The first known fossil Uma: ecological evolution and the origins of North American fringe-toed lizards

Table 3 Marginal likelihood estimates from path-sampling and stepping-stone analyses and 2log_eBF test statistics comparing evidence for different analyses

One-rate analyses
Model	Path Sampling log_e (Marg. Lik.)	Stepping Stone log_e (Marg. Lik.)	Path Sampling 2log_eBF	Stepping Stone 2log_eBF
All fossil calibrations	−111,014.69	−111,014.42	3.24 (181.58)	3.58 (181.60)
^aNo sand lizard calibration	−111,013.07	− 111,012.63	(178.34)	(178.02)
All fossil calibrations + Pleistocene calibration	−111,023.13	− 111,022.44	20.12 (197.64)	19.62 (198.46)
Two-rate analyses
Model	Path Sampling log_e (Marg. Lik.)	Stepping Stone log_e (Marg. Lik.)	Path Sampling 2log_eBF	Stepping Stone 2log_eBF
^aAll fossil calibrations	−110,923.90	−110,923.62	–	–
No sand lizard calibration	−110,924.78	− 110,924.17	1.76	1.10
All fossil calibrations + Pleistocene calibration	−110,932.31	−110,931.95	16.82	16.66

The two-rate analysis with all fossil calibrations (in bold) is the best supported analysis overall. The favored analysis for each clock rate model is denoted by a ^a. The 2log_eBF values are the favored model compared to the given model. For the one-rate analyses, the 2log_eBF outside of parentheses are in comparison to the one-rate analysis without the sand lizard calibration, and 2log_eBF in parentheses are in comparison to the overall favored analysis (two-rate analysis with all fossil calibrations)

ISSN: 2730-7182