Find research datasets worth reusing

Figs 93–109 in Comparison of interspecific differences in coloration, morphology, and male calling signal patterns in two genera of Idiocerini (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Eurymelinae)

Figs 93–109. Oscillograms of male calling signals of species of Populicerus. 93–95 — P. confusus; 96–99 — P. albicans; 100–102 — P. populi; 103–104 — P. nitidissimus; 105–106 — P. laminatus; 107–109 — P. ambigenus. Scale mark at the bottom on the right is the same for all oscillograms. Рис. 93–109. Осциллограммы приЗывных сигналов самцов Populicerus. 93–95 — P. confusus; 96–99 — P. albicans; 100–102 — P. populi; 103–104 — P. nitidissimus; 105–106 — P. laminatus; 107–109 — P. ambigenus. Отметка времени вниЗу справа – обЩаЯ длЯ всех осциллограмм.

Figs 16–39 in Comparison of interspecific differences in coloration, morphology, and male calling signal patterns in two genera of Idiocerini (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Eurymelinae)

Figs 16–39. Male abdominal apodemes of species of Populicerus. 16–21 — P. confusus; 22–24 — P. populi; 25–27 — P. laminatus; 28–33 — P. albicans; 34–36 — P. nitidissimus; 37–39 — P. ambigenus; 16–17, 22, 25, 28–29, 34, 37 — apodemes of the 3rd tergum; 18, 20, 23, 26, 30, 32, 35, 38 — same, 1st sternum; 19, 21, 24, 27, 31, 33, 36, 39 — same, 2nd sternum. Рис. 16–39. Аподемы брюШных сегментов самцов Populicerus. 16–21 — P. confusus; 22–24 — P. populi; 25–27 — P. laminatus; 28–33 — P. albicans; 34–36 — P. nitidissimus; 37–39 — P. ambigenus; 16–17, 22, 25, 28–29, 34, 37 — аподемы III тергита; 18, 20, 23, 26, 30, 32, 35, 38 — аподемы I стернита; 19, 21, 24, 27, 31, 33, 36, 39 — аподемы II стернита.

Figs 83–92 in Comparison of interspecific differences in coloration, morphology, and male calling signal patterns in two genera of Idiocerini (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Eurymelinae)

Figs 83–92. Oscillograms of male calling signals of species of Populicerus. 83–84 — P. confusus; 85–86 — P. albicans; 87 — P. populi; 88–89 — P. nitidissimus; 90 — P. laminatus; 91–92 — P. ambigenus. Faster oscillograms of the parts of signals indicated as "94–95", "99", "101", "103–105", and "107–109" are given under the same numbers. Scale mark at the bottom on the right is the same for all oscillograms. Рис. 83–92. Осциллограммы приЗывных сигналов самцов Populicerus. 83–84 — P. confusus; 85–86 — P. albicans; 87 — P. populi; 88–89 — P. nitidissimus; 90 — P. laminatus; 91–92 — P. ambigenus. Фрагменты сигналов, обоЗначенные цифрами "94–95", "99", "101", "103–105" и "107–109", представлены на осциллограммах под такими же номерами. Отметка времени вниЗу справа – обЩаЯ длЯ всех осциллограмм.

Figs 40–64 in Comparison of interspecific differences in coloration, morphology, and male calling signal patterns in two genera of Idiocerini (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Eurymelinae)

Figs 40–64. Male genitalia of species of Populicerus. 40–45 — P. confusus; 46–52 — P. albicans; 53–55 — P. populi; 56–58 — P. nitidissimus; 59–61 — P. laminatus; 62–64 — P. ambigenus; 40–41, 46–48, 53, 56, 59, 62 — penis, back view; 42–43, 49–50, 54, 57, 60, 63 — same, side view; 44–45, 51–52, 55, 58, 61, 64 — style. Рис. 40–64. Гениталии самцов Populicerus. 40–45 — P. confusus; 46–52 — P. albicans; 53–55 — P. populi; 56–58 — P. nitidissimus; 59–61 — P. laminatus; 62–64 — P. ambigenus; 40–41, 46–48, 53, 56, 59, 62 — пенис, сЗади; 42–43, 49–50, 54, 57, 60, 63 — то же, сбоку; 44–45, 51–52, 55, 58, 61, 64 — стилус.

Figs 1–15. Idiocerini, dorsal view. 1–2 in Comparison of interspecific differences in coloration, morphology, and male calling signal patterns in two genera of Idiocerini (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Eurymelinae)

Figs 1–15. Idiocerini, dorsal view. 1–2 — Populicerus confusus; 3–4 — P. albicans; 5–6 — P. populi; 7–8 — P. nitidissimus; 9–10 — P. laminatus; 11–12 — P. ambigenus; 13 — Idiocerus lituratus; 14 — I. herrichii; 15 — I. stigmaticalis. Рис. 1–15. Виды трибы Idiocerini, сверху. 1–2 — Populicerus confusus; 3–4 — P. albicans; 5–6 — P. populi; 7–8 — P. nitidissimus; 9–10 — P. laminatus; 11–12 — P. ambigenus; 13 — Idiocerus lituratus; 14 — I. herrichii; 15 — I. stigmaticalis.

Figs 79–92 in Comparative analysis of male calling signals in closely related species of Macropsis Lewis, 1836 (Homoptera: Auchenorrhyncha: Cicadellidae: Eurymelinae: Macropsini) reveals possible ways of evolution of the signal temporal pattern

Figs 79–92. Oscillograms of male calling signals: 79–82 — Evacanthus asiaticus; 83–88 — Limotettix (Scleroracus) russeolus; 89–92 — Hephathus nanus. Faster oscillograms of the parts of signals indicated as "86–88" and "91–92" are given under the same numbers. Рис. 79–92. Осциллограммы приЗывных сигналов: 79–82 — Evacanthus asiaticus; 83–88 — Limotettix (Scleroracus) russeolus; 89– 92 — Hephathus nanus. Фрагменты сигналов, обоЗначенные цифрами "86–88" и "91–92", представлены на осциллограммах под такими же номерами.

Figs 64–78 in Comparative analysis of male calling signals in closely related species of Macropsis Lewis, 1836 (Homoptera: Auchenorrhyncha: Cicadellidae: Eurymelinae: Macropsini) reveals possible ways of evolution of the signal temporal pattern

Figs 64–78. Oscillograms of male calling signals: 64–65 — Handianus fartilis; 66–69 — Aconurella diplachnis; 70–78 — Fangamanus tripunctatus. Faster oscillograms of the parts of signals indicated as "67–69" and "74–78" are given under the same numbers. Рис. 64–78. Осциллограммы приЗывных сигналов: 64–65 — Handianus fartilis; 66–69 — Aconurella diplachnis; 70–78 — Fangamanus tripunctatus. Фрагменты сигналов, обоЗначенные цифрами "67–69" и "74–78", представлены на осциллограммах под такими же номерами.

Figs 54–63 in Comparative analysis of male calling signals in closely related species of Macropsis Lewis, 1836 (Homoptera: Auchenorrhyncha: Cicadellidae: Eurymelinae: Macropsini) reveals possible ways of evolution of the signal temporal pattern

Figs 54–63. Oscillograms of male calling signals: 54–57 — Macropsis megerlei; 58–63 — M. ornata. Faster oscillograms of the parts of signals indicated as "56–57" and "61–63" are given under the same numbers. Рис. 54–63. Осциллограммы приЗывных сигналов: 54–57 — Macropsis megerlei; 58–63 — M. ornata. Фрагменты сигналов, обоЗначенные цифрами "56–57" и "61–63", представлены на осциллограммах под такими же номерами.

Figs 39–53 in Comparative analysis of male calling signals in closely related species of Macropsis Lewis, 1836 (Homoptera: Auchenorrhyncha: Cicadellidae: Eurymelinae: Macropsini) reveals possible ways of evolution of the signal temporal pattern

Figs 39–53. Oscillograms of male calling signals: 39–47 — Macropsis milkoi; 48–53 — M. aselae. Faster oscillograms of the parts of signals indicated as "40", "46–47", and "52–53" are given under the same numbers. Рис. 39–53. Осциллограммы приЗывных сигналов: 39–47 — Macropsis milkoi; 48–53 — M. aselae. Фрагменты сигналов, обоЗначенные цифрами "40", "46–47" и "52–53", представлены на осциллограммах под такими же номерами.

opennotspecifiedSep 2019View details →

Figs 15–29 in Calling signal pattern vs. genitalia morphology in Planaphrodes Hamilton, 1975 (Homoptera: Auchenorrhyncha: Cicadellidae: Aphrodinae) - which trait evolves faster?

Figs 15–29. Planaphrodes spp.: 15–21 — P. bifasciatus; 22–29 — P. monticola; 15–20 and 22–28 — oscillograms of male calling signals; 21 and 29 — penis, side view; 15, 17, and 19 — male from Mytishchi District; 16, 18, and 20–21 — male from Serpukhov District (both in Moscow Oblast); 22–23, 25, 27, and 29 — male from Western Tien-Shan Mts.; 24, 26, and 28 — male from Central Tien-Shan Mts. Faster oscillograms of the parts of signals indicated as "17–20" and "25–28" are given under the same numbers. Рис. 15–29. Planaphrodes spp.: 15–21 — P. bifasciatus; 22–29 — P. monticola; 15–20, 22–28 — осциллограммы приЗывных сигналов самца; 21, 29 — пенис сбоку; 15, 17, 19 — самец иЗ МытиЩинского р-на; 16, 18, 20–21 — самец иЗ Серпуховского р-на (оба — МосковскаЯ обл.); 22–23, 25, 27, 29 — самец с Западного ТЯнь-ШанЯ; 24, 26, 28 — самец с Центрального ТЯнь-ШанЯ. Фрагменты сигналов, обоЗначенные цифрами "17–20" и "25–28", представлены на осциллограммах под такими же номерами.

FIGURES 82–85 in On the taxonomic structure and variability of Macropsidius involutus Dlabola, 1963 (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Macropsinae) - morphology and calling signal pattern

FIGURES 82–85. Photos of localities, where Macropsidius involutus was collected. 82―the Suusamyr River Valley, Kyrgyzstan (loc. No. 4), mountain steppe dominated with Artemisia (Seriphidium) sp. at ca. 2000 m a. s. l.; 83―Kokpek Ravine, Kazakhstan (loc. No. 6), mountain steppe with low shrubs and Artemisia (Seriphidium) sp. at ca. 1200 m a. s. l., vegetation, suffering from overgrazing, trails trampled by cattle are visible; 84―environs of Taldykurgan, Kazakhstan (loc. No. 7), ca. 600 m a. s. l., dry slope in the foreground is covered with Artemisia (Seriphidium) sp.; 85― desert in the Alakol Lake Depression, Kazakhstan (loc. No. 9) at ca. 370 m a. s. l., areas of bare soil have a natural origin, in the foreground on the left there are thickets of Artemisia (Seriphidium) sp.

FIGURES 58–69 in On the taxonomic structure and variability of Macropsidius involutus Dlabola, 1963 (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Macropsinae) - morphology and calling signal pattern

FIGURES 58–69. Oscillograms of male calling signals of Macropsidius involutus, parts of signals at high speed. Scale mark at the bottom is the same for all oscillograms.

FIGURES 70–81 in On the taxonomic structure and variability of Macropsidius involutus Dlabola, 1963 (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Macropsinae) - morphology and calling signal pattern

FIGURES 70–81. Oscillograms of male calling signals of Macropsidius involutus, parts of signals at high speed. Scale mark at the bottom is the same for all oscillograms.

FIGURES 46–57 in On the taxonomic structure and variability of Macropsidius involutus Dlabola, 1963 (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Macropsinae) - morphology and calling signal pattern

FIGURES 46–57. Oscillograms of male calling signals of Macropsidius involutus, general view at low speed. Faster oscillograms of the parts of signals indicated as "58–69", "72", and "77–81" are given under the same numbers. Scale mark at the bottom is the same for all oscillograms.

FIGURES 22–45 in On the taxonomic structure and variability of Macropsidius involutus Dlabola, 1963 (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Macropsinae) - morphology and calling signal pattern

FIGURES 22–45. Macropsidius involutus, penis, back (22–36, 38–39, 41–43, and 45) and side (37, 40, and 44) view. 22– 25―males from the Crimea (loc. No. 1), 26–27―males from Saratov Oblast, Lower Volga Region (loc. No. 2), 28–30―males from the deserts South of the Balkhash Lake between the Karatal and the Lepsy Rivers (M. arenosus sensu Mityaev, 1971), 31―male from Kokpek Ravine, Kazakhstan (loc. No. 6), 32–33―males from Taldykurgan, Kazakhstan (loc. No. 7), 34―male from Dzhunghar Alatau Mtn. Range, Kazakhstan (loc. No. 8), 35–36―males from Tarbagatay, Kazakhstan (loc. No. 10), 37– 38―male from the Suusamyr River Valley, Kyrgyzstan (loc. No. 4), 39―male from Chu-Ili Mountains, Kazakhstan (loc. No. 5), 40–43―males from the Alakol Lake Depression, Kazakhstan (loc. No. 9), 44–45―male from Isfana, Kyrgyzstan (loc. No. 3).

FIGURES 8–21 in On the taxonomic structure and variability of Macropsidius involutus Dlabola, 1963 (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Macropsinae) - morphology and calling signal pattern

FIGURES 8–21. Macropsidius involutus, style (8–14) and pygofer in back view (15–21). 8–9 and 15–16―males from the Crimea (loc. No. 1), 10 and 11―males from Saratov Oblast, the Lower Volga Region (loc. No. 2), 12―male from Chu-Ili Mountains, Kazakhstan (loc. No. 5), 13―male from Kokpek Ravine, Kazakhstan (loc. No. 6), 14―male from Dzhunghar Alatau Mtn. Range, Kazakhstan (loc. No. 8), 17–18―males from Taldykurgan, Kazakhstan (loc. No. 7), 19–21―males from the Alakol Lake Depression, Kazakhstan (loc. No. 9).

FIGURES 2–7 in On the taxonomic structure and variability of Macropsidius involutus Dlabola, 1963 (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Macropsinae) - morphology and calling signal pattern

FIGURES 2–7. Macropsidius involutus, dorsal view (2–3) and face (4–7). 2 and 4―male from the Crimea (loc. No. 1), 3―male from the Alakol Lake Depression, Kazakhstan (loc. No. 9), 5―male from Kokpek Ravine, Kazakhstan (loc. No. 6), 6―female from the Crimea (loc. No. 1), 7―female from the Alakol Lake Depression, Kazakhstan (loc. No. 9).

FIGURE 1 in On the taxonomic structure and variability of Macropsidius involutus Dlabola, 1963 (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Macropsinae) - morphology and calling signal pattern

FIGURE 1. Map of localities where the material was collected and characteristics of local populations studied. The numbers of localities on the map correspond to those in the text; the list of localities is given at the end of the section on materials and methods.

opencc-zeroDec 2014View details →

dryad32/100

Data from: Distinguishing noise from signal in patterns of genomic divergence in a highly polymorphic avian radiation

Recently diverged taxa provide the opportunity to search for the genetic basis of the phenotypes that distinguish them. Genomic scans aim to identify loci that are diverged with respect to an otherwise weakly differentiated genetic background. These loci are candidates for being past targets of selection because they behave differently from the rest of the genome that has either not yet differentiated or that may cross species barriers through introgressive hybridization. Here we use a reduced-representation genomic approach to explore divergence among six species of southern capuchino seedeaters, a group of recently radiated sympatric passerine birds in the genus Sporophila. For the first time in these taxa, we discovered a small proportion of markers that appeared differentiated among species. However, when assessing the significance of these signatures of divergence, we found that similar patterns can also be recovered from random grouping of individuals representing different species. A detailed demographic inference indicates that genetic differences among Sporophila species could be the consequence of neutral processes, which include a very large ancestral effective population size that accentuates the effects of incomplete lineage sorting. As these neutral phenomena can generate genomic scan patterns that mimic those of markers involved in speciation and phenotypic differentiation, they highlight the need for caution when ascertaining and interpreting differentiated markers between species, especially when large numbers of markers are surveyed. Our study provides new insights into the demography of the southern capuchino radiation and proposes controls to distinguish signal from noise in similar genomic scans.