Table 2 Bayes factors and Akaike weights reveal differences in model fitness for the different partitioning strategies applied to the concatenated, multilocus dataset
M1↓ | a2ΔlnB10 | Akaike Weight | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M0→ | MB1 | MB2 | MB3 | MB4 | MB5 | MB6 | MB7 | MB8 | MB9 | |
MB1 | --- | 412.11 | 700.90 | 2371.08 | 2584.86 | 2462.04 | 2818.59 | 603.91 | 891.39 | 0.000 |
MB2 | −412.11 | --- | 288.79 | 1958.97 | 2172.74 | 2049.93 | 2406.48 | 191.80 | 479.28 | 0.000 |
MB3 | −700.90 | −288.79 | --- | 1670.18 | 1883.96 | 1761.14 | 2117.70 | −96.99 | 190.49 | 0.000 |
MB4 | −2371.08 | −1958.97 | −1670.18 | --- | 213.77 | 90.96 | 447.51 | −1767.17 | −1479.69 | 0.000 |
MB5 | −2584.86 | −2172.74 | −1883.96 | −213.77 | --- | −122.82 | 233.74 | −1980.95 | −1693.46 | 1.000 |
MB6 | −2462.04 | −2049.93 | −1761.14 | −90.96 | 122.82 | --- | 356.56 | −1858.13 | −1570.65 | 0.000 |
MB7 | −2818.59 | −2406.48 | −2117.70 | −447.51 | −233.74 | −356.56 | --- | −2214.68 | −1927.20 | 0.000 |
MB8 | −603.91 | −191.80 | 96.99 | 1767.17 | 1980.95 | 1858.13 | 2214.68 | --- | 287.48 | 0.000 |
MB9 | −891.39 | −479.28 | −190.49 | 1479.69 | 1693.46 | 1570.65 | 1927.20 | −287.48 | --- | 0.000 |