Table 3

Possible taxonomically distinctive entities. Intraspecific clusters of individuals that might be unrecognized species, probability of chance reciprocal monophyly (p, α ≤ 0.01), specimen details, fixed diagnostic mutations, and mean distances between the clusters of the same species.

Species

p

Collecting locale or subspecies (sampling)

Fixed mutations

Mean D (%) among clusters


Brachyramphus brevirostris

3.0 × 10-3

a. Aleutians, Russia (3)

a vs b = 7

a vs b = 1.23

b. East Alaska (6)

Pygoscelis papua

9.7 × 10-5

a. Macquarie Island (6)

a vs b = 15

a vs b = 2.43

b. Falkland Island (7)

Gelochelidon nilotica

1.8 × 10-3

a. Small form of the beak (3)

a vs b = 11

a vs b = 1.74

9.5 × 10-3

b. Large form of the beak (3)

a vs c = 10

a vs c = 1.84

c. South America, Russia (4)

b vs c = 5

b vs c = 1.74

Sturnella magna

9.5 × 10-3

a. Texas (4)

a vs b = 22

a vs b = 4.03

b. Texas, Ontario, Miami (3)

Tringa totanus

9.5 × 10-3

a. Iceland (4)

a vs b = 6

a vs b = 0.95

b. Vietnam, Australia (3)

Eudyptula minor

8.3 × 10-17

a. New Zealand (NZ)(21)

a vs b = 28

a vs b = 3.82

b. Australia (21)


Tavares and Baker BMC Evolutionary Biology 2008 8:81   doi:10.1186/1471-2148-8-81

Open Data