Fig 1.
Map of the modern Lezgian lects (adapted from [1]).
Fig 2.
Etymology-based phylogenetic tree of the Lezgian lects produced by the StarlingNJ method from the multistate matrix (binary nodes only).
Bootstrap values are shown near the nodes (not shown for stable nodes with bootstrap value ≥ 95%). The tree is dated.
Fig 3.
Etymology-based phylogenetic tree of the Lezgian lects produced by the StarlingNJ method from the multistate matrix (neighboring nodes are joined if the distance between them is 300 years or less).
The tree is dated.
Fig 4.
Etymology-based phylogenetic tree of the Lezgian lects produced by the NJ method from the binary matrix in the SplitsTree4 software.
Bootstrap values are shown near the nodes (not shown for stable nodes with bootstrap value ≥ 95%). Branch length reflects the relative rate of cognate replacement as suggested by SplitsTree4. The BioNJ method yields the same topology.
Fig 5.
Etymology-based phylogenetic tree of the Lezgian lects produced by the UPGMA method from the binary matrix in the SplitsTree4 software.
Bootstrap values are shown near the nodes (not shown for stable nodes with bootstrap value ≥ 95%). Branch length reflects the relative rate of cognate replacement as suggested by SplitsTree4.
Fig 6.
Etymology-based consensus phylogenetic tree of the Lezgian lects produced by the Bayesian MCMC method from the binary matrix in the MrBayes software.
Bayesian posterior probabilities are shown near the branches (not shown for stable branches with P ≥ 0.95). Branch length reflects the relative rate of cognate replacement as suggested by MrBayes.
Fig 7.
Etymology-based consensus phylogenetic tree of the Lezgian lects produced by the UMP method from the binary matrix in the TNT software.
Bootstrap values are shown near the nodes (not shown for stable nodes with bootstrap value ≥ 95%). Branch length reflects the relative rate of cognate replacement as suggested by TNT. The four optimal trees only differ in the Aghul node as shown in the above panel. Nodes which appeared to be problem as compared to other phylogenetic methods are shadowed.
Fig 8.
Manually constructed consensus etymology-based phylogenetic tree of the Lezgian lects based on the StarlingNJ, NJ, BioNJ, UPGMA, Bayesian MCMC, UMP methods.
The gray ellipses mark 4 joined nodes which cover binary branchings that differ depending on the method. Probability values are shown in the following sequence: NJ / MCMC / UMP (“+” means that P ≥ 0.95 in an individual method; not shown for nodes with P ≥ 0.95 in all methods). StarlingNJ dates are proposed.
Table 1.
Reverse lexicostatistical distances for 3 Rutul dialects (higher percentage of the shared basic vocabulary meaning greater closeness): multistate input matrix.
Table 2.
Reverse lexicostatistical distances for 3 Rutul dialects (higher percentage of the shared basic vocabulary meaning greater closeness): binary input matrix.
Table 3.
Ten etymological matches between the French and Italian Swadesh wordlists plus the Latin ancestral forms.
Fig 9.
Phonetic similarity-based phylogenetic tree of the Lezgian lects produced by the StarlingNJ method from the multistate matrix (binary nodes only).
Bootstrap values are shown near the nodes (not shown for stable nodes with bootstrap value ≥ 95%). The tree is dated.
Fig 10.
Phonetic similarity-based phylogenetic tree of the Lezgian lects produced by the NJ method from the binary matrix in the SplitsTree4 software.
Bootstrap values are shown near the nodes (not shown for stable nodes with bootstrap value ≥ 95%). Branch length reflects the relative rate of cognate replacement as suggested by SplitsTree4. The BioNJ method yields the same topology.
Fig 11.
Phonetic similarity-based phylogenetic tree of the Lezgian lects produced by the UPGMA method from the binary matrix in the SplitsTree4 software.
Bootstrap values are shown near the nodes (not shown for stable nodes with bootstrap value ≥ 95%). Branch length reflects the relative rate of cognate replacement as suggested by SplitsTree4.
Fig 12.
Phonetic similarity-based consensus phylogenetic tree of the Lezgian lects produced by the Bayesian MCMC method from the binary matrix in the MrBayes software.
Bayesian posterior probabilities are shown above the branches (not shown for stable branches with P ≥ 0.95). Branch length reflects the relative rate of cognate replacement as suggested by MrBayes.
Fig 13.
Phonetic similarity-based phylogenetic tree of the Lezgian lects produced by the UMP method from the binary matrix in the TNT software.
Bootstrap values are shown near the nodes (not shown for stable nodes with bootstrap value ≥ 95%). Branch length reflects the relative rate of cognate replacement as suggested by TNT.