Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 12 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study

Fig. 12. Historical synthesis of the taxonomic interpretation for the genus Phricodoceras from 1826 until today. Six options are considered: H?, no taxonomic attribution or attribution deliberately left undetermined; Eo, explicit attribution to Eoderoceratoidea or implicit proximity with some ammonites currently attributed to the Eoderoceratidae; Ko, explicit attribution to the Kosmoceratidae; Ly, explicit attribution to the Lytoceratoidea (in the current sense); Ps, explicit attribution to the Psiloceratoidea and proximity with the Schlotheimiidae; La, enigmatic lazarus taxon. A cross indicates an absence of attribution to a taxon. A single black dot suggests an implicit or explicit but very reserved attribution. Two black dots suggest an explicit but debatable attribution. Three black dots suggest an unconditional explicit attribution. Four black dots suggest an explicit attribution based on ontogenetic evidence. For easy reading, the two columns corresponding to the two most frequent taxonomic interpretations (i.e., Eo and Ps) are shaded.

Fig. 11 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study

Fig. 11. Habitus of some nodded, spined and/or tuberculate Lytoceratoidea (A) and Eoderoderatoidea (B–D). A. Analytoceras hermanni (Gümbel, 1861), Kammerkaralpe, Waidring, Tyrol, Austria, probably Late Hettangian (from Wähner 1894: pl. 3: 3a, b, modified), in ventral (A1) and lateral (A2) views. B. Epideroceras lorioli (Hug, 1899), St Peter's Field, Radstock, Somerset, UK, Echioceras raricostatum Chronozone, Paltechioceras aplanatum Subchronozone (from Edmunds et al. 2003: fig. 21. 4, modified), in lateral (B1) and apertural (B2) views. C. Tetraspidoceras repentinum Edmunds, 2009, St Peter's Field, Radstock, Somerset, UK, Uptonia jamesoni Chronozone, Phricodoceras taylori Subchronozone (from Edmunds 2009: pl. 32: 1, modified), in lateral (C1) and ventral (C2) views. D. Becheiceras bechei (Sowerby, 1821), Golden Cap, Seatown, Dorset, UK, Prodactylioceras davoei Chronozone, Oistoceras figulinum Subchronozone (from Edmunds 2009: pl. 38: 1, modified), in lateral (D1) and apertural (D2) views. Tubercles and/or spines in (t1) and/or (t2) positions of the Eoderoceratoidea (B–D) are not homologous with those of Phricodoceras, nevertheless this genus was long understood as a (borderline) member of this superfamily. In the case of Lytoceratoidea (A) the ornamental features in peri−siphonal position (pn3) are parabolic nodes which are morphologically clearly distinct from the tubercles or spines of both Eoderoceratoidea and Phricodoceras. The growth stage of the specimen is unknown.

Fig. 10 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study

Fig. 10. Schematic representation and comparison of the ontogenies of an Angulaticeras macroconch (A. boucaultianum) and of a Phricodoceras macroconch (P. lamellosum) in a simplified diagram taking into account the assumed mobility (x−axis) and the assumed passive shell protection (y−axis). These parameters cannot be fully expressed quantitatively. Mobility depends mainly on hydrodynamic abilities, which are correlated with shell geometry but also with some aspects of ornamentation. Marked ornamental traits may play an important role. For example a keel or a ventral groove may increase the hydrodynamic stability of the shell and thereby facilitate mobility, but prominent tubercles and/or spines may significantly increase hydrodynamic drag thereby reducing mobility. Conversely the prominence of ornamentation (chiefly of tubercles and/or spines) may be an effective passive protection against predators. Although highly schematic and hypothetical, such a diagram can be understood as an approximate representation of an "adaptative landscape" in which successive growth stages can be roughly situated. This "adaptative landscape" can be divided into four quadrants labeled A–D. The two studied species occupy only quadrants A (rather poor mobility but good passive shell protection) and C (good mobility but poor passive shell protection). In fact, only the juvenile growth stages of Phricodoceras lamellosum are situated in quadrant A but all the other growth stages, of both species, are in quadrant C. This pattern underlines the adaptative peculiarity of the juvenile growth stages of Phricodoceras.

Fig. 8 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study

Fig. 8. Septal suture lines of several Lytoceratoidea (A–D) and Eoderoceratoidea (E–H) for comparisons with those of the scholtheimiid ammonoids Angulaticeras and Phricodoceras (Fig. 7). A. Zaghouanites arcanum (Wiedenmayer, 1977) (from Rakús and Guex 2002: fig. 54e, modified). B. Eolytoceras tasekoi Frebold, 1967 (from Wiedmann 1970: text−fig. 9c, modified). C. Pleuroacanthites biformis (Sowerby in De La Beche, 1831) (from Canavari 1888: text–fig. 2.3, modified). D. Analytoceras gr. articulatum (Sowerby in De La Beche, 1831) (from Wiedmann 1970: text–fig. 8a, modified). E. Epideroceras planarmatum (Quenstedt, 1856) (from Schlatter 1980: beil. 15a, modified). F. Xipheroceras rasinodum (Quenstedt, 1884) (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 57, modified). G. Xipheroceras ziphus (Zieten, 1830) (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 56, modified). H. Eoderoceras bisbinigerum (Buckman, 1918) (from Schlegelmilch 1992: 62, modified). For each suture line the whorl height (wh) is indicated, if known. The main elements of the suture line are indicated by following abbreviations: E, external lobe; L, lateral lobe; U1, U2, umbilical lobes; I, internal lobe.

Fig. 7 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study

Fig. 7. Septal suture lines of several Schlotheimiidae belonging to the genera Phricodoceras (A–E) and Angulaticeras (F–J). A. Phricodoceras urkuticum (Géczy, 1959) (from Géczy 1976: fig. 49, modified). B. Phricodoceras taylori (Sowerby, 1826) (from Dommergues 2003: fig. 6A, modified). C. Phricodoceras taylori (from Dommergues 2003: fig. 6B, modified). D. Phricodoceras taylori (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 61, modified). E. Phricodoceras gr. taylori (Sowerby, 1826) (from Schlatter 1990: fig. 3, modified). F. Angulaticeras martinischmidti (Lange, 1951) (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 38, modified). G. Angulaticeras charmassei (Orbigny, 1844) (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 38, modified). H. Angulaticeras densilobatum (Pompeckj, 1893) (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 39, modified). I. Angulaticeras lacunatum (J. Buckman, 1844) (from Schlegelmilch 1976, 38, modified). J. Angulaticeras rumpens (Oppel, 1862) (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 39, modified). For each suture line the whorl height (wh) is indicated, if known. The main elements of the suture line are indicated by following abbreviations: E, external lobe; L, lateral lobe; U1, U2, umbilical lobes; I, internal lobe.

Fig. 4 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study

Fig. 4. Position and terminology of the tubercles, spines and/or bullae on Phricodoceras shells (juvenile and/or microconch. A, B. Normal view. C, D. Shaded view with indication of the main ornamental structure outlines (white lines). Abbreviations: t1, latero−umbilical position; t2, latero−ventral position; t3, peri−siphonal position; us, umbilical seam; vb, ventral band.

Fig. 3 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study

Fig. 3. Microconch (m) / macroconch (M) dimorphism expressed by scholtheimiid ammonoid Phricodoceras exemplified by the NW Europe forms in the Uptonia jamesoni to Tragophylloceras ibex chronozones. A. Phricodoceras lamellosum (Orbigny, 1844) (M), UBGD 277451, Mazenay, Saône et Loire, France, probably early Uptonia jamesoni Chronozone, in apertural (A1), lateral (A2), and ventral (A3) views. B. Phricodoceras lamellosum (M), Kircheim unter Teck, Baden−Würtemberg, Germany, Early Pliensbachian (from Schlegelmilch 1976: pl. 27: 4, modified; original from Quenstedt 1884: pl. 28: 24), in apertural (B1), lateral (B2), and ventral (B3) views. C. Phricodoceras taylori (Sowerby, 1826) (m), Corbigny, Nièvre, France, Uptonia jamesoni Chronozone, Phricodoceras taylori Subchronozone (from Dommergues 2003: pl. 1: 4), in lateral view. D. Phricodoceras aff. cornutum (Simpson, 1843) (m), Fresnayle−Puceux, Calvados, France, Early Pliensbachian (from Dommergues et al. 2008: pl. 3: 6, modified), in ventral (D1) and lateral (D2) views. E. Phricodoceras taylori (m), Fresnay−le−Puceux, Calvados, France, Early Pliensbachian (from Dommergues et al. 2008: pl. 3: 5, modified), in ventral (E1) and lateral (E2) views. The two specimens corresponding to A, B are incomplete phragmocones (juvenile or immature shells) but the three corresponding to C–E are adult microconchs with the major part of the body chamber. The end of the phragmocone is starred. Notice the progressive ontogenetic transformation from tubercle (t3) to faint shoulder (s3) in specimen B. Abbreviations: t2, tubercle in latero−ventral position; t3, tubercle in peri−siphonal position; s3, shoulder peri−siphonal position.

Fig. 10 in Oviraptorosaur tail forms and functions

Fig. 10. Comparison of the caudal and pelvic skeletons of Anchiornis, LPM-B00169 (A), Archaeopteryx, Berlin specimen HMN 1880 (B), Jeholornis, IVPP V 13274 (C), Confuciusornis, IVPP V 11308 (D), and the oviraptorosaur Khaan, MPC-D 100/1127 (E).

Fig. 8 in Oviraptorosaur tail forms and functions

Fig. 8. Digital models of the caudal osteology and musculature of Ajancingenia yanshini (MPC-D 100/30). Three stages of reconstruction are shown in right lateral (A 1 –C 1) and dorsal (A 2 –C 2) views: the caudal skeleton modeled based on specimen measurements (A); the m. caudofemoralis longus modeled over the digital skeleton (B); and the full muscle reconstruction with the epaxial M. spinalis/M. longissimus and the hypaxial M. ilio-ischiocaudalis (C). Generated from Rhinoceros NURBS modeling for Windows 4.0.

Fig. 11 in Oviraptorosaur tail forms and functions

Fig. 11. Life reconstruction of Ajancingenia yanshini, depicting a male with a tail-feather fan displaying for an onlooking female. Original painting by Sydney Mohr.

Fig. 6 in Oviraptorosaur tail forms and functions

Fig. 6. Explanatory drawing of posterior view of caudal vertebra and chevron with one half of caudal musculature illustrated. A. First caudal vertebra of Nomingia gobiensis (MPC-D 100/119, type specimen) from the Nemegt Formation of Mongolia. B. Second caudal vertebra of Ajancingenia yanshini MPC-D 100/30).

Fig. 9 in Oviraptorosaur tail forms and functions

Fig. 9. Digital models of the caudal osteology and musculature of Nomingia gobiensis (MPC-D 100/119). Three stages of reconstruction are shown in right lateral (A 1 –C 1) and dorsal (A 2 –C 2) views: the caudal skeleton modeled based on specimen measurements (A); the m. caudofemoralis longus modeled over the digital skeleton (B); and the full muscle reconstruction with the epaxial M. spinalis/M. longissimus and the hypaxial M. ilio-ischiocaudalis (C). Generated from Rhinoceros NURBS modeling for Windows 4.0.

Fig. 7 in Oviraptorosaur tail forms and functions

Fig. 7. Digital models of the caudal osteology and musculature of Khaan mckennai (MPC-D 100/1127). Three stages of reconstruction are shown in right lateral (A 1 –C 1) and dorsal (A 2 –C 2) views: the caudal skeleton modeled based on specimen measurements (A); the m. caudofemoralis longus modeled over the digital skeleton (B); and the full muscle reconstruction with the epaxial M. spinalis/M. longissimus and the hypaxial M. ilio-ischiocaudalis (C). Generated from Rhinoceros NURBS modeling for Windows 4.0.

Fig. 5. Oviraptorosaur theropod Conchoraptor gracilis Barbsold, 1986 in Oviraptorosaur tail forms and functions

Fig. 5. Oviraptorosaur theropod Conchoraptor gracilis Barbsold, 1986, from the Nemegt Formation of Mongolia. Pygostyle and pre-pygostle terminal vertebrae of MPC-D 100/1275, in ventral view, with pygostyle vertebrae (P1–P3) denoted).

Fig. 3 in Oviraptorosaur tail forms and functions

Fig. 3. Oviraptorosaur theropod Nomingia gobiensis Barsbold, Currie, Myhrvold, Osmólska, Tsogtbaatar, and Watabe, 2000, from the Nemegt Formation of Mongolia. Pygostyle of MPC-D 102/5, in right lateral view, with pygostyle vertebrae (P1–P5) denoted).

Fig. 4 in Oviraptorosaur tail forms and functions

Fig. 4. Oviraptorosaur theropod Citipati osmolskae Clarke, Norell, and Barsbold, 2000, from the Djadokhta Formation of Mongolia. Pygostyle of MPC-D 100/978, in left lateral view, with pygostyle vertebrae (P1–P3) denoted).

Fig. 2 in Oviraptorosaur tail forms and functions

Fig. 2. Outline illustrations of the basic anterior and posterior caudal morphology of Ajancingenia yanshini (Barsbold, 1981). Caudal vertebra two and accompanyinposterior chevron in right lateral (A), dorsal (B), and anterior (C) views. Caudal vertebra nineteen and accompanying posterior chevron in right lateral (D), dorsal (E), and anterior (F) views.

Fig. 1 in Oviraptorosaur tail forms and functions

Fig. 1. Simplified theropod phylogenies, illustrating two competing hypotheses on the relationship between oviraptorosaurs and birds. A. Oviraptorosauria is the sister group to Aves and is positioned within Avialae phylogeny modified from Maryańska et al. 2002). B. Oviraptorosauria is the sister group to Paraves, which includes Aves and Deinonychusauria phylogeny modified from Senter 2007).

opencc-by-4.0Dec 1893View details →

Fig. 32. Trachythorax spp. Egg forms and parasites A–B in Review of the Oriental stick insect genus Trachythorax Redtenbacher, 1908 with two new species from Vietnam and comments on egg parasitism and morphological counteradaptations (Phasmida, Lonchodidae, Necrosciinae)

Fig. 32. Trachythorax spp. Egg forms and parasites A–B, Trachythorax maculicollis (Westwood, 1848). A, egg clutch with parasitoid wasp, Ankor Wat, Cambodia, 24.XI.2013. © P. Bertner. B, Con Dao Island, Vietnam, 2012. © B. Kneubühler. C–F, Trachythorax illaesa (Redtenbacher, 1908) stat. rev. comb. nov. C, Agumbe, Karnataka state, X.2020. © V. Gowda. D–F, hatched eggs with parasitoid wasp, Nagla trail, Mumbai, Maharashtra state, 2018. © Prajwal Ullal. G–H, Trachythorax albomaculatus sp. nov. © B. Kneubühler.