Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-zeroJun 2011View details →

FIG. 2 in Early Eocene Caenogastropods (Mollusca, Gastropoda) from Haymana-Polatl Basin, Central Anatolia (Turkey): taxonomy and palaeoecology

FIG. 2. — Correlation table between the time scales, stages and biozones for the Upper Paleocene-Lower Eocene chronostratigraphy (compiled from Berggren et al. 1985, 1995; Serra-Kiel et al. 1998; Berggren & Aubry 1998; Aubry 2000; Luterbacher et al. 2004; Pujalte et al. 2009a, b).

FIG. 7 in Historical perspective: 140 years of Mesozoic radiolarian taxonomy

FIG. 7. — Pie diagram showing distribution of Mesozoic species across their authorship for the 2nd period of research (1960-2008). Number of species in brackets.

FIG. 5 in Historical perspective: 140 years of Mesozoic radiolarian taxonomy

FIG. 5. — Pie diagram showing distribution of Mesozoic species across the main orders of radiolarians.Since the order's assignments are probably not accurate, this diagram is of weak meaning.

FIG. 12 in Historical perspective: 140 years of Mesozoic radiolarian taxonomy

FIG. 12. — Bar diagram showing the distribution of synonymous genera for the Jurassic-Cretaceous period.

FIG. 2 in Historical perspective: 140 years of Mesozoic radiolarian taxonomy

FIG. 2. — Area diagram showing the distribution of papers published on radiolarians (6100 publications) with indication of Mesozoic (2333 publications) between 1834 and 2008.

FIG. 3 in Historical perspective: 140 years of Mesozoic radiolarian taxonomy

FIG. 3. — Pie diagram showing the number of new species across the two main historic stages of researches.

FIG. 6 in Historical perspective: 140 years of Mesozoic radiolarian taxonomy

FIG. 6. — Pie diagram showing distribution of Mesozoic species across their authorship for the 1st period of research (1867-1959). Number of species in brackets.

FIG. 8 in Historical perspective: 140 years of Mesozoic radiolarian taxonomy

FIG. 8. — Pie diagram showing the percentage distribution of Mesozoic genera across their current taxonomic status.

FIG. 11 in Historical perspective: 140 years of Mesozoic radiolarian taxonomy

FIG. 11. — Bar diagram showing the distribution of invalid genera (mostly synonyms) for the Triassic period.

FIG. 10 in Historical perspective: 140 years of Mesozoic radiolarian taxonomy

FIG. 10. — Pie diagram showing the distribution of nomina dubia genera for the Mesozoic Era plotted by stages of radiolarian researches.

Fig. 15 in Defining species boundaries in the Merodon avidus complex (Diptera, Syrphidae) using integrative taxonomy, with the description of a new species

Fig. 15. Differences in the posterior part of the surstylus among species of the M. avidus complex. A. UPGMA phenogram constructed using squared Mahalanobis distances. B. Thin-plate spline deformation grids showing overall shape differences between analysed species.

Fig. 14 in Defining species boundaries in the Merodon avidus complex (Diptera, Syrphidae) using integrative taxonomy, with the description of a new species

Fig. 14. Differences in the posterior part of the surstylus among species of the M. avidus complex. A. Scatter plot of individual scores of CV1 vs CV2. B. Scatter plot of individual scores of CV2 vs CV3.

Fig. 11 in Defining species boundaries in the Merodon avidus complex (Diptera, Syrphidae) using integrative taxonomy, with the description of a new species

Fig. 11. UPGMA phenogram constructed using the squared Mahalanobis distances of wing shape for species of the M. avidus complex.

Fig. 12 in Defining species boundaries in the Merodon avidus complex (Diptera, Syrphidae) using integrative taxonomy, with the description of a new species

Fig. 12. Thin-plate spline deformation grids showing wing shape differences between analysed species. Differences between the species have been exaggerated five-fold to make them more visible.

Fig. 10 in Defining species boundaries in the Merodon avidus complex (Diptera, Syrphidae) using integrative taxonomy, with the description of a new species

Fig. 10. Differences in wing shape among species of the M. avidus complex. A. Scatter plot of individual scores of CV1 vs CV2. B. Scatter plot of individual scores of CV2 vs CV3.

Fig. 9 in Defining species boundaries in the Merodon avidus complex (Diptera, Syrphidae) using integrative taxonomy, with the description of a new species

Fig. 9. UPGMA tree based on pairwise genetic distances for four species from the Merodon avidus complex.

Fig. 8 in Defining species boundaries in the Merodon avidus complex (Diptera, Syrphidae) using integrative taxonomy, with the description of a new species

Fig. 8. Median-joining network of the mtDNA 5'-end of the COI gene. Circle sizes are proportional to haplotype frequencies. Each branch represents one mutational step; if more than one mutational step is present, it is denoted by the given number.

Fig. 6 in Defining species boundaries in the Merodon avidus complex (Diptera, Syrphidae) using integrative taxonomy, with the description of a new species

Fig. 6. Maximum parsimony strict consensus tree based on DNA barcode COI sequences. Length 136 steps, Consistency Index (CI) = 93, Retention Index (RI) = 95. Filled circles denote unique changes, open circles non-unique.

Fig. 4 in Defining species boundaries in the Merodon avidus complex (Diptera, Syrphidae) using integrative taxonomy, with the description of a new species

Fig. 4. Merodon megavidus Vujić & Radenković sp. nov., head, antero-lateral view. A. Ƌ. B. ♀. Scale bar = 1 mm.

Fig. 3. Hind leg, lateral view. A–B in Defining species boundaries in the Merodon avidus complex (Diptera, Syrphidae) using integrative taxonomy, with the description of a new species

Fig. 3. Hind leg, lateral view. A–B. Merodon avidus (Rossi, 1790). A. Ƌ. B. ♀. — C–D. M. megavidus Vujić & Radenković sp. nov. C. Ƌ. D. ♀. Scale bar = 1 mm.