SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Table S1. Genbank accession numbers of published ITS loci and Jepson II name changes for species used in this study.

Table S2. Nucleotide substitution models and calibration dates for each of the 16 clades under consideration.

Table S3. A comparison of 1000 versus 10,000 generation MCMC analyses of BiSSE rates for our posterior set of 1000 trees per clade. A burnin of 1% was discarded from each run. Reported are mean estimates, followed by standard deviation in parentheses.

Table S4. A comparison of diversification models for our CA native subclades, using the method of (Morlon et al. 2011). The best-fit model was selected as that with the lowest value of AICc (bold). Best-fit models are visualized in Fig. 3.

Table S5. A comparison of speciation (λ0,1), extinction (ϵ0,1), net diversification (r0,1), and migration rates (q01,10) within CA (subscript 1) vs. beyond CA (subscript 0) within each of our selected clades, followed by the probability that indicated rate differences are greater than zero. Probabilities for smaller clades should be treated with caution.

Figure S1. Summary trees representing each of our 16 clades.

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
EVO_12016_sm_TableS1.xls179KSupporting info item
EVO_12016_sm_TableS2.doc187KSupporting info item
EVO_12016_sm_TableS3.doc55KSupporting info item
EVO_12016_sm_TableS4.doc59KSupporting info item
EVO_12016_sm_TableS5.doc42KSupporting info item
EVO_12016_sm_FigureS1.pdf2476KSupporting info item

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.