Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
C. Cunningham, K. Omland, Todd Oakley (1998)
Reconstructing ancestral character states: a critical reappraisal.Trends in ecology & evolution, 13 9
S. Shi, Ye-lin Huang, K. Zeng, F. Tan, Hanghang He, Jianzi Huang, Yunxin Fu (2005)
Molecular phylogenetic analysis of mangroves: independent evolutionary origins of vivipary and salt secretion.Molecular phylogenetics and evolution, 34 1
N. Janz, S. Nylin (1998)
BUTTERFLIES AND PLANTS: A PHYLOGENETIC STUDYEvolution, 52
D. Schluter (1995)
Uncertainty in ancient phylogeniesNature, 377
K. Yotoko, P. Prado, C. Russo, V. Solferini (2005)
Testing the trend towards specialization in herbivore-host plant associations using a molecular phylogeny of Tomoplagia (Diptera: Tephritidae).Molecular phylogenetics and evolution, 35 3
J. Holloway, P. Hebert (1979)
Ecological and taxonomic trends in macrolepidopteran host plant selectionBiological Journal of The Linnean Society, 11
N. Moran (1988)
The Evolution of Host-Plant Alternation in Aphids: Evidence for Specialization as a Dead EndThe American Naturalist, 132
Takebayashi Takebayashi, Morrell Morrell (2001)
Is self‐fertilization a deadend? Revisiting an old hypothesis with genetic theories and a macroevolutionary approachAm. J. Bot., 88
J. Stireman (2005)
The evolution of generalization? Parasitoid flies and the perils of inferring host range evolution from phylogeniesJournal of Evolutionary Biology, 18
Patrik Nosil (2002)
TRANSITION RATES BETWEEN SPECIALIZATION AND GENERALIZATION IN PHYTOPHAGOUS INSECTS, 56
N. Takebayashi, P. Morrell (2001)
Is self-fertilization an evolutionary dead end? Revisiting an old hypothesis with genetic theories and a macroevolutionary approach.American journal of botany, 88 7
S. Durrant, G. Simpson (1955)
The major features of evolutionThe Eugenics Review, 46
D. Futuyma, M. Keese, D. Funk (1995)
GENETIC CONSTRAINTS ON MACROEVOLUTION: THE EVOLUTION OF HOST AFFILIATION IN THE LEAF BEETLE GENUS OPHRAELLAEvolution, 49
P. Lewis (2001)
A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data.Systematic biology, 50 6
D. Futuyma, Gabriel Moreno (1988)
The Evolution of Ecological SpecializationAnnual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 19
S. Kelley, Brian Farrell (1998)
IS SPECIALIZATION A DEAD END? THE PHYLOGENY OF HOST USE IN DENDROCTONUS BARK BEETLES (SCOLYTIDAE)Evolution, 52
M. Pagel (1994)
Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies: a general method for the comparative analysis of discrete charactersProceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 255
M. Pagel, A. Meade, D. Barker (2004)
Bayesian estimation of ancestral character states on phylogenies.Systematic biology, 53 5
A. Mooers, D. Schluter (2002)
Reconstructing Ancestor States with Maximum Likelihood : Support for One-and Two-Rate Models
W. Armbruster, B. Baldwin (1998)
Switch from specialized to generalized pollinationNature, 394
J. Huelsenbeck, R. Nielsen, Jonathan Bollback (2003)
Stochastic mapping of morphological characters.Systematic biology, 52 2
A. Grafen (1989)
The phylogenetic regression.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 326 1233
D. Schluter, T. Price, A. Mooers, D. Ludwig (1997)
LIKELIHOOD OF ANCESTOR STATES IN ADAPTIVE RADIATIONEvolution, 51
Cunningham Cunningham, Omland Omland, Oakley Oakley (1998)
Reconstructing character states: a critical reappraisalTrends Ecol. Evol., 13
M. Pagel (1999)
The Maximum Likelihood Approach to Reconstructing Ancestral Character States of Discrete Characters on PhylogeniesSystematic Biology, 48
Todd Oakley, C. Cunningham (2002)
Molecular phylogenetic evidence for the independent evolutionary origin of an arthropod compound eyeProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99
R. Ota, P. Waddell, M. Hasegawa, Hidetoshi Shimodaira, H. Kishino (2000)
Appropriate likelihood ratio tests and marginal distributions for evolutionary tree models with constraints on parameters.Molecular biology and evolution, 17 5
J. Jaenike (1990)
Host Specialization in Phytophagous InsectsAnnual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 21
(2004)
Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. Vers. 1.01
Abstract It is often assumed that ecological specialization represents an evolutionary “dead‐end” that limits further evolution. Maximum‐likelihood (ML) analyses on phylogenies for 15 groups of phytophagous insects revealed that high transition rates both to and from specialization occurred, but that the mean ratio of rates was significantly biased toward a higher rate to specialization. Here we explore the consequences of the fact that transition rates inferred by ML are affected not only by the distribution, but also by the frequency, of character states. Higher rates to the more common state were inferred in the analyses of Nosil (2002), in similar studies published since 2002, and in a small set of simulations. Thus, the ratio of the rate toward versus away from specialization was strongly, positively correlated with the proportion of specialist species at the tips of the phylogeny and whether transitions away from specialization occur remains unclear. Here we reexamine these data using methods that do not rely on directly comparing transition rates. Maximum‐likelihood analyses show that models with no transitions in one direction (e.g., irreversible evolution as predicted by the “specialist as dead end” framework) are usually strongly rejected, independent of the proportion of specialists at the tips. Ancestral state reconstruction revealed two instances where generalists were unambiguously derived from specialists. Transition rates would need to biased 100‐fold and 5000‐fold toward specialization to reconstruct a history where these shifts from specialization toward generalization do not occur. The general conclusions of Nosil (2002) appear to hold; transitions in either direction likely occur such that specialization does not always limit further evolution. Most generally, inferences regarding character evolution can be strengthened by comparing models of character change and examining ancestor states, rather than only comparing parameter values.
Evolution – Wiley
Published: Oct 1, 2005
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.