Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2022View details →

Figure 6 in Integrative approach of morphology and geometric morphometrics to species delimiation in Torrenticolidae (Acari: Hydrachnidiae)

Figure 6. UPGMA tree based on the matrix of the Procrustes distances between species (the anterior margins of coxae).

Fig. 4 in Determination Of Sexual Dimorphism And Morphological Variation Of Pool Barb, Puntius Sophore (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae), Using Landmark Based Geometric Morphometric Analysis

Fig. 4. Change of body shape along principal component axis (PC 1 = 43.827 %, and PC 2 = 20.578 %). Left side is the lollipop plots. Right side is the transformation grids of shape change.

Fig. 3, a in Determination Of Sexual Dimorphism And Morphological Variation Of Pool Barb, Puntius Sophore (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae), Using Landmark Based Geometric Morphometric Analysis

Fig. 3, a — eigenvalues plot of the proportion of variance described by each PC, b — scatter plot showing scores on the first two PCs for the sample of non-breeding season and breeding season fish population (female in red, male in blue and non-breeding season population in green).

Fig. 1, a in Determination Of Sexual Dimorphism And Morphological Variation Of Pool Barb, Puntius Sophore (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae), Using Landmark Based Geometric Morphometric Analysis

Fig. 1, a — male individual in breeding season; b — digitized image of P. sophore with the 14 landmarks (red points) used for the geometric morphometric analysis: c — scatter plot of 14 landmarks configurations after Procrustes Superimposition.

Fig. 2 in Determination Of Sexual Dimorphism And Morphological Variation Of Pool Barb, Puntius Sophore (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae), Using Landmark Based Geometric Morphometric Analysis

Fig. 2. Distribution of non-breeding season population and the breeding season (male and female) population along first and second canonical variate axes (female in red, male in blue and non-breeding season population in green).

FIGURE 9 in Morphological variation during post-embryonic development in the centipede Lithobius melanops: traditional and geometric morphometrics approaches

FIGURE 9 Centroid size differences of (A) The forcipular apparatus; (B) The cephalic capsule; and (C) The ultimate leg among epimorphic groups. The median with the first and third quartiles is shown (in boxes), together with the range of variation and outliers.

FIGURE 8 in Morphological variation during post-embryonic development in the centipede Lithobius melanops: traditional and geometric morphometrics approaches

FIGURE 8 Centroid size differences of (A, B) The forcipular apparatus; (C, D) The cephalic capsule; and (E, F) The ultimate leg among sexes in praematurus (left) and maturus (right) epimorphic groups. The median with the first and third quartiles is shown (in boxes), together with the range of variation and outliers.

FIGURE 7 in Morphological variation during post-embryonic development in the centipede Lithobius melanops: traditional and geometric morphometrics approaches

FIGURE 7 Position of landmarks (open circles) and semilandmarks (full circles) for analyzed structures in L. melanops: (A) The forcipular apparatus (ventral view); (B) The cephalic capsule (dorsal view); and (C) The ultimate leg (medial view). Scale bar: (A) and (C) – 1 mm; (B) – 0.5 mm.

FIGURE 6 in Morphological variation during post-embryonic development in the centipede Lithobius melanops: traditional and geometric morphometrics approaches

FIGURE 6 Development of genital appendages on the postpedal segments in males during epimorphic stages in L. melanops (ventral view). (A) Agenitalis; (B) Immaturus; (C) Praematurus; (D) Pseudomaturus early phase; (E) Pseudomaturus late phase; (F) Maturus. Scale bars: 0.2 mm.

FIGURE 5 in Morphological variation during post-embryonic development in the centipede Lithobius melanops: traditional and geometric morphometrics approaches

FIGURE 5 Development of genital appendages on the postpedal segments in females during epimorphic stages in L. melanops (ventral view). (A) Agenitalis; (B) Immaturus early phase; (C) Immaturus late phase; (D) Praematurus early phase; (E) Praematurus middle phase; (F) Praematurus late phase; (G) Pseudomaturus early phase; (H) Pseudomaturus late phase; (I) Maturus. Scale bars: 0.2 mm.

FIGURE 4 in Morphological variation during post-embryonic development in the centipede Lithobius melanops: traditional and geometric morphometrics approaches

FIGURE 4 Arrangement of ocelli during post-embryonic development in L. melanops (lateral view). (A) Anamorph 0; (B) Anamorph 1; (C) Anamorph 2; (D) Anamorph 3; (E) Anamorph 4; (F) Agenitalis; Downloaded from Brill.com 06/21/2024 07:44:41PM (G) Immaturus; (H) Praematurusvia; (I) OpenMaturus Access.. Scale Thisbar is: an 0.2 open mm. access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

FIGURE 3 in Morphological variation during post-embryonic development in the centipede Lithobius melanops: traditional and geometric morphometrics approaches

FIGURE 3 Development of the forcipular apparatus in L. melanops (ventral view). (A), (B) Anamorph 0; (C), (D) Anamorph 1; (E) Anamorph 2; (F) Anamorph 3; (G) Anamorph 4; (H) Agenitalis; (I) Immaturus; (J) Pseudomaturus; (K) Maturus. Scale bar: 0.2 mm. Specimens colored with toluidine blue: (B) and (D).

FIGURE 1 in Morphological variation during post-embryonic development in the centipede Lithobius melanops: traditional and geometric morphometrics approaches

FIGURE 1 Anamorphic post-embryonic developmental stages in L. melanops (dorsal view). Abbreviations: A0 – anamorph 0; A1 – anamorph 1; A2 – anamorph 2; A3 – anamorph 3; A4 – anamorph 4. Scale bar: 1 mm.

FIGURE 2 in Morphological variation during post-embryonic development in the centipede Lithobius melanops: traditional and geometric morphometrics approaches

FIGURE 2 Epimorphic post-embryonic developmental stages in L. melanops (dorsal view). Abbreviations: AG – agenitalis; iM – immaturus; PM – praematurus; PS – pseudomaturus; M – maturus. Scale bar: 5 mm.

Fig. 8 in Geometric morphometric on a new species of Trichodinidae. A tool to discriminate trichodinid species combined with traditional morphology and molecular analysis

Fig. 8. PCA. Principal component scatter plot (PCA) conducted on the elliptic Fourier descriptions of denticles shapes using the first 10 harmonics; this figure shows the first two principal components (PC1 and PC2 are on the x and y-axes, respectively).

Fig. 9 in Geometric morphometric on a new species of Trichodinidae. A tool to discriminate trichodinid species combined with traditional morphology and molecular analysis

Fig. 9. Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) of Trichodina spp. using normalized elliptical Fourier descriptors. Percentages indicate the proportion of the trace captured in each LD component.

Fig. 4. Tree derived from a in Geometric morphometric on a new species of Trichodinidae. A tool to discriminate trichodinid species combined with traditional morphology and molecular analysis

Fig. 4. Tree derived from a Maximum Likelihood (ML) analysis. The bootstrap consensus tree bases on ML inferred from 500 replicates. Bootstrap values for ML are given above nodes.

Fig. 2 in Geometric morphometric on a new species of Trichodinidae. A tool to discriminate trichodinid species combined with traditional morphology and molecular analysis

Fig. 2. Diagrammatic drawings of denticles of trichodinids. (A and B) Denticle of Trichodina bellotti n. sp. from Austrolebias bellottii. (C) Trichodina hypsilepis redrawn from Wellborn (1967). (D) Trichodina heterodentata redrawn from Duncan (1977). (E) Trichodina paraheterodentata redrawn from Tang and Zhao (2013). (F) Trichodina pseudoheterodentata redrawn from Tang et al. (2017).

Fig. 3 in Geometric morphometric on a new species of Trichodinidae. A tool to discriminate trichodinid species combined with traditional morphology and molecular analysis

Fig. 3. Phylogenetic tree based on 18S rDNA sequences by Bayesian Inference, with the model Trn + I + G applied in Mrbayes v.3.2.1. The new sequenced forms are in bold. Numbers given at nodes of branches are the posterior probability value.

Fig. 5 in Geometric morphometric on a new species of Trichodinidae. A tool to discriminate trichodinid species combined with traditional morphology and molecular analysis

Fig. 5. Denticles silhouettes utilized on Fourier analysis. Trichodina bellottii n. sp., Trichodina heterodentata redrawn from Duncan (1977); Albaladejo and Arthur, 1989; Bondad-Reantaso and Arthur, 1989; Van As and Basson, 1989; Basson and Van As, 1994; Al Rasheid et al., 2000; Asmat, 2004; Dove and O'Donoghue, 2005; Dias et al., 2009; Martins et al., 2010; Benites de Pádua et al., 2012; Miranda et al., 2012; Valladão et al., 2014. Trichodina paraheterodentata redrawn from Tang and Zhao (2013). Trichodina pseudoheterodentata redrawn from Tang et al. (2017).