Table 2.
The three best biogeographic reconstructions for each major notothenioid clade using lagrange
| Clade | Ancestral Rage | AIC Weight ( w i) | Evidence Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notothenioidei | SA | SA, AU, NZ, AN | 0.942 | |
| SA | AU, NZ, AN | 0.028 | 33.21 | |
| NZ | SA, AU, AN | 0.020 | 47.28 | |
| Notothenioidea | SA | SA, AU, AN | 0.467 | |
| SA | SA, AN | 0.102 | 4.59 | |
| SA | SA, AU | 0.070 | 6.63 | |
| Pseudaphritioidea | AU | SA, AN | 0.500 | |
| AU | AU | 0.125 | 3.99 | |
| AN | SA, AN | 0.083 | 6.01 | |
| Bovichtidae | SA | SA | 0.632 | |
| SA | SA, AU | 0.130 | 4.88 | |
| SA | SA, AU, NZ | 0.101 | 6.31 | |
| Eleginopsioidea | SA | AN | 0.637 | |
| SA, AU | AN | 0.064 | 9.90 | |
| SA | AU, AN | 0.050 | 12.65 | |
| Cryonotothenioidea | AN | AN | 0.976 | |
| AN | AU, AN | 0.011 | 88.54 | |
| AN | SA, AN | 0.009 | 111.69 |
The reconstructions used a four-area Gondwanan model that included South America (SA), Australia (AU), New Zealand (NZ), and Antarctica (AN). The optimal ancestral range for each internal node (Figure 4) is listed first and the two less optimal reconstructions are italicized. The scenarios reflect the splitting of the ancestral range with areas to the left of the split represents the range inherited by the upper branch of the phylogeny in Figure 4 and ranges to the right of the split is the range inherited by the lower branch. For each reconstruction the Akaike weight (w i) and evidence ratio are listed.