Data from: Empirical test of the native-nonnative distinction: native and nonnative assemblages of Anolis lizards are similar in morphology and phylogeny

1. Nonnative ("invasive," "exotic," "naturalized") species frequently are vilified. However, some philosophers and ecologists have questioned whether nonnative species and assemblages are objectively, ahistorically identifiable as different entities relative to native species and assemblages, once selection biases are taken into account. 2. We used an unprecedented dataset of morphology, phylogeny, and assemblage content for 336 species of Anolis lizard to compare morphological and phylogenetic characteristics of variability and central tendency between native assemblages and those that include nonnative species. 3. Equivalence tests demonstrated significant similarity between native and nonnative assemblages in trait variability, phylogenetic dispersion, and mean trait values except for body size; logistic and zero-inflated regression failed to distinguish native and nonnative assemblages. For most traits, similarity was not due to assemblages being structured randomly but rather to both native and nonnative assemblages including similar species. 4. Without historical information, a naïve observer would be unable to identify Anolis assemblages as native or nonnative based on morphological assemblage structure or most mean assemblage trait values, but would have some success categorizing assemblages based on average body size of species in the assemblage. 5. Significant phylogenetic and morphological clustering in native assemblages likely reflects source pools composed of close relatives that share traits, as well as some environmental filtering effects; the slightly less phylogenetically clustered but equally morphologically clustered nonnative assemblages are less constrained to proximal source pools but still probably subject to filtering. Differences between native and nonnative assemblages in mean body size likely reflect assemblage youth. The ontological status of nonnative species is discussed in light of these results.1. 外来物种（nonnative species，包括入侵种（invasive）、外来种（exotic）、归化种（naturalized））常遭诋毁抹黑。然而，部分哲学家与生态学家提出质疑：若纳入选择偏差（selection bias）因素，是否能客观且脱离历史语境，将外来物种及其物种组合（assemblage）与本地物种及物种组合明确界定为不同实体？ 2. 本研究采用涵盖336种安乐蜥（Anolis lizard）的形态学（morphology）、系统发育学（phylogeny）及物种组合组成的前所未有的数据集，对比分析本地物种组合与包含外来物种的组合在性状变异性（variability）、系统发育离散度（phylogenetic dispersion）以及集中趋势（central tendency）等形态与系统发育特征上的差异。 3. 等效性检验（Equivalence tests）结果显示，除体型大小（body size）外，本地与外来物种组合在性状变异性、系统发育离散度及性状均值（mean trait values）方面均呈现显著相似性；逻辑回归（logistic regression）与零膨胀回归（zero-inflated regression）均无法有效区分本地与外来物种组合。就多数性状而言，二者的相似性并非源于物种组合的随机构建，而是由于本地与外来物种组合所包含的物种类群较为相似。 4. 若无历史背景信息，仅通过物种组合的形态结构（morphological assemblage structure）或多数性状的组合均值，无相关背景知识的观察者（naïve observer）无法判定安乐蜥物种组合属于本地还是外来组合；但可基于组合内物种的平均体型大小进行一定程度的分类判别。 5. 本地物种组合中显著的系统发育聚类（phylogenetic clustering）与形态聚类现象，大概率反映出其物种种源库（source pool）由共享性状的近缘类群构成，同时也受到一定程度的环境过滤（environmental filtering）作用；外来物种组合的系统发育聚集程度略低，但形态聚集程度与本地组合相当，说明其受邻近物种种源库的约束更少，但仍可能受到环境过滤的影响。本地与外来物种组合在平均体型大小上的差异，大概率反映了两类组合的形成时长存在差异。本研究结合上述结果，对外来物种的本体论地位（ontological status）展开了讨论。