Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 6 in Morphological requirements in limulid and decapod gills: A case study in deducing the function of lamellipedian exopod lamellae

Fig. 6. Phyllobranchiate gill of a decapod crustacean Atergatris sp. Top one−fourth is shown. SEM photo.

Fig. 5 in Morphological requirements in limulid and decapod gills: A case study in deducing the function of lamellipedian exopod lamellae

Fig. 5. The area of every gill lamella of selected first branchial appendages. A. Instar stage 4 of dry−body weight 0.01 g. B. Instar stage 10 of dry−body weight 0.43 g. C. Instar stage 14 of dry−body weight 6.7 g. D. Instar stage 18 of dry body weight 177.09 g. Grey shaded area corresponds to possible newly established lamellae in each instar stage. Darker shade ranges to minimum established number, while lighter maximum. Total respiratory area (T), respiratory area for newly established lamellae of minimum (Nmin) and maximum value (Nmax) are also noted. These ratios relative to the total area are shown in parentheses. The lamellae left to dashed lines lack an osmoregulatory area.

Fig. 4 in Morphological requirements in limulid and decapod gills: A case study in deducing the function of lamellipedian exopod lamellae

Fig. 4. Growth−related change in gill morphology of Limulus polyphemus shown in instar−stage series. A. Mean total respiratory (white bars) and osmoregulatory area for each instar stage (grey bars) and their increment rates (black and grey line graph denotes respiratory and osmoregulatory area, respectively). B. Average total lamellar number for each instar stage (bar graph) and its increment rates (line graph). C. Average area per single lamellae for each instar stage (bar graph) and its increment rates (line graph). The bar graphs should refer to left indexes shown in exponential form (A and C) or in actual numbers (B), and the line graphs right indexes. Error bars denote the maximum and the minimum lamellar numbers. Numbers shown above the columns represent the numbers of examined specimens.

Fig. 10 in Morphological requirements in limulid and decapod gills: A case study in deducing the function of lamellipedian exopod lamellae

Fig. 10. Lamellipedian exopod of the trilobite Olenoides serratus. A. Camera lucida drawing; traced from Whittington (1980: text−fig. 6). B. Estimated area of each exite shown in A.

Fig. 3 in Morphological requirements in limulid and decapod gills: A case study in deducing the function of lamellipedian exopod lamellae

Fig. 3. Posterior view of first instar stage of Limulus polyphemus Linnaeus, 1758. Only five gill lamellae (gl) are visible between the operculate division of first (ba1) and second branchial appendage (ba2). Other abbreviations: op, operculum; pr, prosoma. SEM photo.

Fig. 2 in Morphological requirements in limulid and decapod gills: A case study in deducing the function of lamellipedian exopod lamellae

Fig. 2. Book gill of Limulus polyphemus Linnaeus, 1758. A. Dorsal view of left first branchial appendage of instar stage 14. Endopod and exopod of the operculate division of branchial appendage as well as lamellae of book gill are shown. SEM photo. B. Dorsal view of left first branchial appendage of instar stage 4. SEM photo. C. Transparent microscopic photo of a gill lamella dyed with toluidine blue, showing osmoregulatory and respiratory area.

Fig. 1 in Working towards a conservation plan for fish parasites: Cyprinid parasites from the south African cape fold freshwater ecoregion as a case study

Fig. 1. Map illustrating localities where the five cyprinid hosts were collected in the Cape Fold ecoregion in the Western Cape, South Africa.

Fig. 7 in Working towards a conservation plan for fish parasites: Cyprinid parasites from the south African cape fold freshwater ecoregion as a case study

Fig. 7. Rarefaction/extrapolation curve estimating the diversity of parasites as a function of sampling effort for three of the five hosts collected in the OlifantsDoorn River System, Western Cape Province, South Africa. Shaded area represents the 95% confidence interval obtained using the bootstrap method based on 100 repetitions. Created using iNEXT Online (Chao et al., 2016).

Fig. 4 in Working towards a conservation plan for fish parasites: Cyprinid parasites from the south African cape fold freshwater ecoregion as a case study

Fig. 4. Pseudobarbus calidus (Barnard, 1938) (max. length: 125 mm) (A). Sclerites of Paradiplozoon sp. from the gills (B). Acanthocephala from the body cavity, whole specimen (C) and hooks on proboscis (top left insert). Larval Contracaecum sp. from the body cavity, anterior (D) and posterior (E) ends, lateral view. Scale bars: 100 μm (B, C, D, E).

Fig. 6 in Working towards a conservation plan for fish parasites: Cyprinid parasites from the south African cape fold freshwater ecoregion as a case study

Fig. 6. Sedercypris erubescens (Skelton, 1974) (max. length: 120 mm) (A). Larval Contracaecum sp. from the body cavity, anterior (B) and posterior (C) ends, lateral view. Scale bars: 100 μm (B, C).

Fig. 5 in Working towards a conservation plan for fish parasites: Cyprinid parasites from the south African cape fold freshwater ecoregion as a case study

Fig. 5. Pseudobarbus phlegethon (Barnard, 1938) (max. length: 65 mm) (A); Acanthogyrus sp. found from the body cavity (B). Scale bar: 500 μm.

Fig. 3 in Working towards a conservation plan for fish parasites: Cyprinid parasites from the south African cape fold freshwater ecoregion as a case study

Fig. 3. Labeobarbus seeberi (Gilchrist et Thompson, 1913) (max. length: 270 mm) (A); Myxobolus sp. (B) and Dactylogyrus sp. from the gills of L. seeberi, hamuli and marginal hooks (C), male copulatory complex (D) and vagina (E). Lateral view of Rhabdochona sp. 2 from the intestine, anterior end of female (F) and male (G), posterior end of male (H); metacercariae of Diplostomidae (I) from black cysts on skin. Scale bars: 10 μm (B); 50 μm (D, E); 100 μm (C, F, G, H, I).

Fig. 2 in Working towards a conservation plan for fish parasites: Cyprinid parasites from the south African cape fold freshwater ecoregion as a case study

Fig. 2. Cheilobarbus serra (Peters, 1864) (max. length: 350 mm) (A); adult Paradiplozoon sp. (B) and sclerites in attachment clamps (C, D) found on the gills; hamuli of Gyrodactylus sp. (E) and marginal hooks (F), and a pre-metamorphic stage of the copepod belonging to the Lernaeidae (G), both from the gills. Anterior (H) and posterior (I) ends of Rhabdochona sp. 1 (lateral view) from the intestine; (J) whole specimen of the Caryophyllidea. Scale bars: 10 μm (E, F); 100 μm (C, D, G, H, I); 500 μm (B); 1000 μm (J).

Fig. 2 in Predicting size at first sexual maturity from length/weight relationship: a case study with an Amazonian catfish

Fig. 2. Length/weight relationship of male Auchenipterichthys longimanus. A and C represent Huxley regular length/weight relationship and its distribution of proportional residuals. B and D represent polyphasic length/weight relationship its and distribution of proportional residuals.

Fig. 1 in Predicting size at first sexual maturity from length/weight relationship: a case study with an Amazonian catfish

Fig. 1. Sampling area in the National Forest of Caxiuanã, Pará State, showing the rivers where the fish were collected; Curuá River - Ferreira Penna Research Station (ECFPn), Caxiuanã River; Puraquequara River and Caquajó River. A single point on the map may represent more than one colleting site.

Fig. 4 in Predicting size at first sexual maturity from length/weight relationship: a case study with an Amazonian catfish

Fig. 4. Frequency of mature individuals as a function of the total length. Female sexual maturity identified by visual inspection of ovarian (A) and G SI values (B). Male sexual maturity identified by visual inspection of testes (C) and G SI values (D).

Fig. 3 in Predicting size at first sexual maturity from length/weight relationship: a case study with an Amazonian catfish

Fig. 3. Length/weight relationship of female Auchenipterichthys longimanus. A and C represent Huxley regular length/ weight relationship and its distribution of proportional residuals. B and D represent polyphasic length/weight relationship its and distribution of proportional residuals.

opencc-by-4.0Aug 2016View details →

FIGURE 6 in Accounting for differences in element size and homogeneity when comparing Finite Element Models: Armadillos as a case study

FIGURE 6. Box-plots of Von Mises stress distributions when Quasi-Ideal Meshes (QUIM) are assumed for the 20 Cingulata mandibles analysed. The 80% of the values of the Von Mises stress distribution are represented between the upper and lower whiskers

opencc-by-4.0Aug 2016View details →

FIGURE 3 in Accounting for differences in element size and homogeneity when comparing Finite Element Models: Armadillos as a case study

FIGURE 3. Evolution of the values of Arithmetic Mean (AM), Mesh-Weighted Arithmetic Mean (MWAM), Median (M), Mesh-Weighted Median (MWM), Percentage Error of the Arithmetic Mean (PEofAM) and Percentage Error of the Median (PEofM) in front of the size of the elements (1) and the uniformity of the mesh (2). Meshes from a Chlamyphorus truncates. S07 refers to Mesh S7 (mesh size), SE refers to Mesh SE (mesh homogeneity).