现这两种数据集之间没有显著差异。对于这两项分析,两种特征之间差异的95%置信区间表明,即使给予最有利的怀疑,形态特征的平均CI也不可能比行为特征高得多。这些结果不支持行为特征在估计系统发育方面不如形态特征有用的观点。