Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Castetter Hall, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA.
Syst Biol. 2021 Jan 1;70(1):190-196. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syaa022.
Researchers commonly present results of comparative studies of taxonomic groups. In this review, we criticize the focus on named clades, usually, comparably ranked groups such as families or orders, for comparative evolutionary analyses and question the general practice of using clades as units of analysis. The practice of analyzing sets of named groups persists despite widespread appreciation that the groups we have chosen to name are based on subjective human concerns rather than objective properties of nature. We demonstrate an effect of clade selection on results in one study and present some potential alternatives to selecting named clades for analysis that are relatively objective in clade choice. However, we note that these alternatives are only partial solutions for clade-based studies. The practice of analyzing named clades obviously is biased and problematic, but its issues portend broader problems with the general approach of employing clades as units of analysis. Most clade-based studies do not account for the nonindependence of clades, and the biological insight gained from demonstrating some pattern among a particular arbitrary sample of groups is arguable. [Clades; comparative biology; taxonomic groups.].
研究人员通常会展示分类群比较研究的结果。在这篇综述中，我们批评了将命名的进化枝（通常是等级相当的类群，如科或目）作为比较进化分析的重点，并对将进化枝作为分析单位的普遍做法提出质疑。尽管人们普遍认识到，我们选择命名的类群是基于主观的人类关注，而不是自然的客观属性，但将命名的类群作为分析单元的做法仍然存在。我们在一项研究中证明了进化枝选择对结果的影响，并提出了一些选择命名的进化枝进行分析的潜在替代方案，这些方案在进化枝选择方面相对客观。然而，我们注意到，这些替代方案只是基于进化枝的研究的部分解决方案。分析命名进化枝的做法显然存在偏见和问题，但它所带来的问题预示着将进化枝作为分析单位的一般方法存在更广泛的问题。大多数基于进化枝的研究没有考虑到进化枝的非独立性，而且从证明特定任意样本组之间存在某种模式中获得的生物学见解是有争议的。[进化枝；比较生物学；分类群。]
