Find research datasets worth reusing

Figs. 9 –12 in Polybia, Paraphyly, and Polistine Phylogeny

Figs. 9 –12. Head in lateral view. 9. Protonectarina sylveirae. 10. Synoecoides depressus. 11. Brachygastra lecheguana (Latreille). 12. Polybia chrysothorax.

Figs. 41– 44. Metasomal tergum I in Polybia, Paraphyly, and Polistine Phylogeny

Figs. 41– 44. Metasomal tergum I in dorsal view. 41. Epipona niger. 42. Polybia bifasciata. 43. Synoecoides depressus. 44. Polybia liliacea.

Figs. 5–8 in Polybia, Paraphyly, and Polistine Phylogeny

Figs. 5–8. Head in frontal view. 5. Polybia dimidiata. 6. Polybia chrysothorax (Lichtenstein). 7. Polybia nidulatrix Bequaert. 8. Polybia richardsi Cooper.

Figs. 1–4 in Polybia, Paraphyly, and Polistine Phylogeny

Figs. 1–4. Head in frontal view. 1. Synoecoides depressus Ducke. 2. Epipona niger (Brèthes). 3. Protonectarina sylveirae (de Saussure). 4. Polybia procellosa Zavattari.

Fig. 50. Consensus tree for 79 in Polybia, Paraphyly, and Polistine Phylogeny

Fig. 50. Consensus tree for 79 strictly supported cladograms resulting from analysis of the larval character matrix in table 2, excluding the three terminals that have all missing values.

Figs. 25–28 in Polybia, Paraphyly, and Polistine Phylogeny

Figs. 25–28. Mesosoma in lateral view. 25. Polybia dimidiata. 26. Polybia richardsi. 27. Polybia emaciata. 28. Polybia jurinei.

Fig. 53 in Polybia, Paraphyly, and Polistine Phylogeny

Fig. 53. Cladogram resulting from implied weighting of the combined character data. Plotting conventions as in fig. 52.

Fig. 52 in Polybia, Paraphyly, and Polistine Phylogeny

Fig. 52. Cladogram resulting from successive weighting of the combined character data. Characters have been optimized with only unambiguous changes plotted. Character numbers are above the hashmarks; state changes are shown below, with the respective primitive and derived conditions separated by a greater than sign. Filled hashmarks denote uncontroverted changes whereas open hashmarks indicate homoplasy in the character.

Fig. 18 in The Os Navicular of Humans, Great Apes, OH 8, Hadar, and Oreopithecus: Function, Phylogeny, and Multivariate Analyses

Fig. 18. Proximal views of the right cuboid and navicular of a human (A) and a common chimpanzee (B) in a closepacked position showing the contribution of the talocuboid angle (v) to the height of the transverse arch (h). In the closepacked position the small angle shown by chimpanzees results in a higher transverse arch than normally seen in humans. The human arch, however, unlike that of chimpanzees, exhibits a fixed height. Owing to a small, irregular, and often absent cuboid facet, the human talocuboid angle could not be accurately measured.

Fig. 17 in The Os Navicular of Humans, Great Apes, OH 8, Hadar, and Oreopithecus: Function, Phylogeny, and Multivariate Analyses

Fig. 17. Contribution of navicular torsion (v) and the frontal mesoectocuneiform angle (w) to the relative set of the ectocuneiform, mesocuneiform, and the talar facet in the closepacked position as seen in line drawings of an exploded right foot of a human (A) and a gorilla (B) from a dorsodistal view. High values of the frontal mesoectocuneiform angle in humans (w) do not result in marked opposition of the second and third metatarsals given metatarsal, ectocuneiform, and mesocuneiform torsion values which correct for the imparted set. Despite similar torsion values in humans and gorillas, the metatarsal, ectocuneiform, and mesocuneiform torsion all contribute to causing more marked opposition of the second and third metatarsals in gorillas. Marked talar torsion or large frontal mesoectocuneiform angles, are also associated to a high transverse arch (see text).

Fig. 16 in The Os Navicular of Humans, Great Apes, OH 8, Hadar, and Oreopithecus: Function, Phylogeny, and Multivariate Analyses

Fig. 16. Dorsal view of the exploded left tarsus and metatarsus of a pygmy chimpanzee in the closepacked position showing the contribution of the transverse mesoectocuneiform angle (w) and the transverse cuboectocuneiform angle (v) to the divergence of the second through fourth metatarsals. Correction of the talocuboid angle by the facet sets on the cuboid and ectocuneiform results in third and fourth metatarsals that are nearly alinged (y). A relatively low transverse mesoectocuneiform angle results in a second metatarsal that is divergent from the most lateral three (x) despite a partial correction of this set by the mesocuneiform.

Fig. 15 in The Os Navicular of Humans, Great Apes, OH 8, Hadar, and Oreopithecus: Function, Phylogeny, and Multivariate Analyses

Fig. 15. Contributions of the entoectocuneiform and sagittal taloectocuneiform angles (w and v respectively) to the relative set of the first through third metatarsal in closepacked position as seen in line drawings of the exploded left foot of a human (A) and of a gorilla (B) in medial view. The large sagittal taloectocuneiform angle in gorillas imparts a dorsiflexed set to the third metatarsal and is associated with a dorsiflexed talar head, i.e. small angle of talar neck inclination (Day and Wood 1968). The gorilla entoectocuneiform angle imparts a plantar set to the entocuneiform relative to the ectocuneiform and is associated with an abducted hallux, i.e. plantar divergence of the hallux relative to second (x) and third metatarsals (y). The human taloectocuneiform and entoectocuneiform angles are associated with a plantar flexed talar head (i.e., large angle of talar neck inclination), nearly aligned first to third metatarsals, and a longitudinal plantar arch. Due to a fixed transverse arch in humans, however, the long axis of the second and third metatarsals must have a more plantar inclination than the hallux, and the value of x and y are negative. Because the major axis of the navicular's talar facet is not necessarily held vertically, the sagittal taloectocuneiform and entoectocuneiform angles may also impart some degree of medial divergence to the hallux.

Fig. 14 in The Os Navicular of Humans, Great Apes, OH 8, Hadar, and Oreopithecus: Function, Phylogeny, and Multivariate Analyses

Fig. 14. Plot of mean canonical variate scores for studied taxa. All fossils are based on single samples. The actual Mahalanobis D for all of the canonical variates separating taxa is given as the value above each connecting line (table 11). Connecting lines represent a Minimum Spanning Tree (after Rohlf, 1997). Owing to a twodimensional projection, the actual lengths of the connecting lines on the plot represent only a fraction of the D values.

Fig. 13 in The Os Navicular of Humans, Great Apes, OH 8, Hadar, and Oreopithecus: Function, Phylogeny, and Multivariate Analyses

Fig. 13. Dendrograms of the studied taxa constructed using unweighted pair group method (Rohlf, 1997). Inset shows portion of dendrogram which differs when both Hadar naviculars are considered as a single sample.

Fig. 12. A in The Os Navicular of Humans, Great Apes, OH 8, Hadar, and Oreopithecus: Function, Phylogeny, and Multivariate Analyses

Fig. 12. A plot of the first two canonical variates with vectors representing the contribution of each of the measured variables to the scatter within and among measured taxa. Arrows point to fossils. Note the distinctiveness of H. sapiens, the uniqueness of Oreopithecus and the similarities of Hadar and African apes, of OH 8 and Homo, and of great ape species or subspecies within genera. The vectors representing the frontal mesoectocuneiform angle (EctMsFn) and the mediolateral diameter of the entocuneiform facet (EntFml) are nearly overlapping. Vector lengths are exagerated by a factor of ten, and owing to a twodimensional projection, are not proportional to their actual length. Eighty percent of the variance among means relative to the withingroup variance is summarized by the first two canonical variates (see figure 14 for plotted means of the first two canonical variates). Program written in Matlab version 5.1. This ''biplot'' is after Rohlf (1997); see Marcus (1993) for a discussion. The program and navicular data are available from one of us (LM). TalFlng = talar facet dorsoplantar (major axis) diameter, TalFwd = talar facet mediolateral (minor axis) diameter, EctFpd= ectocuneiform facet dorsoplantar diameter, EctFml= ectocuneiform facet mediolateral diameter, MesFdp= mesocuneiform facet dorsoplantar diameter, MesFml= mesocuneiform facet mediolateral diameter, EntFml= entocuneiform facet mediolateral diameter, EntFdp= entocuneiform facet dorsoplantar diameter, MaxLng= navicular maximum length, CuFdp= cuboid facet dorsoplantar diameter, CuFml= cuboid facet mediolateral diameter, TalFlDp= depth of talar facet along major axis, TalTrDp= depth of talar facet along minor axis; CubEcto = transverse cuboectocuneiform angle, EctMstr= transverse mesoectocuneiform angle, Tor= navicular torsion, EctMsFn= frontal mesoectocuneiform angle, TalEct= sagittal taloectocuneifrom angle, EctEmt= entoectocuneiform angle.

Fig. 11 in The Os Navicular of Humans, Great Apes, OH 8, Hadar, and Oreopithecus: Function, Phylogeny, and Multivariate Analyses

Fig. 11. Cube root of lower limbvolume (mm) vs. square root of total navicular crosssectional area (mm) in humans, great apes, and fossil hominoids.

Fig. 10 in The Os Navicular of Humans, Great Apes, OH 8, Hadar, and Oreopithecus: Function, Phylogeny, and Multivariate Analyses

Fig. 10. The sum of the femoral and tibial crosssectional areas (mm2) vs. talar facet crosssectional area (mm2) in humans, great apes, and fossil hominoids.

Fig. 9 in The Os Navicular of Humans, Great Apes, OH 8, Hadar, and Oreopithecus: Function, Phylogeny, and Multivariate Analyses

Fig. 9. Bivariate plot of cube root of body weight (kg⅓) vs. square root of total navicular facet crosssectional area (mm) in great apes. N = 62, Slope = 6.58, y intercept = 143.77. At 95% confidence limits OH 8, the two Hadar naviculars, and Oreopithecus were calculated to have body weights of 12.0– 100.3 kg, 17.6–143.6 kg (AL 33347), 18.6–155.1 kg (AL 33336), and 4.4–39.5 kg respectively.

Fig. 7 in The Os Navicular of Humans, Great Apes, OH 8, Hadar, and Oreopithecus: Function, Phylogeny, and Multivariate Analyses

Fig. 7. Dorsoplantar (major axis) diameter (mm) vs. mediolateral (minor axis) diameter (mm) of the talar facet (i.e., talar facet length vs. talar facet width) in humans, great apes, and fossil hominoids. Arrows point to fossils.

Fig. 4 in The Os Navicular of Humans, Great Apes, OH 8, Hadar, and Oreopithecus: Function, Phylogeny, and Multivariate Analyses

Fig. 4. Mesocuneiform facet crosssectional area (mm2) vs. total navicular facet crosssectional area