Phylogenetic autocorrelation

Statistical dependence among species or cultural units caused by shared ancestry, violating independent-sample assumptions when traits are inherited along a phylogeny.

Version

v1 · 2026-09-08 · History

Domain-specific #

6071

Origin domain

comparative methods

Subdomain

phylogenetic statistics

Core Idea

Phylogenetic autocorrelation is correlation among observations attributable to their shared evolutionary or historical relationships. Related units inherit traits and environments from common ancestors, so expected covariance increases with shared branch history under the selected evolutionary model. The abstraction is therefore identified by a declared carrier, a transformation or constraint over that carrier, and an invariant that tells an analyst whether the named structure is genuinely present.

The load-bearing residual is not the broad topic of comparative methods. It is tree-structured nonindependence and its consequences for comparative inference. That residual remains recognizable when examples, notation, scale, or implementation change, but it disappears if the carrier is mistyped, the condition that dependence is tied to a specified descent structure and distinguished from spatial, environmental or measurement correlation fails, a neighboring object is substituted, or notation and topical resemblance replace the constitutive test.

Scope of Application

Phylogenetic autocorrelation belongs to comparative methods and is useful where the analyst can specify taxa or cultural units, measured traits, a phylogenetic or descent tree, branch lengths, an evolutionary covariance model, residuals and comparative hypotheses, then evaluate dependence is tied to a specified descent structure and distinguished from spatial, environmental or measurement correlation. The scope is broad within that domain but bounded by the need for dependence is tied to a specified descent structure and distinguished from spatial, environmental or measurement correlation. The entry records a descriptive analytical identity; practical use requires the governing domain's evidence, standards, and safety obligations.

Clarity

The abstraction clarifies a crowded vocabulary by making dependence is tied to a specified descent structure and distinguished from spatial, environmental or measurement correlation the center of the account. A claim should name the carrier, the governing operation or relation, the applicable assumptions, and the recognition test. A bare label is insufficient because the name Phylogenetic autocorrelation can be used for a formal identity, an implementation, or a neighboring result unless carrier and convention are stated.

Manages Complexity

Without the abstraction, an analyst must reason directly over many local details: the carrier roles, admissibility assumptions, competing conventions, derived invariants, boundary cases, and proof or validation obligations specific to Phylogenetic autocorrelation. Phylogenetic autocorrelation compresses them into the roles in the structural signature. That compression permits comparison across instances without erasing the variables that determine validity. It also exposes which details may be varied safely and which are constitutive.

Abstract Reasoning

1. Identify the carrier. State what the elements, states, objects, or observations are: taxa or cultural units, measured traits, a phylogenetic or descent tree, branch lengths, an evolutionary covariance model, residuals and comparative hypotheses. Reject examples whose alleged carrier belongs to a different problem. 2. Lock the constitutive rule. Express dependence is tied to a specified descent structure and distinguished from spatial, environmental or measurement correlation independently of one notation or implementation.

Knowledge Transfer

Knowledge transfers strongly among subfields of comparative methods because they reuse taxa or cultural units, measured traits, a phylogenetic or descent tree, branch lengths, an evolutionary covariance model, residuals and comparative hypotheses, Related units inherit traits and environments from common ancestors, so expected covariance increases with shared branch history under the selected evolutionary model., and type the carrier, state every parameter and convention in the definition, test that dependence is tied to a specified descent structure and distinguished from spatial, environmental or measurement correlation, compare the nearest accepted identity, and report counterexamples, uncertainty, and limiting cases.

Relationships to Other Abstractions

Current abstraction Phylogenetic autocorrelation Domain-specific

Parents (1) — more general patterns this builds on

• Phylogenetic autocorrelation is a kind of Correlation Prime

  The proposed strict upward parent is prime:correlation.

Hierarchy path (1) — routes to 1 parentless root

• Phylogenetic autocorrelation → Correlation

Neighborhood in Abstraction Space

Phylogenetic autocorrelation sits in a moderately populated region (41^st percentile for distinctiveness): it has near-neighbors but no dense thicket of look-alikes.

Family — Speciation & Phylogenetic Inference (14 abstractions)

Nearest neighbors

• Phylogenetic bracketing — 0.91
• Sequence homology — 0.90
• Most recent common ancestor — 0.90
• Allopatric speciation — 0.89
• Sexual antagonistic coevolution — 0.89

Computed from structural-signature embeddings · 2026-09-08