Find research datasets worth reusing

Figure 6 in The morphological and functional variability of pleon-holding mechanisms in selected Eubrachyura (Crustacea: Decapoda)

Figure 6. Examples of female Gecarcinucidae with pleon-holding structures still present. a-b: Ceylonthelphusa rugosa (Kingsley, 1880), ♀, 54 × 42 mm, Sri Lanka (ZRC1998.650). (a) Thoracic sternum without pleon. Very small vestigial buttons present. (b) Ventral surface of pleon. No socket visible on completely flat sixth pleon segment. c-d: Parathelphusa valida Ng & Goh, 1987, ♀, 48 × 38 mm, Malaysia (ZRC1996.1999). (c) Thoracic sternum without pleon. Large round buttons visible on S5. Sterno-abdominal cavity without pronounced edge, but still triangular. (d) Ventral surface of pleon. Socket shallow, but present in middle of sixth pleon segment. A: anterior; B: button; fl: flat surface of P6; P: posterior; pl: pleopod; s: setae; sac: sterno-abdominal cavity; so: socket; S5: sternite 5; t: telson; v: vulva; vb: vestigal buttons. Scale bar = 5 mm.

Figure 7 in The morphological and functional variability of pleon-holding mechanisms in selected Eubrachyura (Crustacea: Decapoda)

Figure 7. Pleon-holding mechanism of Potamidae. a-b: Himalayapotamon sunkoshiense Brandis & Sharma, 2005, ♂, 40 × 31 mm, Nepal (ZMK3506). (a) Thoracic sternum without pleon, setae inside sterno-abdominal cavity. (b) Ventral surface of pleon. c-d: H. sunkoshiense, ♀, 46 × 35 mm, Nepal (ZMK3506). (c) Thoracic sternum without pleon. Dense setal cover on S4. (d) Ventral surface of pleon. Setae on edge of pleon segment typically found in adult eubrachyuran females are very prominent in this specimen. e-f: Potamon hueceste Pretzmann, 1962, ♂, 70 × 59 mm, Iran (ZMK3510). A: anterior; B: button; fl: flat surface of P6; G: gonopods; i: intestine; P: posterior; s: setae: sac: sternoabdominal cavity; so: socket; S5: sternite 5; t: telson; v: vulva. Scale bar = 1 mm.

Figure 5 in The morphological and functional variability of pleon-holding mechanisms in selected Eubrachyura (Crustacea: Decapoda)

Figure 5. Pleon shape of the gecarcinucid Irmengardia johnsoni Ng & Yang, 1985, ♂, 13 × 12 mm, Singapore (ZRC2013.1445). (a) Photo of ventral side of specimen showing T-shaped pleon. (b) 3D surface reconstruction, based on µCT images. Arrow indicates position of pleon-holding mechanism. (c) Volume rendering of µCT images, frontal view. Telson and sixth pleon segment virtually removed, sternal buttons (red) visible inside sterno-abdominal cavity. B: button; S5: sternite 5; t: telson. Scale bar = 5 mm.

Figure 29 in The morphological and functional variability of pleon-holding mechanisms in selected Eubrachyura (Crustacea: Decapoda)

Figure 29. Schematic drawings of the structures contributing to pleon-holding and the pleon movements involved in unfastening the pleon. a-c: Press-button mechanism. (a) Pleon inside sterno-abdominal cavity, fastened by button structures (red), ventral view. (b) Pleon moved towards anterior, buttons disengaged. (c) Cross-section through sternite 5 with unciform button pointing towards anterior (red) and pleonal socket on pleon segment 6 folded over the button. Arrow indicates pleon movement to disengage press-button mechanism. d-e: Overhanging edge system. (d) Telson underneath overhanging edge (red) of sterno-abdominal cavity on sternite 4, ventral view. (e) Telson removed from underneath the edge by movement towards posterior. f-g: Wet adhesion via moisture and dense setal covering. (f) Overview of pleon with marginal setae (red) and setal patches on sternal plates (orange) inside sterno-abdominal cavity. Movement to break contact unclear. (g) Cross-section of contact between sternite 5 and pleon segment 6 facilitated by setae and water in between (wet adhesion). Black: pleon; blue: water; dark grey: border of sternoabdominal cavity/edge of telson underneath overhanging edge; light grey: sutures between sternal plates; P6: pleon segment 6; red/orange: structures contributing to functional pleon holding; S5: sternite 5.

Figure 4 in The morphological and functional variability of pleon-holding mechanisms in selected Eubrachyura (Crustacea: Decapoda)

Figure 4. Pleon-holding structures of Gecarcinucidae. a-c: Nautilothelphusa zimmeri (Balss, 1933), ♂, 37 × 37 mm, Indonesia (ZRC2000.1707). (a, b) Thoracic sternum with and without pleon. Note button not covered by pleon in b. (c) Ventral surface of pleon. D-E: N. zimmeri, ♀, 32 × 33 mm, Indonesia (ZRC2000.1707). (d) Thoracic sternum without pleon, button present. (e) Ventral surface of pleon, no socket present, eggs attached to pleopods are visible. A: anterior; B: button; E: egg; i: intestine; sac: sterno-abdominal cavity; so: socket; S5: sternite 5; P: posterior; pl: pleopod; P6: pleon segment 6; t: telson; v: vulva. Scale bar = 5 mm.

Figure 3 in The morphological and functional variability of pleon-holding mechanisms in selected Eubrachyura (Crustacea: Decapoda)

Figure 3. Pleon-holding mechanism of Parathelphusa pantherina (Schenkel, 1902), ♂, 36 × 28 mm, Indonesia, (ZRC2000.1705), marked on a 3D volume reconstruction of the cuticle, based on µCT images. a-b: Three-quarter view of specimen. Scale bar = 1 cm. (a) Specimen complete, telson and sixth pleon segment in natural position. (b) Telson and sixth pleon segment removed from reconstruction, buttons visible inside sterno-abdominal cavity. (c) Specimen in dorsal view, volume reconstruction of cuticle rendered see-through. Pleon in folded position, buttons in contact with sockets (arrow). Scale bar = 5 mm. (d) Surface reconstruction of sixth pleon segment and telson. Ventral surface with socket in view. B: button; so: socket. Orange: telson; red: buttons; yellow: pleon segment 6. Scale bar = 5 mm.

Figure 2 in The morphological and functional variability of pleon-holding mechanisms in selected Eubrachyura (Crustacea: Decapoda)

Figure 2. Pleon-holding structures of Gecarcinucidae. a-d: Esanthelphusa dugasti (Rathbun, 1902), ♂, 50 × 40 mm, Thailand (ZRC2014.0020). (a) Thoracic sternum with pleon. Arrow indicates location of pleon-holding structures. (b) Thoracic sternum without pleon. (c) Close-up of left half-moon-like button; note striped appearance on anterior margin. (d) Ventral surface of pleon. e-g: Parathelphusa maculata de Man, 1879, ♂, 55 × 40 mm, Malaysia (ZRC, no catalogue number). (e) Thoracic sternum without pleon. (f) Closeup of right half-moon-like button. (g) Ventral surface of pleon. A: anterior; B: button; i: intestine; P: posterior; P6: pleon segment 6; s: setae; sac: sterno-abdominal cavity; so: socket; S5: sternite 5; t: telson. Scale bar = 5 mm except for c (500 µm) and f (2 mm).

Figure 1 in The morphological and functional variability of pleon-holding mechanisms in selected Eubrachyura (Crustacea: Decapoda)

Figure 1. Pleon-holding structures of Gecarcinucidae. a-b: Barthelphusa jacquemontii (Rathburn, 1905) ♂, 51 × 34 mm, India (ZRC2009.0912). (a) Thoracic sternum without pleon. (b) Ventral surface of pleon. c-d: Sodhiana blanfordi (Alcock, 1909), ♂, 45 × 34 mm, Pakistan, (ZRC2014.0101). (c) Thoracic sternum without pleon. (d) Ventral surface of pleon. e-f: S. blanfordi, ♀, 39 × 30 mm, Pakistan, (ZRC2014.0101). (e) Thoracic sternum without pleon, note wide sterno-abdominal cavity. (f) Ventral surface of pleon. A: anterior; B: button; fl: flat surface of P6; G: gonopod; i: intestine; P: posterior; s: setae; sac: sterno-abdominal cavity; so: socket; st: setal tuft; S5: sternite 5; t: telson; v: vulva. Scale bar = 5 mm.

FIGURES 20–21 in Morphological and genetic variability of Baetis (Rhodobaetis) braaschi Zimmermann, 1980 (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae)

FIGURES 20–21. Baetis braaschi, coloration of the imago male, Eastern Ukraine: 20, thorax and head, lateral view; 21, head, lateral view.

FIGURES 12–17 in Morphological and genetic variability of Baetis (Rhodobaetis) braaschi Zimmermann, 1980 (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae)

FIGURES 12–17. Baetis braaschi, shape of setae on pedicel: 12–13, Crimea; 14–15, Caucasus; 16–17, Eastern Ukraine.

FIGURES 3–11 in Morphological and genetic variability of Baetis (Rhodobaetis) braaschi Zimmermann, 1980 (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae)

FIGURES 3–11. Baetis braaschi, variability of the selected morphological characters: 3, shape of third segment of labial palp, Eastern Ukraine; 4, shape of third segment of labial palp, Crimea; 5, posterior margin of tergum IV, Eastern Ukraine; 6, posterior margin of tergum IV, Crimea; 7, posterior margin of tergum IV, Caucasus; 8, margin of paraproct plate, Crimea; 9, margin of paraproct plate, Caucasus; 10–11, margin of paraproct plate, Eastern Ukraine.

FIGURE 1 in Morphological and genetic variability of Baetis (Rhodobaetis) braaschi Zimmermann, 1980 (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae)

FIGURE 1. Map of the distribution of Baetis braaschi. Highlighted area—areal of the species; black points—localities of sampling for the present study.

FIGURE 24 in Morphological and genetic variability of Baetis (Rhodobaetis) braaschi Zimmermann, 1980 (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae)

FIGURE 24. Minimum spanning tree of 7 haplotypes. The base substitutions are marked by circles. Specimens exhibiting Eastern Ukrainian morphotype marked by "*", specimens exhibiting Crimean morphotype marked by "#".

FIGURE 2 in Morphological and genetic variability of Baetis (Rhodobaetis) braaschi Zimmermann, 1980 (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae)

FIGURE 2. Scheme of the labial palp measurements. The value q representing the degree of asymmetry was computed as q=a/b.

FIGURE 25 in Morphological and genetic variability of Baetis (Rhodobaetis) braaschi Zimmermann, 1980 (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae)

FIGURE 25. Topology of the Bayesian and ML tree of the molecular dataset. The numbers above branches are values of Bayesian posterior probability (first number, only values above 0.50 are displayed) and ML bootstrap support (second number, only values above 50% are displayed). Roman numbers indicate individual haplotypes as recognized by the TCS analysis. Specimens exhibiting Eastern Ukrainian morphotype marked by "*", specimens exhibiting Crimean morphotype marked by "#".

FIGURE 22–23 in Morphological and genetic variability of Baetis (Rhodobaetis) braaschi Zimmermann, 1980 (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae)

FIGURE 22–23. Baetis braaschi, hind wing (dorsal view): 22, Eastern Ukraine; 23, Crimea. Figure 23 redrawn from Godunko et al. (2004a).

FIGURE 7. Gnathopods I–II in Toward a unified taxonomy of Niphargus (Crustacea: Amphipoda): a review of morphological variability

FIGURE 7. Gnathopods I–II. The following parameters were measured: depth and width of coxa II (cxw, cxd), width and length of basis (bl, bw), cl (carpus lenght), propodus length, width, diagonal (pl, pw, pd), basal and distal part of the dactylus (d1,2) (A, B, E: N. dalmatinus, male gnathopod I, C: N. dalmatinus, male gnathopod II, D: N. dalmatinus, female gnathopod II, note the sexually dimorphic shape of the coxa II). Note variable number of palmar (F–I, II: N. grandii [after Sket 1972]) and supporting spines (G: N. kenki [after S. Karaman 1952]) as well as shifted position of denticulated spines (H–I,II: N. salonitanus [after G. Karaman 1984a]). Setae below palmar spine are indicated with ps.

FIGURE 9. Pereopods III–IV in Toward a unified taxonomy of Niphargus (Crustacea: Amphipoda): a review of morphological variability

FIGURE 9. Pereopods III–IV. Lines along which measures were taken are indicated and labeled as in Fig. 7. Variability of dactyls is similar to variability of dactyls of pereopod VII, shown in Fig. 11. Note the sexually dimorphic coxae in N. dalmatinus (A, m—males, f—females, original drawing) and differences in shape of coxae between the species. B: N. dabarensis; C: N. polymorphus (B–C after Fišer et al. 2006b); D: N. podgoricensis (G. Karaman 1984a); E: N. longicaudatus (G. Karaman 1986b).

FIGURE 6 in Toward a unified taxonomy of Niphargus (Crustacea: Amphipoda): a review of morphological variability

FIGURE 6. Mouthparts. Mandibles (A–F) vary mainly in the palpus (A: N. croaticus [after Jurinac 1888]; B: N. dalmatinus [original drawing]—note that left and right mandible are not symmetric, detailed lacinia mobilis is from N. tauri [after S. Karaman 1943b]; C: N. transitivus [after Sket 1971]; D: N. tauri [after S. Karaman 1943b]; E: N. skopljensis [after S. Karaman 1943a]; F: N. timavi—note setae on the proximal-most article; landmarks used in measurements are connected with lines [adapted from G. Karaman 1985]). Maxilla I (G–M) varies in number of setae on palpus and inner lobe as well as in type of spines on outer lobe (G: N. croaticus [after Jurinac 1888]; H: N. tauri [after S. Karaman 1943b]; I–J: N. velesensis [S. Karaman 1943a]; K: N. angelieri [after Ruffo 1953b]; L: N. skopljensis—spines on outer lobe [S. Karaman 1943a]; M: N. jovanovici [S. Karaman 1943a]). Maxilla II, labium and labrum are rather invariable (N, P, R: N. croaticus [after Jurinac 1888] O, Q, S: N. dalmatinus [original drawing]). Important characters on maxilliped (T: N. croaticus [after Jurinac 1888]) is the setal pattern on dactylus (U: N. krameri [after G. Karaman 1984b]; V: N. subtypicus, W: N. kolombatovici [adapted from Fišer et al. 2007]) and a number of flattened apical spines on inner lobes (X: N. tauri [S. Karaman 1943b]).

FIGURE 4 in Toward a unified taxonomy of Niphargus (Crustacea: Amphipoda): a review of morphological variability

FIGURE 4. Shape and setal patterns of the telson. A: N. rostratus, arrow indicates the shifted position of lateral plumose setae (after Sket 1971); B: N. brachytelson (after S. Karaman 1952); C: N. valvasori (after S. Karaman 1952); D: N. multipennatus, note elevated number of plumose setae (after Sket 1972); E: N. macedonicus (after S. Karaman 1950); F: N. orcinus (after S. Karaman 1950); G: N. illidzensis (after S. Karaman 1932); H: N. croaticus, note shallow telson cleft (after Jurinac 1888); I: N. sanctinaumi (S. Karaman 1943a); J: N. podgoricensis (after S. Karaman 1950); K: N. illidzensis, w—telson width, l—telson length, cl—telson cleft length, sl—length of the longest spine, AS—apical telson spines, LS—lateral telson spines, MS—mesial telson spines (along telson cleft), DS—dorsal telson spines (adapted from S. Karaman 1932).