On the Selection and Analysis of Clades in Comparative Evolutionary Studies

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.

Automated summary

The focus on named clades in comparative evolutionary analyses is criticized due to potential biases and issues with using clades as units of analysis. While some potential alternatives for clade selection are presented, they are not seen as complete solutions. The nonindependence of clades and the questionable biological insights gained from clade-based studies are highlighted as broader problems with this approach.