Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 9 in Fractal analysis of ostracod shell variability: A comparison with geometric and classic morphometrics

Fig. 9. Continuous shape variation in Krithe compressa valves drawn along RW 2. Deformation grids relate to specimen of the three different samples belonging to Krithe compressa from the highest (A) to the lowest (C) RW 2 scores (see Fig. 7). Deformation grid in B refers to undeformed shape. From the above, a valve from sample 58 (specimen KC 25), a specimen from sample 51 (KC 16), and a specimen from sample 50 (KC 1).

Fig. 5 in Fractal analysis of ostracod shell variability: A comparison with geometric and classic morphometrics

Fig. 5. The logarithm of number of pairs C of points with mutual distance smaller than R (̊m), as a function of log(R). Vertical dashed lines are the limits inside which the linear slope of log(C) on log(R) provides the best fitting to the data.

Fig. 1. A in Fractal analysis of ostracod shell variability: A comparison with geometric and classic morphometrics

Fig. 1. A. Ideal uniform network of 225 points spaced 2 mm apart over an area of 30 × 30 mm2. B. The log of number of pairs C of the stations, with mutual distance smaller than R, as a function of log(R) (mm); the vertical dashed lines represent the lower (4 mm) and upper (16 mm) limits of R, inside which the linear slope provides the best fitting to the investigated co−ordinates.

Fig. 8 in Fractal analysis of ostracod shell variability: A comparison with geometric and classic morphometrics

Fig. 8. This plot is the same as in Fig. 7, except for marks have been appended according to sample of provenance instead of species.

Fig. 3 in Fractal analysis of ostracod shell variability: A comparison with geometric and classic morphometrics

Fig. 3. Krithe compressa (Seguenza, 1880), right valves; transparence drawings from external view; sample 50 (A–G), sample 51 (H–R), sample 58 (S–BB); upper Pliocene. A. KC−01, B.O.C. 2519. B. KC−02, B.O.C. 2520. C. KC−03, B.O.C. 2521. D. KC−04, B.O.C. 2522.E. KC−05, B.O.C. 2523. F. KC−06, B.O.C. 2524. G. KC−07, B.O.C. 2525. H. KC−08, B.O.C. 2526. I. KC−09, B.O.C. 2527. J. KC−10, B.O.C. 2528. K. KC−11, B.O.C. 2529. L. KC−12, B.O.C. 2530. M. KC−13, B.O.C. 2531. N. KC−14, B.O.C. 2532. O. KC−15, B.O.C. 2533. P. KC−16, B.O.C. 2534. Q. KC−17, B.O.C. 2535. R. KC−18, B.O.C. 2536. S. KC−19, B.O.C. 2537. T. KC−20, B.O.C. 2538. U. KC−21, B.O.C. 2539. V. KC−22, B.O.C. 2540. W. KC−23, B.O.C. 2541. X. KC−24, B.O.C. 2542. Y. KC−25, B.O.C. 2543. Z. KC−26, B.O.C. 2544. AA. KC−27, B.O.C. 2545. BB. KC−28, B.O.C. 2546.

opencc-zeroOct 2024View details →

Linked collectors and determiners for: Comparative geometric morphometrics of male genitalia in Xiphocentron subgenera (Trichoptera: Xiphocentronidae): new species, revision and phylogenetic systematics of the subgenus Sphagocentron.

Natural history specimen data linked to collectors and determiners held within, "Comparative geometric morphometrics of male genitalia in Xiphocentron subgenera (Trichoptera: Xiphocentronidae): new species, revision and phylogenetic systematics of the subgenus Sphagocentron". Claims or attributions were made on Bionomia by volunteer Scribes, <a href="https://bionomia.net/dataset/69a3ae72-af6c-4b7b-a4b1-7af0ed275a43">https://bionomia.net/dataset/69a3ae72-af6c-4b7b-a4b1-7af0ed275a43</a> using specimen data from the dataset aggregated by the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, <a href="https://gbif.org/dataset/69a3ae72-af6c-4b7b-a4b1-7af0ed275a43">https://gbif.org/dataset/69a3ae72-af6c-4b7b-a4b1-7af0ed275a43</a>. Formatted as a Frictionless Data package.

Figure 2. 2D in The Woodcock's head: Resolving a morphological oddity using geometric morphometrics

Figure 2. 2D landmarks used in this study following Klingenberg and Marugán-Lobón (2013). Skull scheme modified from Thompson (1942). Abbreviation: BK—beak; O—orbit; B—braincase.

Figure 1 in The Woodcock's head: Resolving a morphological oddity using geometric morphometrics

Figure 1. Different ways in which the skull of the woodcock has been oriented to interpret its anatomy in lateral view. A. As it leans over a table (modified from, Cobb, 1959). Notice how the ear (E) lies nearly anterior to the eye (orbits), and how the latter seem to orient as to direct sight relatively backwards. B. As the bird is flying, as suggested in (and modified from) Thompson (1942). Notice that Thompson argued that the cranial floor (CF) in this posture is horizontal, yet no bone is alluded as to demarcate de basis cranii [sic]. C. As the bird is in alert, as measured by Duijm (1951) in a zoo. Notice that in such head posture of alert the lateral semicircular canal (LSC) in the woodcock is tilted approximately13° (i.e., it is not horizontal when the woodcock is in alert). Interestingly, if the skull is rotated those 13°, head posture matches Thompson's flight orientation.

Figure 3. Geometric morphometrics results. A in The Woodcock's head: Resolving a morphological oddity using geometric morphometrics

Figure 3. Geometric morphometrics results. A. Procrustes residuals (shape data) of the 160 superimposed configurations. The configuration of the woodcock is plotted inside to show how its skull shape maps compared to the rest of birds. B. Isolated average configuration (grey, left) and woodcock (black, right). C. Average and woodcock superimposed to show that the largest difference is in the position of the facial skeleton compared to the neurocranium. D. Same as C yet using the Thin Plate Spline deformation to further stress the craniofacial differences between the woodcock and the average. Notice how craniofacial differences are due to the "rotation" of the face and the neurocranium. E. Thin plate spline deformation of the woodcock compared to the rest of the sample within morphospace (summary of shape variance of Fig. 3A using Relative Warps Analysis, i.e., PCA). Black/thick arrow points to woodcock, Thin arrow points to Snipe, whose skull shape is definitely similar to that of the woodcock.

Figure 2 in Shell geometric morphometrics in Biomphalaria glabrata (Mollusca: Planorbidae) uninfected and infected with Schistosoma mansoni

Figure 2. Principal component analysis diagram of the first two principal components (within percentage explained variance contribution) from 60 Biomphalaria glabrata specimens, uninfected (black dots) and infected with Schistosoma mansoni (gray dots). Ellipse encloses 90% of data for each group.

Figure 1 in Shell geometric morphometrics in Biomphalaria glabrata (Mollusca: Planorbidae) uninfected and infected with Schistosoma mansoni

Figure 1. Shell of Biomphalaria glabrata showing the landmarks (LM1–LM12) disposition. White landmarks correspond to type I and II landmarks, while the gray to semilandmarks.

Figure 3 in Shell geometric morphometrics in Biomphalaria glabrata (Mollusca: Planorbidae) uninfected and infected with Schistosoma mansoni

Figure 3. Grid deformation showing differences in the Principal Component 1 (PC1) between the mean configuration of Biomphalaria glabrata uninfected and infected with Schistosome mansoni.

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 2 in Geometric morphometric analysis of Eysarcoris guttiger, E. annamita and E. ventralis (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae)

Figure 2. Boxplot of the centroid sizes of the four Eysarcoris species. A. Fore wing. B. Hind wing. C. Pygophore.

Figure 3 in Further geometric morphometric analysis on the genus Eysarcoris (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) from China

Figure 3. Canonical variate analysis (CVA) based on the shape variables of different characters showing 90% confidence ellipses of population means. A. Forewing, B. Hindwing. C. Pygophore. D. Head. E. Pronotum. F. Scutellum.

Figure 2 in Further geometric morphometric analysis on the genus Eysarcoris (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) from China

Figure 2. Comparisons of CS variables among species of Eysarcoris. A. Forewing, B. Hindwing. C. Pygophore. D. Head. E. Pronotum. F. Scutellum.