Find research datasets worth reusing

opennotspecifiedJul 2020View details →

FIGURE 7 in A review and notes on the phylogenetic relationship of the centipede genus Otostigmus Porat, 1876 (Chilopoda: Scolopendromorpha: Scolopendridae) from Vietnam

FIGURE 7. Distribution of Otostigmus aculeatus Haase, 1887 in Vietnam

Figure 9 from: George KH (2020) Restructuring the Ancorabolidae Sars (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) and Cletodidae T. Scott, with a new phylogenetic hypothesis regarding the relationships of the Laophontoidea T. Scott, Ancorabolidae and Cletodidae. Zoosystematics and Evolution 96(2): 455-498. https://doi.org/10.3897/zse.96.51349

Figure 9 P1 of A.Laophontodes monsmaris George, 2018, B.Ancorabolina divasecunda Gheerardyn & George, 2010, C.Arthropsyllus serratus Sars, 1909, D.Ancorabolus chironiSchulz and George; 2010. Modified from George 2018 (A), Gheerardyn and George 2010 (B), Conroy-Dalton and Huys 2000 (C), Schulz and George 2010 (D). No scales.

Figure 10 from: George KH (2020) Restructuring the Ancorabolidae Sars (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) and Cletodidae T. Scott, with a new phylogenetic hypothesis regarding the relationships of the Laophontoidea T. Scott, Ancorabolidae and Cletodidae. Zoosystematics and Evolution 96(2): 455-498. https://doi.org/10.3897/zse.96.51349

Figure 10 Cuticular body processes of A.Arthuricornua anendopodia Conroy-Dalton, 2001, B.Dorsiceratus ursulae George, 2006, C.Breviconia australis (George, 1998), D.Ancorabolus inermis Conroy-Dalton & Huys, 2000. Modified after Conroy-Dalton 2001 (A), George 2006b (B), George 1998a (C), Conroy-Dalton and Huys 2000 (D). No scales.

Figure 3 from: George KH (2020) Restructuring the Ancorabolidae Sars (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) and Cletodidae T. Scott, with a new phylogenetic hypothesis regarding the relationships of the Laophontoidea T. Scott, Ancorabolidae and Cletodidae. Zoosystematics and Evolution 96(2): 455-498. https://doi.org/10.3897/zse.96.51349

Figure 3 Schematic representation of hypothesised groundpatterns for the shapes of the first swimming leg P1 in each proposed taxon. A. Podogennontan (after Willen 2000; Seifried 2003), B.Laophontoidea–Cletodoidea-clade, C.Cletodoidea, D.Cletodidae ●, E.Ancorabolidae ●. Black crosses indicate apomorphies; Roman numerals = outer spines, Arabic numerals = inner setae; ex = exopod, en = endopod. Explanations given in the text.

Figure 4 from: George KH (2020) Restructuring the Ancorabolidae Sars (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) and Cletodidae T. Scott, with a new phylogenetic hypothesis regarding the relationships of the Laophontoidea T. Scott, Ancorabolidae and Cletodidae. Zoosystematics and Evolution 96(2): 455-498. https://doi.org/10.3897/zse.96.51349

Figure 4 Antennulae (A1) of A.Enhydrosoma parapropinquum Gómez, 2003, B.Cletodes meyerorum George & Müller, 2013, C.Bicorniphontodes bicornis (A. Scott, 1896), D.Ancorabolina divasecunda Gheerardyn & George, 2010. Arrows indicate gradual elongation. Modified after Gómez 2003 (A), George and Müller 2013 (B), George and Gheerardyn 2015 (C), Gheerardyn and George 2010 (D). No scales.

Figure 1 from: George KH (2020) Restructuring the Ancorabolidae Sars (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) and Cletodidae T. Scott, with a new phylogenetic hypothesis regarding the relationships of the Laophontoidea T. Scott, Ancorabolidae and Cletodidae. Zoosystematics and Evolution 96(2): 455-498. https://doi.org/10.3897/zse.96.51349

Figure 1 Representatives of "Ancorabolidae" Sars, 1909, A.Ancorabolus ilvae George, 2001, B.Ancorabolina chimaera George, 2006, C.Ceratonotus vareschii George, 2006, D.Laophontodes typicus T. Scott, 1894, E.Paralaophontodes anjae George, 2017. Modified from George 2001 (A), 2006a (B), 2006b (C), 2017 (D), 2018 (E). No scales.

Figure 8 from: George KH (2020) Restructuring the Ancorabolidae Sars (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) and Cletodidae T. Scott, with a new phylogenetic hypothesis regarding the relationships of the Laophontoidea T. Scott, Ancorabolidae and Cletodidae. Zoosystematics and Evolution 96(2): 455-498. https://doi.org/10.3897/zse.96.51349

Figure 8 P1 of A.Enhydrosoma curticauda (Boeck, 1872); arrow points to inner apical seta (element 3), B.Cletodes meyerorum George & Müller, 2013, C.Touphapleura schminkei (George, 1998), D.Ceratonotus steiningeri George, 2006. Modified from Gee 1994 (A), George and Müller 2013 (B), George 1998b (C), George 2006c (D). No scales.

Figure 7 from: George KH (2020) Restructuring the Ancorabolidae Sars (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) and Cletodidae T. Scott, with a new phylogenetic hypothesis regarding the relationships of the Laophontoidea T. Scott, Ancorabolidae and Cletodidae. Zoosystematics and Evolution 96(2): 455-498. https://doi.org/10.3897/zse.96.51349

Figure 7 Female P5 of A.Heterolaophonte minuta (Boeck, 1872), B.Cletodes meyerorum George & Müller, 2013, C.Ancorabolus chironi Schulz & George, 2010, D.Calypsophontodes macropodia (Gee & Fleeger, 1986). E.Laophontodes sarsi George, 2018, F.Dorsiceratus wilhelminae George & Plum, 2009. Modified from Willen 1992 (A), George and Müller 2013 (B), Schulz and George 2010 (C), Gheerardyn and Lee 2012 (D), George 2018 (E), George and Plum 2009 (F). No scales.

Figure 5 from: George KH (2020) Restructuring the Ancorabolidae Sars (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) and Cletodidae T. Scott, with a new phylogenetic hypothesis regarding the relationships of the Laophontoidea T. Scott, Ancorabolidae and Cletodidae. Zoosystematics and Evolution 96(2): 455-498. https://doi.org/10.3897/zse.96.51349

Figure 5 A. P3 of Tapholaophontodes rollandi Soyer, 1975, B. P3 of Calypsophontodes macropodia (Gee & Fleeger, 1986); dotted circle indicates approximate position and size of coxa; C. P3 of Laophontodes sarsi George, 2018, D. P4 of Probosciphontodes stellata Fiers, 1988. Modified after Mielke 1985 (A), Gheerardyn and Lee 2012 (B), George 2018 (C), Fiers 1988 (D). No scales.

Figure 2 from: George KH (2020) Restructuring the Ancorabolidae Sars (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) and Cletodidae T. Scott, with a new phylogenetic hypothesis regarding the relationships of the Laophontoidea T. Scott, Ancorabolidae and Cletodidae. Zoosystematics and Evolution 96(2): 455-498. https://doi.org/10.3897/zse.96.51349

Figure 2 Cladogram visualising the result of the current phylogenetic evaluation. Capitals A–BB refer to the corresponding sections in the text; asterisks (*; **; ***) refer to the respective discussion in Chapters I and II.

Figure 6 from: George KH (2020) Restructuring the Ancorabolidae Sars (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) and Cletodidae T. Scott, with a new phylogenetic hypothesis regarding the relationships of the Laophontoidea T. Scott, Ancorabolidae and Cletodidae. Zoosystematics and Evolution 96(2): 455-498. https://doi.org/10.3897/zse.96.51349

Figure 6 A. P2 of Arthropsyllus serratus Sars, 1909, B. P2 of Polyascophorus monoceratus George, Wandeness & Santos, 2013, C. Female P3 of Enhydrosoma curticauda Boeck, 1872, D. Female P3 of Cletodes meyerorum George & Müller, 2013. Dotted circles indicate approximate position and size of coxa. Modified after Conroy-Dalton and Huys 2000 (A), George et al. 2013 (B), Gee 1994 (C), George and Müller 2013 (D). No scales.

Fig. 54 in Phylogenetic relationships of family groups in Pentatomoidea based on morphology and DNA sequences (Insecta: Heteroptera)

Fig. 54. One of four trees from total evidence analysis with POY of 92-taxon data set using 1: 2 indel ⁄ transition–transversion cost ratio. (d) Non-homoplasious; (s) homoplasious.

Figs 49–52. 49 in Phylogenetic relationships of family groups in Pentatomoidea based on morphology and DNA sequences (Insecta: Heteroptera)

Figs 49–52. 49. Singletreederivedfromanalysisof ~470 bpof 28S rRNAusing 1: 1 indel ⁄ transition–transversioncost ratio. 50. Singletree derivedfromanalysis of ~1100 bp of COImtDNAusing 1: 1 indel ⁄ transition–transversioncost ratio. 51. Totalevidenceanalysiswith POYof 52- taxondatasetusing 1: 1 indel ⁄ transition–transversioncostratio. 52. Totalevidenceanalysiswith POYof 52-taxondatasetusing 2: 2 indel ⁄ transition–transversioncostratio.

Fig. 42 in Phylogenetic relationships of family groups in Pentatomoidea based on morphology and DNA sequences (Insecta: Heteroptera)

Fig. 42. Strict consensus of 96 most parsimonious trees for full-taxon morphological data set, with unsupported nodes supressed. Length = 207; consistency index = 42; retention index = 86. (d) Non-homoplasious; (s) homoplasious.

Fig. 44 in Phylogenetic relationships of family groups in Pentatomoidea based on morphology and DNA sequences (Insecta: Heteroptera)

Fig. 44. Strict consensus of 12 trees derived from implied weighting analysis of morphological data using PIWE. (d) Non-homoplasious; (s) homoplasious.

Figs 35–41. 35 in Phylogenetic relationships of family groups in Pentatomoidea based on morphology and DNA sequences (Insecta: Heteroptera)

Figs 35–41. 35. Garsauria usambarica (Cydnidae), female. Gonapophyses 9 moderately sclerotized, second rami thinly sclerotized; gonangulum membraneous. 36. Aphylum syntheticum (Aphylidae), female. Gonapophyses 9 reduced, second rami lost; gonangulum absent. 37. Serbana borneensis (Phloeidae). (a) Female genital plates, right gonocoxite 8 removed; (b) gonapophyses 8 with intergonocoxal membrane and first rami. 38. Dichelops sp. (Pentatomidae), female. Ductus receptaculi with three distinct walls, distal aperture of vesicular area open; thickenings of vaginal intima present. 39. Cyrtocoris sp. (Cyrtocoridae), female. Ductus receptaculi dilated and invaginated, distal aperture of vesicular area closed. 40. Serbana borneensis (Phloeidae), female. Ductus receptaculi dilated and invaginated, distal aperture of vesicular area closed. 41. Eurygaster sinica (Scutelleridae), female. Elongate grooved sclerite present on pars comunis. aaf, anterior annular flange; ch, chitinelipsen; cs, capsula seminalis; da, distal aperture; dr, ductus receptaculi; g8, gonapophyses 8; g9, gonapophyses 9; gc8, gonocoxites 8; gc9, gonocoxites 9; go, gonangulum; g, groove; im8, intergonocoxal membrane of eighth segment; im9, intergonocoxal membrane of ninth segment; la8, laterotergites 8; la9, laterotergites 9; paf, posterior annular flange; pc, pars comunis; pi, pars intermedialis; R1, first rami; R2, second rami; T9, tergite of ninth segment; T10, tergite of tenth segment; tvi, thickenings of vaginal intima; X, tenth segment.

Figs 25–34. 25 in Phylogenetic relationships of family groups in Pentatomoidea based on morphology and DNA sequences (Insecta: Heteroptera)

Figs 25–34. 25. Parastrachia japonensis (Parastrachiidae), male. Sternite VIII visible, not covered by segment VII. 26. Tessaratoma papillosa (Tessaratomidae), female. Tergite IX visible dorsally. 27. Pallantia macula (Pentatomidae), female. Tergite IX not visible dorsally, covered by apically positioned tergite VIII. 28. Urochela distincta (Urostylididae), female. Gonocoxites 9 in an ''M'' sclerite. 29. Phloea subquadrata (Phloeidae), female. Gonocoxites 9 completely fused. 30. Tectocoris diophtalmus (Scutelleridae), female. Gonocoxites 9 fused, with a distinct median fusion line. 31. Similiforstona bella (Pentatomidae), female. Laterotergites 9 contiguous covering segment X. 32. Pantochlora vivida (Pentatomidae), female. Laterotergites 9 separate with segment Xbetween them. 33. Lestonia haustorifera (Lestoniidae), female. Laterotergites 9 totally fused with segment X concealed. 34. Prionogaster serratus (Tessaratomidae), female. Laterotergites 9 larger than gonocoxites 8. g9, gonapophyses 9; gc8, gonocoxites 8; gc9, gonocoxites 9; go, gonangulum; la8, laterotergites 8; la9, laterotergites 9; M, ''M'' sclerite; R2, second rami; VII, seventh segment; X, tenth segment.

Fig. 15 in Phylogenetic relationships of family groups in Pentatomoidea based on morphology and DNA sequences (Insecta: Heteroptera)

Fig. 15. Pretarsus: (15a) Lincus sp. (Pentatomidae); (15b) Arvelius sp. (Pentatomidae); (15c) Urostylis striicornis (Urostylididae); (15d) Sinopla sp. (Acanthosomatidae); (15e) Xyonysius californicus (Lygaeidae: Orsillinae), showing cylindrical claws (from Bonatto, 1988). Bp, basipulvillus; CGD, dorsal guard setae; CGL, lateral guard setae; Dp, distipulvillus; Dt, distitarsus; Em, empodium; Ga, claw; Pa, parempodia; Paa, accessory parempodia; PrGa, sharp projection of claw; PlU, unguitractor plate; Sp, parempodia support.

Fig. 14 in Phylogenetic relationships of family groups in Pentatomoidea based on morphology and DNA sequences (Insecta: Heteroptera)

Fig. 14. Foretibial apparatus: 14a. Garsauria usambarica (Cydnidae); (14b) Serbana borneensis (Phloeidae); (14c) Aphylum syntheticum (Pentatomidae); (14d) Sciocoris longifrons (Pentatomidae); (14e) Bebaeus punctipes (Acanthosomatidae); (14f) Gynenica affinis (Pentatomidae); (14g) Eumenotes obscura (Dinidoridae); (14h) Platytatus ambiguus (Tessaratomidae); (14i) Amnestus sp. (Cydnidae).

Fig. 1 in Phylogenetic relationships of family groups in Pentatomoidea based on morphology and DNA sequences (Insecta: Heteroptera)

Fig. 1. Diagrams showing hypotheses of Pentatomoidea classifications (Bonatto, 1988): (a) Singh-Pruthi, 1925; diagram and discussion; (b) Leston, 1958; Fig. 5; (c) China and Miller, 1959; Fig. 1; (d) Cobben, 1968; figs 269–270; (e) Cobben, 1978; several figures and text; (f) proposed phylogeny of Pentatomoidea (Gapud, 1991). [Captions removed; all taxon names rendered in current spellings; part (f) not from Bonatto (1988).]