Find research datasets worth reusing

Figs 33–37 in Review Of The Genus Paraploderus Herman, 1970 (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Oxytelinae)

Figs 33–37. Paraploderusnotabilis (Cameron, 1950). 33 = aedeagus, lateralview, 34 = aedea- gus, frontalview (parameralsetationshownonleft), 35 = sterniteVIII, male, 36 = sternite VIII, female, 37 = spermatheca. Scales: 0.1 mm for Fig. 37, 0.125 mm for Figs 33–34, 0.24 mm

Figs 38–42 in Review Of The Genus Paraploderus Herman, 1970 (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Oxytelinae)

Figs 38–42. Paraploderus parcepunctus (Fauvel, 1905). 38 = aedeagus, lateral view, 39 = aedeagus, frontal view (parameral setation shown on left), 40 = sternite VIII, male, 41 = sternite VIII, female,

Figs 73–77 in Review Of The Genus Paraploderus Herman, 1970 (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Oxytelinae)

Figs 73–77. Paraploderus schwendingeri sp. n. 73 = aedeagus, lateral view, 74 = aedeagus, fron- tal view (parameral setation shown on left), 75 = sternite VIII, male, 76 = sternite VIII, female, 77 = spermatheca. Scales: 0.1 mm for Fig. 77, 0.22 mm for Figs 73–74, 0.3 mm for Figs 75–76.

Figs 28–32 in Review Of The Genus Paraploderus Herman, 1970 (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Oxytelinae)

Figs 28–32. Paraploderus nigronitens (Cameron, 1951). 28 = aedeagus, lateral view, 29 = ae- deagus, frontal view (parameral setation shown on left), 30 = sternite VIII, male, 31 = ster- nite VIII, female, 32 = spermatheca. Scales: 0.1 mm for Fig. 32, 0.18 mm for Figs 28–29, 0.32

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2014View details →

Fig.1 in A Review Of Latvian Saproxylic Beetles From The European Red List

Fig.1. Red List Categories taken from International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (Nieto & Alexander 2010).

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2015View details →

Fig.4 in A Review Of Latvian Blue (Lz) Cows From The List Of Animal Genetic Resources In Latvia

Fig.4. Association analysis between genotypes of A and B alleles of alpha – lactalbumin gene and protein content (%) at the first three lactations. Bar with a straight edge points to signs of an average group size with a standard deviation; * - refers to the association with the performance at a particular lactation; F – index of ANOVA; p F – statistical signification; η – index of correlation analyse.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2009View details →

Fig. 1 in A Review Of Genus Omophron Latreille, 1802 (Coleoptera: Carabidae) Mediterranean Fauna And Distribution

Fig. 1. Differencies of aedeagus shape for ground beetles of genus Omophron Latr. Mediterranean species. 1. O. limbatum (F.) 2. O. rotundatum Chaud. 3. P. Multiguttatum Chaud. 4. P. variegatum sardoum Reitt.

Figs. 1–12 in Review of the millipedes of the Sikhote-Alin State Nature Biosphere Reserve (Far East of Russia), with detection of the morphological variability of Diplomaragna terricolor (Attems, 1899) (Diplopoda)

Figs. 1–12. Diplomaragna terricolor (Attems, 1899). Variation in structure of the posterior angiocoxal process of posterior gonopod. 1 — from Anuchinsky District, Primorsky Krai; 2 — from Mt. Ko, Khabarovsky Krai; 3 — from Vladivostok, Okeanskaya Station, Primorsky Krai; (1st copy); 4 — from Vladivostok, Okeanskaya Station, Primorsky Krai; (2st copy); 5 — from Kedrovaya Pad Nature Reserve, Primorsky Krai; 6 — from Popova Island, Primorsky Krai; (1st copy); 7 — from Ussuriysky Nature Reserve, Primorsky Krai; 8 — from Lazovsky Nature Reserve, Primorsky Krai; 9 — from Sikhote-Alin Nature Biosphere Reserve (floodplain terrace, Yasnaya River), Primorsky Krai; 10 — from Chuguevsky District, Verkhneussuriysky Research Station, Primorsky Krai; 11 — from Popova Island, Primorsky Krai; (2st copy); 12 — from Sikhote-Alin Nature Biosphere Reserve, Blagodatnoe, Ozerny Stream, Primorsky Krai; a — apical outgrowth; b — finger-shaped process; m — mesal protrusion. Scale in mm (0.5)

Figs. 13–16 in Review of the millipedes of the Sikhote-Alin State Nature Biosphere Reserve (Far East of Russia), with detection of the morphological variability of Diplomaragna terricolor (Attems, 1899) (Diplopoda)

Figs. 13–16. Diplomaragna terricolor (Attems, 1899). Posterior angiocoxal processes of posterior gonopods. 13 — from Mt. Ko, Khabarovsky Krai; 14 — from Vladivostok, Okeanskaya Station, Primorsky Krai; 15 — from Lazovsky Nature Reserve, Primorsky Krai; 16 — from Sikhote-Alin Nature Biosphere Reserve, Blagodatnoe, Ozerny Stream, Primorsky Krai; a — apical outgrowth; b — finger-shaped process; m — mesal protrusion. Scales: 100 μm

Figs. 21–24 in Review of the millipedes of the Sikhote-Alin State Nature Biosphere Reserve (Far East of Russia), with detection of the morphological variability of Diplomaragna terricolor (Attems, 1899) (Diplopoda)

Figs. 21–24. Diplomaragna terricolor (Attems, 1899). Coxae of male leg pair 11, front view. 21 — from Mt. Ko, Khabarovsky Krai; 22 — from Vladivostok, Okeanskaya Station, Primorsky Krai; 23 — from Lazovsky Nature Reserve, Primorsky Krai; 24 — from SikhoteAlin Nature Biosphere Reserve, Blagodatnoe, Ozerny Stream, Primorsky Krai; p — coxal process. Scales: 100 μm Рис. 21–24. Diplomaragna terricolor (Attems, 1899). Коксы 11-й пары ног самца, виΑ спереΑи: 21 — с горы Ко в Хабаровском крае; 22 — из ВΛаΑивостока, станция Океанская; 23 — из Αазовского заповеΑника в Приморском крае; 24 — из СихотэАΛинского заповеΑника (урочище БΛагоΑатное, кΛюч Озёрный) в Приморском крае; р — коксаΛьный отросток. Масштабы: 100 μm

Figs. 17–20 in Review of the millipedes of the Sikhote-Alin State Nature Biosphere Reserve (Far East of Russia), with detection of the morphological variability of Diplomaragna terricolor (Attems, 1899) (Diplopoda)

Figs. 17–20. Diplomaragna terricolor (Attems, 1899). Gonopods, caudal view. 17 — from Mt. Ko, Khabarovsky Krai; 18 — from Vladivostok, Okeanskaya Station, Primorsky Krai; 19 — from Lazovsky Nature Reserve, Primorsky Krai; 20 — from Sikhote-Alin Nature Biosphere Reserve, Blagodatnoe, Ozerny Stream, Primorsky Krai; a — apical outgrowth; b — finger-shaped process; m — mesal protrusion. Scales: 100 μm

Map. Species diversity of Diplopoda within the Sikhote-Alin State Nature Biosphere Reserve. The numbers of the natural landmarks (1–18) are explained in the "Material and Methods section" Карта. ВиΑовое разнообразие Αвупарноногих многоножек в Сихотэ-АΛинском заповеΑнике. Номера урочищ (1–18) поясняются в разΑеΛе «МатериаΛ и метоΑы» in Review of the millipedes of the Sikhote-Alin State Nature Biosphere Reserve (Far East of Russia), with detection of the morphological variability of Diplomaragna terricolor (Attems, 1899) (Diplopoda)

Map. Species diversity of Diplopoda within the Sikhote-Alin State Nature Biosphere Reserve. The numbers of the natural landmarks (1–18) are explained in the "Material and Methods section" Карта. ВиΑовое разнообразие Αвупарноногих многоножек в Сихотэ-АΛинском заповеΑнике. Номера урочищ (1–18) поясняются в разΑеΛе «МатериаΛ и метоΑы»

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2017View details →

FIGURE 2 in New range limit of the Anopetia gounellei (Aves: Trochilidae): state of art and a review on the updated area

FIGURE 2: Updated distributional range limit of Anopetia gounellei overlapped with the dry ecoregions; others ecoregions were avoided for the sake of clarity. The range is not restricted to the Caatinga ecoregion, going beyond it by more than 212,000 km². However, few records are outside the dry ecoregion limits, and even they are close to their limits

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2017View details →

FIGURE 1 in New range limit of the Anopetia gounellei (Aves: Trochilidae): state of art and a review on the updated area

FIGURE 1: Updated distributional range of Anopetia gounellei overlaid with the older range limit, the Caatinga biome (by Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brazil) and the presence records. The occurrence was expanded over 400.000 km² and records from 2010 to 2015 (the year after the first record outside the range limit) are spread over the north-south and east-west limits. It is possible to observe on the south and southwestern areas of the range many records outside the Caatinga biome limit

FIGURE 5 in Cells and soft tissues in fossil bone: A review of preservation mechanisms, with corrections of misconceptions

FIGURE 5. Simplified overview of factors that influence the preservation and destruction of the cellular, soft tissue, and mineral content of bone. Diagenesis of these materials is more complex than is shown here. Additional factors also have influence, and multiple levels and modes of preservation and destruction may occur in different regions of a single bone (see text for details).

FIGURE 4 in Cells and soft tissues in fossil bone: A review of preservation mechanisms, with corrections of misconceptions

FIGURE 4. The geologic column according to science vs. YEC ideology. Time periods are not shown to scale. The dates according to science are from radiometric dating (Schmitz, 2020). The dates according to YEC ideology are based on biblical genealogies (Jones, 2016). YEC identifications of Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and pre-Quaternary Cenozoic strata as Flood deposits (e.g., Clarey, 2020; Oard and Carter, 2021) are based on misinterpretations of geologic data (Senter, 2011; Willoughby, 2016; Prothero, 2017; Senter, 2019).

FIGURE 2 in Cells and soft tissues in fossil bone: A review of preservation mechanisms, with corrections of misconceptions

FIGURE 2. Microstructure of bone matrix. A. Part of a collagen molecule, showing its triple helical structure (based on figure 2 of Bella (2016), with modifications), with each of the three helices shown in a different color: black, dark gray, and light gray. B. A collagen microfibril and associated bone mineral crystallites, showing that the microfibril consists of five staggered collagen molecules and that the crystallites form between the tips of the collagen molecules in the microfibrils (based on figure 1d of Alexander et al. (2012), with modifications). C. Part of a collagen fibril, showing that bone mineral crystallites form both within microfibrils (unshaded crystallites) and between microfibrils (shaded crystallites).

FIGURE 1 in Cells and soft tissues in fossil bone: A review of preservation mechanisms, with corrections of misconceptions

FIGURE 1. Cells and soft tissues from bones of the hadrosaurid dinosaur Edmontosaurus annectens, from the Standing Rock Hadrosaur Site (SHRS) in South Dakota (Upper Cretaceous: Maastrichtian). The images are reprinted from figure 2 of Cretaceous Research vol. 99, Ullmann et al., "Patterns of soft tissue and cellular preservation in relation to fossil bone tissue structure and overburden depth at the Standing Rock Hadrosaur Site, Maastrichtian Hell Creek Formation, South Dakota, USA" (2019), with permission from Elsevier. A. Osteocyte from fragment of ossified tendon. B. Osteocyte from caudal vertebra SRHS-DU-220. C. Blood vessels with spherical structures in the lumen, from metatarsal SHRS-DU-274. D. Blood vessel (right) and sheets of CBM (lower left) from fragment of ossified tendon. E. Sheet of CBM with embedded osteocytes, from metatarsal SHRS-DU-274.

FIGURE 3 in Cells and soft tissues in fossil bone: A review of preservation mechanisms, with corrections of misconceptions

FIGURE 3. Histology of bone. A. Macroscopic view of compact and spongy bone in a cross-section of the humerus of a domestic cow (Bos taurus). B. Arrangement of microstructures in compact and spongy bone. C. Human compact bone viewed through a compound microscope, with cells boiled away and voids filled with black ink, to make lacunae and canaliculi stand out.

FIGURE 6 in Cells and soft tissues in fossil bone: A review of preservation mechanisms, with corrections of misconceptions

FIGURE 6. Recrystallization of bone mineral. Note that through geologic time, the crystallite has become enlarged, and many of its original ions have been replaced by other ions from groundwater. Here, ions are not shown to scale with respect to each other or to the size of the crystallite. For details on relative abundances of the various ions in fossil bone, see Hubert et al. (1996); Kiseleva et al. (2019); Ullman et al. (2021); Schroeter et al. (2022); and Ullmann et al. (2022). REE = rare earth elements.