Table 3.

Comparison of the six biogeographical reconstruction models for three different scenarios (“S0”, “S1”, “S2”; see text for definition)

	Scenario S0			Scenario S1			Scenario S2
Model	lnL	AIC	ῳi	lnL	AIC	ῳi	lnL	AIC	ῳi
DEC	−13.984414	31.97	0.042	−13.072694	30.15	0.018	−14.54651	33.09	0.55
DEC + J	−9.861326	25.72	0.96	−8.059002	22.12	0.98	−13.75296	33.51	0.45
DIVALIKE	−11.852773	27.71	0.11	−10.371666	24.74	0.11	−13.23454	30.47	0.66
DIVALIKE + J	−8.73571	23.47	0.89	−7.315617	20.63	0.89	−12.90696	31.81	0.34
BAYAREALIKE	−17.770147	39.54	0.0047	−18.357268	40.71	0.0002	−19.58099	43.16	0.025
BAYAREALIKE + J	−11.405964	28.81	1	−8.920927	23.84	1	−14.90445	35.81	0.98

For each model of each scenario are indicated the log-likelihood (lnL), the Akaike information criterion (AIC) values, and the Akaike weight ῳ_i (indicating the relative likelihood of the model). The model with lowest AIC value is marked in bold font and the most likely scenario is underlined. DEC = Dispersal-Extinction Cladogenesis; DIVA = Dispersal-Vicariance Analysis; BAYAREALIKE = Bayesian inference of historical biogeography for discrete areas; j = founder-event speciation parameter