Insufficient data render comparative analyses of the evolution of cooperative breeding mere speculation: A reply to Dey et al.
Insufficient data render comparative analyses of the evolution of cooperative breeding mere speculation: A reply to Dey et al.
复制标题
数据不足使得对合作育种演变的比较分析仅仅是推测：对 Dey 等人的答复。
作者：
Taborsky;M.;Koblmuller;M.;Sefc;K.M.;McGee;M.;Kohda;M.;Awata;S.;Hori;M.;& Frommen;J.M.
Dey等人（2019）声称，在他们之前对这些鱼类的研究中，“证明了Lamprologine鲷鱼向合作繁殖的过渡与物种的社会交配系统无关”（Dey等人，2017）。他们断言我们对这一结论的挑战（Tanaka et al., 2018）是不合理的。通过关注他们批评的最重要的观点，我们在这里解释为什么这种指控是没有根据的。我们对Dey等人（2017）的比较分析得出的结论的批评涉及该研究的两个主要缺点：可信赖的行为数据覆盖率低，系统发育树不充分。通过仔细验证他们对lamprologine稚鱼的分析所依据的信息，我们得出的结论很简单：“需要更好地了解它们的行为和系统发育关系，以便进行有意义的分析”（Tanaka et al., 2018）。为了说明这种谨慎呼吁的重要性，我们首先提请注意Dey等人（2017）应用的交配系统分类。在很大程度上，这种分类借鉴了30年前两本书（Konings, 1988; Brichard, 1989，以及1999年的新版）中对交配模式的随意分类，而这两本书从来没有作为定量比较分析所依据的硬数据基础。Dey等人（2017）的交配系统分类的另一个来源是Clabaut， Bunje， Salzburger和Meyer（2007）发表的体型差异的形态计量学研究，其中根本没有报告交配模式的数据，而是引用了
Dey et al.(2019) claim to have “demonstrated that transitions to cooperative breeding in Lamprologine cichlids were not related to a species’ social mating system” in their previous study of these fishes (Dey et al., 2017). They assert that our challenge of this conclusion (Tanaka et al., 2018) was unjustified. By focussing on the most important points of their critique, we here explain why this allegation is unfounded.Our critique of the conclusions drawn from the comparative analysis of Dey et al.(2017) concerned two major shortcomings of that study: a low coverage of trustworthy behavioural data and an insufficient phylogenetic tree. Our conclusion from a careful validation of the information on which their analysis of lamprologine cichlids had been based was simply that “better information on their behaviour and phylogenetic relationships is needed to allow meaningful analyses”(Tanaka et al., 2018). To illustrate the significance of this plea for caution, we first call attention to the mating system classification applied by Dey et al.(2017). To a large extent, this classification drew upon the casual categorization of mating patterns provided 30 years ago in two books for aquarists (Konings, 1988; Brichard, 1989, and a newer edition from 1999), which were never meant to serve as hard data basis on which a quantitative comparative analysis should be based. Another source of Dey et al.'s (2017) mating system classification is a morphometric study of body shape differences published by Clabaut, Bunje, Salzburger, and Meyer (2007), in which no data on mating patterns are reported at all, but which instead refers