Find research datasets worth reusing

FIG. 7 in A New Species of Marmosops (Marsupialia: Didelphidae) from the Pakaraima Highlands of Guyana, with Remarks on the Origin of the Endemic Pantepui Mammal Fauna

FIG. 7. Forest vegetation at three Guyanese capture sites of Marmosops pakaraimae. Top, Mount Roraima, Third Camp (1000 m); bottom left, Mount Roraima, Second Camp (800 m); bottom right, Mount Ayanganna, First Plateau Camp (1100 m). Photos by Francis X. Faigal (Royal Ontario Museum).

FIG. 2 in A New Species of Marmosops (Marsupialia: Didelphidae) from the Pakaraima Highlands of Guyana, with Remarks on the Origin of the Endemic Pantepui Mammal Fauna

FIG. 2. Dorsal views of skins. Left to right: Marmosops pakaraimae (ROM 115129, holotype), M. parvidens (ROM 114144), M. pinheiroi (ROM 111558). Approximately life size.

FIG. 8 in A New Species of Marmosops (Marsupialia: Didelphidae) from the Pakaraima Highlands of Guyana, with Remarks on the Origin of the Endemic Pantepui Mammal Fauna

FIG. 8. Bayesian phylogeny of ingroup terminals (maximum-likelihood and parsimony analyses resulted in congruent topologies). Pie diagrams at internal nodes represent support from BI, ML, and MP analyses, with filled wedges corresponding to high support (posterior probabilities ≥ 0.95, bootstrap ≥ 0.75%). Each terminal is identified by country of origin and an alphanumeric specimen identifier (from tables 2 or 3). Numbers in parentheses refer to localities mapped in figure 1 and listed in the gazetteer (appendix).

FIG. 1 in A New Species of Marmosops (Marsupialia: Didelphidae) from the Pakaraima Highlands of Guyana, with Remarks on the Origin of the Endemic Pantepui Mammal Fauna

FIG. 1. Collecting localities of examined specimens of Marmosops pakaraimae, M. parvidens, and M. pinheiroi. Numbers are keyed to entries in the gazetteer (appendix).

FIG. 5 in A New Species of Marmosops (Marsupialia: Didelphidae) from the Pakaraima Highlands of Guyana, with Remarks on the Origin of the Endemic Pantepui Mammal Fauna

FIG. 5. Ventral views of skulls. Left to right: Marmosops pakaraimae (ROM 115129, holotype), M. parvidens (AMNH 267359), and M. pinheiroi (AMNH 267345). All views about ×3.

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2010View details →

Fig. 1 in Molecular Systematics of Mouse Opossums (Didelphidae: Marmosa): Assessing Species Limits using Mitochondrial DNA Sequences, with Comments on Phylogenetic Relationships and Biogeography

Fig. 1. Provenance of sequenced specimens of Marmosa (localities of sequenced outgroup specimens are not shown). Numbers refer to entries in the Gazetteer (appendix).

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2010View details →

Fig. 3 in Molecular Systematics of Mouse Opossums (Didelphidae: Marmosa): Assessing Species Limits using Mitochondrial DNA Sequences, with Comments on Phylogenetic Relationships and Biogeography

Fig. 3. The maximum-likelihood tree inferred from the best-fit model of nucleotide substitution (table 4). ML bootstrap support values and Bayesian posterior probabilities are indicated above and below branches, respectively. Branch and terminal labels follow the same conventions explained in the caption to figure 2.

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2010View details →

Fig. 2 in Molecular Systematics of Mouse Opossums (Didelphidae: Marmosa): Assessing Species Limits using Mitochondrial DNA Sequences, with Comments on Phylogenetic Relationships and Biogeography

Fig. 2. Strict consensus of 96 equally most-parsimonious trees (L 5 2198; CI 5 0.36; RI 5 0.80). Bootstrap support values are indicated above branches subtending species and conspecific haplogroups discussed in the text. For each terminal, country of origin, next-largest political unit (state, department, province, etc.), and an alphanumeric specimen identifier (from table 2) are provided. Numbers in parentheses refer to localities mapped in figure 1 and listed in the Gazetteer (appendix).

Fig. 4 in On the Relationships of ''Marmosa'' formosa Shamel, 1930 (Marsupialia: Didelphidae), a Phylogenetic Puzzle from the Chaco of Northern Argentina

Fig. 4. Strict consensus of 18 equally mostparsimonious trees obtained by a heuristic analysis of the combined (nonmolecular + IRBP) dataset. Only ingroup (didelphine) terminal taxa are illustrated; ''caluromyine'' outgroups (Glironia venusta, Caluromysiops irrupta, Caluromys lanatus, and C. philan der) are not shown. Bremer support and bootstrap values are shown above and below each branch, respectively. See table 2 for other tree statistics. Labelled clades (C, F, G, H, I) are defined and discussed in the text.

Fig. 1 in On the Relationships of ''Marmosa'' formosa Shamel, 1930 (Marsupialia: Didelphidae), a Phylogenetic Puzzle from the Chaco of Northern Argentina

Fig. 1. Dorsal and ventral views of the skin of the holotype of Chacodelphys formosa (Shamel), both approximately life size.

Fig. 3 in On the Relationships of ''Marmosa'' formosa Shamel, 1930 (Marsupialia: Didelphidae), a Phylogenetic Puzzle from the Chaco of Northern Argentina

Fig. 3. Strict consensus of four equally mostparsimonious trees obtained by a heuristic analysis of nonmolecular characters. Only ingroup (didelphine) terminal taxa are illustrated; ''caluromyine'' outgroups (Glironia venusta, Caluromysiops irrupta, Caluromys lanatus, and C. philander) are not shown. Bremer support and bootstrap values are shown above and below each branch, respectively. See table 2 for other tree statistics.

Fig. 6 in On the Relationships of ''Marmosa'' formosa Shamel, 1930 (Marsupialia: Didelphidae), a Phylogenetic Puzzle from the Chaco of Northern Argentina

Fig. 6. The savannawoodland border at Linda Vista near the Riacho Pilaga´, Provincia Formosa, Argentina, type locality of Chacodelphys formosa. Photographed by Alexander Wetmore in August 1920 (courtesy of the Smithsonian Institution Archives).

Fig. 2 in On the Relationships of ''Marmosa'' formosa Shamel, 1930 (Marsupialia: Didelphidae), a Phylogenetic Puzzle from the Chaco of Northern Argentina

Fig. 2. Dorsal, ventral, and lateral views of the skull of Chacodelphys formosa (Shamel), all approximately four times life size.

Fig. 5 in On the Relationships of ''Marmosa'' formosa Shamel, 1930 (Marsupialia: Didelphidae), a Phylogenetic Puzzle from the Chaco of Northern Argentina

Fig. 5. Strict consensus of all MPTs recovered from heuristic analyses of 100 simulated datasets in which the missing molecular data for Chacodelphys formosa were replaced by random nucleotide sequences (see text). ''Caluromyine'' outgroups (Glironia venusta, Caluromysiops irrupta, Caluromys lanatus, and C. philander) are not shown. Labelled clades (F, I) are defined and discussed in the text.

opencc-by-4.0Feb 2020View details →

FIG. 1 in DNA Sequence Data from the Holotype of Marmosa elegans coquimbensis Tate, 1931 (Mammalia: Didelphidae) Resolve Its Disputed Relationships

FIG. 1. Bayesian phylogenetic tree of Thylamys cytochrome b sequences. Numbers at nodes indicate posterior probabilities (PP). Filled circles at nodes denote PPs equal to 1.0. Unmarked nodes received PPs less than 0.5. Within T. elegans, tips are labeled with country, region, specimen identifier, and, in parentheses, a GenBank accession number. The holotype of Marmosa elegans coquimbensis Tate, 1931, is in boldface type. For other species, tips of the phylogeny are collapsed and the outgroup is not shown. See appendix 1 for a full list of sequences included in the phylogeny. A full tree file corresponding to this topology is available on TreeBase (doi: http://purl.org/phylo/treebase/phylows/study/TB2:S25505).

FIG. 21 in A Revision of Philander (Marsupialia: Didelphidae), Part 1: P. quica, P. canus, and a New Species from Amazonia

FIG. 21. Projections of specimen scores on the first two principal components (A) and on factors representing general size and size-invariant shape differences (B) from analyses of craniodental measurements of Philander canus (open triangles) and P. pebas (filled triangles). The coefficients of these axes are provided in table 13.

FIG. 22 in A Revision of Philander (Marsupialia: Didelphidae), Part 1: P. quica, P. canus, and a New Species from Amazonia

FIG. 22. Collecting specimens for this study (Philander pallidus, trapped at Lamanai Outpost Lodge, Orange Walk, Belize; 2012).

FIG. 20. Lower molar differences between Philander pebas and P in A Revision of Philander (Marsupialia: Didelphidae), Part 1: P. quica, P. canus, and a New Species from Amazonia

FIG. 20. Lower molar differences between Philander pebas and P. canus (see text for explanation). A, Labial view of right m1–m3 of P. pebas (MVZ 190343, holotype); B, labial view of right m1–m3 of P. canus (AMNH 210413). Abbreviations: pcid, postcingulid.

FIG. 18 in A Revision of Philander (Marsupialia: Didelphidae), Part 1: P. quica, P. canus, and a New Species from Amazonia

FIG. 18. Dorsal view of the rostrum in Philander canus (A, AMNH 133096) and P. opossum (B, AMNH 96608), illustrating differences in nasal morphology.

FIG. 14 in A Revision of Philander (Marsupialia: Didelphidae), Part 1: P. quica, P. canus, and a New Species from Amazonia

FIG. 14. Lateral view of P2–M1 of Philander canus (A, AMNH 210409) and P. quica (B, MVZ 182066). Whereas P3 has a complete labial cingulum that extends along the entire base of the tooth in P. canus, the labial cingulum of P3 is incomplete (extending only along the posterior part of that tooth) in P. quica.