Table 3. Comparison between the best (1) and the alternative (2–20) topologies.

Topology	Description of alternative topology	Rank	Obs	KH	AU
1	Best ML tree from RAxML	1	----	0.522	0.823
2	Secondly best ML tree from RAxML	2	0.3	0.478	0.709
3	(Pterocommatinae+Aphidini)+Macrosiphini	7	17.8	0.086	0.129
4	(Pterocommatinae+Macrosiphini)+Aphidini	4	14.7	0.089	0.171
5	Basal position of Bursaphis within Aphidina	16	46.3	0.019*	0.024*
6	Basal position of gossypii group within Aphidina	18	54.3	0.022*	0.021*
7	Basal position of (craccivora+fabae+spiraecola groups)+node 58 within Aphidina	15	44	0.019*	0.022*
8	Basal position of node 30 within Aphidina	13	31.8	0.023*	0.014*
9	Basal position of craccivora+fabae+spiraecola groups within Aphidina	17	52.9	0.01*	0.016*
10	Basal position of all Southern Hemisphere species (non-monophyly) within Aphidina	14	39.4	0.022*	0.019*
11	Basal position of A. coprosmae+Southern Hemisphere group within Aphidina	11	24	0.076	0.157
12	Basal position of A. coprosmae within Aphidina	3	11.2	0.09	0.253
13	Basal position of A. crinosa within Aphidina	6	17.6	0.025*	0.059
14	Basal position of T. aurantii within Aphidina	12	25.2	0.067	0.108
15	Monophyly of four species groups excluding node 58	8	22.3	0.062	0.092
16	Monophyly of Rhopalosiphum	10	23.8	0.031*	0.04*
17	Monophyly of Melanaphis	9	22.3	0.065	0.086
18	Basal position of Hyalopterus within Rhopalosiphina	5	15.5	0.081	0.104
19	Basal position of Rhopalosiphum (non-monophyly) within Rhopalosiphina	19	64.8	0.001*	<0.001*
20	Basal position of (Schizaphis+Euschizaphis [non-monophyly]) withiin Rhopalosiphina	20	65.2	0.007*	0.006*

Nodes 30 and 58 are those referred in Figure 2.

*signifies that the hypothesis received a P value<0.05 and can be rejected.