Table 2.
Likelihood analysis of constrained and unconstrained trees from combined EF-1α gene and mtSSU rDNA dataset
| Treea | Tree length (steps)b | No. of treesc | Log likelihood (L) test resultsd
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ln L | Differencee | SDf | Pg | |||
| MPT (Fig. 3) | 85 | 1 | −333.63405 | (Best) | ||
| f. sp. lycopersici monophyletic | 97 (+12) | 10 | −369.85437 | −36.22032 | 9.3271 | 0.0003 |
| f. sp. melonis monophyletic | 102 (+17) | 4 | −376.70075 | −43.06671 | 8.1074 | <0.0001 |
| f. sp. radicis-lysopersici monophyletic | 92 (+7) | 10 | −357.69116 | −24.05711 | 8.3201 | 0.0057 |
| f. sp. cubense monophyletic | 112 (+27) | 120 | −409.36083 | −75.72679 | 11.1467 | <0.0001 |
a
Monophyly constraints enforced with paup (18).
b
Under indel coding excluding uninformative characters. Numbers in parentheses indicate difference in length between the MPT and constrained trees.
c
Only the best tree from each constraint was included in this test.
d
Transition/transversion ratio estimated via maximum likelihood for Kishino–Hasegawa test.
e
Difference in ln likelihood (L) between best tree and suboptimal tree.
f
SD of log likelihood.
g
Probability of obtaining a more extreme T-value, using the two-tailed test, with the null hypothesis being that there is no difference between the two trees. All values are significant at P = <0.05.