SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Figure S1: Simulation results from model 4 with strong election (s = 1.0), a model similar to model 3, but in which instead of being neutral, the two derived substitutions were considered to be universally favored across the two populations (i.e., universally beneficial).

Figure S2: Simulation results from model 4 with weak selection (s = 0.01), a model similar to model 3, but in which instead of being neutral, the two derived substitutions were considered to be universally favored across the two populations (i.e., universally beneficial).

Figure S3: Simulation results from model 5 with strong election (s = 1.0), which examined the consequences of negative interactions between derived and ancestral allelic states.

Figure S4: Simulation results from model 5 with weak selection (s = 0.01), which examined the consequences of negative interactions between derived and ancestral allelic states.

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 material) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
EVO_786_sm_FigureS1-S4.doc369KSupporting 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.