Table 1.
Order | Family | Genus | nb-sa | nb-hb | obs-coocc | exp-coocd | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Carnivora | Felidae | Panthera | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0.236 | 0.022* |
Carnivora | Mustelidae | Martes | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0.901 | 0.621 |
Carnivora | Viverridae | Genetta | 2 | 2 | 11 | 6.483 | 0.029* |
Cetartio. | Camelidae | Camelus | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0.648 | 0.499 |
Chiroptera | Phyllostomidae | Carollia | 4 | 2 | 23 | 12.243 | 0** |
Chiroptera | Phyllostomidae | Glossophaga | 2 | 1 | 9 | 6.705 | 0.126 |
Chiroptera | Phyllostomidae | Artibeus | 2 | 0 | 13 | 10.891 | 0.261 |
Chiroptera | Rinholophidae | Rhinolophus | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0.354 | 0.299 |
Insectivora | Soricidae | Crocidura | 2 | 0 | 8 | 6.32 | 0.265 |
Insectivora | Soricidae | Blarina | 3 | 1 | 27 | 20.951 | 0.061 |
Insectivora | Soricidae | Sorex | 6 | 5 | 15 | 6.906 | 0.005** |
Lagomorpha | Leporidae | Lepus | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0.358 | 1 |
Primates | Cheirogaleidae | Microcebus | 2 | 0 | 8 | 8.175 | 0.619 |
Rodentia | Echimyidae | Proechimys | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2.38 | 0.719 |
Rodentia | Geomyidae | Cratogeomys | 2 | 0 | 28 | 21.971 | 0.048* |
Rodentia | Geomyidae | Geomys | 2 | 1 | 40 | 30.494 | 0.011* |
Rodentia | Muridae | Clethrionomys | 3 | 2 | 47 | 35.431 | 0.003** |
Rodentia | Muridae | Eothenomys | 2 | 2 | 10 | 5.756 | 0.047* |
Rodentia | Muridae | Microtus | 3 | 3 | 73 | 64.39 | 0.041* |
Rodentia | Muridae | Apodemus | 2 | 1 | 5 | 5.901 | 0.748 |
Rodentia | Muridae | Eliurus | 5 | 1 | 53 | 46.293 | 0.07 |
Rodentia | Muridae | Baiomys | 2 | 1 | 11 | 10.212 | 0.437 |
Rodentia | Muridae | Calomys | 3 | 2 | 14 | 8.651 | 0.026* |
Rodentia | Muridae | Neotoma | 5 | 3 | 51 | 39.536 | 0.005** |
Rodentia | Muridae | Peromyscus | 2 | 0 | 4 | 3.424 | 0.466 |
Rodentia | Muridae | Sigmodon | 3 | 2 | 23 | 18.212 | 0.104 |
Rodentia | Sciuridae | Spermophilus | 3 | 1 | 60 | 64.035 | 0.857 |
Number of represented species in the genus
Number of species showing significant homoplasy
Observed number of polymorphism co-occurrence
Expected number of polymorphism co-occurrence under the no hot spot hypothesis
significant at the 5% level
significant at the 1% level