Find research datasets worth reusing

opennotspecifiedFeb 2015View details →

Figure 4 in Using geometric morphometrics for integrative taxonomy: an examination of head shapes of milksnakes (genus Lampropeltis)

Figure 4. Thin-plate splines of each species warped from the Procrustes consensus alignment of all species.

opennotspecifiedFeb 2015View details →

Figure 1 in Using geometric morphometrics for integrative taxonomy: an examination of head shapes of milksnakes (genus Lampropeltis)

Figure 1. Representatives of the six milksnake species used in the present study; A, Lampropeltis triangulum. B, Lampropeltis gentilis. C, Lampropeltis elapsoides. D, Lampropeltis polyzona. E, Lampropeltis abnorma. F, Lampropeltis micropholis.

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2022View details →

Comparability of skeletal fibulae surfaces generated by different source scanning (dual-energy CT scan vs. high resolution laser scanning) and 3D geometric morphometric validation

SI_Appendix 1. Matrix of Cartesian coordinates of analyzed specimens. SI_Appendix 2. Sample list and acquisition methods.

opennotspecifiedAug 2017View details →

FIGURE 4. Landmarks used for geometric morphometric analyses. Fifteen landmarks were recorded for 88 in Revision of the polytypic electric fish Gymnotus carapo (Gymnotiformes, Teleostei), with descriptions of seven subspecies

FIGURE 4. Landmarks used for geometric morphometric analyses. Fifteen landmarks were recorded for 88 morphologically mature specimens from seven subspecies of G. carapo Landmarks: 1) tip of snout; 2) tip of maxilla; 3) margin of maxilla; 4) external naris; 5) second pore of the supraorbital laterosensory canal; 6) point directly above midline of eye; 7) supraoccipital crest; 8) base of first anal fin ray; 9) anus; 10) seventh pore of the posterior marginal laterosensory canal; 11) anterior margin of eye; 12) posterior margin of eye; 13) top of preopercle; 14) top of opercle; 15) base of most ventral pectoral fin ray.

opencc-by-4.0Jan 2016View details →

Supplementary material 1 from: Li S, Ricchiardi E, Bai M, Yang X (2016) A taxonomy review of Oreoderus Burmeister, 1842 from China with a geometric morphometric evaluation (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Valgini). ZooKeys 552: 67-89. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.552.6096

Figure A.1 Minimum spanning tree mapped onto a PCA plot; Table A.1–4 Difference in shapes of four characters among species. :

opennotspecifiedJan 2020View details →

Fig. 1 in A geometric morphometric approach for disparity of the sulcus acusticus of sagitta in species of Gerreidae (Teleostei: Perciformes)

Fig. 1 Concepts of variability in the empirical morphospace constructed from a set of principal components (λ1 and λ2). MD morphological disparity, the morphospace occupied by all specimens in a group. The broken line illustrates the distance added from each specimen to the group mean; PD partial disparity, the contribution that a group makes to the morphological disparity of a set of groups. The dark line illustrates the distance added from each specimen in a group to the overall mean. Small filled black dots = group centroid; large filled black dot = overall centroid; empty black dots = specimens

opennotspecifiedMar 2019View details →

Mecistops leptorhynchus, photographed along the Bongo River, Moukalaba- Doudou National Park, Gabon. Researcher Matthew Shirley is using new techniques, such as geometric morphometrics, in taxonomic studies. Photograph: Matthew Shirley. in The Evolution of Natural History Collections

Mecistops leptorhynchus, photographed along the Bongo River, Moukalaba- Doudou National Park, Gabon. Researcher Matthew Shirley is using new techniques, such as geometric morphometrics, in taxonomic studies. Photograph: Matthew Shirley.

Fig. 4 in Functional morphology of the cave bear (Ursus spelaeus) mandible: a 3D geometric morphometric analysis

Fig. 4 PCAs on the regression residuals of all extant Ursidae and U. spelaeus after a regression analysis of the Procrustes coordinates onto log centroid size pooled per species (a, b) and on the regression residuals of the regression taking phylogeny into account (c, d). The colors indicate the

Fig. 6 in Functional morphology of the cave bear (Ursus spelaeus) mandible: a 3D geometric morphometric analysis

Fig. 6 Scatterplot of the PC1 scores versus the logarithm of the percentage of foliage in the diet. Linear regression lines were fitted with the 95 % confidence interval of the group mean and the mean scores of U. spelaeus (vertical line)

Fig. 2 in Functional morphology of the cave bear (Ursus spelaeus) mandible: a 3D geometric morphometric analysis

Fig. 2 Mandibles of Ursus spelaeus (a, b) and Tremarctos ornatus (c) and showing the position of the masseteric fossa (MF) and the premasseteric fossa (PMF). Positions of the landmarks on a mandible of Ursus spelaeus on the lingual side (a) and the labial side (b). The landmarks are described in Table 3. Not to scale. Part A of the figure also displays the biomechanics. The resistance (Fout) at the carnassial of the lower jaw depends on the muscular input force (Fin), the angle of insertion of the muscle onto the jaw (α) and the ratio of in-lever arm or moment arm (Li) to out-lever arm (Lo). Angle of insertion of jaw muscles changes during jaw closing and determines the moment arm of the muscular input force (Mi). Mass pertaining to the masseter, Temp pertaining to the temporalis. Li Mass and Mi Mass happen to be the same in this diagram

Fig. 5 2B in Functional morphology of the cave bear (Ursus spelaeus) mandible: a 3D geometric morphometric analysis

Fig. 5 2B-PLS on the regression residuals of all extant Ursidae and U. spelaeus after a regression analysis of the Procrustes coordinates onto log centroid size pooled per species. A phylogenetic overlay is shown in gray

Fig. 4 in Several Subspecies or Phenotypic Plasticity? A Geometric Morphometric and Molecular Analysis of Variability of the Mayan Cichlid Mayaheros urophthalmus in the Yucatan

Fig. 4. Axis of CVA under aquatic environment approach with ellipses of the probability of 95%, and the grid of morphometric space of CVA with a factor of deformation ¼ 0.1; (A) axis 1 of CVA and (B) axis 2 of CVA.

Fig. 3. CVA 1 in Several Subspecies or Phenotypic Plasticity? A Geometric Morphometric and Molecular Analysis of Variability of the Mayan Cichlid Mayaheros urophthalmus in the Yucatan

Fig. 3. CVA 1 vs. CVA 2 by population at geometric morphometric space delimited by minimum convex polygons, and the grid of morphometric space of CVA with a factor of deformation ¼ 0.1; (A) axis 1 of CVA and (B) axis 2 of CVA.

Fig. 1 in Several Subspecies or Phenotypic Plasticity? A Geometric Morphometric and Molecular Analysis of Variability of the Mayan Cichlid Mayaheros urophthalmus in the Yucatan

Fig. 1. Study area, Yucatan Peninsula. Localities of M. urophthalmus taken into account for the geometric morphometric analysis, in gray numbers. Localities with genetic data, marked with an asterisk. Localities from nominal species included in the morphometric analysis: M. alborus (15), M. cienagae (10), M. conchitae (8), M. mayorum (6), and M. zebra (9).

Fig. 2 in Several Subspecies or Phenotypic Plasticity? A Geometric Morphometric and Molecular Analysis of Variability of the Mayan Cichlid Mayaheros urophthalmus in the Yucatan

Fig. 2. Constellation of landmarks and semilandmarks for the geometric morphometric analysis showing Procrustes superimposition of landmarks and semilandmarks. Anatomical positions of landmarks: Landmark 1—intersection between the posterior base of dorsal fin and caudal peduncle; Landmark 2—the most distal pore of the end of lateral line; Landmark 3—intersection between the posterior base of the pelvic fin and caudal peduncle; Landmark 4—intersection between anterior base of pelvic fin and belly; Landmark 5—apical intersection between subopercle and interopercle; Landmark 6—commissure of dentary at the more posterior end at its junction with the anguloarticular, quadrates, and ectometapterygoid bone; Landmarks 7 and 8—delimitation of the width of the commissure of dentary at its junction with the maxilla; Landmarks 9 and 10—delimitation of the width of the dentary at the more anterior end; Landmarks 10 and 12—delimitation of the width of the premaxilla at the more anterior end; Landmark 11—dorsal end of edge between opercle and cheek; Landmarks 12 to 24—the curve of 13 semilandmarks beginning at the intersection between the premaxilla and ascending process at semilandmark 12, the curve traced upwards until the base of dorsal fin at semilandmark 24.

opencc-zeroJun 2021View details →

dryad32/100

Using 2D dental geometric morphometrics to identify modern Perognathus and Chaetodipus specimens (Rodentia, Heteromyidae)

The Heteromyidae (pocket mice and kangaroo rats) are a group of extant small rodents abundant in western North America, as well as in fossil assemblages over the last 20 million years. Two genera of heteromyids, Chaetodipus and Perognathus, share similar tooth morphology and teeth are the primary fossil remains. Previous genetic studies show these extant sister genera likely diverged in the middle Miocene (~16 million years ago); however, the Chaetodipus fossil record starts in the Pleistocene (~2 million years ago). In this study, we asked whether two-dimensional geometric morphometrics on complete dentition and isolated premolars can accurately identify Chaetodipus and Perognathus specimens at the genus and species level. We landmarked the occlusal surface of the upper and lower tooth rows of modern Chaetodipus (n = 83) and Perognathus specimens (n = 80), including 12 of the 26 extant species across the two genera. We ran a canonical variates analysis to investigate whether principal component variation could predict known taxonomic identifications. The morphospace using complete dentition can identify specimens to genus with 90 – 92% accuracy and to species with more variable accuracy. We found an isolated premolar provides sufficient information for genus-level identification (69 – 84% accuracy), but not for species-level identification (26 – 56% accuracy). This morphospace of modern specimens can be used to identify the skeletal remains of Chaetodipus and Perognathus in museum collections, raptor pellets, or middens, to refine our existing knowledge of heteromyid evolutionary history.

FIGURE 4 a-b in A geometric morphometric evaluation on three populations of endemic species Dorcadion micans (Cerambycidae, Coleoptera) in Ankara Province from Turkey with a new subspecies description

FIGURE 4 a-b. Canonical variate analyses (CVA) of elytra (a) and pronotum (b) configurations. Colors represent different populations: Akyurt population (red), Bala population (green) and Beynam population (blue). Wire-frame graphs were shown for shape differences along the CV1 and CV2. The extreme changes of shape in positive and negative direction was shown by the violet lines and mean shape of elytra and pronotum was shown by blue lines. The scale for each figures is; elytra CV1 (-5, +5), pronotum CV2 (-5, +5).

FIGURE 5 a-b in A geometric morphometric evaluation on three populations of endemic species Dorcadion micans (Cerambycidae, Coleoptera) in Ankara Province from Turkey with a new subspecies description

FIGURE 5 a-b. Box-plot showing the average of centroid size of elytra (a) and pronotum (b) each species. The inner line represents the median. Box margins are at 25th and 75th percentiles bars extend to 5th and 95th percentiles, circles represent outliers.

FIGURE 2a-2b in A geometric morphometric evaluation on three populations of endemic species Dorcadion micans (Cerambycidae, Coleoptera) in Ankara Province from Turkey with a new subspecies description

FIGURE 2a-2b. Dorsal views of the landmarks used to define the shape of elytra (2a) and pronotum (2b)

FIGURE 6 in A geometric morphometric evaluation on three populations of endemic species Dorcadion micans (Cerambycidae, Coleoptera) in Ankara Province from Turkey with a new subspecies description

FIGURE 6. Habitus of Dorcadion micans majoripunctum ssp. nov., holotype (male), dorsal view (left), lateral view (right).