Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Mar 2016View details →

Fig. 1 in Host plants and natural enemies of rugose spiraling whitefly (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in Florida

Fig. 1. County distribution of rugose spiraling whitefly and its key natural enemies (Encarsia spp. and Nephaspis oculata) in Florida.

Fig. 9 in Taxonomic re-assessment and phylogenetic relationships of Miocene homonymously spiral-horned antelopes

Fig. 9. Phylogenetic history of the subtribe Oiocerina at the species level (A) according to the results of the cladistic analysis (Fig. 6) and (B) assuming a morpho−chronological and regional continuum for Samotragus. Grey and white boxes indicate reliably known and questionable chrono−stratigraphic occurrences, respectively. Dashed lines indicate presumed ranges (vertical) or relationships (horizontal). Abbreviations: NKT, Nikiti−1; RZ1, Ravin de Zouaves 1.

Fig. 5. Oiocerin antelope Samotragus from Northern Greece. A, B, E in Taxonomic re-assessment and phylogenetic relationships of Miocene homonymously spiral-horned antelopes

Fig. 5. Oiocerin antelope Samotragus from Northern Greece. A, B, E. Samotragus praecursor Bouvrain and Bonis, 1985 from Ravin de la Pluie (RPl), Axios Valley, late Vallesian (Late Miocene). A. LGPUT RPl−105n, cranium in dorsal (A1) and lateral (A2) views. B. LGPUT RPl−480, holotype cranium in lateral view. E. LGPUT RPl−37, left horncore in lateral view. C, D. Samotragus cf. praecursor Bouvrain and Bonis, 1985 from Ravin des Zouaves 1 (RZ1), Axios Valley, late Vallesian (Late Miocene). C. LGPUT RZ1−11, left horncore in anterior (C1) and lateral (C2) views. D. LGPUT RZ1−17 left horncore in anterior (D1) and lateral (D2) views.

Fig. 3 in Taxonomic re-assessment and phylogenetic relationships of Miocene homonymously spiral-horned antelopes

Fig. 3. Oiocerin antelope Hispanodorcas cf. orientalis Bouvrain and Bonis, 1988 from Nikiti−1 (NKT), Chalkidiki Peninsula, Northern Greece, latest Vallesian. A. LGPUT NKT−231, lateral view of the right basal horncore. B. LGPUT NKT−227, left lateral (B1) and anterior (B2) views of the frontlet. C. LGPUT NKT−232, lateral view of the left distal horncore. The arrow indicates the distal end of the lateral depression and marks the distal "bilobation" of the lateral side of the horncore.

Fig. 8 in Taxonomic re-assessment and phylogenetic relationships of Miocene homonymously spiral-horned antelopes

Fig. 8. Time range, geographic distribution, ecological features, and paleoenvironment of several members of the Oiocerina. Abbreviations: V, Vallesian; T, Turolian; R, Ruscinian; O, open, I, intermediate, and C, closed environment; grass for grazing, scrub for mixed, and tree for browsing diets; sheep for ramming (rm), kudu for wrestling/pushing (ps), eland for wrestling/fencing (fc), and dik−dik for stabbing (st) fighting style (some drawings adopted from Lundrigan 1996).

Fig. 7 in Taxonomic re-assessment and phylogenetic relationships of Miocene homonymously spiral-horned antelopes

Fig. 7. Drawings of the horncores of several Oiocerina in right lateral view, showing the main shared characters. A.?Hispanodorcas pilgrimi from Toril−3, Spain. B. Hispanodorcas orientalis from Dytiko−3, Greece. C. Urmiatherium rugosifrons from Samos (Greece) and Turkey, adult (C1) and juvenile (C2) individual. D. Samotragus crassicornis from Samos, Greece. E. Oioceros rothii (combination of Pikermi, Greece and Maragheh, Iran specimens). F. Urmiatherium polaki from Maragheh, Iran. G. Samotragus cf. praecursor from Ravin des Zouaves 1 (G1) and Samotragus praecursor from Ravin de la Pluie, Greece (G2). H. Paraoioceros wegneri from Samos, Greece.

Fig. 6. Cladograms showing the evolutionary relationships within Oiocerina. A in Taxonomic re-assessment and phylogenetic relationships of Miocene homonymously spiral-horned antelopes

Fig. 6. Cladograms showing the evolutionary relationships within Oiocerina. A. Intrageneric relationships (rooted to Eotragus Pilgrim, 1939), based on available morphological and zoogeographic evidence (see text). B. 75% majority−rule consensus of the four most parsimonious trees (length: 172; CI: 0.46; RI: 0.65) showing the relationships of eight fossil genera of Oiocerina, Gazella Blainville, 1816, Ovibos Blainville, 1816, Hemitragus Smith, 1826, and Turcocerus Köhler, 1987, based on the character matrix of Appendix 1. Outgroup: Eotragus Pilgrim, 1939. Synapomorphies supporting nodes (marked with bold letters) are discussed in the text.

Fig. 2 in Taxonomic re-assessment and phylogenetic relationships of Miocene homonymously spiral-horned antelopes

Fig. 2. Oiocerin antelope Hispanodorcas orientalis Bouvrain and Bonis, 1988, from the late Turolian locality of Dytiko−3 (DKO), Axios Valley, Northern Greece, in lateral (A) and anterior (B) views of the holotype cranium LGPUT DKO−4. The arrow in A indicates an enlarged version of the same view, where the white lines indicate the extent of the lateral depression; the arrows in B mark the trace of the anterior keel.

Fig. 1 in Taxonomic re-assessment and phylogenetic relationships of Miocene homonymously spiral-horned antelopes

Fig. 1. Box−plots of the horncore basal compression index (i.e., TD*100/ ADP) for several species and genera of Oiocerina, showing the medial (horizontal line inside the boxes), the 25–75% quartiles (gray boxes) and the minimum and maximum range of values (short horizontal lines). NKT−1, Nikiti−1; RZ1, Ravin des Zouaves 1.

opencc-by-4.0Sep 2016View details →

Fig. 2 in Feeding and development of Nephaspis oculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) on rugose spiraling whitefly (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae)

Fig. 2. Eggs of rugose spiraling whitefly (larger) and Bemisia tabaci (smaller) showing the difference in their size. The egg of B. tabaci was manually transferred from a collard leaf to a giant white bird of paradise leaf for taking this photo. Photo by Siavash Taravati.

opencc-by-4.0Sep 2016View details →

Fig. 1 in Feeding and development of Nephaspis oculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) on rugose spiraling whitefly (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae)

Fig. 1. Life stages of Nephaspis oculata. a) A single beetle's egg (arrow) laid adjacent to a row of rugose spiraling whitefly eggs. Rugose spiraling whitefly eggs become darker as they age as can be seen here. The wax on the eggs was removed in order to take this photo. b) Larva feeding on a rugose spiraling whitefly egg. c) An adult male feeding on a 4th instar of rugose spiraling whitefly. d) A hole (arrow) created by the feeding activity of a beetle. The hole looks similar to an exit-hole created by parasitoids but this one was created by Nephaspis oculata in the laboratory. Photo by Siavash Taravati.

opencc-by-4.0Nov 2018View details →

Fig. 1 in Oviposition preference of rugose spiraling whitefly (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) on five host plant species

Fig. 1. Photo showing the cage arrangement. Six cages (1.83 × 1.83 × 1.83 m with 20 × 20 Mesh Lumite) were constructed in a shadehouse in a north-south row. Each cage had 5 potential host plants and a source plant containing adult whiteflies.

opencc-by-4.0Nov 2018View details →

Fig. 2 in Oviposition preference of rugose spiraling whitefly (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) on five host plant species

Fig. 2. The cumulative number of eggs deposited on different plants during the experiment. The average cumulative number of eggs was always greatest on gumbo limbo.

FIGURE 8 in Application of shell spiral deviation methodology to fossil brachiopods: Implications for obtaining specimen ontogenetic ages

FIGURE 8. Example of two fossil brachiopod species, Rafinesquina sp. (left) and Pseudoatrypa sp. (right), which generated problematic spiral deviation graphs. 1, Ventral view 2, Longitudinal-sectional view 3, Spiral fitting 4, Spiral deviations graphs.

FIGURE 2 in Application of shell spiral deviation methodology to fossil brachiopods: Implications for obtaining specimen ontogenetic ages

FIGURE 2. Example of a shell sample (Platystrophia ponderosa) sectioning through the plane of symmetry, producing two identical halves. Both halves were analyzed for their spiral deviations.

FIGURE 4 in Application of shell spiral deviation methodology to fossil brachiopods: Implications for obtaining specimen ontogenetic ages

FIGURE 4. Spiral deviations from the dorsal and ventral valves of specimens one (1), two (2), and three (3) of the species Laqueus rubellus.

FIGURE 1 in Application of shell spiral deviation methodology to fossil brachiopods: Implications for obtaining specimen ontogenetic ages

FIGURE 1. Ventral, dorsal, posterior, and longitudinal-sectional views of the fossil brachiopods Laqueus rubellus, Terebratula terebratula, Pseudoatrypa sp., and Platystrophia ponderosa. Scale bars equal 1 cm.

FIGURE 9 in Application of shell spiral deviation methodology to fossil brachiopods: Implications for obtaining specimen ontogenetic ages

FIGURE 9. Comparison of spiral deviation graphs when the dorsal valve of Terebratula terebratula specimen is fit to one (left) and two (right) spirals. A and B represent locations on the graphs that change drastically when two spirals are fit to the biological outline instead of one. Minimum A becomes more distinct when two spirals are used whereas the opposite occurs for minimum B.

FIGURE 3 in Application of shell spiral deviation methodology to fossil brachiopods: Implications for obtaining specimen ontogenetic ages

FIGURE 3. Example of shell (Laqueus rubellus) digitization and spiral fitting. 1, The brachiopod shell was digitized by clicking the outline in an anterior-ward direction, starting at the umbo. 2, The digitized outline was saved as (x,y) coordinates, which were used to plot a biological outline in R. 3, R code was used to fit a perfect logarithmic spiral to the shell outline. 4, The deviations from a perfect spiral were represented in a spiral deviation graph, with green points representing spiral maxima and red points representing spiral minima.