FIG. 11 in Revisiting Calohypsibiidae and Microhypsibiidae: Fractonotus Pilato, 1998 and its phylogenetic position within Isohypsibiidae (Eutardigrada: Parachela)
FIG. 11. — Comparison of Fractonotus-type (A-D, F), Calohypsibius-type (E), Microhypsibius-type (G), and Isohypsibius-type (H, I) claws (all but Fig. 11F PCM): Fractonotus verrucosus (Richters, 1900) n. comb.: A, claws I, arrowhead indicates weakly developed pseudolunula; B, claws II, interrupted line designates isohypsibioid claw curvature; C, claws IV, arrowhead indicates weakly developed pseudolunula; Fractonotus gilvus (Biserov, 1986) n. comb.; D, claws III, arrowhead indicates weakly developed pseudolunula; Calohypsibius ornatus (Richters, 1900); E, claws IV; Fractonotus caelatus (Marcus, 1928); F, claws IV; Microhypsibius truncatus Thulin, 1928; G, claws III (DIC); Isohypsibius prosostomus (Thulin, 1928); H, claws II; Isohypsibius coulsoni Kaczmarek, Zawierucha, Smykla & Michalczyk, 2012; I, claws II. Scale bars: 10 μm.
ShareScore
28/100
Overall dataset sharing score
Score breakdown
These five areas show where the dataset supports — or may limit — practical reuse.
- Stewardship
- 8
- Harmonization
- 4
- Access
- 16
- Reuse readiness
- 0
- Engagement
- 0