Table 3. Model acceptance table with pattern descriptions and details of acceptance derived from empirical data.

Percentages of accepted simulations (for both landscapes) are shown for each model and acceptance parameter and the combination of all acceptance patterns. For details, see S1 Note.

Acceptance		M1	M2	M3	M4	M5
Pattern	Description and empirical acceptance	n = 300	n = 780	n = 1,020	n = 300	n = 780
LDG %loss	Percentage of species loss per latitudinal degree from linear regression slope. Accept LDGs between 5% and 1%	26%	28%	41%	34%	36%
LDG curve	Standardized mean species number per latitude correlation between simulated and empirical maximal Pearson correlation. Accept r > 0.4	21%	28%	43%	38%	60%
α biodiversity	Spatial distribution correlation between simulated and empirical maximal Pearson correlation. Accept r > 0.4	18%	24%	37%	20%	36%
Range	Range size distributions. Accept only distributions that show a consistent frequency decrease toward large-ranged species with a tolerance of 5%	23%	8%	4%	31%	16%
Phytogenic balance	The imbalance of a phylogenetic tree is measured by the value that maximizes the likelihood in the β-splitting model [152]. Accept phylogenies with β between −1.4 and −0.3	56%	56%	55%	73%	64%
nLTT	Temporal dynamics of species diversification, measured by the differences between empirical and simulated nLTT curves [153]. Accept nLTT differences < 0.15	66%	65%	70%	62%	59%
Combined	Simulations passing all criteria above with at least 20 species alive at present time	0%	0%	0%	0%	1%

LDG, latitudinal diversity gradient; nLTT, normalized lineage though time.