taxonID	type	format	identifier	references	title	description	created	creator	contributor	publisher	audience	source	license	rightsHolder	datasetID
03E2AC42FF90FFF7FE1DFB6ADD2FF8D9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/14850040/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14850040	Figure 3. A, population structure inferred from the genomic sequence capture data using sNMF. Different colours within the pie charts correspond to admixture coefficients between each of the five lineages; Florida, eastern, central, south Texas, and western. Light grey highlighting represents the geographic distribution of Coluber constrictor. B, results of admixture coefficients from sNMF represented as a bar plot where each bar is a sampled individual.C, PCA of the genomic data demonstrating the differentiation of these phylogeographic lineages. D, SplitsTree network showing population structure and nestedness of these populations.	Figure 3. A, population structure inferred from the genomic sequence capture data using sNMF. Different colours within the pie charts correspond to admixture coefficients between each of the five lineages; Florida, eastern, central, south Texas, and western. Light grey highlighting represents the geographic distribution of Coluber constrictor. B, results of admixture coefficients from sNMF represented as a bar plot where each bar is a sampled individual.C, PCA of the genomic data demonstrating the differentiation of these phylogeographic lineages. D, SplitsTree network showing population structure and nestedness of these populations.	2024-03-20	Myers, Edward A.;Gehara, Marcelo;Burgoon, Jamie L.;McKelvy, Alexander D.;Vonnahme, Lauren;Burbrink, Frank T.		Zenodo	biologists	Myers, Edward A.;Gehara, Marcelo;Burgoon, Jamie L.;McKelvy, Alexander D.;Vonnahme, Lauren;Burbrink, Frank T.			
03E2AC42FF90FFF7FE1DFB6ADD2FF8D9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/14850042/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14850042	Figure 4. Gene trees and species tree based on sequence capture and by-catch mtDNA data. A, maximum likelihood concatenated tree inferred from phased sequence capture data. B, species’ tree based on SNPs from assembled genomic data inferred using SNAPP. C, divergence dated tree from BEAST based on concatenated genomic sequence data.D, maximum likelihood mtDNA phylogeny for nearly all samples for which sequence capture data was generated.E, dated mtDNA gene tree inferred in BEAST including representative species from the sistergenus Masticophis. In (A) and (D) black circles at nodes represent bootstrap support values ≥95 and in (C), (D), and (E) represent posterior probabilities ≥0.9.	Figure 4. Gene trees and species tree based on sequence capture and by-catch mtDNA data. A, maximum likelihood concatenated tree inferred from phased sequence capture data. B, species’ tree based on SNPs from assembled genomic data inferred using SNAPP. C, divergence dated tree from BEAST based on concatenated genomic sequence data.D, maximum likelihood mtDNA phylogeny for nearly all samples for which sequence capture data was generated.E, dated mtDNA gene tree inferred in BEAST including representative species from the sistergenus Masticophis. In (A) and (D) black circles at nodes represent bootstrap support values ≥95 and in (C), (D), and (E) represent posterior probabilities ≥0.9.	2024-03-20	Myers, Edward A.;Gehara, Marcelo;Burgoon, Jamie L.;McKelvy, Alexander D.;Vonnahme, Lauren;Burbrink, Frank T.		Zenodo	biologists	Myers, Edward A.;Gehara, Marcelo;Burgoon, Jamie L.;McKelvy, Alexander D.;Vonnahme, Lauren;Burbrink, Frank T.			
03E2AC42FF90FFF7FE1DFB6ADD2FF8D9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/14850038/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14850038	Figure 2. The six demographic models tested in PipeMaster using supervised machine learning. The four isolation-with-migration (IMD) models differ in topology or whether migration was restricted to geographically adjacent lineages only. IS represents a recent isolation without migration model.	Figure 2. The six demographic models tested in PipeMaster using supervised machine learning. The four isolation-with-migration (IMD) models differ in topology or whether migration was restricted to geographically adjacent lineages only. IS represents a recent isolation without migration model.	2024-03-20	Myers, Edward A.;Gehara, Marcelo;Burgoon, Jamie L.;McKelvy, Alexander D.;Vonnahme, Lauren;Burbrink, Frank T.		Zenodo	biologists	Myers, Edward A.;Gehara, Marcelo;Burgoon, Jamie L.;McKelvy, Alexander D.;Vonnahme, Lauren;Burbrink, Frank T.			
03E2AC42FF90FFF7FE1DFB6ADD2FF8D9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/14850044/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14850044	Figure 5. Ecological niche models constructed for each of the five phylogeographic lineages based on current climate and paleo-climate models from ~21 kya. All panels are labelled with their corresponding lineage and if they correspond to late Pleistocene projections. Regions shaded in green are those that were inferred to have higher environmental suitability for each lineage based on locality data used in the ENMs.	Figure 5. Ecological niche models constructed for each of the five phylogeographic lineages based on current climate and paleo-climate models from ~21 kya. All panels are labelled with their corresponding lineage and if they correspond to late Pleistocene projections. Regions shaded in green are those that were inferred to have higher environmental suitability for each lineage based on locality data used in the ENMs.	2024-03-20	Myers, Edward A.;Gehara, Marcelo;Burgoon, Jamie L.;McKelvy, Alexander D.;Vonnahme, Lauren;Burbrink, Frank T.		Zenodo	biologists	Myers, Edward A.;Gehara, Marcelo;Burgoon, Jamie L.;McKelvy, Alexander D.;Vonnahme, Lauren;Burbrink, Frank T.			
03E2AC42FF90FFF7FE1DFB6ADD2FF8D9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/14850046/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14850046	Figure 6. Morphological differentiation between phylogeographic lineages in Coluber constrictor. A, B, PCA of morphological variables; A, males; B, females. C, D, are boxplots of each linear measurement showing the differentiation of each of these traits between the five lineages:C, represents males; D, females. In panels (C) and (D), pairwise comparisons significant at an adjusted P <.05 with a Tukey’s honest significant difference test are indicated by letters, where shared letters indicate that pair-wise comparisons are significantly different.	Figure 6. Morphological differentiation between phylogeographic lineages in Coluber constrictor. A, B, PCA of morphological variables; A, males; B, females. C, D, are boxplots of each linear measurement showing the differentiation of each of these traits between the five lineages:C, represents males; D, females. In panels (C) and (D), pairwise comparisons significant at an adjusted P <.05 with a Tukey’s honest significant difference test are indicated by letters, where shared letters indicate that pair-wise comparisons are significantly different.	2024-03-20	Myers, Edward A.;Gehara, Marcelo;Burgoon, Jamie L.;McKelvy, Alexander D.;Vonnahme, Lauren;Burbrink, Frank T.		Zenodo	biologists	Myers, Edward A.;Gehara, Marcelo;Burgoon, Jamie L.;McKelvy, Alexander D.;Vonnahme, Lauren;Burbrink, Frank T.			
