Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 7 in Revision of the genus complex Gibbula: an integrative approach to delineating the Eastern Mediterranean genera Gibbula Risso, 1826, Steromphala Gray, 1847, and Phorcus Risso, 1826 using DNA-barcoding and geometric morphometrics (Vetigastropoda, Trochoidea)

Fig. 7 Steromphala adansonii (Payraudeau 1826). a PCA plot of PC1 vs. PC2 of genus Steromphala. Single specimen of Steromphala adansonii (black) clusters near St. umbilicaris. b Representative specimen of St. adansonii from this study. Scale bar 5 mm

Fig. 6 in Revision of the genus complex Gibbula: an integrative approach to delineating the Eastern Mediterranean genera Gibbula Risso, 1826, Steromphala Gray, 1847, and Phorcus Risso, 1826 using DNA-barcoding and geometric morphometrics (Vetigastropoda, Trochoidea)

Fig. 6 Steromphala umbilicaris (Linnaeus, 1758) and Steromphala nebulosa (Philippi, 1848). a PCA plot of PC1 vs. PC2 of genus Steromphala. Steromphala umbilicaris (green) separates well from all other species. There is no overlap between specimens from this study and the type material. One individual (Linné 24) nests within St. adriatica. Steromphala nebulosa (grey) nests at the edge of St. umbilicaris. b Representative specimen of St. umbilicaris from this study. c Representative specimen of St. nebulosa from this study. d: Designated lectotype for St. umbilicaris located at LSL (LSL.504). Scale bars 5 mm

Fig. 8 in Revision of the genus complex Gibbula: an integrative approach to delineating the Eastern Mediterranean genera Gibbula Risso, 1826, Steromphala Gray, 1847, and Phorcus Risso, 1826 using DNA-barcoding and geometric morphometrics (Vetigastropoda, Trochoidea)

Fig. 8 Steromphala adriatica (Philippi, 1844). a PCA plot of PC1 vs PC2 of genus Steromphala. Steromphala adriatica (red) is separated from all but St. divaricata. One individual of Steromphala umbilicaris (Linné

Fig. 3 in Revision of the genus complex Gibbula: an integrative approach to delineating the Eastern Mediterranean genera Gibbula Risso, 1826, Steromphala Gray, 1847, and Phorcus Risso, 1826 using DNA-barcoding and geometric morphometrics (Vetigastropoda, Trochoidea)

Fig. 3 RAxML based phylogenetic reconstruction (GTRGAMMA model and 1000 rapid bootstrap replicates). COI barcodes were used to identify species and reconstruct relationships between species and genera.

opencc-zeroApr 2018View details →

Supplementary material 1 from: Adeoba MI, Kabongo R, Van der Bank H, Yessoufou K (2018) Re-evaluation of the discriminatory power of DNA barcoding on some specimens of African Cyprinidae (subfamilies Cyprininae and Danioninae). ZooKeys 746: 105-121. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.746.13502

Table S1 : Explanation note: Taxonomy of African Cyprinidae and geographic origins.

Figures 36-44 from: Mally R, Huemer P, Nuss M (2018) Deep intraspecific DNA barcode splits and hybridisation in the Udea alpinalis group (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Crambidae) – an integrative revision. ZooKeys 746: 51-90. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.746.22020

Figures 36-44 Male genitalia of Udea species. 36–37 U. altaica (Mally prep. 1090) 36 male genitalia 37 posterior phallus apodeme 38–41 U. juldusalis 38 male genitalia, Paralectotype (Mally prep. 1081) 39–41 posterior phallus apodeme 39 Paralectotype (Mally prep. 1081) 40 Lectotype (Mally prep. 1082) 41 (Mally prep. 1089) 42–44 U. plumbalis 42 male genitalia, Holotype (Mally prep. 1083) 43–44 posterior phallus apodeme 43 Holotype (Mally prep. 1083) 44 (Mally prep. 1094); 500 µm scale bar refers to male genitalia, 200 µm scale bar to posterior phallus apodemes.

Figures 23-35 from: Mally R, Huemer P, Nuss M (2018) Deep intraspecific DNA barcode splits and hybridisation in the Udea alpinalis group (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Crambidae) – an integrative revision. ZooKeys 746: 51-90. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.746.22020

Figures 23-35 Male genitalia of the Udea austriacalis species complex. 23–28 U. austriacalis 23 male genitalia (Mally prep. 1092) 24–28 posterior phallus apodeme 24 Mally prep. 1042 25 Mally prep. 1043 26 Mally prep. 1044 27 Mally prep. 1045 28 Mally prep. 1046 29–33 U. donzelalis 29 male genitalia (Mally prep. 1024) 30–33 posterior phallus apodeme 30 Mally prep. 1024 31 Mally prep. 866 32 Mally prep. 867 33 Mally prep. 1022 34–35 U. cretacea (Mally prep. 523) 34 male genitalia 35 posterior phallus apodeme; 500 µm scale bar refers to male genitalia, 200 µm scale bar to posterior phallus apodemes.

Figure 1 from: Mally R, Huemer P, Nuss M (2018) Deep intraspecific DNA barcode splits and hybridisation in the Udea alpinalis group (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Crambidae) – an integrative revision. ZooKeys 746: 51-90. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.746.22020

Figure 1 Maximum Likelihood analysis of COI Barcode data of the Udea alpinalis species group. Numbers on branches represent bootstrap values of ≥ 50 % inferred from 1,000 replicates, scale bar represents substitutions per site.

Figures 7-14 from: Mally R, Huemer P, Nuss M (2018) Deep intraspecific DNA barcode splits and hybridisation in the Udea alpinalis group (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Crambidae) – an integrative revision. ZooKeys 746: 51-90. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.746.22020

Figures 7-14 Adult specimens of Udea species. 7–10 U. austriacalis 7–8 male, dorsal (7) and ventral (8) 9–10 female, dorsal (9) and ventral (10), abdomen removed 11–14 U. donzelalis 11–12 male, dorsal (11) and ventral (12) 13–14 female, dorsal (13) and ventral (14), abdomen removed. Scale bars: 500 µm.

Figure 5 from: Adeoba MI, Kabongo R, Van der Bank H, Yessoufou K (2018) Re-evaluation of the discriminatory power of DNA barcoding on some specimens of African Cyprinidae (subfamilies Cyprininae and Danioninae). ZooKeys 746: 105-121. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.746.13502

Figure 5 - Parsimonious phylogenetic tree showing some plotted morphological characters, such as anal soft rays, barbels, dorsal soft rays, length, lip types, and ploidy status of 86 African Cyprinidae species.

Figure 4 from: Adeoba MI, Kabongo R, Van der Bank H, Yessoufou K (2018) Re-evaluation of the discriminatory power of DNA barcoding on some specimens of African Cyprinidae (subfamilies Cyprininae and Danioninae). ZooKeys 746: 105-121. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.746.13502

Figure 4 - Neighbour-joining tree analysis using Rosenberg's (2007) test. Nodes in red are strongly supported nodes, indicating species monophyly.

Figure 2 from: Adeoba MI, Kabongo R, Van der Bank H, Yessoufou K (2018) Re-evaluation of the discriminatory power of DNA barcoding on some specimens of African Cyprinidae (subfamilies Cyprininae and Danioninae). ZooKeys 746: 105-121. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.746.13502

Figure 2 - Evaluation of barcode gap in the dataset. Line plot of the barcode gap for the 315 Cyprinidae individuals. The black lines indicate where the smallest interspecific distance is longer than the longest intraspecific distance (bottom of line value), thus showing the existence of a barcode gap. The red lines show where this pattern is reversed.

Figures 45-47 from: Mally R, Huemer P, Nuss M (2018) Deep intraspecific DNA barcode splits and hybridisation in the Udea alpinalis group (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Crambidae) – an integrative revision. ZooKeys 746: 51-90. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.746.22020

Figures 45-47 Female genitalia of Udea species. 45 U. austriacalis (Mally prep. 1047) 46 U. donzelalis (Mally prep. 1023) 47 U. altaica (Mally prep. 1084).

Figures 2-3 from: Mally R, Huemer P, Nuss M (2018) Deep intraspecific DNA barcode splits and hybridisation in the Udea alpinalis group (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Crambidae) – an integrative revision. ZooKeys 746: 51-90. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.746.22020

Figures 2-3 Maximum Likelihood analysis of EF1a (2) and wingless (3) data of the Udea alpinalis species group. Numbers on branches represent bootstrap values of ≥ 50% inferred from 1,000 replicates. Note that the taxon set is not identical for the two analyses, scale bars represent substitutions per site.

Figures 15-22 from: Mally R, Huemer P, Nuss M (2018) Deep intraspecific DNA barcode splits and hybridisation in the Udea alpinalis group (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Crambidae) – an integrative revision. ZooKeys 746: 51-90. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.746.22020

Figures 15-22 Adult specimens of Udea species. 15–18 U. altaica 15–16 male, dorsal (15) and ventral (16) 17–18 Lectotype (NHMW) female, dorsal (17) and ventral (18) 19–20 U. juldusalis Lectotype (NHMW) male, dorsal (19) and ventral (20) 21–22 U. plumbalis Holotype (NHMW) male, dorsal (21) and ventral (22). Scale bar: 500 µm.

Figure 3 from: Adeoba MI, Kabongo R, Van der Bank H, Yessoufou K (2018) Re-evaluation of the discriminatory power of DNA barcoding on some specimens of African Cyprinidae (subfamilies Cyprininae and Danioninae). ZooKeys 746: 105-121. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.746.13502

Figure 3 - Determination of the threshold genetic distance for species identification. False positive (grey) and false negative (black) identification error rates summed across a range of distance thresholds from 0.01 to 1.9 %. The cumulative error plot indicates the transition between intraspecific and interspecific distances, the genetic distance corresponding to the least cumulative error (1.51 %) showing the appropriate threshold value for the dataset.

Figures 4-5 from: Mally R, Huemer P, Nuss M (2018) Deep intraspecific DNA barcode splits and hybridisation in the Udea alpinalis group (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Crambidae) – an integrative revision. ZooKeys 746: 51-90. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.746.22020

Figures 4-5 Distribution of investigated specimens of the Udea austriacalis species complex (4) and U. rhododendronalis (5) in Europe 4 U. austriacalis (red), U. donzelalis (green), U. cretacea (yellow) 5 U. rhododendronalis (blue); altitudes ≥ 1,000 m are marked in increasingly darker grey shades every 500 m.

Figure 6 from: Mally R, Huemer P, Nuss M (2018) Deep intraspecific DNA barcode splits and hybridisation in the Udea alpinalis group (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Crambidae) – an integrative revision. ZooKeys 746: 51-90. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.746.22020

Figure 6 Distribution of investigated specimens of Udea juldusalis (blue), U. altaica (red) and U. plumbalis (yellow) in Central Asia; altitudes ³ 1,000 m are marked in increasingly darker grey shades every 500 m, altitudes ³ 4,000 m are in black. Note that the eastern locality of U. juldusalis and the localities of U. altaica and U. plumbalis are only approximations of the type localities.

Figure 1 from: Adeoba MI, Kabongo R, Van der Bank H, Yessoufou K (2018) Re-evaluation of the discriminatory power of DNA barcoding on some specimens of African Cyprinidae (subfamilies Cyprininae and Danioninae). ZooKeys 746: 105-121. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.746.13502

Figure 1 - Evaluation of barcode gap in the dataset. Boxplot of the interspecific (inter) and intraspecific genetic (intra) distances, indicating the existence of a barcode gap, i.e., interspecific distance is larger than intraspecific distance. The median is indicated by the horizontal line and the range as the vertical dashed lines and outliers by bold vertical lines.

Figure 3 from: Morigengaowa, Luo J-J, Knapp R, Wei H-J, Liu B-D, Yan Y-H, Shang H (2018) The identity of Hypolepis robusta, as a new synonym of Hypolepis alpina (Dennstaedtiaceae), based on morphology and DNA barcoding and the new distribution. PhytoKeys 96: 35-45. https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.96.23470

Figure 3 Distribution of intra-taxa (black) and inter-taxa (grey) Kimura two parameter (K2P) distances based on rbcL and trnL-F sequences as barcode. Hypolepis alpina and Hypolepis robusta versus the other species of Hypolepis.