Skip to main content
zenodoopen

Fig. 9 in Revision in the diprotodontid marsupial genus Neohelos: Systematics and biostratigraphy

Fig. 9. Comparison of diprotodontid marsupials Neohelos tirarensis Stirton, 1967 (QMF 30438) (A) and Neohelos solus sp. nov. (QMF29739) (B) first upper molars (M1) in occlusal (A1, B1) and lingual (A2, B2) views. In addition to differences in size and relative width the following distinctions are evident: 1, elongate protoloph compared with; 2, short, arcuate protoloph; 3, shallow posterior face of protoloph compared with; 4, deep cleft on posterior face of protoloph; 5, broad, high stylar cusp E compared with; 6, weak, low stylar cusp E; 7, lingual cingulum low compared with; 8, lingual cingulum ascends lingual surface of metaconule; 9, weak postparacrista and weak/absent premetacrista compared with; 10, distinct postparacrista and premetacrista that meet in the interloph valley. Scale bar 10 mm.

ShareScore

40/100

Overall dataset sharing score

Score breakdown

These five areas show where the dataset supports — or may limit — practical reuse.

Stewardship
8
Harmonization
4
Access
20
Reuse readiness
8
Engagement
0

Topics