CHAPTER 4.

2 RANGE SIZES

95

according to these maps are compared to cruder measurements of range size, such as the area of a minimum convex polygon of records and the latitudinal and longitudinal extent. The comprehensive vs. partial range concept is explored by comparing global range estimates with partial range measures of different extent. Furthermore, range sizes are tested for phylogenetic autocorrelation and differences between sub-taxa. This explores the idea that the area that a species occupies might be connected to inherited traits of the species and thus should be more similar among closer related species.

Methods The location of species records was mostly available at a precision of 1 latitude/longitude (Beck & Kitching 2004, see also chapter 4.1), which is equivalent to ca. 80 km at locations near the equator. From these records, distribution maps were estimated based on habitat parameters such as vegetation zone, temperature of the coolest month, precipitation and altitudinal zone. The procedure (termed the GIS-model hereafter) is described and discussed in detail in chapter 4.1, the maps and further information on the estimation process can be found in Beck & Kitching (2004). Range areas from the GIS-model were calculated for complete maps as well as for those sections of ranges that are within Southeast-Asia (defined in this study as the region from Burma/Myanmar throughout the Malesian archipelago to the Solomon Islands, see chapter 1, Beck & Kitching 2004). Additionally, areas for minimum convex polygons (MCPs, excluding sea areas), latitudinal and longitudinal extents (both in degree) and the product of latitudinal and longitudinal extents were calculated. Additional partial range measures are the number of islands within Malesia on which a species is recorded or expected (from checklists in Beck & Kitching 2004, estimates are based on the GIS-model), and the number of local sampling sites in Borneo where a species was found (from a total of 106, see appendix I for details on most sampling sites). The latter measure must a priori be considered as highly biased and insufficient as a measure of range or occupancy as will be discussed below, but nevertheless even smaller-scaled measures can be found in the literature (e.g. Krger & McGavin 2000, Pantoja et al. 1995). Not for all species records were available to calculate some of these measures (e.g., less than three recorded locations do not allow measuring a MCP), hence the reduced sample size in some of the comparisons. Area calculations were carried out with Animal Movement Program (Hooge et al. 1999), an extension to ArcView 3.2 (2000), using a sinusoidial equal-area projection of the range maps. To test for phylogenetic autocorrelation in range area data (e.g. Webb et al. 2002), the randomisation method of Abouheif (1999) was used. The Test for Serial Independence (Reefe & Abouheif 2003, see also Abouheif 1999) was applied to investigate the assumption of phylogenetic independence. An updated version of the systematics in Kitching & Cadiou (2000, I.J. Kitching, pers. com.) was used as a phylogeny for Sphingidae, allowing for unresolved nodes where applicable. From 3000 randomisations of the original phylogeny (flipping of the nodes, which leaves the original structure intact yet changes neighbouring relationships of values), a mean observed value of the C-statistic (derived from summed differences between successive values ordered by phylogeny; see Abouheif 1999 for details) was calculated, which is compared to the C-statistic of data from 3000 randomised