Find research datasets worth reusing

FIGURE 6 in Uncovering Rotifera, Cladocera and Copepoda name length patterns for enhanced scientific communication

FIGURE 6. Number of zooplankton species named after a male person (yellow line) or after a female person (orange line), as indicated by suffix (-i, -ii or -ae) over more than two centuries.

FIGURE 2. Most common specific names a in Uncovering Rotifera, Cladocera and Copepoda name length patterns for enhanced scientific communication

FIGURE 2. Most common specific names a) in full dataset and b) per taxonomic group (Rotifera, Cladocera and Copepoda).

FIGURE 1 in Uncovering Rotifera, Cladocera and Copepoda name length patterns for enhanced scientific communication

FIGURE 1. Cumulative number of species of Rotifera, Cladocera and Copepoda over time. Dashed lines represent when the cumulative rank reached 25% (1912), 50% (1943) and 75% (1982) of all species in our dataset.

FIGURE 5 in Uncovering Rotifera, Cladocera and Copepoda name length patterns for enhanced scientific communication

FIGURE 5. Temporal variations in the length of genus names (upper panel) and specific names (lower panel) broken down by taxonomic groups: Rotifera (a, d), Cladocera (b, e) and Copepoda (c, f). Colored lines and dashed lines are, respectively, the predicted trend and 95% confidence interval for each group, according to a generalized additive model (see model estimates in Table S4).

FIGURE 3 in Uncovering Rotifera, Cladocera and Copepoda name length patterns for enhanced scientific communication

FIGURE 3. Average length of a) genus and b) specific names for all taxa over the decades. The solid lines indicate the average length whereas the dashed lines indicate median length values. c) Visual representation of the interplay between taxonomic diversity within genera and nomenclatural practices of specific names of Rotifera, Cladocera and Copepoda.

FIGURE 7 in Uncovering Rotifera, Cladocera and Copepoda name length patterns for enhanced scientific communication

FIGURE 7. Occurrence of prefixes, suffixes or additions of any kind to a pre-existing genus name in Rotifera, Cladocera and Copepoda (Calanoid and Cyclopoid) over time.

FIGURE 4 in Uncovering Rotifera, Cladocera and Copepoda name length patterns for enhanced scientific communication

FIGURE 4. Frequency distribution of the lengths of genus (a–c) and specific (d–f) names for each taxon separately. Rotifera (green plots, a, d), Cladocera (violet plots, b, e), Copepoda (blue plots, c, f). The solid lines indicate the average length whereas the dashed lines indicate median length values.

opennotspecifiedFeb 2018View details →

FIGURE 1 in The Réunion Fody and Sonnerat's Shrew and the validity of scientifically naming animals described without physical types

FIGURE 1. Sonnerat's sketch, with associated inscriptions, of the "musaraigne noire à bande blanche" [black shrew with white band] from his manuscript Nouveau voyage aux Indes, held as Item No. PX*D83 p.32 in the Mitchell Library, Melbourne. Published by permission of the New South Wales State Library; the sketch was not reproduced in Deloche & Ly-Tio-Fane (2010). The vertical writing is show-through from the other side of the paper; it has been digitally softened [from Cheke 2012].

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2024View details →

Alignment of ITS sequences of Erysiphe specimens from Koelreuteria hosts, with Golovinomyces spp. as outgroup. The scientific names are followed by the respective GenBank accession number.

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

opennotspecifiedAug 2000View details →

Table 1 in Naming Species, A New Paradigm For Crisis Management In Taxonomy: Rapid Journal Validation Of Scientific Names Enhanced With More Complete Descriptions On The Internet

<p><b>Table 1.</b> Current status of the Carabidae of Costa Rica.</p><table><tbody><tr><th>Source</th><th>Tribes Genera</th><th>Species</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>Literature</th><td>36</td><td>70</td><td>253</td></tr><tr><th>Additional numbers from</th></tr><tr><th>USNM, UASM, and INBio collections</th><td>0</td><td>58</td><td>?</td></tr><tr><th>Additional predicted</th></tr><tr><th>(known to occur elsewhere in Central America)</th><td>0</td><td>31</td><td>?</td></tr><tr><th>Predicted</th><td>36</td><td>133</td><td>1,1001</td></tr></tbody></table>

Figure 8 from: Pyle RL (2016) Towards a Global Names Architecture: The future of indexing scientific names. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 261–281. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10009

Figure 8 - The icons around the periphery represent examples of where biological data tagged with scientific names currently exist. The cluster of names in the center represent examples of distinct text-strings that have been used to represent the same species within different data sources.

Figure 9 from: Pyle RL (2016) Towards a Global Names Architecture: The future of indexing scientific names. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 261–281. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10009

Figure 9 - An example ZooBank page, illustrating several GNUB services: 1 user authentication 2 "fuzzy" searching of GNUB content 3 APIs and services 4 ZooBank registration 5 External Identifier cross-linking 6 BHL page linking 7 record editing capabilities 8 similar/related name discovery (via GNI's name searching service); and 9 multi-lingual support. Not shown are services to manage user accounts, de-duplicate records, prototype reconciliation tools, services for journal publishers, and visualization tools for author publication history and other statistics.

Figure 7 from: Pyle RL (2016) Towards a Global Names Architecture: The future of indexing scientific names. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 261–281. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10009

Figure 7 - At the start of modern zoological nomenclature, Linnaeus' tenth edition of Systema Naturae contained almost 4,400 species-group names (left). By 1850, the number of species names for animals had reached nearly 430,000 – an increase of two orders of magnitude.

Figure 4 from: Pyle RL (2016) Towards a Global Names Architecture: The future of indexing scientific names. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 261–281. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10009

Figure 4 - Carl Linnaeus used candle-lit microscopes with primitive optics to examine his specimens (left, H. Kingsbury). Modern technology allows us to generate high-resolution 3D CT scans of the internal structures of specimens without displacing a single scale (right top, Digimorph; Chromis abyssus), capture crisp images of tiny organisms through electron microscopy (right middle, NOAA; single-celled foraminifera), and read DNA sequences (right bottom, BOLD, unspecified taxon).

Figure 1 from: Pyle RL (2016) Towards a Global Names Architecture: The future of indexing scientific names. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 261–281. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10009

Figure 1 - In centuries past, months-long journeys aboard sailing ships were required for taxonomists to reach their destinations (left, Thomas Whitcombe). Today, almost any part of the world can be reached aboard modern aircraft (right, R. L. Pyle).

Figure 3 from: Pyle RL (2016) Towards a Global Names Architecture: The future of indexing scientific names. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 261–281. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10009

Figure 3 - Highly trained artisans once labored to produce detailed hand-painted illustrations of specimens (top, from Jordan and Evermann 1903). Modern digital cameras can generate far more accurate and detailed images almost instantly and with minimal skill (bottom, R. L. Pyle). Both images depict Bodianus sanguineus Jordan and Evermann 1903.

Figure 5 from: Pyle RL (2016) Towards a Global Names Architecture: The future of indexing scientific names. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 261–281. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10009

Figure 5 - Methods of collecting specimens from the field have advanced from earlier eras (left, from C.Delon, 1889) to modern high-tech equipment of today (right, Ken Corben).

Figure 6 from: Pyle RL (2016) Towards a Global Names Architecture: The future of indexing scientific names. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 261–281. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10009

Figure 6 - Despite many technological advancements in the tools of the taxonomic trade, the fundamental paradigm for the taxonomic enterprise remains almost unchanged from centuries ago (left, from Bates 1863; right Bishop Museum).

Figure 2 from: Pyle RL (2016) Towards a Global Names Architecture: The future of indexing scientific names. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 261–281. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10009

Figure 2 - Early taxonomists had only crude maps to plot the locations of their specimens; in this case the French Polynesian islands of Tahiti and Moorea (top, from Prévost D'Exiles 1746–1789). Today, highly accurate maps and satellite imagery can pinpoint particular locations within a few meters (bottom, Landsat).