Find research datasets worth reusing

FIG. 4 in A Revision of the Didelphid Marsupial Genus Marmosa Part 3. A New Species from Western Amazonia, with Redescriptions of M. perplexa Anthony, 1922, and M. germana Thomas, 1904

FIG. 4. Dorsal and ventral cranial views (×1.75) of Marmosa jansae (A, D; ROM 118880), M. perplexa (B, E; USNM 513425), and M. germana (C, F; TTU 101236).

FIG. 7 in A Revision of the Didelphid Marsupial Genus Marmosa Part 3. A New Species from Western Amazonia, with Redescriptions of M. perplexa Anthony, 1922, and M. germana Thomas, 1904

FIG. 7. Semideciduous forest understory near Quebrada El Faical, Tumbes department, Peru, habitat of Marmosa perplexa (photo by Elizabeth Escobar).

FIG. 2 in A Revision of the Didelphid Marsupial Genus Marmosa Part 3. A New Species from Western Amazonia, with Redescriptions of M. perplexa Anthony, 1922, and M. germana Thomas, 1904

FIG. 2. Collection localities of examined specimens of Marmosa germana, M. jansae, and M. perplexa. Numbers are keyed to entries in our gazetteer (appendix 1).

FIG. 1 in A Revision of the Didelphid Marsupial Genus Marmosa Part 3. A New Species from Western Amazonia, with Redescriptions of M. perplexa Anthony, 1922, and M. germana Thomas, 1904

FIG. 1. Maximum-likelihood (ML; left) and Bayesian (right) phylogenetic trees for putative species of Marmosa (Micoureus) inferred from concatenated sequences of six genes (after Voss et al., 2020: fig. 6). Numbers at nodes denote ML bootstrap support or Bayesian posterior probabilities. Outgroups are not shown. Dotted lines connect the same taxa across the two trees to highlight differences. Names of species treated in this report are in boldface.

FIG. 5 in A Revision of the Didelphid Marsupial Genus Marmosa Part 3. A New Species from Western Amazonia, with Redescriptions of M. perplexa Anthony, 1922, and M. germana Thomas, 1904

FIG. 5. Rainforest (monte alto) habitat of Marmosa jansae at the Reserva Nacional Allpahuayo-Mishana, Loreto, Peru (photo by Christine L. Hice).

Fig. 26 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 26. Percentage distribution of Cross River gorilla nests grouped at 1 meter height intervals and compared to nest height distributions reported for other gorilla populations. Although eastern gorillas are reputed to be more terrestrial than western gorillas, there does not seem to be a direct relationship between arboreal behavior and the percentage distribution of nest heights. Western gorillas build nests

Fig. 24 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 24. Plot of bimastoid diameter vs. basioninion length in Cross River gorillas and in nonCross River western gorillas. G. g. gorilla, slope = 0.669, y' = –80.15, adjusted R2 = 0.60, G. g. diehli, slope =1.079, y' = –53.05, adjusted R2 = 0.76.

Fig. 23 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 23. Plot of cheek tooth row length vs. incisor row length in Cross River gorillas and in non CrossRiver western gorillas. G. g. gorilla, slope = 0.858, y' = –30.69, Adjusted. R2 = 0.51, G. g. diehli, slope =0.790, y' = –31.90, adjusted R2 = 0.47.

Fig. 21 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 21. Plot of lower limb length vs. foot outlever length in Cross River gorillas and in nonCross River western gorillas. Least square regression of the nonCrossRiver gorilla datum points fits a line with a slope = 2.617, y' = 121.97, adjusted R2= 0.82.

Fig. 19 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 19. Plot of 1st pedal ray length vs. foot length in Cross River gorillas and in nonCrossRiver western gorillas. Least square regression of the nonCrossRiver gorilla datum points fits a line with a slope = 0.366, y' = 1.025, adjusted R2= 0.89.

Fig. 18 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 18. Plot of upper limb length vs. 3rd manual ray length in Cross River gorillas and in nonCross River western gorillas. Least square regression of the nonCrossRiver gorilla datum points fits a line with a slope = 3.799, y'= 3.630, adjusted R2 = 0.79.

Fig. 17 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 17. Plot of 3rd manual ray length vs. length of 5th manual ray in Cross River gorillas and in nonCrossRiver western gorillas. Least square regression of nonCrossriver gorillas datum points fits a line with a slope = 0.9789, y' = 33.78, adjusted R2= 0.91.

Fig. 20 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 20. Plot of lower limb length vs. foot length in Cross River gorillas and in nonCrossRiver western gorillas. Least square regression of the nonCrossRiver gorilla datum points fits a line with a slope = 2.286, y' =53.48, adjusted R2 = 0.91.

Fig. 14 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 14. Plot of upper limb length vs. lower limb length in Cross River gorillas and in nonCross River western gorillas. Least square regression of the nonCrossRiver gorilla datum points fits a line with a slope = 1.109, y' = 35.65, adjusted R2= 0.95.

Fig. 16 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 16. Plot of 1st manual ray length vs. 2nd manual ray length in Cross River gorillas and in non CrossRiver western gorillas. Least square regression of the nonCrossRiver gorilla datum points fits a line with a slope = 0.4635, y' = –5.477, adjusted R2= 0.84.

Fig. 13 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 13. Plot of femoral length vs. length of tibia in Cross River gorillas and in nonCrossRiver western gorillas. Least square regression of the nonCrossRiver gorilla datum points fits a line with a slope = 1.082, y' =33.83, adjusted R2= 0.89.

Fig. 11 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 11. Plot of humeral length vs. length of radius in Cross River gorillas and in nonCrossRiver western gorillas. Least square regression of the nonCrossRiver gorilla datum points fits a line with a slope = 1.131, y' =35.07, adjusted R2= 0.95.

Fig. 12 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 12. Plot of humeral length vs. length of os coxa in Cross River gorillas and in nonCrossRiver western gorillas. Least square regression of the nonCrossRiver gorilla datum points fits a line with a slope = 1.003, y' = 68.03, adjusted R2= 0.83.

Fig. 25. Canonical variate analysis summarizing craniodental differences between G. g in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 25. Canonical variate analysis summarizing craniodental differences between G. g. diehli males (n = 20), G. g. diehli females (n = 13), G. g. gorilla males (n = 35) and G. g. gorilla females (n = 17) based on 11 measurements: (1)incisor row diameter, (2) bimastoid diameter, (3) bizygomatic diameter, (4) biglenoid diameter, (5) interparietal diameter, (6) M1 mesiodistal length, (7) biorbital diameter, (8) skull vault length, (9) cheek tooth row length, (10) P3 mesiodistal length, and (11) maximum palate width listed in decreasing order of discriminating ability. According to a stepwise discrimination analysis these measurements best summarize the measured differences between groups. Mahalanobis generalized squared distances (D2) are 15.52 between the two male means; 6.85 between the two female means; 29.61 between the male and female means for G.g. diehli, 39.09 between male and female means of G. g. gorilla, 47.94 between G. g. diehli females and G. g. gorilla males, and 39.44 between G. g. gorilla females and G. g. diehli males.

Fig. 8 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 8. Dorsal and ventral views of right foot and hand segments respectively showing measurements taken: A = calcaneal length, B = calcaneal outlever length, C = cuboid length, D = fourth metatarsal length, E = fourth proximal pedal phalanx length, F = fourth middle pedal phalanx length, G = third metacarpal length, H = third proximal phalanx length, I = third middle phalanx length. Calcaneal outlever length (B) was calculated from linear measures of the calcaneus as reported in Sarmiento (1994). A+C+D+E+F and B+C+D+E+F were taken as approximations of foot length and foot outlever