Find research datasets worth reusing

Figure 11 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figure 11. Cladogram resulting from primary analysis: section 11 (of 13), the basal members of the Polysphincta genuscomplex. Note the most basal position of Piogaster and the division of the remaining genera into two monophyletic clades, one comprising Dreisbachia, Schizopyga and Zabrachypus, the other Polysphincta plus the remaining genera. In the first clade Zabrachypus and Schizopyga are monophyletic but Dreisbachia is paraphyletic with respect to them. In the second clade, Oxyrrhexis is paraphyletic.

Figure 12 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figure 12. Cladogram resulting from primary analysis: section 12 (of 13), the more derived members of the Polysphincta genus-complex. Note that Eriostethus + Zatypota form a well-defined monophyletic group with each genus monophyletic, and Hymenoepimecis + Acrotaphus is also a well-defined clade with each genus monophyletic. However, Polysphincta is polyphyletic (see also Figs 11, 13).

Figure 9 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figure 9. Cladogram resulting from primary analysis: section 9 (of 13), the more derived members of the Ephialtes genusgroup. Whilst most genera (Townesia, Ephialtes, Liotryphon, Pimplaetus, Leptopimpla Calliephialtes, Umanella, Xanthephialtes and Anastelgis) are monophyletic, Dolichomitus is polyphyletic.

Figures 83–86 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figures 83–86. Head, lateral; 83, Delomerista mandibularis; 84, Apechthis compunctor; 85, Acrotaphus tibialis; 86, Acrodactyla madida.

Figure 21 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figure 21. Cladogram resulting from secondary analysis: section 8 (of 9), the basal members of the Sericopimpla genusgroup. The topology of this cladogram is the same as that obtained in the primary analysis, and the monophyly of Gregopimpla not established with respect to Iseropus.

Figures 59–64 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figures 59–64. Stereoscan photographs of Pimplinae. Figs 59–63, propodeum, lateral; 59, Zaglyptus simonis; 60, Echthromorpha atrata; 61, Pimpla sumichrasti; 62, Xanthopimpla aurita; 63, Lissopimpla excelsa. Fig. 64, Pimpla azteca, denticles on dorsal rim of propodeal insertion.

Figures 98–101 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figures 98–101. Posterior end of metasoma of male, showing position and shape of tergites VII−IX and gonosquama, slightly diagrammatic; 98, Rhyssa persuasoria; 99, Dolichomitus irritator; 100, Xanthopimpla aurita; 101, Pimpla sumichrasti. The condition in outgroups, and thus the presumed plesiomorphic condition in pimplines is shown in the first two figures. Tergites VIII and IX are fused in the subsequent two, and the gonosquama show progressive retraction into the posterior end of the metasoma.

Figure 7 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figure 7. Cladogram resulting from primary analysis: section 7 (of 13), the Camptotypus genus-group. Note that Odontopimpla, Clydonium, Camptotypus and Parvipimpla are demonstrably monophyletic, but Zonopimpla is paraphyletic. The recognition of 'Hemipimpla' as a distinct genus (for C. pulchripennis) would render the residual Camptotypus paraphyletic.

Figure 8 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figure 8. Cladogram resulting from primary analysis: section 8 (of 13), the basal members of the Ephialtes genus-group. Note that most genera (Acropimpla, Scambus, Exeristes, Xanthophenax Flavopimpla and Paraperithous were retrieved as monophyletic groups. The recognition of Fredegunda renders Endromopoda paraphyletic.

Figure 6 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figure 6. Cladogram resulting from primary analysis: section 6 (of 13), the basal Ephialtini. Note the basal position of the Pseudopimpla and Alophosternum genus-groups with respect to the three more derived genus-groups.

Figure 2 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figure 2. Cladogram resulting from primary analysis: section 2 (of 13), Delomeristini. Note that each of the three genera, Atractogaster, Delomerista and Perithous is strongly monophyletic.

Figure 4 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figure 4. Cladogram resulting from primary analysis: section 4 (of 13), the higher Pimplini. Note the strongly monophyletic nature of the Xanthopimpla and Pimpla genus-groups, and of the two genera, Lissopimpla and Xanthopimpla, comprising the former group.

Figure 1 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figure 1. Cladogram resulting from primary analysis: section 1 (of 13), outgroups and tribes of Pimplini, showing characters supporting both the monophyly of the subfamily and the several tribes. Autapomorphies are represented by black rectangles, postulated parallelisms by stippled rectangles, and reversals by white rectangles. This convention is adopted in all subsequent cladograms.

Figure 3 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figure 3. Cladogram resulting from primary analysis: section 3 (of 13), the basal Pimplini (the Theronia genus-group). Note that the Theronia group is paraphyletic with respect to the Pimpla and Xanthopimpla genus-groups, and that the more restricted genera, Theronia and Neotheronia, are polyphyletic.

Figure 7 in Phylogenetic biome conservatism as a key concept for an integrative understanding of evolutionary history: Galliformes and Falconiformes as study cases

Figure 7. Biome transitions in Falconiformes. The number of recent species is indicated inside the circles. Arrow thickness is proportional to the number of colonizations. The dashed lines indicate only one colonization event. The number of transitions that did not imply colonization (niche conservatism) is indicated as different areas of the circles, classified in four categories. For more details about absolute scores, see Table 3.

Figure 5 in Phylogenetic biome conservatism as a key concept for an integrative understanding of evolutionary history: Galliformes and Falconiformes as study cases

Figure 5. Ancestral biome reconstruction for Falconiformes. Coloured circles represent the ten different biomes implemented in the model (Walter, 1970; Hernández Fernández, 2001); those at the nodes represent the inferred ancestral biome(s); those at the tips correspond to the recent biome distribution of species. Along the time scale, geological and climatic histories are shown, in addition to intercontinental biotic interchanges. Abbreviations: Af, Africa; Au, Australia; EAs, Eurasia; LB, land bridge; NA, North America; SA, South America.

Figure 6 in Phylogenetic biome conservatism as a key concept for an integrative understanding of evolutionary history: Galliformes and Falconiformes as study cases

Figure 6. Colonization dynamics of Falconiformes. Each graph represents the rate of colonization by new lineages for each biome throughout the Cenozoic.

Figure 4 in Phylogenetic biome conservatism as a key concept for an integrative understanding of evolutionary history: Galliformes and Falconiformes as study cases

Figure 4. Biome transitions in Galliformes. The number of recent species is indicated inside the circles. Arrow thickness is proportional to the number of colonizations. The dashed lines indicate only one colonization event. The number of transitions that did not imply colonization (niche conservatism) is indicated as different areas of the circles, classified in five categories. For more details about absolute scores, see Table 2.

Figure 2 in Phylogenetic biome conservatism as a key concept for an integrative understanding of evolutionary history: Galliformes and Falconiformes as study cases

Figure 2. Ancestral biome reconstruction for Galliformes. Coloured circles represent the ten different biomes implemented in the model (Walter, 1970; Hernández Fernández, 2001); those at the nodes represent the inferred ancestral biome(s) occupancy; those at the tips correspond to the recent biome distribution of species. Along the time scale, geological and climatic histories are shown, in addition to intercontinental biotic interchanges. Abbreviations: Af, Africa; Au, Australia; EAs, Eurasia; LB, land bridge; NA, North America; SA, South America.

Figure 3 in Phylogenetic biome conservatism as a key concept for an integrative understanding of evolutionary history: Galliformes and Falconiformes as study cases

Figure 3. Colonization dynamics of Galliformes. Each graph represents the rate of colonization by new lineages for each biome throughout the Cenozoic.