Casagranda M Dolores, Taher Leila, Szumik Claudia A
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Instituto Superior de Entomología, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales, Miguel Lillo 205, 4000, S.M. de Tucumán, Argentina.
Cladistics. 2012 Dec;28(6):645-654. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2012.00410.x. Epub 2012 Jun 25.
There is as yet no general agreement regarding the most appropriate solution to the problem of identifying areas of endemism, not even in particular cases. In this study, we compared Endemicity Analysis (EA), Parsimony Analysis of Endemicity (PAE), and Biotic Elements Analysis (BE) based on their ability to identify hypothetical predefined patterns that represent nested, overlapping, and disjoint areas of endemism supported by species with different degrees of sympatry. We found that PAE performs poorly when applied to patterns that either overlap with each other or are supported by species with imperfect sympatry. BE exhibits a counterintuitive sensitivity to the degree of congruence among the distributions of endemic species, being unable to recognize areas of endemism supported by perfectly sympatric species. In contrast, in all cases examined we found that EA results in a high proportion of correctly identified distributional patterns. In addition to highlighting the strengths and limitations of these approaches, our results show how different methods can lead to seemingly conflicting conclusions and caution about the possibility of identifying distributional patterns that are merely methodological artefacts. © The Willi Hennig Society 2012.
关于确定特有现象区域这一问题的最合适解决方案,目前尚未达成普遍共识,即使在特定案例中也是如此。在本研究中,我们基于特有现象分析(EA)、简约特有现象分析(PAE)和生物要素分析(BE)识别假设的预定义模式的能力进行了比较,这些模式代表了由不同同域程度的物种支持的嵌套、重叠和不连续的特有现象区域。我们发现,当将PAE应用于相互重叠或由不完全同域的物种支持的模式时,其表现不佳。BE对特有物种分布之间的一致程度表现出违反直觉的敏感性,无法识别由完全同域的物种支持的特有现象区域。相比之下,在所有研究案例中,我们发现EA能正确识别出高比例的分布模式。除了突出这些方法的优点和局限性外,我们的结果还展示了不同方法如何导致看似相互矛盾的结论,并提醒人们注意识别可能仅仅是方法假象的分布模式的可能性。© 威利·亨尼希协会2012年。