Skip to main content

Table 3 Results of regressions of segment masses against body mass and hindlimb length for the Land Bird subsample

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

Trait

N

Int.

95% C.I.

Slope

95% C.I.

R2

P GS

Body mass scaling

Thigh mass

24

-1.98

-2.143, -1.807

1.17

1.100, 1.253

0.9783

< 0.0001

Shank mass

24

-2.02

-2.480, -1.925

1.28

1.161, 1.414

0.9503

< 0.0001

Pes mass

24

-2.69

-2.981, -2.398

1.30

1.177, 1.442

0.9472

< 0.0001

Tars. mass

23

-3.09

-3.412, -2.767

1.34

1.200, 1.493

0.9415

< 0.0001

Digit mass

23

-2.90

-3.170, -2.639

1.26

1.145, 1.387

0.9553

< 0.0001

Hindlimb length scaling

Thigh mass

21

-2.90

-3.393, -2.398

3.06

2.660, 3.527

0.9131

0.7624

Shank mass

21

-3.23

-3.582, -2.881

3.36

3.070, 3.681

0.9641

0.0167

Pes mass

21

-3.75

-4.110, -3.399

3.44

3.140, 3.760

0.9647

0.0051

Tars. mass

20

-4.19

-4.520, -3.852

3.54

3.262, 3.846

0.9723

0.0005

Digit mass

20

-3.94

-4.354, -3.521

3.33

2.986, 3.714

0.9513

0.0597

  1. ‘Int.’ and ‘Tars.’ denote ‘intercept’ and ‘tarsometatarsus,’ respectively. PGS are the results of F-tests testing for departures from the null model.
  2. Bold values of PGS indicate departures from isometry’s prediction.