Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Jul 2021View details →

Human data - Functionally homologous representation of vocalizations in the auditory cortex ofhumans and macaques

<p>Human dataset used in the article Bodin et al., Functionally homologous representation of vocalizations in the auditory cortex of humans and macaques, Current Biology (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.08.043</p>

opencc-by-4.0Jul 2021View details →

Macaque data - Functionally homologous representation of vocalizations in the auditory cortex ofhumans and macaques

<p>Macaque dataset used in the article Bodin et al., Functionally homologous representation of vocalizations in the auditory cortex of humans and macaques, Current Biology (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.08.043</p>

opennotspecifiedApr 2015View details →

Figure 16 in The prickly blade mapped: establishing homologies and a chaetotaxy for macrosetae of penis ventral plate in Gonyleptoidea (Arachnida, Opiliones, Laniatores)

Figure 16. Cladogram depicting proposed phylogenetic relationships for Gonyleptoidea. This is the strict consensus of the 4th analysis (under equal weights). Colour code for branches represent the families and are the same as in Figure 15. Three relevant clades not recovered under equal weights are Gonyleptoidea, Me/Co and GG (see Discussion for details).

opennotspecifiedApr 2015View details →

Figure 11 in The prickly blade mapped: establishing homologies and a chaetotaxy for macrosetae of penis ventral plate in Gonyleptoidea (Arachnida, Opiliones, Laniatores)

Figure 11. Distal part of penis, dorsal, lateral and ventral views, showing patterns of macrosetae in Cranaidae 2: A–C, Phareicranaus circumlineatus; D–F, Zamora granulata.

opennotspecifiedJul 2012View details →

Figures 1–2. Abdominal spine homology and measurements taken for this study. Fig. 1 in Phylogenetic analysis of Micrathena and Chaetacis spiders (Araneae: Araneidae) reveals multiple origins of extreme sexual size dimorphism and long abdominal spines

Figures 1–2. Abdominal spine homology and measurements taken for this study. Fig. 1. Chaetacis bandeirante, female habitus, dorsal. Arrows indicate primary apodemes. Fig. 2. Chaetacis bandeirante, female habitus, lateral. Abbreviations: AS, anterior spine; AW, abdomen width; CL, carapace length; CW, carapace width; ES, eye interdistance; FL, femur length; FSL, first posterior spine length; LS1, first lateral spine; LS2, second lateral spine; LS3, third lateral spine; PS1, first posterior spine; PS2, second posterior spine; PS3, third posterior spine; RW, rim width; SCL, spinneret cone length. Scale bars = 1 mm.

Figure 6 in Tooth morphology of Echimyidae (Rodentia, Caviomorpha): homology assessments, fossils, and evolution

Figure 6. Homologies proposed for most anterior lophids of penta- and tetralophodont lower molars; A-C, sensu Patterson & Wood (1982) and Carvalho & Salles (2004); A, penta-; B, tetra- (Pattern I); and C, tetralophodont (Pattern II) lower molars; D-F, according to this study; D, penta-; E, tetra- (Pattern I); and F, tetralophodont (Pattern II) lower molars.

Figure 2 in Tooth morphology of Echimyidae (Rodentia, Caviomorpha): homology assessments, fossils, and evolution

Figure 2. Pentalophodont dp4 in occlusal view of living echimyids. A, Mesomys hispidus (MN 27956); B, Lonchothrix emiliae (MN 4856, reversed); C, Echimys chrysurus (MACN 31161); D, Myocastor coypus (MPS-Z060). Not to scale.

Figure 1 in Tooth morphology of Echimyidae (Rodentia, Caviomorpha): homology assessments, fossils, and evolution

Figure 1. Primary homology hypotheses for the lophids of pentalophodont deciduous teeth (dp4) in caviomorphs. A, as proposed by Patterson & Wood (1982) and Carvalho & Salles, (2004); B, as proposed by Candela (2002).

Figure 9. A, strict consensus from 50 MPTs obtained from Analysis I in Tooth morphology of Echimyidae (Rodentia, Caviomorpha): homology assessments, fossils, and evolution

Figure 9. A, strict consensus from 50 MPTs obtained from Analysis I; B, strict consensus from 9 MPTs obtained from Analysis II. Only unambiguous synapomorphies are shown.

Figure 3 in Tooth morphology of Echimyidae (Rodentia, Caviomorpha): homology assessments, fossils, and evolution

Figure 3. Pentalophodont dp4 in occlusal view of extinct octodontoids. A, Plasiacarechimys koenigswaldi (MLP 91-V-1-19); B, Acarechimys constans (type specimen MLP 15-391); C, Protacaremys sp. (MLP 85-VII-131, from Candela, 2002, fig. 7A); D, Paramyocastor diligens (=Isomyopotamus albañiri, holotype MLP 46-V-13-104). A, B, and D: reversed. Not to scale.

Figure 5 in Tooth morphology of Echimyidae (Rodentia, Caviomorpha): homology assessments, fossils, and evolution

Figure 5. Tetralophodont dp4 in living and extinct Echimyidae. A, Thrichomys apereoides, (MACN 20.61); B, Kannabateomys amblyonyx (MACN 51.47); C, Eumysops sp. (MLP 91-IV-6-5, reversed); D, Trinomys gratiosus bonafidei (from Carvalho & Salles, 2004: fig. 6); E, Euryzygomatomys spinosus (MACN 23.656); F, Theridomysops parvulus (type specimen MACN 8379). Not to scale.

Figure 4 in Tooth morphology of Echimyidae (Rodentia, Caviomorpha): homology assessments, fossils, and evolution

Figure 4. Homologies proposed for most anterior lophids of penta- and tetralophodont dp4. A-C, sensu Patterson & Wood (1982) and Carvalho & Salles (2004); A, penta-; B, tetra- (Pattern I); and C, tetralophodont (Pattern II) dp4; D-F, according to this study; D, penta-; E, tetra-(Pattern I); and F, tetralophodont (Pattern II) dp4.

Figure 10 in Tooth morphology of Echimyidae (Rodentia, Caviomorpha): homology assessments, fossils, and evolution

Figure 10. Common mapping of characters 1-5 (A) and 13-14 (B) on the strict consensus obtained from Analysis II, showing evolution of dp4 (A), and lower molar (B) patterns.

Figure 7 in Tooth morphology of Echimyidae (Rodentia, Caviomorpha): homology assessments, fossils, and evolution

Figure 7. Lower cheek teeth of living and extinct echimyids. A, Paramyocastor diligens (=Isomyopotamus albañiri, holotype MLP 46-V-13-104, dp4-m3); B, Tramyocastor andiai (type specimen PVR 1134, m2-3); C, Myocastor coypus (MPS-Z060); D, Proechimys sp. (MACN 50.382); E, Lonchothrix emiliae (MN 4856, reversed); F, Eumysops sp. (MLP 91-IV-6-5, reversed); G, Thrichomys apereoides (MACN 20.61); H, Kannabateomys amblyonyx (MACN 51.47); I, Echimys chrysurus (MACN 31161). Not to scale.

Figure 8 in Tooth morphology of Echimyidae (Rodentia, Caviomorpha): homology assessments, fossils, and evolution

Figure 8. Lower cheek teeth of extinct octodontoids. A, Plesiacarechimys koenigswaldi (MLP 91-V-1-22, left m1-3 series); B, Galileomys antelucanus (m1 or 2, from Vucetich & Kramarz, 2003); C, Willidewu esteparius (type specimen MLP 88-V-30-1, m2-3). Not to scale.

Fig.11 in A general theory of genital homologies for the Hexapoda (Pancrustacea) derived from skeletomuscular correspondences, with emphasis on the Endopterygota

Fig.11. Genital exoskeleton of Nannochorista andina (Mecoptera:Nannochoristidae); for musculature, refer to Mickoleit (2008) and see Fig. 1. A, genital appendages, dorsal view.B, genital appendages, ventral view.C, D, right coxopod and sperm pumping complex, dorsolateral oblique.EeI, sperm pumping complex:E, posterior view; F, dorsolateral oblique; G, lateral view; H, ventral view; I, ventrolateral oblique.Abbreviations: aed. apod. ¼ aedeagal apodem; CxaI ¼ gonocoxa or first gonocoxites;kam. ¼ kammersklerit; Lpe ¼ lateropenite; Pen ¼ penial sclerite; Sty ¼ gonostylus; teg. ¼ tegimen. Note: Roman numerals indicate sclerite number; addition signs indicate sclerite fusion; italicized abbreviations indicate formal names for sclerites.

Fig. 6 in A general theory of genital homologies for the Hexapoda (Pancrustacea) derived from skeletomuscular correspondences, with emphasis on the Endopterygota

Fig. 6. Genital skeletomusculature of?Dendroleon sp. (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae). AeC, genitalia in situ: A, dorsal; B, lateral; C, ventral. D, E, right coxopod and peniallateropenital complex, posterolateral oblique, E with lateropenites partially removed. F, part of penial-lateropenital complex, mesal (internal). G, right coxopod, mesal. H, genitalia with left coxopod removed, mesal; I, disarticulated right coxopod and penial-lateropenital complex, mesal. Abbreviations: An ¼ anus; Cxt þ Sty ¼ coxostylar composite sclerite; Lpe ¼ lateropenite; Lpedmp ¼ lateropenital dorsomedian process; Lpevll ¼ lateropenital ventrolateral lobe; Pen ¼ penial sclerite; Prct ¼ proctiger; StIX ¼ sternum IX; Sty ¼ gonostylus; TgIX þ Cxa ¼ tergocoxal composite. Muscle abbreviations indicated in Table 1.

Fig. 3 in A general theory of genital homologies for the Hexapoda (Pancrustacea) derived from skeletomuscular correspondences, with emphasis on the Endopterygota

Fig. 3. Genital skeletomusculature of Agulla sp. (Raphidioptera: Raphidiidae). AeE, segment IX, genital appendages, and proctiger: A, lateral; B, ventral; C, distal; D, tergum removed,lateral oblique; E, left half removed and proctiger partially removed, mesal. F, coxopod piece, lateral oblique. GeI, right coxopod and sternum part, mesal. Abbreviations: An ¼ anus; Cxa ¼ gonocoxa; Cxaapd ¼ coxal apodeme; Lpe ¼ lateropenite; Pen ¼ penis; Penscl ¼ penial sclerite; Prct ¼ proctiger; StIX ¼ sternum IX; Sty ¼ stylus; Styapd ¼ stylar apodeme; Stycnd ¼ stylar condyle; TgIX ¼ tergum IX. Muscle abbreviations indicated in Table 1.

Fig.14 in A general theory of genital homologies for the Hexapoda (Pancrustacea) derived from skeletomuscular correspondences, with emphasis on the Endopterygota

Fig.14. Genital sclerites of Hystrichopsylla talpae (Siphonaptera:Hystrichopsyllidae), after Günther (1961); for musculature, see Fig.1. A, genital appendages, sternum IX, tergum IX, and proctiger. B, genital appendages, excluding tergal-coxital composite. Abbreviations: aed.apod. ¼ aedeagal apodem; aedt. ¼ aedeagaltasche; bulb.¼ bulbalis; Dstarm ¼ distal arm of sternum IX; Endph ¼ endophallus; endot.¼ endotendons; Cxa ¼ gonocoxa; Cxt ¼ gonocoxite; ham. ¼ hamulus; hypot.¼ hypotendon; inn. tub. ¼ innere tube; Llat ¼ lateral lamina of aedeagal apodem; Lmed ¼ medial lamina of aedeagal apodem; Lpe ¼ lateropenite; lun. skl. ¼ lunarsklerit; param. ¼ paramere; Pen ¼ penial sclerite; Prct ¼ proctiger; Prxarm ¼ proximal arm of coxosternum IX; StIX ¼ sternum IX; Sty ¼ gonostylus; TgIX ¼ tergum IX; virg. vent. ¼ virga ventralis; Y-skl. ¼ Y-sklerit. Note: Fragment numbers of gonocoxites and penites indicated with Roman numerals; addition signs indicate sclerite fusion.

Fig. 2 in A general theory of genital homologies for the Hexapoda (Pancrustacea) derived from skeletomuscular correspondences, with emphasis on the Endopterygota

Fig. 2. Genital skeletomusculature of Cimbex rubidus (Hymenoptera: Cimbicidae). A, tergite IX and proctiger. BeE, genital capsule: B, dorsal; C, ventral; D, lateral; E, cupula removed, lateral. FeG, right coxopod and penial sclerite: F, mesal; G, penial conjunctiva and musculature partially removed, mesal. H, right gonopod, penial musculature removed, mesal. I, volsella, mesal (dorsal). Abbreviations: An ¼ anus; Ce ¼ cercus; Cxa ¼ "basimere" (major part gonocoxa); CxtII ¼ "parossiculus" (minor part of second gonocoxital fragment); Lpe ¼ lateropenite; Lpesut ¼ lateropinial suture with ventromedial gonocoxite; Pen ¼ penis or penial sclerite; Penapd ¼ penial apodeme ("valvura"); Prct ¼ proctiger; StIX ¼ sternum IX; Sty ¼ stylus; TgIX' ¼ tergite IX; TgIX'þCxtI ¼ "cupula" (composite sclerite of tergite IX plus basal/anterior fragment of gonocoxite). Muscle abbreviations indicated in Table 1.