Table 3 Phylogenetic representativeness across real and simulated bivalve data sets.
From: Phylogenetic representativeness: a new method for evaluating taxon sampling in evolutionary studies
Sample | Group | Dimension | AvTD | VarTD | IE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
real | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
R1 | without anomalodesmatans | 31 | 85.3003 | 418.7537 | 0.2586 |
R2 | + Solemya and Thracia | 32 | 87.2497 | 375.5878 | 0.2804 |
R3 | increased (see text) | 42 | 88.8653 | 369.2571 | 0.1806 |
R4 | - Cerastoderma | 41 | 89.0842 | 363.4391 | 0.1773 |
simulated | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
S1 | "ideal" (see text) | 20 | 94.3673 | 186.2882 | 0.0476 |
S2 | biased towards poor subclasses | 21 | 90.6962 | 298.9607 | 0.1676 |
S3 | biased towards heterodonts | 20 | 76.9450 | 300.7505 | 0.7017 |
S4 | "easy-to-get" (see text) | 18 | 80.3913 | 482.7998 | 0.2419 |