Table 2 Four-cluster Likelihood-Mapping results among the four major myriapod subgroups. Data set STRICTaa (95,797 alignment sites, 292 gene partitions, merged into 215 meta-partitions). # of drawn quartets: 480. Cluster 1: Chilopoda (Chil), Cluster 2: Diplopoda (Dipl), Cluster 3: Pauropoda (Paur), Cluster 4: Symphyla (Sym). Given are percentages [%] of drawn quartets that map into areas in the 2D-simplex graph (Fig. 3). Quartet topology A (in blue): unambiguous support for Chilopoda+Diplopoda and Pauropoda+Symphyla. Quartet topology B (in red): unambiguous support for Chilopoda+Symphyla and Diplopoda+Pauropoda. Quartet topology C (in grey): unambiguous support for Chilopoda+Pauropoda and Diplopoda+Symphyla. Quartets that map in other outer regions of the simplex graph are partly informative, quartets that map into the centre area are not informative. Question addressed: Is there alterative signal despite the clustering of Pauropoda+Symphyla (i.e. Edafopoda) and Chilopoda+Diplopoda (quartet topology A); can quartet topology A, B or C be explained by confounding signal?
data set | Topology A a | Topology B a | Topology C a | Topology A-C | Topology B-C | Topology A-B | center area |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Chil,Dipl) – (Paur,Sym) | (Chil,Sym) – (Dipl,Paur) | (Chil,Paur) – (Dipl,Sym) | |||||
original | 65%$ | 22.9% | 10.8% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 1.0% | 0.0% |
permutation I | 15.6% | 37.9% | 34.4% | 2.9% | 5.6% | 2.5% | 1.0% |
permutation II | 20.4% | 27.9% | 37.9% | 4.4% | 5.0% | 2.9% | 1.5% |
permutation III | 24.6% | 30.8% | 30.2% | 4.8% | 4.6% | 3.1% | 1.9% |