Find research datasets worth reusing

Figure 5 in New country records, annotated checklist and key to the dacine fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae: Dacini) of Bangladesh

Figure 5. Bactrocera (Bactrocera) correcta (Bezzi), male. A) Head. B) Head and scutum. C) Abdomen. D) Wing (after Leblanc et. al. 2014). E) Lateral view. F) Distribution in Bangladesh.

Figure 24 in New country records, annotated checklist and key to the dacine fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae: Dacini) of Bangladesh

Figure 24. Zeugodacus (Asiadacus) apicalis (Meijere), male. A) Head. B-C) Head and scutum. D) Abdomen. E) Wing. F) Lateral view. G) Distribution in Bangladesh.

Figure 34 in New country records, annotated checklist and key to the dacine fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae: Dacini) of Bangladesh

Figure 34. Zeugodacus (Sinodacus) madhupuri Leblanc and Doorenweerd, male. A) Head. B) Head and scutum. C–D) Abdomen. E) Wing. F) Lateral view. G) Distribution in Bangladesh. A–F after Leblanc et. al. (2019).

Figure 7 in New country records, annotated checklist and key to the dacine fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae: Dacini) of Bangladesh

Figure 7. Bactrocera (Bactrocera) dorsalis (Hendel). A) Head. B) Head and scutum. C) Abdomen, female. D) Abdomen, male. E–L) Scutum variation in Bangladesh (after Leblanc et al. 2013). M–Q) Abdomen variation in Bangladesh (after Leblanc et al. 2013).

Figure 33 in New country records, annotated checklist and key to the dacine fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae: Dacini) of Bangladesh

Figure 33. Zeugodacus (Sinodacus) infestus (Enderlein). A) Head. B) Head and scutum. C) Abdomen, male. D) Wing. E) Lateral view, female. F) Distribution in Bangladesh.

Figs. 42–46 in Biology And Description Of The Third Instar Larva And Puparium Of Ichneumonopsis Burmensis Hardy (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae: Gastrozonini), A Bamboo-Breeding Fruit Fly From The Oriental Region

Figs. 42–46. Puparium of I. burmensis (SEM photographs). 42, Apical end of the puparium showing the anterior spiracles. 43, Detail of invaginated frontal part of prothorax showing the locations of the paired sensilla. 44, Detail of the anterior spiracle showing three papillae. 45, Caudal end of the puparium. 46, Posterior spiracles. an = anus; as = anterior spiracle; pts 2–9 = prothoracic sensillae.

Figs. 34–41 in Biology And Description Of The Third Instar Larva And Puparium Of Ichneumonopsis Burmensis Hardy (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae: Gastrozonini), A Bamboo-Breeding Fruit Fly From The Oriental Region

Figs. 34–41. Thoracic and abdominal segments of the I. burmensis larva. 34, Pseudocephalon and prothorax, dorsal view. 35, Prothoracic paired sensilla and anterior spiracle (lateral view). 36, Prothoracic paired sensilla (dorsal view). 37, Enlarged paired prothoracic sensilla (pts5). 38, Detail of anterior spiracle showing the papillae. 39, Detail of a creeping welt showing the spinules. 40, Caudal segment showing the posterior spiracle, anus and the locations of some sensilla. 41, Posterior spiracles. T1 = prothorax; an = anus; as = anterior spiracle; es = ecdysial scar; I1, I2 = intermediate sensilla; p ceph = pseudocephalon; pts 1–10 = prothoracic sensilla; ps = posterior spiracle; sh = spiracular hairs.

Figs. 28–33 in Biology And Description Of The Third Instar Larva And Puparium Of Ichneumonopsis Burmensis Hardy (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae: Gastrozonini), A Bamboo-Breeding Fruit Fly From The Oriental Region

Figs. 28–33. Cephalopharyngeal skeleton, anterior/ posterior spiracles and larval habitus of I. burmensis (light microscopy). 28, Anterior spiracle. 29, Detail of anterior spiracle showing the papillae. 30, Posterior spiracle. 31. Spiracular hairs. 32, Cephalopharyngeal skeleton. 33, Larval habitus. A1–A7 = abdominal segments; as = anterior spiracle; cs = caudal segment; cw = creeping welt; da = dorsal apodeme; db = dorsal bridge; dc = dorsal cornu; ec = ecdysial scar; hb = hypopharyngeal bridge; hs = hypopharyngeal sclerite; ls = labial sclerite; mh = mouth hook; p ceph = pseudocephalon; pb = parastomal bar; pt = praeapical tooth; sh = spiracular hairs; T1–T3 = thoracic segments; win = window; va = ventral apodeme; vb = ventral bridge; vc = ventral cornu; vs = ventral sclerite.

Figs. 15–21 in Biology And Description Of The Third Instar Larva And Puparium Of Ichneumonopsis Burmensis Hardy (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae: Gastrozonini), A Bamboo-Breeding Fruit Fly From The Oriental Region

Figs. 15–21. Damage symptoms of bamboo shoots attacked by I. burmensis. 15, Tip of an unaffected Melocalamus compactiflorus bamboo shoot. 16, Tip of a Melocalamus compactiflorus bamboo shoot infested by I. burmensis. The leaves of the upper internodes have started to wither. 17, The apical internodes have dropped down to the ground, but the I. burmensis internode is still attached to the bamboo shoot. A part of the internode sheath was removed in order to show the location of the bud, the zone of intercalary growth and the predetermined breaking point. 18, The newly emerged branches at the base of the I. burmensis-internode have displaced the internode sheath. Most branches are not depicted in order to show the exit hole above the predetermined breaking point. 19, The I. burmensis internode has cracked at the level of the exit hole and dangles at the tip of the bamboo shoot. The puparium is still protected by the torn off vascular fibres. 20, The apical part of the I. burmensis-internode has dropped to the ground. The basal stump of the internode remains attached at the tip of the bamboo shoot and harbours the puparium. 21, Longitudinal section of the enlarged basal part of an I. burmensis-internode showing the location of the puparium. b = branch; bb = branch bud; cs = culm sheath; eh = exit hole; ii = I. burmensis-internode; n = node; p = puparium; pbp = predetermined breaking point; sb = sheath blade; vf = vascular fibres; zig = zone of intercalary growth.

Figs. 8–14 in Biology And Description Of The Third Instar Larva And Puparium Of Ichneumonopsis Burmensis Hardy (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae: Gastrozonini), A Bamboo-Breeding Fruit Fly From The Oriental Region

Figs. 8–14. Damage of bamboo shoots caused by I. burmensis, and pupariation. 8, Basal part of an I. burmensis internode, early stage of infestation. The culm sheath was removed to show the branch bud, the zone of intercalary growth and the predetermined breaking point of the internode. 9, The apical part of the bamboo shoot has fallen down, but the I. burmensis-internode is still attached to the bamboo shoot. The emerging side branches have pushed away the culm sheath from the internode wall. 10, I. burmensis internode with side branches largely removed in order to show the slit-like exit hole. 11, The I. burmensis-internode has cracked at the level of the exit hole (above the predetermined breaking point). The exposed internode cavity is filled with torn off, compressed vascular fibres, which protect the puparium. 12, The cracked upper part of the I. burmensis-internode has dropped to the ground. The puparium rests inside the stump of the I. burmensis internode at the tip of the bamboo shoot. 13, I. burmensis puparium stuck in the basal part of the internode. The internode was broken at the predetermined breaking point in order to show the protruding puparium. 14, I. burmensis puparium stuck in the upper part of the internode cavity, anterior end on right hand side. as = anterior spiracle; bb = branch bud; cs = culm sheath; eh = exit hole; ii = I. burmensis-internode; p = puparium; pbp = predetermined breaking point; vf = vascular fibres; zig = zone of intercalary growth.

Figure 5. A in Geometric morphometric and molecular evidence suggest a new fruit fly species in Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) tau complex (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Figure 5. A Bayesian phylogenetic tree (COI sequence, 580 bp) generated with the generalized time reversible model. Labels at branch ends are species and group names. Numbers at nodes represent the posterior possibilities that supported by sequences.

Figure 3 in Geometric morphometric and molecular evidence suggest a new fruit fly species in Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) tau complex (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Figure 3. Discrimination of wing shape in four groups projected by CVs. Each polygon defines the outermost individuals in each group. A. Male. B. Female.

Figure 4 in Geometric morphometric and molecular evidence suggest a new fruit fly species in Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) tau complex (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Figure 4. Gr.I and Gr.II discrimination by aculeus outlines. A distribution of samples on the best CV–x axis, in which the y axis shows the number of individuals in each interval. An inset displays a superimposition of aculeus shapes.

Figure 1 in Geometric morphometric and molecular evidence suggest a new fruit fly species in Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) tau complex (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Figure 1. Criteria of sample classification. A. A medial vitta of Gr.I, characterized by a plain yellow band with posterior expansion. B. A medial vitta pattern of Gr.II, characterized by a yellow band inserted with a black strip in presutural region, and posteriorly constricted. Scale bar = 1 mm.

Figure 2 in Geometric morphometric and molecular evidence suggest a new fruit fly species in Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) tau complex (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Figure 2. Landmark design for wing and aculeus GM analyses. A. Type 1 landmarks on wing venation labeled with downward arrows and numbers indicating locations in geometric analysis. B. A trilobed aculeus. C. A yellow line representing the alignment of pseudolandmarks along an outline of aculeus tip, from one lateral apex to another lateral. Scale bars: A = 1 mm; B = 50 μm.

Figure 139 in The dacine fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacini) of Oceania

Figure 139. Some of the Regional Fruit Fly Project collaborators I worked with and befriended during my years residing in Oceania, and their countries of origin. I took most of these photographs between 1996 and 2002. A) Allan J. Allwood, Australia. B) Amanda Mararuai, Papua New Guinea. C) Philip Taisau, Solomon Islands. D) Atoloto Malau, Wallis. E) Axelle Maitere, French Polynesia. F) Richard A.I. Drew, Australia. G) Ema Tora Vueti, Fiji. H) Faalelei Tunupopo, Samoa. I) Fernando Sengebau, Palau. J) Jonah Williams, Federated States of Micronesia. K) Laisa Ralulu, Fiji. L) Linette Berukilukilu, Vanuatu. M) Losalini Leweniqila, Fiji. N) Marcelino Martin, Federated States of Micronesia. O) Maria Borisi Karalo, Fiji. P) Mat Purea, Cook Islands. Q) Nacanieli Waqa, Fiji. R) Nakabuta Teuraria, Kiribati. S) Rémy Amice, New Caledonia. T) Rudolph Putoa, French Polynesia. U) Shirley Kocourek, Fiji. V) Solomon Balagawi, Papua New Guinea. W) Sylvie Cazeres, New Caledonia. X) David Tenakanai, Papua New Guinea. Y) Timothy Tumukon, Vanuatu. Z) Christian Mille, New Caledonia. AA) Paino Ulutuipalelei, Wallis. AB) Sione Foliaki, Tonga. AC) Roger Vargas, United States. AD) Francis Tsatsia, Solomon Islands.

Figure 132 in The dacine fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacini) of Oceania

Figure 132. Mean (±SE) daily captures of Bactrocera umbrosa (Fabricius) in methyl eugenol traps maintained in the Solomon Islands (Guadalcanal Island) between April 1999 and August 2001, based on 10 trapping sites (n = 228, mean FTD = 13.33).

Figure 121 in The dacine fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacini) of Oceania

Figure 121. Distribution and invasion and eradication history of fruit flies in the Bactrocera xanthodes complex in Oceania: Bactrocera paraxanthodes Drew and Hancock, B. neoxanthodes Drew and Romig, B. xanthodes (Broun), and undescribed species near B. paraxanthodes in Samoa. Photos of B. neoxanthodes and B. xanthodes by Steve Wilson.

Figure 136 in The dacine fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacini) of Oceania

Figure 136. Mean (±SE) daily captures of Dacus solomonensis (Malloch) in cue-lure traps maintained in the Solomon Islands (Guadalcanal Island) between April 1999 and August 2001, based on 10 trapping sites (n = 233, mean FTD = 1.56).

Figure 138 in The dacine fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacini) of Oceania

Figure 138. Mean (±SE) daily captures of Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) in cue-lure traps maintained in the Solomon Islands (Guadalcanal Island) between April 1999 and August 2001, based on 9 trapping sites (n = 205, mean FTD = 2.66).