{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016479894528675015, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0032959789057350032, 'mean_word_length': 5.837837837837838, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF PHENOTYPIC COVARIANCE STRUCTURE. I. CONTRASTING RESULTS FROM MATRIX CORRELATION AND COMMON PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSES

Applications of quantitative techniques to understanding macroevolutionary patterns typically assume that genetic variances and covariances remain constant. That assumption is tested among 28 populations of the Phyllotis darwini species group (leaf‐eared mice). Phenotypic covariances are used as a surrogate for genetic covariances to allow much greater phylogenetic sampling. Two new approaches are applied that extend the comparative method to multivariate data. The efficacy of these techniques are compared, and their sensitivity to sampling error examined. Pairwise matrix correlations of correlation matrices are consistently very high (> 0.90) and show no significant association between matrix similarity and phylogenetic relatedness. Hierarchical decomposition of common principal component (CPC) analyses applied to each clade in the phylogeny rejects the hypothesis that common principal component structure is shared in clades more inclusive than subspecies. Most subspecies also lack a common covariance structure as described by the CPC model. The hypothesis of constant covariances must be rejected, but the magnitudes of divergence in covariance structure appear to be small. Matrix correlations are very sensitive to sampling error, while CPC is not. CPC is a powerful statistical tool that allows detailed testing of underlying patterns of covariation.