Data supporting: Exploring the historical biogeography of diving beetles (Coleoptera: Adephaga: Dytiscidae) and the determinants of their biogeographic range size

Supporting Information For all the following Supporting Information, the code for the defined biogeographic regions is as follows: A = Neotropics; B = Nearctic; C = Palearctic; D = Pacific Ocean; E = Afrotropics; F = Indian Ocean; G = Oriental region; H = Australasia; I = Antarctic region. File S1. Molecular matrix used in this study, as well as MrBayes scripts and resulting trees for all analyses performed. File S2. Phylogenetic trees pruned, resulting in 157 tips trees. File S3. Script used to perform RevBayes diversification rate analyses, as well as log files resulting from it for each topology. File S4. Data and R script used to perform phylogenetic comparative analyses using the R package ‘SLOUCH’. File S5. Results of the historical biogeography analyses using the R package ‘BioGeoBEARS’ under .Rdata format. Figure S1. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘AZ’ topology (179 tips and including the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S2. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘BZ’ topology (179 tips and including the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S3. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘CZ’ topology (179 tips and including the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S4. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘EZ’ topology (179 tips and including the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S5. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘FZ’ topology (179 tips and including the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S6. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘GZ’ topology (179 tips and including the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S7. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘AZ’ topology (179 tips and excluding the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S8. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘BZ’ topology (179 tips and excluding the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S9. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘CZ’ topology (179 tips and excluding the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S10. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘EZ’ topology (179 tips and excluding the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S11. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘FZ’ topology (179 tips and excluding the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S12. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘GZ’ topology (179 tips and excluding the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S13. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘AZ’ topology (157 tips and including the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S14. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘BZ’ topology (157 tips and including the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S15. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘CZ’ topology (157 tips and including the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S16. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘EZ’ topology (157 tips and including the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S17. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘FZ’ topology (157 tips and including the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S18. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘GZ’ topology (157 tips and including the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S19. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘AZ’ topology (157 tips and excluding the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S20. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘BZ’ topology (157 tips and excluding the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S21. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘CZ’ topology (157 tips and excluding the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S22. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘EZ’ topology (157 tips and excluding the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S23. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘FZ’ topology (157 tips and excluding the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Figure S24. Results of the biogeographic analysis conducted with the ‘GZ’ topology (157 tips and excluding the Antarctic region) with ‘BioGeoBEARS’, either given as the most likely ancestral range or with pie charts at nodes showing relative probabilities of ancestral range. Table S1. Dataset of taxa used in phylogenetic analyses, with GenBank accession numbers for each available marker and specimen, and voucher information. Table S2. Assignment of biogeographic ranges to each taxon of Dytiscidae represented in the biogeographic analyses, including or excluding the Antarctic region, for analyses with either 179 tips or 157 tips. Table S3. Adjacency matrices for the ‘BioGeoBEARS’ stratified biogeographic analyses, divided into seven time slices and including or excluding the Antarctic region. Table S4. Manual multiplier dispersal rates matrices for the ‘BioGeoBEARS’ stratified biogeographic analyses, divided into seven time slices and including or excluding the Antarctic region. Table S5. Allowed area matrices for the ‘BioGeoBEARS’ stratified biogeographic analyses, divided into seven time slices and including or excluding the Antarctic region. Table S6. Results of the Biogeographical Stochastic Mapping (BSM) for the ‘EZ’ topology with 179 tips and including or excluding the Antarctic region. Table S7. Divergence time estimates and most likely ancestral range for Dytiscidae and their subclades for the analyses under the topologies 'AZ', 'EZ', 'BZ', 'FZ', 'CZ', ‘GZ’, with 179 tips, 157 tips, and including or excluding the Antarctic region. The results for the analyses with 179 tips and including Antarctica for the topologies 'AZ' and 'EZ' are presented in Table 1. Table S8. Results of biogeographic range size regressed on habitat type with the R package 'SLOUCH', with a coding strategy following the literature. Table S9. Results of biogeographic range size regressed on habitat type with the R package 'SLOUCH', with a coding strategy using the dominant habitat for some genera with mixed habitat types. Table S10. Results of biogeographic range size regressed on niche breadth with the R package 'SLOUCH', with a coding strategy following the literature. Table S11. Results of biogeographic range size regressed on niche breadth with the R package 'SLOUCH', with a coding strategy using the dominant habitat for some genera with mixed habitat types. Table S12. Results of biogeographic range size regressed on mean body size of genera with the R package 'SLOUCH'. Table S13. Results of biogeographic range size regressed on diversification rates using the formula from Magallón and Sanderson (2001), that is ln[(number of species) – ln(2)] / clade age, with the R package 'SLOUCH'. Table S14. Results of biogeographic range size regressed on diversification rates using the RevBayes framework, with the R package 'SLOUCH'.