Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 2 in Integrative taxonomy reveals two new cryptic species of Hyphessobrycon Durbin, 1908 (Teleostei: Characidae) from the Maracaçumé and middle Tocantins River basins, Eastern Amazon region

Fig. 2. Hyphessobrycon frickei Guimarães, Brito, Bragança, Katz & Ottoni sp. nov. (CICCAA 02388), 17.7 mm SL; jaw suspensory. A. Premaxillary. B. Maxilla. C. Dentary. Scale bar: 1 mm

Fig. 5 in A new cryptic species of Pithecopus (Anura, Phyllomedusidae) in north-eastern Brazil

Fig. 5. Phylogenetic relationships of Pithecopus Cope, 1866 based on 16S rDNA mitochondrial fragment. Topology inferred from the Bayesian inference based on the GTR+G model. Posterior probabilities are shown at each node. Scale bar represents the number of substitutions per site. Expanded topology for P. gonzagai sp. nov. and P. nordestinus (Caramaschi, 2006) is in Supplementary file 6.

Fig. 3 in A new cryptic species of Pithecopus (Anura, Phyllomedusidae) in north-eastern Brazil

Fig. 3. Pithecopus gonzagai sp. nov. from Brazilian north-eastern, in life. A. From the municipality of Pilar, state of Alagoas (AL). B. From the municipality of Recife, state of Pernambuco (PE). C. From the municipality of Sṳo Miguel dos Milagres, AL. D. Arboreal eggs from the municipality of Poçṳo, PE. Photographs by M. Aguiar.

Fig. 2 in A new cryptic species of Pithecopus (Anura, Phyllomedusidae) in north-eastern Brazil

Fig. 2. Pithecopus gonzagai sp. nov., adult ♂, holotype (ZUEC 19685; SVL = 32.7 mm). A. Dorsal view. B. Ventral view. C. Head, lateral view. D. Head, dorsal view. E. Hand, ventral view. F. Foot, ventral view.

Fig. 8 in Integrative taxonomy reveals two new cryptic species of Hyphessobrycon Durbin, 1908 (Teleostei: Characidae) from the Maracaçumé and middle Tocantins River basins, Eastern Amazon region

Fig. 8. Topology of the ultrametric tree performed in BEAST ver. 1.8.4 including unique haplotypes summarizing the results of GMYC, bPTP and ABGD. Numbers above and below branches are posterior probability values. The star indicates the Hyphessobrycon copelandi clade.

Fig. 4 in A new cryptic species of Pithecopus (Anura, Phyllomedusidae) in north-eastern Brazil

Fig. 4. Scatterplot of the discriminant analyses of principal components (DAPC) on the morphometric and acoustic datasets of Pithecopus araguaius Haga et al., 2017, P. azureus (Cope, 1862), P. gonzagai sp. nov., P. hypochondrialis (Daudin, 1800) and P. nordestinus (Caramaschi, 2006). A. The two first axes on the morphometric data (11 first PCs, 95% retained variance). Variance explained by the axes: LD1 = 58% (F-statistic = 131.7) and LD2 = 25% (F-statistic = 57.3). B. The two first axes on the acoustic data (5 first PCs, 96% retained variance). LD1 = 91% (F-statistic = 182.0) and LD2 = 7% (F-statistic = 13.5).

FIGURE 30 in Morphological and molecular data reveal the cryptic diversity among populations of Aegla paulensis (Decapoda, Anomura, Aeglidae), with descriptions of four new species and comments on dispersal routes and conservation status

FIGURE 30. Bayesian tree (TPM 2 uf + G) for Aegla species based on partial fragment of 16 S. Node numbers represent posterior probabilities (values <50 % are not shown), and divergence time in millions of years (my); * indicates the calibration points to molecular clock. The clade C proposed by Pérez-Losada et al. (2004) is highlighted in grey. The basin and sub-basin origin of the discussed species in this study are shown after the specific names.

FIGURE 24. A – L in Morphological and molecular data reveal the cryptic diversity among populations of Aegla paulensis (Decapoda, Anomura, Aeglidae), with descriptions of four new species and comments on dispersal routes and conservation status

FIGURE 24. A – L, proximal portion of fifth pereiopod showing coxa and sexual tube of long and narrow type. A – B, Aegla paulensis Schmitt, 1942 s. str., male topotype (MZUSP 34368). C – D, Aegla rosanae Campos Jr., 1998, male topotype (MZUSP 34369). E – F, Aegla vanini n. sp., male paratype (MZUSP 34372). G – H, Aegla japi n. sp., male paratype (MZUSP 34375). I – J, Aegla jaragua n. sp. male paratype (MZUSP 34378). K-L, Aegla jundiai n. sp., male paratype (MZUSP 13490). Bars: A – D, F – H, J = 200 µm; K, L = 100 µm; E, I = 500 µm.

FIGURE 8 in Morphological and molecular data reveal the cryptic diversity among populations of Aegla paulensis (Decapoda, Anomura, Aeglidae), with descriptions of four new species and comments on dispersal routes and conservation status

FIGURE 8. Types of Aegla Leach, 1820 male sexual tubes. A, long and narrow (A. lancinhas Bond-Buckup & Buckup in Santos et al., 2015, MZUSP 34403). B, short and wide (A. leptochela Bond-Buckup & Buckup, 1994, MZUSP 34491).

FIGURE 1 in Morphological and molecular data reveal the cryptic diversity among populations of Aegla paulensis (Decapoda, Anomura, Aeglidae), with descriptions of four new species and comments on dispersal routes and conservation status

FIGURE 1. Distribution of the species of Aegla in four main hydrographic basins of southern Brazil: Rio Grande, Rio Tietê (Upper Paraná system), Rio Paraíba do Sul and Ribeira de Iguape. Indications L 1 through L 7 refer to the locations mentioned under “ sampling area ” in the Material & Methods section.

opencc-zeroMar 2024View details →

dryad40/100

Data for: Morphological species delimitation in the Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys): Can machine learning methods aid in cryptic species identification?

As the discovery of cryptic species has increased in frequency, there has been interest in whether geometric morphometric data can detect fine-scale patterns of variation that can be used to morphologically diagnose such species. We used a combination of geometric morphometric data and an ensemble of five supervised machine learning methods to investigate whether plastron shape can differentiate two putative cryptic turtle species, Actinemys marmorata and Actinemys pallida. Actinemys has been the focus of considerable research due to its biogeographic distribution and conservation status. Despite this work, reliable morphological diagnoses for its two species are still lacking. We validated our approach on two datasets, one consisting of eight morphologically disparate emydid species, and the other consisting of two subspecies of Trachemys (T. scripta scripta, T. scripta elegans). The validation tests returned near-perfect classification rates, demonstrating that plastron shape is an effective means for distinguishing taxonomic groups of emydids via machine learning methods. By contrast, the same methods did not return high classification rates for a set of alternative phylogeographic and morphological binning schemes in Actinemys. All classification hypotheses performed poorly relative to the validation datasets and no single hypothesis was unequivocally supported for Actinemys. Two hypotheses had machine learning performance that was marginally better than our remaining hypotheses. In both cases, those hypotheses favored a two-species split between A. marmorata and A. pallida specimens, lending tentative morphological support to the hypothesis of two Actinemys species. However, the machine learning results also underscore that Actinemys as a whole have lower levels of plastral variation than other turtles within Emydidae, but the reason for this morphological conservatism is unclear.

Fig. 14 in A new cryptic species of Polybiidae (Crustacea: Decapoda: Portunoidea) from the East Atlantic, with considerations on the genus Polybius

Fig. 14. Polybius holsatus (Fabricius, 1798), ♂ from Belgium, Duinbergen (RBINS, INV. 187221). A. Dorsal habitus. B. Facial habitus. C. Ventral habitus. D. Carpus of right pereiopod.

Fig. 11 in A new cryptic species of Polybiidae (Crustacea: Decapoda: Portunoidea) from the East Atlantic, with considerations on the genus Polybius

Fig. 11. Polybius vernalis (Risso, 1827), ♂ from Spain, Málaga, Fuengirola (RBINS, INV. 187238). A. Dorsal habitus. B. Carapace. C. Carpus of right pereiopod.

Fig. 10 in A new cryptic species of Polybiidae (Crustacea: Decapoda: Portunoidea) from the East Atlantic, with considerations on the genus Polybius

Fig. 10. Polybius vernalis (Risso, 1827), ♂ from Tunisia, Bay of Tunis (RBINS, INV. 187235). A. Dorsal habitus. B. Facial habitus. C. Ventral habitus.

Fig. 8. Left gonopod 1 in A new cryptic species of Polybiidae (Crustacea: Decapoda: Portunoidea) from the East Atlantic, with considerations on the genus Polybius

Fig. 8. Left gonopod 1 of male. A–B. Polybius marmoreus (Leach, 1814) from Belgium, Heist (RBINS, INV. 187218). A. Ventral view. B. Dorsal view. C–D. Polybius dioscurus sp. nov., paratype, ♂ from Belgium, between Nieuwpoort and Oostduinkerke (RBINS, INV. 187223). C. Ventral view. D. Dorsal view. E–F. Polybius vernalis (Risso, 1827) from Tunisia, Bay of Tunis (RBINS, INV. 187235). E. Ventral view. F. Dorsal view.

Fig. 13 in A new cryptic species of Polybiidae (Crustacea: Decapoda: Portunoidea) from the East Atlantic, with considerations on the genus Polybius

Fig. 13. Polybius marmoreus (Leach, 1814), ♂ from Belgium, Heist (RBINS, INV. 187218). A. Dorsal habitus. B. Carapace facial view. C. Carpus of right pereiopod. D. Ventral view.

Fig. 6 in A new cryptic species of Polybiidae (Crustacea: Decapoda: Portunoidea) from the East Atlantic, with considerations on the genus Polybius

Fig. 6. Dorsal view of orbital region and adjacent lateral rostral teeth. A. Polybius dioscurus sp. nov., paratype, ♂ from Belgium, between Nieuwpoort and Oostduinkerke (RBINS, INV. 187223). B. Polybius vernalis (Risso, 1827), ♂ from Tunisia, Bay of Tunis (RBINS, INV. 187235). C. Polybius dioscurus sp. nov., ♀ from Málaga (CRUST_ICMAN/3765) D. Polybius vernalis, ♂ from Málaga (CRUST_ ICMAN/3789). Arrows show differences in the orbital region between both species.

Fig. 7 in A new cryptic species of Polybiidae (Crustacea: Decapoda: Portunoidea) from the East Atlantic, with considerations on the genus Polybius

Fig. 7. Frontal region in dorsal view, male. A. Polybius marmoreus (Leach, 1814) from Belgium, Heist (RBINS, INV. 187218). B. Polybius dioscurus sp. nov., paratype, ♂ from Belgium, between Nieuwpoort and Oostduinkerke (RBINS, INV. 187223). C–E. Polybius vernalis (Risso, 1827). C. Specimen from Tunisia, Bay of Tunis (RBINS, INV. 187235). D. Specimen from Spain, Málaga, Fuengirola (RBINS, INV. 187238). E. Specimen from Bulgaria, Varna Bay (RBINS INV. 187236). F. Polybius holsatus (Fabricius, 1798), ♂ from Belgium, Duinbergen (RBINS, INV. 187221).

Fig. 5 in A new cryptic species of Polybiidae (Crustacea: Decapoda: Portunoidea) from the East Atlantic, with considerations on the genus Polybius

Fig. 5. Polybius dioscurus sp. nov., paratype, ♂ from Belgium, between Nieuwpoort and Oostduinkerke (RBINS, INV. 187223). A. Dorsal habitus. B. Facial habitus. C. Ventral habitus. D. Carpus of right cheliped.

Fig. 3 in A new cryptic species of Polybiidae (Crustacea: Decapoda: Portunoidea) from the East Atlantic, with considerations on the genus Polybius

Fig. 3. Polybius dioscurus sp. nov., holotype, ♂, 26.4 mm CW, from Valdelagrana, Cádiz, Spain, 36°43′ N, 06°14′ W, 3.3–6.6 m depth, 31 Oct. 1996 (CRUST_ICMAN/3759). A. Dorsal habitus. B. Right cheliped, facial view. C. Carpus of left cheliped. D. Carpus to dactylus of right pereiopod 5. E. Body in ventral view, abdomen view.