Abstract
Convergent evolution is central to the study of life's evolutionary history. Researchers have documented the ubiquity of convergence and have used this ubiquity to make inferences about the nature of limits on evolution. However, these inferences are compromised by unrecognized inconsistencies in the definitions, measures, significance tests and inferred causes of convergent evolution. I review these inconsistencies and provide recommendations for standardizing studies of convergence. A fundamental dichotomy exists between definitions that describe convergence as a pattern and those that describe it as a pattern caused by a particular process. When this distinction is not acknowledged it becomes easy to assume that a pattern of convergence indicates that a particular process has been active, leading researchers away from alternative explanations. Convergence is not necessarily caused by limits to evolution, either adaptation or constraint; even substantial amounts of convergent evolution can be generated by a purely stochastic process. In the absence of null models, long lists of examples of convergent events do not necessarily indicate that convergence or any evolutionary process is ubiquitous throughout the history of life. Pattern-based definitions of convergence, coupled with quantitative measures and null models, must be applied before drawing inferences regarding large-scale limits to evolution.