Table 3. Comparison of the different models of ancestral range estimation performed with BioGeoBEARS.
The model that best fits the data (highlighted in bold and itallics below) was DEC, and was therefore the model used to reconstruct the ancestral ranges in the evolution of the tribe Ichthyomyini.
| Model | LnL | P | d | e | j | AICc | AIC_wt |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DEC | −49.87 | 2 | 0.14 | 0.047 | 0 | 104.3 | 0.96 |
| DEC + J | −51.72 | 3 | 0.044 | 1.0e−12 | 0.037 | 110.7 | 0.040 |
| DIVALIKE | −57.31 | 2 | 0.086 | 0.0095 | 0 | 119.2 | 0.0006 |
| DIVALIKE + J | −54.33 | 3 | 0.051 | 1.0e−12 | 0.035 | 115.9 | 0.0029 |
| BAYAREALIKE | −62.61 | 2 | 0.15 | 0.37 | 0 | 129.8 | 2.8e−06 |
| BAYAREALIKE + J | −56.95 | 3 | 0.034 | 1.0e−07 | 0.053 | 121.2 | 0.0002 |
Note:
LnL, ln(likelihood); # Params, = Number of parameters; d, dispersal rate (i.e., the rate of range addition along a phylogenetic branch); e, extinction (i.e., the rate of local range loss along a phylogenetic branch); AICc, corrected Akaike Information Criterion; AICc_wt, weight of the models based on the AICc.