Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 7 in Fig. 7 in Fig. 4. A in Saphonecrus globosus Schweger and Tang 2015

Fig. 7. Dorsal plate sculpturing of Echiniscus clevelandi (males, PCM). Empty arrowheads indicate pulvini, whereas white arrowheads – pedal plates. Scale bars in μm.

Fig. 5 in Fig. 7 in Fig. 4. A in Saphonecrus globosus Schweger and Tang 2015

Fig. 5. Habitus of Echiniscus clevelandi (SEM): A, female with atypical sculpturing (dorsal view); B, male with poorly developed sculpturing (lateral view). Scale bars in μm.

Fig. 1 in Fig. 7 in Fig. 4. A in Saphonecrus globosus Schweger and Tang 2015

Fig. 1. Habitus of a male of a new, undescribed species of Claxtonia (PCM, dorsal view). Scale bar in μm.

Fig. 9 in Fig. 7 in Fig. 4. A in Saphonecrus globosus Schweger and Tang 2015

Fig. 9. Claws of Echiniscus clevelandi (PCM): A, claws I (female); B, claws III (female). Scale bars in μm.

Fig. 5 in Saphonecrus shirakashii

Fig. 5. Sexual dimorphism in Alpheus carlae Anker, 2012. Minimum, maximum, median (horizontal line) e average (X). *Significant difference (Mann-whitney, P <0.05). Carapace length (CL), second pleuron length (SPL), major cheliped propodus length (CPL), major cheliped propodus width (CPW), major cheliped propodus height (CPH), appendix interna length (AIL).

Fig. 2 in Saphonecrus shirakashii

Fig. 2. (A) Sampling area at the intertidal zone of the estuary of Cananéia, São Paulo, south-eastern Brazil. (B) Lateral view of an ovigerous female of Alpheus carlae Anker, 2012.

Fig. 5 in Saphonecrus flavitibilis Wang and Chen 2010

Fig. 5. Scaled mass index of individual Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) larvae captured across sites (n = 20); sites 13–16 had no captures. Error bars denote standard error of the mean and are not shown for sites 11, 12 and 17, 18 as only one larva was measured at those sites. Sites 1–12 were from the Upper French Broad River sub-basin, and sites 17–20 were from the Hiwassee River sub-basin of western North Carolina, USA.

Fig. 1 in Saphonecrus shirakashii

Fig. 1. Location of the study area in the intertidal estuarine complex of Cananéia, São Paulo, south-eastern Brazil.

Fig. 4. Alpheus carlae Anker, 2012 in Saphonecrus shirakashii

Fig. 4. Alpheus carlae Anker, 2012. Minimum estimated size of morphological sexual maturity for females and males. The estimated size refers to the smallest individual after the inflection point of the equations for juveniles and adults.

Fig. 6. Alpheus carlae Anker, 2012 in Saphonecrus shirakashii

Fig. 6. Alpheus carlae Anker, 2012. (A) Correlation between carapace length and the fecundity of females with eggs in development stage I. (B) Comparison of egg volume at the early (I), intermediate (II), and final stage of development (III). Minimum, maximum (whiskers), median (horizontal lines) and mean (x). Different letters indicate significant differences among egg stages.

Fig. 3. Alpheus carlae Anker, 2012 in Saphonecrus shirakashii

Fig. 3. Alpheus carlae Anker, 2012. Body dimensions used in the morphometric analyses. Carapace length (CL), second pleonal pleuron (SPP), major cheliped propodus length (CPL), major cheliped propodus width (CPW), major cheliped propodus height (CPH), appendix interna length (AIL), and appendix masculina length (AML). Illustrations by Nádia de Moraes Sanches.

Fig. 3 in Saphonecrus flavitibilis Wang and Chen 2010

Fig. 3. Heat map of natural (NAT) versus disturbed (DIST) sites. Corresponding site codes are as follows: NAT1 (sites 3,4), NAT2 (sites5,6), NAT3 (sites7,8), NAT4 (sites9,10), NAT5 (sites 19,20), NAT6 (sites 11,12), NAT7 (sites 17,18); DIST1 (sites1,2), DIST2 (sites13,14), and DIST3 (sites 15,16). Note: High prevalence of various EPT taxa for NAT sites versus DIST sites.

Fig. 4 in Saphonecrus flavitibilis Wang and Chen 2010

Fig. 4. Log mass (g) versus total length (cm) relationship of gilled, larval Eastern Hellbenders (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) measured in the Hiwassee and Upper French Broad River sub-basins, western North Carolina, USA.

Fig. 2 in Saphonecrus flavitibilis Wang and Chen 2010

Fig. 2. PCA analysis of EPT groupings in this study. Only EPT taxa sampled and identified to nearest genus used in analysis.

Fig. 1 in Saphonecrus flavitibilis Wang and Chen 2010

Fig. 1. Map of sample locations in western North Carolina, USA. Circles represent sites across two watersheds within the range of the Eastern Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis in the state indicated by dark outline.

Fig. 15 in Saphonecrus sinicus Belizin 1968, incertae sedis

Fig. 15. Maximum Likelihood (ML) phylogenetic tree of Rhinocypha spp. based on (a) COI gene, (b) 16S rRNA gene, and (c) combined COI + 16S rRNA sequences with R. bisignata as an outgroup. Bootstrap values are shown on the branches.

Fig. 12 in Saphonecrus sinicus Belizin 1968, incertae sedis

Fig. 12. Results of principal components analysis of all specimens. PC1 = 48.64%, PC2 = 17.45%, accounting for 66.09% of the total variation.

Fig. 6 in Saphonecrus sinicus Belizin 1968, incertae sedis

Fig. 6. Scanning electron micrographs of the morphometric measurements of the ovipositor for the females of Rhinocypha spp. (lateral view). (a) Rhinocypha biforata, (b) Rhinocypha fenestrella, (c) Rhinocypha perforata. (i, ii & iii) length of each segment; (iv) length of anal appendages; (v) basal width of anal appendages; (vi) length of stylus; (vii) width of the V3.

Fig. 9 in Saphonecrus sinicus Belizin 1968, incertae sedis

Fig. 9. Scanning electron micrographs of the stylus and the base of stylus of Rhinocypha spp. (a) Rhinocypha biforata, (b) Rhinocypha fenestrella – (i) width of the stylus from the third of hair sensilla, (c) Rhinocypha perforata. (d, e & f) scanning electron micrographs of the base of stylus. (d) Rhinocypha biforata, (e) Rhinocypha fenestrella, (f) Rhinocypha perforata.

Fig. 4 in Saphonecrus sinicus Belizin 1968, incertae sedis

Fig. 4. Wing of Rhinocypha spp. (a) Rhinocypha fenestrella, (b) Rhinocypha perforata, and (c) Rhinocypha biforata.