Table 3. Animal cap elongation in different species combinations.
| Animal Cap | Vegetal Cap | Well Elongated (%) | Stump (%) | No Elongation (%) | Sample Size (Number of Experiments) |
| lxl | lxl a | 33 (75) | 10 (23) | 1 (2) | 44 (6) |
| txt a | 18 (86) | 3 (14) | 0 (0) | 21 (4) | |
| [t]xt a | 31 (89) | 4 (11) | 0 (0) | 35 (5) | |
| [l]xt b | 13 (30) | 27 (63) | 3 (7) | 43 (7) | |
| [l]xt | lxl c | 6 (19) | 21 (68) | 4 (13) | 31 (5) |
| txt c | 6 (29) | 15 (71) | 0 (0) | 21 (4) | |
| [t]xt c | 4 (15) | 19 (70) | 4 (15) | 27 (3) | |
| [l]xt c | 2 (8) | 15 (60) | 8 (32) | 25 (4) | |
| [t]xt | lxl d | 12 (52) | 9 (39) | 2 (9) | 23 (4) |
a,b
A relationship exists between vegetal cap kind and elongation of lxl animal caps (p<0.001; Chi-square analysis). Rows with different superscripts differ significantly (p<0.001) and rows with identical superscripts do not differ significantly (p>0.05) in pairwise Chi-square analyses.
c
No significant relationship exists between vegetal cap kind and elongation of [l]xt animal caps (p>0.05; Chi-square analysis).
d
Row does not differ significantly (p>0.05) versus lxl animal cap conjugated to lxl vegetal cap, but differs significantly (p = 0.04) versus [l]xt animal cap conjugated to lxl vegetal cap in pairwise Chi-square analysis.