Skip to main content
. 2015 Jun 11;15:109. doi: 10.1186/s12862-015-0362-9

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.