First population-level study of the ammonite genus Hildoglochiceras Spath, and the Lower Tithonian record of the Hildoglochiceras Horizon in the Kachchh Basin, India Author Pandey, Dhirendra Kumar Department of Geology, School of Earth, Biological and Environmental Science, Central University of South Bihar SH 7, Gaya-Panchanpur Road, Village Karhara, Post Fatehpur, Gaya 824236 (Bihar), India dhirendrap@cusb.ac.in Author Fuersich, Franz T. FG Palaeoumwelt, GeoZentrum Nordbayern der Friedrich-Alexander-Universitaet Erlangen-Nuernberg, Loewenichstrasse 28, 91054 Erlangen, Germany Author Alberti, Matthias State Key Laboratory for Mineral Deposits Research, School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Centre for Research and Education on Biological Evolution and Environment and Frontiers Science Center for Critical Earth Material Cycling, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, Jiangsu Province, China Author Das, Ranajit https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5308-3477 Yenepoya Research Centre, Yenepoya (Deemed to be University), Mangalore- 575018, India Author Saez, Federico Oloriz Departamento de Estratigrafia y Paleontologia, Fac. Ciencias, Univ. Granada, Severo Ochoa s / n, Spain text Zitteliana 2022 2022-03-02 96 1 49 http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zitteliana.96.73892 journal article http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zitteliana.96.73892 2747-8106-96-1 D5F97D7240455065AD6C43481AAD2D6D

Table 7. On the basis of linear regression analysis followed by post hoc likelihood ratio test, the diameter of umbilicus is mostly dependent on the diameter of the shell and can be best modelled as the linear expression of diameter of the shell and the height of whorl. It is least dependent on the thickness of the whorl, especially when modelled alongside the diameter of the shell.

Model No.	Model	AIC	R2	Adjusted R2	P-value
Model 1	glm(a$U ~a$D)	277.6	0.8196	0.8164	2.20E-16
Model 2	glm(a$U ~a$H)	319.2	0.6349	0.6285	4.41E-14
Model 3	glm(a$U ~a$T)	292.6	0.7675	0.7635	2.2E-16
Model 4	glm(a$U ~a$D+a$H)	184	0.9643	0.9631	For D = 2.2E-16; For H = 2.2E-16, Overall = <2.2E-16
Model 5	glm(a$U ~a$D+a$T)	276.6	0.8288	0.8227	For D = 3.79E-05; For T = 0.0886, Overall = <2.2E-16
Model 6	glm(a$U ~a$H+a$T)	279.1	0.8211	0.8147	For FI = 0.000137; For T = 3.1E-10, Overall <2.2E-16
Model 7	glm(a$U ~a$H+a$T+a$D)	185.4	0.9647	0.9628	For D = 2.2E-16; For H = 2.2E-16, For T = 0.462, Overall = <2.2E-16
Likelihood Ratio Test
	Chi square	P-value
Model 1 vs. Model 4	95.661	1.37E-22
Model 1 vs. Model 5	3.828	0.079
Model 1 vs. Model 7	96.246	1.26E-21
Model 2 vs. Model 4	137.250	1.06E-31		P value: Probability value
Model 2 vs. Model 6	42.082	8.75E-11		AIC: Akaike information criterion
Model 2 vs. Model 7	137.835	1.17E-30		R2: Regression coefficient
Model 3 vs. Model 5	18.042	2.16E-05
Model 3 vs. Model 6	15.451	8.64E-05
Model 3 vs. Model 7	111.205	7.12E-25