Pattern and Process in the Comparative Study of Convergent Evolution.

Understanding processes that have shaped broad-scale biodiversity patterns is a fundamental goal in evolutionary biology. The development of phylogenetic comparative methods has yielded a tool kit for analyzing contemporary patterns by explicitly modeling processes of change in the past, providing neontologists tools for asking questions previously accessible only for select taxa via the fossil record or laboratory experimentation. The comparative approach, however, differs operationally from alternative approaches to studying convergence in that, for studies of only extant species, convergence must be inferred using evolutionary process models rather than being directly measured. As a result, investigation of evolutionary pattern and process cannot be decoupled in comparative studies of convergence, even though such a decoupling could in theory guard against adaptationist bias. Assumptions about evolutionary process underlying comparative tools can shape the inference of convergent pattern in sometimes profound ways and can color interpretation of such patterns. We discuss these issues and other limitations common to most phylogenetic comparative approaches and suggest ways that they can be avoided in practice. We conclude by promoting a multipronged approach to studying convergence that integrates comparative methods with complementary tests of evolutionary mechanisms and includes ecological and biogeographical perspectives. Carefully employed, the comparative method remains a powerful tool for enriching our understanding of convergence in macroevolution, especially for investigation of why convergence occurs in some settings but not others.