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

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

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

‘Int.’ and ‘Tars.’ denote ‘intercept’ and ‘tarsometatarsus,’ respectively. P_GS are the results of F-tests testing for departures from the null model.
Bold values of P_GS indicate departures from isometry’s prediction.

ISSN: 1742-9994