Table 2.
P Values Resulting from Statistical Comparison of Alternative Phylogenetic Hypotheses Using Topology Tests in Tree Puzzle and Consel.
| Tree | Tree puzzle |
Consel |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Log likelihood | AU | KH | SH | WKH | WSH | |
| Exon vs. intron topology—position of Hipposideros commersoni, H. vittatus | ||||||
| Exon topology (H. commersoni, H. vittatus) (Aselliscus stoliczkanus, Coelops frithii) | −60,264.89 | 0.911 | 0.896 | 0.896 | 0.896 | 0.896 |
| Intron Topology (H. commersoni, H. vittatus) (As. stoliczkanus, C. frithii) | −602,745.00 | 0.89 | 0.104 | 0.104 | 0.104 | 0.104 |
| Hipposideros—monophyletic vs. paraphyletic | ||||||
| Paraphyletic | −60,264.89 | 0.982 | 0.963 | 0.963 | 0.963 | 0.963 |
| Monophyletic | −60,277.81 | 0.018* | 0.037* | 0.037* | 0.037* | 0.037* |
| Rhinolophidae—basal clade | ||||||
| Rhinolophus hipposideros basal (arising from BEAST analysis of introns—cf. table S1) | −60,265.26 | 0.37 | 0.363 | 0.784 | 0.363 | 0.714 |
| R. trifoliatus and R. luctus basal (Guillen-Servent et al. 2003) | −60,282.96 | 0.022* | 0.047* | 0.268 | 0.047* | 0.083 |
| R. pearsoni basal (Stoffberg et al. 2010) | −60,381.35 | <0.001* | <0.001* | <0.001* | <0.001* | <0.001* |
| Basal division of European/African vs. Asian clades (consensus tree—fig. 2) | −60,264.89 | 0.765 | 0.637 | 0.911 | 0.637 | 0.939 |
*Significant.