Find research datasets worth reusing

Figure 5. Morphological differentiation among the focal taxa. A in A widespread Ponto-Caspian invader with a mistaken identity: integrative taxonomy elucidates the confusing taxonomy of Trichogammarus trichiatus (= Echinogammarus) (Crustacea: Amphipoda)

Figure 5. Morphological differentiation among the focal taxa. A, principal components analysis showing variability in morphospace across the first three axes (PC 1–PC 3) for males (top) and females (below). B, dendrogram based on squared Mahalanobis distances. C, boxplots depicting variation in length of selected morphological traits (corrected for body size).

Figure 3 in A widespread Ponto-Caspian invader with a mistaken identity: integrative taxonomy elucidates the confusing taxonomy of Trichogammarus trichiatus (= Echinogammarus) (Crustacea: Amphipoda)

Figure 3. Mitochondrial (COI and 16S) time-calibrated tree and species delimitation results. Numbers at nodes are posterior probabilities (not shown if <0.7). Turquoise bars indicate 95% confidence intervals for node ages (shown only for supported nodes). Bars on the right depict the results of the species delimitation analyses (abbreviations: Morpho, morphology; BIN, Barcode Index number; GMYC, General Mixed Yule Coalescent; PTP, Poisson Tree Processes; ASAP, Assemble Species by Automatic Partitioning; PDT, Patristic Distance Threshold). Red stars indicate the clades of Chaetogammarus ischnus and Chaetogammarus trichiatus that were used in the multilocus Bayes factors species delimitation approach.

Figure 7. Scanning electron micrographs. A, antenna 1. B, antenna 2. C in A widespread Ponto-Caspian invader with a mistaken identity: integrative taxonomy elucidates the confusing taxonomy of Trichogammarus trichiatus (= Echinogammarus) (Crustacea: Amphipoda)

Figure 7. Scanning electron micrographs. A, antenna 1. B, antenna 2. C, basis of pereopod 7. D, pereopod 3. Scale bars: 0.2 mm.

Figure 6. Scanning electron micrographs. A in A widespread Ponto-Caspian invader with a mistaken identity: integrative taxonomy elucidates the confusing taxonomy of Trichogammarus trichiatus (= Echinogammarus) (Crustacea: Amphipoda)

Figure 6. Scanning electron micrographs. A, dorsal side of urosome. B, lateral head lobes. C, gnathopod 2 propodus. D, uropod 3. Scale bars: 0.2 mm.

Figure 1 in A widespread Ponto-Caspian invader with a mistaken identity: integrative taxonomy elucidates the confusing taxonomy of Trichogammarus trichiatus (= Echinogammarus) (Crustacea: Amphipoda)

Figure 1. Multilocus maximum likelihood phylogeny (COI, 16S, 28S, EPRS and H3) of the Ponto-Caspian gammaroid radiation. Chaetogammarus and Spirogammarus gen. nov. species are shown with dashed branches. Focal taxa are shown with coloured branches. Strongly supported nodes in all analyses are shown with green dots, moderately supported nodes are annotated with support values from each analysis, and unsupported nodes are not annotated (see key at the top left).

Figure 10 in A widespread Ponto-Caspian invader with a mistaken identity: integrative taxonomy elucidates the confusing taxonomy of Trichogammarus trichiatus (= Echinogammarus) (Crustacea: Amphipoda)

Figure 10. Chaetogammarus trichiatus, ♂, Shahe River, Krasnodar region. A, pereopod 3. B, pereopod 4. C, dactylus of pereopod 4. D, pereopod 5. E, dactylus of pereopod 5. F, pereopod 6. G, pereopod 7. H, dactylus of pereopod 7.

Figure 4 in A widespread Ponto-Caspian invader with a mistaken identity: integrative taxonomy elucidates the confusing taxonomy of Trichogammarus trichiatus (= Echinogammarus) (Crustacea: Amphipoda)

Figure 4. Distribution of focal taxa. Small dots represent distribution records from the literature (after CopilaȘ-Ciocianu et al., 2023); large dots represent sequenced localities (black outline, literature data; white outline, present study). Arrows represent the type localities of Chaetogammarus trichiatus (orange) and Spirogammarus major (purple). The question mark represents a doubtful distribution record of Chaetogammarus ischnus. Green dashed lines indicate the native range.

Figure 9 in A widespread Ponto-Caspian invader with a mistaken identity: integrative taxonomy elucidates the confusing taxonomy of Trichogammarus trichiatus (= Echinogammarus) (Crustacea: Amphipoda)

Figure 9. Chaetogammarus trichiatus, ♂, Shahe River, Krasnodar region. A, labrum (upper lip). B, labium (lower lip). C, E, mandible. D, F, incisor process and pars incisiva of mandible. G, left maxilla 1. H, right maxilla 1 distal segment of palp. I, maxilla 2. J, maxilliped.

FIGURE 3 in Taxonomy of Bouteloua juncea and Bouteloua triaena, two species confused for more than a century

FIGURE 3. Distribution of Bouteloua juncea (Desvaux ex Beauvois) Hitchcock. CU= Cuba, DR= Dominican Republic, HT= Haiti, JM= Jamaica, PR= Puerto Rico, SI= Salt Island.

FIGURE 2 in Taxonomy of Bouteloua juncea and Bouteloua triaena, two species confused for more than a century

FIGURE 2. Detail of different structures of Bouteloua juncea (Desvaux ex Beauvois) Hitchcock. A) Ligule. B) Inflorescence. C) Spikelet. D) Glumes. E) Fertile floret. F) Lema. G) Palea. H) Rudimentary floret. I) Caryopsis.

FIGURE 1 in Taxonomy of Bouteloua juncea and Bouteloua triaena, two species confused for more than a century

FIGURE 1. Bouteloua juncea (Desvaux ex Beauvois) Hitchcock. Quita Coraza, Barahona, Dominican Republic.

FIGURE 2 in Clarifying a male color morph of Sphaerodactylus macrolepis Günther, 1859 and resolving the taxonomic confusion on Saint Croix

FIGURE 2. Maximum likelihood phylogeny of Sphaerodactylus macrolepis ND2 demonstrating that field-collected "yellow/ orange head" morphs from St. Croix (AHG008, AHG013) are embedded within the S. macrolepis clade and not S. inigoi. The West clade composed of individuals from southern Culebra (Puerto Rico), St. Thomas and St. Croix (US Virgin Islands), and Jost Van Dyke and Little Thatch Islands (British Virgin Islands). The East clade is composed of individuals from Necker and Moskito Islands (British Virgin Islands). The Central clade is composed of individuals from Cooper, Salt, Beef, and Guana Islands (British Virgin Islands; Daza et al. 2019). Asterisks represent nodes with high support (>95 bootstrap value).

FIGURE 3 in Clarifying a male color morph of Sphaerodactylus macrolepis Günther, 1859 and resolving the taxonomic confusion on Saint Croix

FIGURE 3. (A) Map of eastern Puerto Rican islands and the Virgin Islands. Gray illustrates the range of Sphaerodactylus macrolepis sensu stricto (Daza et al., 2019). (B) Map of St. Croix depicting S. macrolepis and Sphaerodactylus "danforthi" samples noted by Grant and Beatty (1944; gray circles and triangles) and those collected for this study (orange squares).

FIGURE 1 in Clarifying a male color morph of Sphaerodactylus macrolepis Günther, 1859 and resolving the taxonomic confusion on Saint Croix

FIGURE 1. Variation in Sphaerodactylus macrolepis head coloration. (A) Male from Culebra, Puerto Rico exhibiting a blue head. (B) Female from St. Croix exhibiting typical background coloration on the head that matches the dorsum. (C) Male from St. Croix exhibiting an orange background color with no pattern. (D) Male from St. Croix exhibiting a bright yellow background color with vermiculate pattern. (E–F) Males from St. Croix exhibiting a dull yellow with some blue background color with vermiculate pattern.

FTGURE 4 in Taxonomy of Bouteloua juncea and Bouteloua triaena, two species confused for more than a century

FTGURE 4. Lectotype of Dinebra cristata Presl. Specimen deposited at the Herbarium of the National Museum in Prague (PR203601).

FIGURES 28–29. The living female Pimpla cyanator Morley, 1914 in Re-evaluation of the taxonomic confusion of the metallic-blue Pimpla Fabricius, 1804 (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Pimplinae) species in the Oriental region

FIGURES 28–29. The living female Pimpla cyanator Morley, 1914 found in Syueshan giant tree, Heping, Taichung City, Taiwan. 28, a living individual; 29, a living individual searching on the moss land. Photographed by Shipher Wu. Scale bars: 28, 10 mm.

FIGURES 12–17 in Re-evaluation of the taxonomic confusion of the metallic-blue Pimpla Fabricius, 1804 (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Pimplinae) species in the Oriental region

FIGURES 12–17. The female of the Taiwanese Pimpla cyanator Morley, 1914, NTM. 12, lateral habitus; 13, apex of ovipositor; 14, head in dorsal view, mesoscutum and scutellum; 15, face in anterior view; 16, propodeum in dorsal view; 17, tergites I–III in dorsal view. Photographed by Hsuan-Pu Chen. Scale bars: 12, 3 mm; 13, 0.5 mm; 14–17, 1 mm.

FIGURES 6–11 in Re-evaluation of the taxonomic confusion of the metallic-blue Pimpla Fabricius, 1804 (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Pimplinae) species in the Oriental region

FIGURES 6–11. The holotype of Coccygomimus alishanensis Kusigemati, 1984 (=Pimpla alishanensis), SEHU. 6, dorsal habitus; 7, labels; 8, face in anterior view; 9, fore coxa; 10, lateral habitus; 11, propodeum in lateral view. Photographed by Hsuan-Pu Chen. Scale bars: 3 mm.

FIGURES 18–22 in Re-evaluation of the taxonomic confusion of the metallic-blue Pimpla Fabricius, 1804 (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Pimplinae) species in the Oriental region

FIGURES 18–22. The male of the Taiwanese Pimpla cyanator Morley, 1914, TFRI. 18, lateral habitus; 19, tyloids on the male flagellomeres indicated by the white triangle; 20, face in anterior view; 21, male genitalia and hypopygium; 22, propodeum and tergite I in dorso-lateral view. Photographed by Hsuan-Pu Chen. Scale bars: 18, 3 mm; 19–21, 0.5 mm; 22, 1 mm.

FIGURES 23–27 in Re-evaluation of the taxonomic confusion of the metallic-blue Pimpla Fabricius, 1804 (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Pimplinae) species in the Oriental region

FIGURES 23–27. Variation in the Taiwanese specimens of Pimpla cyanator Morley, 1914, TFRI (23, 27), TARI (24, 26), NTM (25). 23, alcohol-treated specimen; 24, faded historical specimen; 25, female fore coxae without yellow spot; 26, female fore coxae with yellow spot indicated by the white triangle; 27, male fore coxae. Photographed by Hsuan-Pu Chen. Scale bars: 23–24, 3 mm; 25–27, 0.5 mm.