Comparison of 9 macroevolutionary models: Compare the fit of 9 different macroevolutionary models that transform a phylogram: all possible combinations of these two types of transformations: type 1: transform tree to be phylogenetic (as input), non-phylogenetic (star), or punctuated (one of the two descendant edges of a node has length zero) and type 2: nonzero branches with length proportional to genetic distance, all lengths equal, or all lengths optimized based on the phenotypic character

Citations(s) (based on web hits only through time [why]):

Reference(s):

Todd H Oakley, X Gu, E Abouheif, N H Patel, and Ming Li 2005 "Comparative methods for the analysis of gene-expression evolution: An example using yeast functional genomic data" Molecular Biology and Evolution 22(1): 40-50

Criteria ? :

• Likelihood

Questions ? addressed by the method:

• Compare model fits for single character (Evaluate which of several evolutionary models best describes the evolution of some trait). Topic area: Parameter estimation or model selection for character model

Character combinations ? addressed by the method:

• Continuous unbounded-None-None

Software ? implementing the method:

• COMET (CoMET stands for Continuous-character Model Evaluation and Testing and is a module for the Mesquite Project. Give it a tree topology as a starting point and some phenotypic data, CoMET tells you the likelihoods of the data evolving through nine different evolutionary models.) [open source]