Table 2.
Comparison of alternative hypotheses using three methods of phylogenetic reconstruction
| Alternative phylogenetic hypotheses | Number of trees | Cladistic parsimony
|
Maximum likelihood
|
Minimum evolution
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score | % difference | Rank | Score | % difference | Rank | Score | % difference | Rank | ||
| A | 8 | 3,517 | 0.486% | 4 | 18,729 | 0.162% | 4 | 2.73752 | 0.596% | 4 |
| B | 2 | 3,521 | 0.600% | 5 | 18,730 | 0.168% | 5 | 2.73957 | 0.672% | 5 |
| C | 6 | 3,590 | 2.571% | 6 | 18,987 | 1.543% | 6 | 2.80954 | 3.243% | 6 |
| D | 5 | 3,500 | 0.000% | 1 | 18,699 | 0.003% | 2 | 2.72129 | 0.000% | 1 |
| E | 2 | 3,509 | 0.257% | 3 | 18,700 | 0.006% | 3 | 2.7236 | 0.085% | 2 |
| F | 2 | 3,508 | 0.229% | 2 | 18,699 | 0.000% | 1 | 2.72532 | 0.148% | 3 |
Comparison of optimal tree scores under the six alternative hypotheses. Letters A–F refer to Fig. 1. For each methodology of phylogenetic reconstruction, tree scores are ranked and percent difference from the optimal tree score is calculated. Bold type denotes the optimal score for each of the methodologies.