Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Aug 2021View details →

Fig. 10 in Anatomical Study of the Right Forearm and Hand of One Western Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) for Comparison with Humans with Respect to Motions of the Thumb and Fingers

Fig. 10. The insertions of the first dorsal interosseous muscle. A. The distal portion of the 1st DI muscle is voluminously muscular and passes into the tendinous portion of the interosseous hood at the level of the proximal portion of the proximal phalanx; B. The tendinous insertion to the proximal phalanx base is exposed by reflect- ing the extensor apparatus. The tendon has been divided to explore the deeper structure and then re-sutured.

Fig. 2 in Ecological drivers of helminth infection patterns in the Virunga Massif mountain gorilla population

Fig. 2. Principal component analysis output showing associations between variables and the first two principal components PC1 and PC2. Each variable contribution to principal components and its quality are represented by length of vector and its color, respectively. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 1 in Ecological drivers of helminth infection patterns in the Virunga Massif mountain gorilla population

Fig. 1. Location of study gorilla groups during the Virunga Massif 2015–2016 surveys (Hickey et al., 2019) expressed as centroids of their 500-m buffered minimum-convex polygon. Vegetation data were adopted according to WWF-Germany and IGCP 2017; boundaries of protected areas were derived from ProtectedP lanet.net database. Map was created using ArcGIS Desktop 10.8 (ESRI, 2020. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.8. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute; esri.com).

Fig. 4. Predicted lines from a in Ecological drivers of helminth infection patterns in the Virunga Massif mountain gorilla population

Fig. 4. Predicted lines from a generalized linear mixed model for significant effects of (a) the second principal component (PC2), (b) interaction between the first principal component (PC1) and MCP = area of 500-m buffered minimum convex polygon of detected nest sites per gorilla group, (see Minimum convex polygon calculation and Statistical analyses for details) and (c) interaction between monitoring (habituation) status and MCP on tapeworm infection (egg counts per gram in fecal sample). Principal components were computed from 10 correlated environmental variables (see Material and methods for details).

Fig. 3. Predicted lines from a in Ecological drivers of helminth infection patterns in the Virunga Massif mountain gorilla population

Fig. 3. Predicted lines from a generalized linear mixed model for significant effects of (a) the first (PC1) and (b) second principal component (PC2), (c) Density = mean relative density of gorillas per MCP and (d) MCP = area of 500-m buffered minimum convex polygon of detected nest sites per gorilla group, (see Minimum convex polygon calculation and Statistical analyses for details) on strongylid infection (egg counts per gram in fecal sample). Principal components were computed from 10 correlated environmental variables (see Material and methods for details).

Fig. 26 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 26. Percentage distribution of Cross River gorilla nests grouped at 1 meter height intervals and compared to nest height distributions reported for other gorilla populations. Although eastern gorillas are reputed to be more terrestrial than western gorillas, there does not seem to be a direct relationship between arboreal behavior and the percentage distribution of nest heights. Western gorillas build nests

Fig. 24 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 24. Plot of bimastoid diameter vs. basioninion length in Cross River gorillas and in nonCross River western gorillas. G. g. gorilla, slope = 0.669, y' = –80.15, adjusted R2 = 0.60, G. g. diehli, slope =1.079, y' = –53.05, adjusted R2 = 0.76.

Fig. 23 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 23. Plot of cheek tooth row length vs. incisor row length in Cross River gorillas and in non CrossRiver western gorillas. G. g. gorilla, slope = 0.858, y' = –30.69, Adjusted. R2 = 0.51, G. g. diehli, slope =0.790, y' = –31.90, adjusted R2 = 0.47.

Fig. 21 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 21. Plot of lower limb length vs. foot outlever length in Cross River gorillas and in nonCross River western gorillas. Least square regression of the nonCrossRiver gorilla datum points fits a line with a slope = 2.617, y' = 121.97, adjusted R2= 0.82.

Fig. 19 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 19. Plot of 1st pedal ray length vs. foot length in Cross River gorillas and in nonCrossRiver western gorillas. Least square regression of the nonCrossRiver gorilla datum points fits a line with a slope = 0.366, y' = 1.025, adjusted R2= 0.89.

Fig. 18 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 18. Plot of upper limb length vs. 3rd manual ray length in Cross River gorillas and in nonCross River western gorillas. Least square regression of the nonCrossRiver gorilla datum points fits a line with a slope = 3.799, y'= 3.630, adjusted R2 = 0.79.

Fig. 17 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 17. Plot of 3rd manual ray length vs. length of 5th manual ray in Cross River gorillas and in nonCrossRiver western gorillas. Least square regression of nonCrossriver gorillas datum points fits a line with a slope = 0.9789, y' = 33.78, adjusted R2= 0.91.

Fig. 20 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 20. Plot of lower limb length vs. foot length in Cross River gorillas and in nonCrossRiver western gorillas. Least square regression of the nonCrossRiver gorilla datum points fits a line with a slope = 2.286, y' =53.48, adjusted R2 = 0.91.

Fig. 14 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 14. Plot of upper limb length vs. lower limb length in Cross River gorillas and in nonCross River western gorillas. Least square regression of the nonCrossRiver gorilla datum points fits a line with a slope = 1.109, y' = 35.65, adjusted R2= 0.95.

Fig. 16 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 16. Plot of 1st manual ray length vs. 2nd manual ray length in Cross River gorillas and in non CrossRiver western gorillas. Least square regression of the nonCrossRiver gorilla datum points fits a line with a slope = 0.4635, y' = –5.477, adjusted R2= 0.84.

Fig. 13 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 13. Plot of femoral length vs. length of tibia in Cross River gorillas and in nonCrossRiver western gorillas. Least square regression of the nonCrossRiver gorilla datum points fits a line with a slope = 1.082, y' =33.83, adjusted R2= 0.89.

Fig. 11 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 11. Plot of humeral length vs. length of radius in Cross River gorillas and in nonCrossRiver western gorillas. Least square regression of the nonCrossRiver gorilla datum points fits a line with a slope = 1.131, y' =35.07, adjusted R2= 0.95.

Fig. 12 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 12. Plot of humeral length vs. length of os coxa in Cross River gorillas and in nonCrossRiver western gorillas. Least square regression of the nonCrossRiver gorilla datum points fits a line with a slope = 1.003, y' = 68.03, adjusted R2= 0.83.

Fig. 25. Canonical variate analysis summarizing craniodental differences between G. g in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 25. Canonical variate analysis summarizing craniodental differences between G. g. diehli males (n = 20), G. g. diehli females (n = 13), G. g. gorilla males (n = 35) and G. g. gorilla females (n = 17) based on 11 measurements: (1)incisor row diameter, (2) bimastoid diameter, (3) bizygomatic diameter, (4) biglenoid diameter, (5) interparietal diameter, (6) M1 mesiodistal length, (7) biorbital diameter, (8) skull vault length, (9) cheek tooth row length, (10) P3 mesiodistal length, and (11) maximum palate width listed in decreasing order of discriminating ability. According to a stepwise discrimination analysis these measurements best summarize the measured differences between groups. Mahalanobis generalized squared distances (D2) are 15.52 between the two male means; 6.85 between the two female means; 29.61 between the male and female means for G.g. diehli, 39.09 between male and female means of G. g. gorilla, 47.94 between G. g. diehli females and G. g. gorilla males, and 39.44 between G. g. gorilla females and G. g. diehli males.

Fig. 8 in The Cross River Gorillas: A Distinct Subspecies, Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie 1904

Fig. 8. Dorsal and ventral views of right foot and hand segments respectively showing measurements taken: A = calcaneal length, B = calcaneal outlever length, C = cuboid length, D = fourth metatarsal length, E = fourth proximal pedal phalanx length, F = fourth middle pedal phalanx length, G = third metacarpal length, H = third proximal phalanx length, I = third middle phalanx length. Calcaneal outlever length (B) was calculated from linear measures of the calcaneus as reported in Sarmiento (1994). A+C+D+E+F and B+C+D+E+F were taken as approximations of foot length and foot outlever