Skip to main content

Table 2 Results of regressions of segment masses against body mass and hindlimb length for the entire neognath sample

From: Scale effects and morphological diversification in hindlimb segment mass proportions in neognath birds

Trait N Int. 95% C.I. Slope 95% C.I. R2 P GS
Body mass scaling
Thigh mass 38 -1.82 -2.018, -1.625 1.11 1.032, 1.194 0.9530 0.0065
Shank mass 38 -1.93 -2.155, -1.700 1.14 1.050, 1.238 0.9402 0.0027
Pes mass 38 -2.41 -2.677, -2.135 1.15 1.044, 1.269 0.9167 0.0058
Tars. mass 36 -2.81 -3.105, -2.510 1.19 1.072, 1.319 0.9113 0.0017
Digit mass 36 -2.63 -2.898, -2.354 1.11 1.001, 1.227 0.9146 0.0479
Hindlimb length scaling
Thigh mass 35 -2.77 -3.287, -2.263 3.01 2.614, 3.458 0.8430 0.9757
Shank mass 35 -2.92 -3.317, -2.525 3.10 2.786, 3.439 0.9113 0.5501
Pes mass 35 -3.42 -3.779, -3.065 3.14 2.855, 3.444 0.9298 0.3449
Tars. mass 33 -3.49 -4.182, -3.514 3.24 2.975, 3.527 0.9459 0.0754
Digit mass 33 -3.60 -4.033, -3.171 3.02 2.686, 3.398 0.8966 0.9057
  1. ‘Int.’ and ‘Tars.’ denote ‘intercept’ and ‘tarsometatarsus,’ respectively. PGS are the results of F-tests testing for departures from the null model.
  2. Bold values of PGS indicate departures from isometry’s prediction.