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.