Fig. 3 in Molecular phylogenies map to biogeography better than morphological ones

Fig. 3 Differences in biogeographic congruence between morphological and molecular trees. Boxplots of raw values and differences in values between morphological and molecular trees for the metrics of biogeographic congruence analysed in this study. a Consistency index (CI: W = 685, Z = 2.22, rc = 0.384, p value = 0.027). b Retention index (RI: W = 695, Z = 2.33, rc = 0.404, p value = 0.0199). c P values for the CI & RI random permutations (CI & RI p value: W = 373, Z = −1.63, rc = −0.279, p value =0.104). d Biogeographic HER (bHER: W = 888, Z = 3.08, rc = 0.51, p value = 0.002). Boxes delimit the upper and lower quartiles of the data, while central bars are median values. Whiskers delimit plus or minus 1.5 times the interquartile range, from the first and third quartiles. Coloured lines connected pairs of values from the same clade, where red dashed lines indicate the morphological tree is most biogeographically congruent and green solid lines indicate the molecular tree is most biogeographically congruent. N = 48 biologically independent pairs of morphological and molecular phylogenies.