Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Mar 2021View details →

FIG 2. A in On the Supposed Presence of Miocene Tayassuidae and Dromomerycinae (Mammalia, Cetartiodactyla) in South America

FIG 2. A, Sylvochoerus woodburnei, USNM 205346, palate with complete dentition and portion of left zygomatic arch; B, USNM 513221, partial left ramus with dp3–m2. C, Tayassu pecari, USNM 38447, upper postcanine dentition (P2–M3), and D, lower left p2–m3. Arrows: 1, bunodont molar morphology described in the text. Scale bars = 1 cm.

Fig. 3 in Revalidation of Tursiops gephyreus Lahille, 1908 (Cetartiodactyla: Delphinidae) from the southwestern Atlantic Ocean

Fig. 3.—Skull illustrations of A) Tursiops truncatus (GEMARS 1495) and B) T. gephyreus (GEMARS 0333) in dorsal view, with 6 diagnostic characters (see details in "Results" section).

Fig. 2 in Revalidation of Tursiops gephyreus Lahille, 1908 (Cetartiodactyla: Delphinidae) from the southwestern Atlantic Ocean

Fig. 2.—Scatter plot for skull measurements of adult Tursiops truncatus (black circles) and T. gephyreus (open circles). Dotted line = 95% CI.

Fig. 6 in Revalidation of Tursiops gephyreus Lahille, 1908 (Cetartiodactyla: Delphinidae) from the southwestern Atlantic Ocean

Fig. 6.—Sampling localities in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean (SWA) of bottlenose dolphins analyzed in this study: A) circles with dot: Tursiops truncatus, with Algodoal and Chapadmalal as the limits based on verified records; B) open circles: Tursiops gephyreus, with Atami Beach and Union Beach as the limits of the T. gephyreus based on verified records. Star: Lectotype of T. gephyreus (MACN 54.113).

Fig. 5 in Revalidation of Tursiops gephyreus Lahille, 1908 (Cetartiodactyla: Delphinidae) from the southwestern Atlantic Ocean

Fig. 5.—Ventral view of adult bottlenose dolphins skulls: A) Tursiops aduncus (NMNH 550945), B) Tursiops truncatus (UFSC 1287), and C) Tursiops gephyreus Lectotype (MACN 54.113). Scale bars = 10 cm.

Fig. 4 in Revalidation of Tursiops gephyreus Lahille, 1908 (Cetartiodactyla: Delphinidae) from the southwestern Atlantic Ocean

Fig. 4.—Dorsal view of adult bottlenose dolphin skulls: A) Tursiops aduncus (NMNH 550945), B) Tursiops truncatus (UFSC 1287), and C) Tursiops gephyreus Lectotype (MACN 54.113). Scale bars = 10 cm.

Fig. 1 in Revalidation of Tursiops gephyreus Lahille, 1908 (Cetartiodactyla: Delphinidae) from the southwestern Atlantic Ocean

Fig. 1.—Results of the principal component analysis (PCA) for 29 measurements of Tursiops truncatus (square) and T. gephyreus (cross). The lectotype of T. gephyreus (MACN 54.113) is shown with a filled square.

Fig. 2 in Divergent evolution of mitogenomics in Cetartiodactyla niche adaptation

Fig. 2 The relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) of Babyrousa babyrussa (a), Cephalorhynchus commersonii (b), Stenella clymene (c), and Stenella frontalis (d). Codon families are plotted on the X axis

Fig. 7 in Divergent evolution of mitogenomics in Cetartiodactyla niche adaptation

Fig. 7 Comparisons of ω values among 34 Cetartiodactyla species of different niches, based on 13 protein-coding genes (PCGs) and each PCG. CL, low-altitude; CM, marine; CH, high-altitude

Fig. 8 in Divergent evolution of mitogenomics in Cetartiodactyla niche adaptation

Fig. 8 Phylogenetic independent contrast analysis between different niches and root-to-tip ω values (Log10-transformed) of 13 PCGs dataset in 34 Cetartiodactyla species

Fig. 5 in Divergent evolution of mitogenomics in Cetartiodactyla niche adaptation

Fig. 5 Estimates of divergence time of Cetartiodactyla species with three fossil calibration points inferred from an analysis of 34 complete mitogenomes

Fig. 1 in Divergent evolution of mitogenomics in Cetartiodactyla niche adaptation

Fig. 1 Gene maps of mitogenome of Babyrousa babyrussa (a), Cephalorhynchus commersonii (b), Stenella clymene (c), and Stenella frontalis (d). The genes outside the circle are transcribed clockwise, while the genes inside are transcribed counterclockwise

Fig. 6 in Divergent evolution of mitogenomics in Cetartiodactyla niche adaptation

Fig. 6 Boxplot of molecular evolution rate (ω) of ND6 gene from 34 Cetartiodactyla species mitogenomes

Figure 5. A in Enamel microstructure evolution in anthracotheres (Mammalia, Cetartiodactyla) and new insights on hippopotamoid phylogeny

Figure 5. A, Kenyapotamus coryndonae, vertical section of upper molar, showing the bent and regular Hunter– Schreger bands (HSBs) throughout the enamel thickness. B, Kenyapotamus coryndonae, horizontal section, showing the several synchronous prism undulations. C, Saotherium mingoz, inner part of enamel thickness of vertical section of upper molar, showing radial enamel with inclined prisms in regard of the enamel–dentine junction (EDJ). D, Hexaprotodon garyam, vertical section of upper molar, showing the bent and blurry HSBs and the development of inner and outer radial enamel. E, Hippopotamus amphibius, detail of the inner radial enamel, showing modified radial enamel. F, Hippopotamus antiquus, vertical section of upper molar showing the bent HSBs throughout the thick enamel.

Figure 7 in Enamel microstructure evolution in anthracotheres (Mammalia, Cetartiodactyla) and new insights on hippopotamoid phylogeny

Figure 7. The two most parsimonious informal trees inferred from the distribution of enamel microstructure characters, with the microstructure representation following the legend of Figure 8; black rectangle, apomorphy; white rectangle, convergence; grey rectangle, reversion.

Figure 2. A in Enamel microstructure evolution in anthracotheres (Mammalia, Cetartiodactyla) and new insights on hippopotamoid phylogeny

Figure 2. A, Cebochoerus robiacensis, vertical section of upper molar showing the straight and regular Hunter– Schreger bands (HSBs) throughout the enamel thickness. B, Choeropotamus sudrei, vertical section of lower molar, showing the straight and regular HSBs and the presence of a large band of radial enamel near the outer enamel surface (OES). C, Doliochoerus quercyi, vertical section of upper molar, showing similar anastomosis and bifurcation of HSBs. D, Tayassu pecari, synchronous prism undulations on horizontal section of upper molar. E, Aureliachoerus sp., vertical section of lower molar showing the straight and regular HSBs. F, Aureliachoerus sp., interprismatic matrix (IPM), forming closed coats in the inner portion of the enamel thickness. G, Aureliachoerus sp., IPM, forming inter-row sheets.

Figure 1. A in Enamel microstructure evolution in anthracotheres (Mammalia, Cetartiodactyla) and new insights on hippopotamoid phylogeny

Figure 1. A, schema of a sliced tooth portion showing the vertical (V), horizontal (H), and tangential (T) section planes in the transverse configuration of Hunter–Schreger bands (HSB); EDJ, enamel–dentine junction; OES, outer enamel surface. B, schema of a sliced tooth portion showing the vertical, horizontal, and tangential section planes in the 'slanted' HSB configuration. C, Kenyapotamus coryndonae, vertical section (SEM) of upper molar showing HSBs. D, Kenyapotamus coryndonae, horizontal section (SEM) of upper molar showing only radial enamel with synchronous prism undulation. E, Kenyapotamus coryndonae, tangential section (SEM) of upper molar showing no clearly defined HSBs, with the vertical section plane visible (white dotted line). F, Kenyapotamus coryndonae, tangential section (optical stereomicroscope) of upper molar showing HSBs perpendicular to the vertical section plane (white dotted line) and parallel with the horizontal section plane (black dotted line). G, Microbunodon minimum, vertical section (SEM) showing HSBs. H, Microbunodon minimum, horizontal section (SEM), also showing HSBs. I, Microbunodon minimum, tangential section (SEM) showing 'slanted' HSBs, which are inclined to the vertical section plane (black dotted line) rather than perpendicular.

Figure 4. A in Enamel microstructure evolution in anthracotheres (Mammalia, Cetartiodactyla) and new insights on hippopotamoid phylogeny

Figure 4. A, Elomeryx borbonicus, vertical section of upper molar, showing the bent Hunter–Schreger bands (HSBs). B, Brachyodus onoideus, vertical section of upper molar, showing the bent and regular HSBs. C, Brachyodus onoideus, detail of the interprismatic matrix (IPM) in closed coats then in inter-row sheets near the EDJ. D, Merycopotamus medioximus, vertical section of upper molar showing the bent and blurry HSBs and the thick radial enamel of the outer third of the enamel thickness. E, Sivameryx palaeindicus, vertical section of lower molar showing the lack of HSBs, the inclination of prisms and the IPM in inter-row sheets near the enamel–dentine junction (EDJ). F, Merycopotamus nanus, IPM forming inter-row sheet on the horizontal section of upper molar. G, Libycosaurus bahri, vertical section of upper molar, showing the lack of HSBs and the inclination of prisms at the EDJ.

opennotspecifiedJul 2015View details →

Figure 1 in Molecular taxonomy and population structure of the rough-toothed dolphin Steno bredanensis (Cetartiodactyla: Delphinidae)

Figure 1. Sampling of Steno bredanensis for this study. Black circles, new control region sequences; white circles, sequences available in GenBank. The inset shows sampling localities in the South Western Atlantic (SW Atl). CS Pac, central southern Pacific; ET Pac, eastern tropical Pacific; Car, Caribbean; NW Pac, northwestern Pacific; Ind, Indian Ocean; CE, Ceará State; ES, Espírito Santo State; RJ, Rio de Janeiro State; RS, Rio Grande do Sul State; SC, Santa Catarina State.