As a critical framework for addressing a diversity of evolutionary and ecological questions, any method that provides accurate and detailed phylogeographic inference would be embraced. What is difficult to understand is the continued use of a method that not only fails, but also has never been shown to work—nested clade analysis is applied widely even though the conditions under which the method will provide reliable results have not yet been demonstrated. This contradiction between performance and popularity is even more perplexing given the recent methodological and computational advances for making historical inferences, which include estimating population genetic parameters and testing different biogeographic scenarios. Here I briefly review the history of criticisms and rebuttals that focus specifically on the high rate of incorrect phylogeographic inference of nested-clade analysis, with the goal of understanding what drives its unfettered popularity. In this case, the appeal of what nested-clade analysis claims to do—not what the method actually achieves—appears to explain its paradoxical status as a favorite method that fails. What a method promises, as opposed to how it performs, must be considered separately when evaluating whether the method represents a valuable tool for historical inference.
You have requested a machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Neither BioOne nor the owners and publishers of the content make, and they explicitly disclaim, any express or implied representations or warranties of any kind, including, without limitation, representations and warranties as to the functionality of the translation feature or the accuracy or completeness of the translations.
Translations are not retained in our system. Your use of this feature and the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Use of the BioOne website.
Vol. 62 • No. 11