The Comparative Method is Not Macroevolution: Across-Species Evidence for Within-Species Process

It is common for studies that employ the comparative method for the study of adaptation, that is, documentation of potentially adaptive across-species patterns of trait–environment or trait–trait correlation, to be designated as “macroevolutionary.” Authors are justified in using “macroevolution” in this way by appeal to definitions such as “evolution above the species level.” I argue that regarding the comparative method as “macroevolutionary” is harmful because it hides in serious ways the true causal content of hypotheses tested with the comparative method. The comparative method is a means of testing hypotheses of adaptation and their alternatives. Adaptation is a population-level phenomenon, involving heritable interindividual variation that is associated with fitness differences. For example, given heritable intrapopulational variation, more streamlined individuals in populations of fast-moving aquatic animals have higher locomotory efficiency and thus better survivorship and more resources directed to reproduction than less streamlined ones. Direct evidence consistent with this population-level scenario includes the observation that many unrelated species of fast-moving aquatic animals have similar streamlined shapes, an example of the comparative method. Crucial to note in this example is that although the data are observed across species, the comparative method for studying adaptation tests hypotheses regarding standard population-level natural selection with no content that can be construed as “macro.” Even less “macro,” individual-level developmental dynamics can limit or bias the range of variants available for selection. Calling any of these studies “macroevolutionary” implies that some additional process is at work, shrouding the need to test adaptation hypotheses and study the range of variants that can be produced in development.