Find research datasets worth reusing

Figure 6 in Geometric morphometric analysis of shell shape variation in Conus (Gastropoda: Conidae)

Figure 6. Plot of the results of the principal components analysis (PCA) with the identified Conus specimens and specimens unidentified a priori. Labels indicate identification of specimens after the PCA. +, Conus consors;, Conus miles; ¥, Conus stercusmuscarum; O, Conus striatus; °, Conus textile; •, unidentified.

Figure 1 in Geometric morphometric analysis of shell shape variation in Conus (Gastropoda: Conidae)

Figure 1. Conus species used in this study. A, Conus consors Sowerby ii, 1833; B, Conus miles Linnaeus, 1758; C, Conus stercusmuscarum Linnaeus, 1758; D, Conus striatus Linnaeus, 1758; E, Conus textile Linnaeus, 1758.

Figure 9 in Geometric morphometric analysis of shell shape variation in Conus (Gastropoda: Conidae)

Figure 9. Plot of the results of the principal components analysis of relative warp 1 and relative warp 2. +, Conus consors;, Conus miles; ¥, Conus stercusmuscarum; O, Conus striatus; °, Conus textile.

Figure 2 in Geometric morphometric analysis of shell shape variation in Conus (Gastropoda: Conidae)

Figure 2. Landmarks (LM) on a Conus specimen. LM1 – apex of the shell; LM2–5 – sutures between major whorls on right profile; LM6 – junction between end of suture and apertural lip; LM7 – outermost curve of aperture; LM8 – lowest point of aperture at base; LM9 – lowest point of last whorl at base; LM10 – most external point on left profile of last whorl; LM11 – shoulder on left profile, where last whorl curves; LM12 – point opposite to LM5 on left profile; LM13 – point opposite LM4 on left profile; LM14 – point opposite LM3 on left profile; LM15 – point opposite LM2 on left profile; LM16 – most external point on right profile of last whorl.

Figure 5 in Geometric morphometric analysis of shell shape variation in Conus (Gastropoda: Conidae)

Figure 5. Phylogram depicting relationships amongst the five Conus species based on morphological distances (between landmark coordinates), generated by the NEIGHBOR program of PHYLIP 3.69.

Figure 4 in Geometric morphometric analysis of shell shape variation in Conus (Gastropoda: Conidae)

Figure 4. Plot of the results of the principal components analysis of the 32 coordinates of 16 landmarks on Conus specimens grouped by dietary requirements. +, piscivores;, vermivores; °, molluscivores.

Figure 8 in Geometric morphometric analysis of shell shape variation in Conus (Gastropoda: Conidae)

Figure 8. Thin-plate spline grids; warps in reference to mean shape. Numbers indicate area expansion or compression factors (i.e. degree of local growth). Green represents expansion, purple compression. A, Conus consors; B, Conus miles; C, Conus stercusmuscarum; D, Conus striatus; E, Conus textile.

Figure 3 in Geometric morphometric analysis of shell shape variation in Conus (Gastropoda: Conidae)

Figure 3. Plot of the results of the principal components analysis of the 32 coordinates of 16 landmarks on Conus specimens. +, Conus consors;, Conus miles; ¥, Conus stercusmuscarum; O, Conus striatus; °, Conus textile.

Figure 3 in Mandible shape in marsupial and placental carnivorous mammals: a morphological comparative study using geometric morphometrics

Figure 3. Mandible shape variation along the first three relative warps (RW). A, relative warp 1 versus 3 showing the distribution of diet classes; B, relative warp 2 versus 3 showing the distribution of diet classes; C, relative warp 1 versus 3, showing the distribution of taxonomic groups; D, relative warp 2 versus 3, showing the distribution of taxonomic groups. Shape reconstructions show the extreme shape of each RW in black lines against the consensus shape in grey lines.

Figure 2 in Mandible shape in marsupial and placental carnivorous mammals: a morphological comparative study using geometric morphometrics

Figure 2. Mandible shape variation along the first four relative warps (RW). A, relative warp 1 versus 2, showing the distribution of diet classes; B, relative warp 3 versus 4, showing the distribution of diet classes; C, relative warp 1 versus 2, showing the distribution of taxonomic groups; D, relative warp 3 versus 4, showing the distribution of taxonomic groups. Shape reconstructions show the extreme shape of each RW in black lines against the consensus shape in grey lines.

Figure 1 in Mandible shape in marsupial and placental carnivorous mammals: a morphological comparative study using geometric morphometrics

Figure 1. Lateral view of a Canis lupus mandible showing the landmarks and semilandmarks used. Squares, landmarks; X, semilandmarks; 1, caudal extreme of the condyle; 2, most concave point of the mandibular notch; 3, dorso-caudal angle of the coronoid process; 4–11, semilandmarks; 12, distal extreme of the lower carnassial; 13, distal border of the protoconid projected to the base of the crown; 14, mesial border of the lower carnassial; 15, distal extreme of the c1; 16, mesial extreme of the c1; 17–28, semilandmarks; 29, anterior border of the masseteric fosa.

Figure 5 in Mandible shape in marsupial and placental carnivorous mammals: a morphological comparative study using geometric morphometrics

Figure 5. Canonical analysis of variance of taxonomic groups and diet classes. A, dietary discrimination in marsupials (factor 1 versus 2); B, discrimination of main Carnivora clades (factor 1 versus 2); C, discrimination of main Caniformia clades (factor 1 versus 2); D, discrimination of main Feliformia clades (factor 1 versus 2). Shape reconstructions show the extreme shape of each RW in black lines against the consensus shape in grey lines.

Figure 7 in Mandible shape in marsupial and placental carnivorous mammals: a morphological comparative study using geometric morphometrics

Figure 7. Allometric relationship between mandible shape and size. Consensus configuration is in the middle, shape of the largest species (Ursus arctos) to the left, and shape of the smallest species (Planigale maculate) to the right.

Figure 6 in Mandible shape in marsupial and placental carnivorous mammals: a morphological comparative study using geometric morphometrics

Figure 6. Canonical analysis of variance of taxonomic groups. A, Methateria (light grey) versus Carnivora (dark grey); B, Caniformia (dark grey) versus Feliformia (light grey).

Figure 4 in Mandible shape in marsupial and placental carnivorous mammals: a morphological comparative study using geometric morphometrics

Figure 4. Canonical analysis of variance of diet classes. A, factor 1 versus 2; B: factor 1 versus 3. Shape reconstructions show the extreme shape of each RW in black lines against the consensus shape in grey lines.

Figure 9 in Dealing with allometry in linear and geometric morphometrics: a taxonomic case study in the Leporinus cylindriformis group (Characiformes: Anostomidae) with description of a new species from Suriname

Figure 9. Wireframe visualization of allometric shape change along the least squares regression line of Procrustes coordinates on log centroid size. Grey landmarks represent the average configuration amongst all specimens, whereas black landmarks represent the approximate extreme of variation (1.2 log centroid size units) in the direction of the smallest specimens, which have proportionally larger heads and eyes.

Figure 1. Leporinus cylindriformis, MCZ 20430 in Dealing with allometry in linear and geometric morphometrics: a taxonomic case study in the Leporinus cylindriformis group (Characiformes: Anostomidae) with description of a new species from Suriname

Figure 1. Leporinus cylindriformis, MCZ 20430, holotype, 188.0 mm standard length; Brazil, Pará, Rio Xingu at Porto de Moz. Image © President and Fellows of Harvard College.

Figure 10 in Dealing with allometry in linear and geometric morphometrics: a taxonomic case study in the Leporinus cylindriformis group (Characiformes: Anostomidae) with description of a new species from Suriname

Figure 10. Wireframe visualization of variation along the allometrically corrected principal components one (PC1), two, and three from geometric morphometric analysis. Grey landmarks represent the configuration of the average specimen, black landmarks represent one approximate extreme of variation on that axis. The deformation on PC1 represents 0.07 units, that on PC2 represents 0.04 units, and that on PC3 represents 0.03 units. Percentages indicate the proportion of total variance amongst the Procrustes residuals explained by each axis.

Figure 7 in Dealing with allometry in linear and geometric morphometrics: a taxonomic case study in the Leporinus cylindriformis group (Characiformes: Anostomidae) with description of a new species from Suriname

Figure 7. Reduced major axis regression of principal component one (PC1) scores from traditional linear morphometrics on log standard length for species of Leporinus discussed in text. Trendline represents a universal regression that does not take species membership into account; tests for equivalence of slope and intercept as reported in Tables 2 and 3 estimate a separate regression line for each putative species.

Figure 12 in Dealing with allometry in linear and geometric morphometrics: a taxonomic case study in the Leporinus cylindriformis group (Characiformes: Anostomidae) with description of a new species from Suriname

Figure 12. Geographical distribution of examined specimens of Leporinus amazonicus, Leporinus apollo sp. nov., Leporinus cylindriformis, Leporinus niceforoi, Leporinus cf. niceforoi, and Leporinus sp. Some symbols represent more than one collection locality.