Skip to main content

Table 3 Results of regressions of segment masses against body mass and hindlimb length for the Land Bird subsample

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 24 -1.98 -2.143, -1.807 1.17 1.100, 1.253 0.9783 < 0.0001
Shank mass 24 -2.02 -2.480, -1.925 1.28 1.161, 1.414 0.9503 < 0.0001
Pes mass 24 -2.69 -2.981, -2.398 1.30 1.177, 1.442 0.9472 < 0.0001
Tars. mass 23 -3.09 -3.412, -2.767 1.34 1.200, 1.493 0.9415 < 0.0001
Digit mass 23 -2.90 -3.170, -2.639 1.26 1.145, 1.387 0.9553 < 0.0001
Hindlimb length scaling
Thigh mass 21 -2.90 -3.393, -2.398 3.06 2.660, 3.527 0.9131 0.7624
Shank mass 21 -3.23 -3.582, -2.881 3.36 3.070, 3.681 0.9641 0.0167
Pes mass 21 -3.75 -4.110, -3.399 3.44 3.140, 3.760 0.9647 0.0051
Tars. mass 20 -4.19 -4.520, -3.852 3.54 3.262, 3.846 0.9723 0.0005
Digit mass 20 -3.94 -4.354, -3.521 3.33 2.986, 3.714 0.9513 0.0597
  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.