Skip to main content

Table 6 Results of PGLS regressions

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

Trait

N

Int.

95%C.I.

Slope

95%C.I.

L

Body mass scaling

Thigh mass

38

-1.56

-1.898, 1.213

1.00

0.892, 1.100

14.86

Shank mass

38

-1.59

-1.991, -1.182

0.99

0.863, 1.109

8.53

Pes mass

38

-2.05

-2.527, -1.576

0.98

0.834, 1.123

2.37

Tars. mass

36

-2.41

-2.943, -1.876

1.00

0.842, 1.167

-1.70

Digit mass

36

-2.35

-2.823, -1.884

0.97

0.826, 1.112

2.87

Hindlimb length scaling

Thigh mass

35

-2.38

-3.091, -1.663

2.75

2.246, 3.252

-4.31

Shank mass

35

-2.65

-3.202, -2.097

2.92

2.530, 3.309

4.66

Pes mass

35

-3.21

-3.734, -2.682

2.98

2.609, 3.350

6.41

Tars. mass

33

-3.64

-4.141, -3.147

3.09

2.742, 3.443

7.83

Digit mass

33

-3.37

-3.993, -2.755

2.85

2.411, 3.283

0.61

  1. ‘95% C.I.’ refers to the 95% confidence interval for the slope and intercept (Int.). ‘L’ denotes the log likelihood value.