Table 6 in Phylogeny, evolution, and classification of the ant genus Lasius, the tribe Lasiini and the subfamily Formicinae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)
<p><b>Table 6.</b> Results of ANOVA tests on alternative ancestral state estimation models.</p><table><tbody><tr><th></th><th>Divergence dating</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>Biogeography reconstruction</th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th></th><td>FBD IGRclock</td><td></td><td>FBDTK02 clock</td><td></td><td>UniformIGRclock</td><td>Uniform TK 02 clock</td><td></td><td>DEC (lnL − 136.77)</td><td>DIVALIKE (lnL − 132.24)</td><td>BAYAREALIKE (lnL − 150.98)</td></tr><tr><th>Node</th><td>Meanage(95 % HPD)</td><td>PP</td><td>Meanage(95 % HPD)</td><td>PP</td><td>Mean age(95 % HPD)</td><td>PP</td><td>Mean age (95 % HPD)</td><td>PP</td><td>Range</td><td>Likelihood</td><td>Range</td><td>Likelihood</td><td>Range</td><td>Likelihood</td></tr><tr><th>LasiiniCore LasiiniMetalasius + Prenolepis g. grp.</th><td>70.0 (57.6 –82.7) 62.3 (51.2 –72.9) 51.1 (42.2 –60.2)</td><td>0.990.940.99</td><td>97.2 (89.6 – 106.0) 88.6 (79.8 – 97.8) 71.0 (60.8 – 81.9)</td><td>0.910.641.00</td><td>80.8(68.6 – 91.8) 72.5(59.0 – 85.4) 59.9(48.7 –72.8)</td><td>0.96 0.94 0.99</td><td>100.0 (90.9 – 112.3) 92.0 (83.5 – 102.2) 75.6 (65.1 – 86.5)</td><td>0.94 0.49 1.00</td><td>PI P P</td><td>0.33 0.42 0.40</td><td>PI P P</td><td>0.37 0.56 0.53</td><td>PI PI PI</td><td>0.43 0.43 0.48</td></tr><tr><th><i>Prenolepis</i> g. grp. <i>Lasius</i> g. grp. Crown Lasiusniger clade <i>flavus</i> clade <i>Myrmecocystus</i></th><td>39.0 (36.5 –50.9) 24.9 (18.0 – 33.0) 21.9 (15.3 – 28.6) 15.8 (10.0 – 21.6) 15.7 (10.4 – 21.0) 14.6 (7.3 – 21.5)</td><td><b>0.471.000.771.001.001.00</b></td><td><b>53.1 (43.6 – 62.6) 67.9 (54.9 – 81.6) 63.7 (52.4 – 75.1) 53.2 (41.2 – 65.3) 49.1 (36.7 – 61.8) 47.9 (33.5 – 63.1)</b></td><td><b>1.000.990.630.701.001.00</b></td><td><b>50.9(40.8 – 61.3) 31.1(22.4 – 40.5) <i>27.3(19.4 – 35.6)</i> 20.0(12.7 – 27.7) 19.7(13.2– 26.8)</b> 17.8(8.9 – 26.9)</td><td>1.00 0.99 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00</td><td>57.0 (48.2 – 66.5) 73.7 (61.9 – 88.3) 64.3 (58.4 – 82.2) 60.6 (46.1 – 73.0) 55.9 (41.1 – 69.4) 55.8 (40.0 – 69.8)</td><td>1.00 0.99 0.71 0.56 1.00 1.00</td><td>PI NaP P P Na Na</td><td>0.42 0.53 0.72 0.87 0.71 0.87</td><td>PI Na P P Na Na</td><td>0.50 0.55 0.71 0.99 0.90 0.97</td><td><b>PI NaP NaP NaP NaP Na</b></td><td><b><b>0.64 0.84 0.87 0.62</b> 0.91</b> 0.53</td></tr></tbody></table>
ShareScore
20/100
Overall dataset sharing score
Score breakdown
These five areas show where the dataset supports — or may limit — practical reuse.
- Stewardship
- 8
- Harmonization
- 4
- Access
- 8
- Reuse readiness
- 0
- Engagement
- 0