Find research datasets worth reusing

Figure 10 in Metamorphosis and evolution of feeding behaviour in salamanders of the family Plethodontidae

Figure 10. Video sequence of an adult Desmognathus marmoratus capturing an earthworm under water using tongue protraction. The prey does not move toward the salamander as in suction feeding, but is scooped into the mouth with the tongue as the salamander lunges forward. Scale bar = 1 cm.

Figure 9 in Metamorphosis and evolution of feeding behaviour in salamanders of the family Plethodontidae

Figure 9. Video sequence of an adult Desmognathus quadramaculatus capturing a cricket under water using jaw prehension. The tongue is raised from the floor of the mouth, but the salamander lunges forward and grasps the prey with the jaws. Note the slight hyobranchial depression in the last frame. Background is 1 cm grid.

Figure 4 in Metamorphosis and evolution of feeding behaviour in salamanders of the family Plethodontidae

Figure 4. Bar graphs of gape cycle durations and lunge distances of four species of larval plethodontids showing differences. Bars sharing a letter are not significantly different from one other. G. porphyriticus (abbreviated Gp) has a significantly longer gape cycle than D. quadramaculatus (Dq) and P. ruber (Pr). D. quadramaculatus lunges significantly farther than G. porphyriticus and P. ruber. E. wilderae (Ew) is not significantly different from other species either with regard to gape cycle duration or lunge distance. Number of feedings (n) is given for each species.

Figure 11 in Metamorphosis and evolution of feeding behaviour in salamanders of the family Plethodontidae

Figure 11. Video sequence of an adult Stereochilus marginatus capturing a tubifex worm aquatically using jaw prehension. The salamander lunges forward and grasps the worm with the jaws. Note the substantial buccal expansion in the last frame, the rapid gape cycle compared to Figs 9 and 10, and how the prey does not move toward the salamander as it does in larval prey capture (see Figs 2 and 3). Scale bar = 1 cm.

Figure 6 in Metamorphosis and evolution of feeding behaviour in salamanders of the family Plethodontidae

Figure 6. Box plots of gape cycle duration for all stages and species. Adults are shown as shaded boxes, and larvae as open boxes. Note the much longer gape cycles of the adults compared to the larvae. S. marginatus adults fall closer to the larvae of other species than to the adults. Adult G. porphyriticus and P. ruber are more variable in gape cycle duration when feeding aquatically than terrestrially. Box edges represent lower and upper quartiles (showing skewness), the length of the box is the interquartile range (showing dispersion), the vertical line is the median (showing location), and the horizontal lines are drawn to the smallest and largest values within 1.5 interquartile ranges of the box edges. Dots indicate the entire range of durations. When only one feeding was recorded, only a vertical line is shown. Abbreviations: Dm = D. marmoratus; Dq = D. quadramaculatus; Ew = E. wilderae; Gp = G. porphyriticus; Pr = P. ruber; Sm = S. marginatus.

Figure 7 in Metamorphosis and evolution of feeding behaviour in salamanders of the family Plethodontidae

Figure 7. Video sequence of an adult P. ruber capturing a cricket terrestrially using tongue protraction. Note the tongue length and speed of protraction, the free tongue pad, the forward lunge, and the head elevation during tongue retraction and subsequent head dipping. Scale bar = 1 cm.

Figure 15 in Metamorphosis and evolution of feeding behaviour in salamanders of the family Plethodontidae

Figure 15. Kinematic profiles of aquatic jaw prehension in adult S. marginatus. Note the symmetrical gape profile and the strong hyobranchial depression upon mouth closing, similar to the patterns for suction feeding (see Fig. 5) but with a shallower increase in hyobranchial depression distance. Head movements show the typical pattern of mirroring jaw movements.

Figure 8 in Metamorphosis and evolution of feeding behaviour in salamanders of the family Plethodontidae

Figure 8. Bar graphs of gape cycle duration and lunge distance for four species of adult plethodontids feeding terrestrially. D. quadramaculatus and G. porphyriticus have significantly longer gape cycle durations than P. ruber, and D. quadramaculatus lunges significantly farther than P. ruber. Bars sharing the same letter are not significantly different from one another. Number of feedings (n) is given for each species.

Figure 1 in Metamorphosis and evolution of feeding behaviour in salamanders of the family Plethodontidae

Figure 1. Points digitized from video frames for kinematic analysis of adults (A) and larvae (B). Labels shown here correspond to those in the text.

Figure 2 in Metamorphosis and evolution of feeding behaviour in salamanders of the family Plethodontidae

Figure 2. High-speed video sequence of a larval D. quadramaculatus capturing a tubifex worm using suction feeding. The salamander depresses the hyobranchial apparatus, expanding the buccal cavity ventrally and sucking the prey from the forceps. The prey moves toward the salamander, while the salamander remains relatively stationary. As in all video sequences presented, time in milliseconds is shown from the onset of mouth opening at zero. Scale bar = 1 cm.

Figure 3 in Metamorphosis and evolution of feeding behaviour in salamanders of the family Plethodontidae

Figure 3. Video sequence of a larval G. porphyriticus capturing a tubifex worm using suction feeding. The salamander raises the head during mouth opening to direct the gape at the prey, and the buccal cavity is expanded ventrally, reaching maximum expansion as the mouth closes. Background is 5 mm grid.

Figure 7 in Elbow-joint morphology as a guide to forearm function and foraging behaviour in mammalian carnivores

Figure 7. Second principal component (PC2) of extinct giant mustelids and recent carnivorans plotted against body mass (kg). Hand-fitted arrows marking the two trajectories for recent carnivorans (filled circles) are shown. The postulated threshold at 21.5–25 kg, where carnivorans shift from small to large prey (Carbone et al., 1999), is shaded grey.

Figure 6 in Elbow-joint morphology as a guide to forearm function and foraging behaviour in mammalian carnivores

Figure 6. Second principal component (PC2) of recent carnivorans plotted against calculated body mass (kg). The postulated threshold at 21.5–25 kg, where carnivorans shift diet from small to large prey (Carbone et al., 1999), is shaded grey. Above this threshold, grapplers are clearly separated from nongrapplers on PC2. Hand-fitted arrows marking the two morphological trajectories, the top one for nongrapplers and the lower one for grapplers, are shown. For body mass see Appendix 1.

Figure 3. Second principal component mapped onto a in Elbow-joint morphology as a guide to forearm function and foraging behaviour in mammalian carnivores

Figure 3. Second principal component mapped onto a composite phylogeny for the order Carnivora. Carnivorans traditionally regarded as primarily using their forelimbs for locomotion (nongrapplers) are written in bold typeface. PC2 largely follows the phylogeny. Transitions are rare, but have occurred, e.g. in the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus). Ancestral stages are reconstructed by minimizing the sum of squared changes. The value for the root is not reconstructed. The phylogeny is a composite from the following sources: Decker & Wozencroft (1991); Bryant, Russell & Fitch (1993); Tedford, Taylor & Wang (1995); Veron (1995); Masuda et al. (1996); Talbot & Shields (1996); Dragoo & Honeycutt (1997); Wayne et al. (1997); Flynn & Nedbal (1998); Seymour (1999); Flynn et al. (2000); Veron & Heard (2000); Gaubert, Veron & Tranier (2002); X. Wang (pers. comm.).

Figure 5 in Elbow-joint morphology as a guide to forearm function and foraging behaviour in mammalian carnivores

Figure 5. Moving average of PC2 variance body mass. Variation is low and uniform at small sizes. At around 10 kg variation starts to increase with size. There is a marked decrease in variation around 30–40 kg. The species are ranked according to body size and the average over a moving succession of ten increments calculated.

Figure 2 in Elbow-joint morphology as a guide to forearm function and foraging behaviour in mammalian carnivores

Figure 2. Thin-plate spline comparison of wolverine (Gulo gulo) against grey wolf (Canis lupus) graphically illustrating the difference in shape of the distal humerus articulation between carnivorans scoring high (C. lupus) on the second principal component (PC2) and low (G. gulo). The broken line shows the outline of the articulation of G. gulo. The thin-plate spline is calculated from the consensus configurations of the two species (G. gulo, reference species, N = 6; C. lupus, N = 5; Bookstein, 1991) generated through generalized least squares (GLS) orthogonal Procrustes analysis (Rohlf & Slice, 1990).

Figure 1 in Elbow-joint morphology as a guide to forearm function and foraging behaviour in mammalian carnivores

Figure 1. Results of the principal component analysis of recent carnivorans. PC1 plotted against PC2 (A), PC2 against PC3 (B). For species scores see Appendix 1.

opencc-by-4.0May 2014View details →

Fig. 6 in Brooding behaviour of the centipede Otostigmus spinosus Porat, 1876 (Chilopoda: Scolopendromorpha: Scolopendridae) and its morphological variability in Thailand

Fig. 6. Variability in taxonomic characters in Otostigmus spinosus Porat, 1876 (examination materials: CUMZ 00224, Wat Tham Wararam, Phanom district, Surat Thani; CUMZ 00229, Tham Wang Thong, Phatthalung; CUMZ 00231, Surin Islands, Phang-nga). A, Ventral view of cephalic plate and antenna; B, Dorsal view of cephalic plate and antenna; C, Coxosternite; D–F, Variation in coxosternal teeth; G, Surface of TT5–7; H, Variability of depressions on surface of sternites 5–7; I, Leg 20 with projection on distal end of tarsus 1; J, Leg 21 with projection on tarsus 1; K, Ultimate leg-bearing segment, ventral view, with arrangement of ventral spines on prefemur of ultimate legs; L, Tergite of ultimate leg-bearing segment with arrangement of dorsal and corner spines on prefemur of ultimate legs; M, Pore field on coxopleuron (left).

opencc-by-4.0May 2014View details →

Fig. 5. Otostigmus spinosus Porat, 1876 in Brooding behaviour of the centipede Otostigmus spinosus Porat, 1876 (Chilopoda: Scolopendromorpha: Scolopendridae) and its morphological variability in Thailand

Fig. 5. Otostigmus spinosus Porat, 1876. Light photographs of specimens from southern Thailand (Fig. A–E; specimens from Surin Islands, Phang-nga province: CUMZ 00231; Fig. I–N; specimens from Wat Tham Wararam, Surat Thani province: CUMZ 00224). A, Cephalic plate and T1 with first pair of locomotory legs; B, Forcipular segment; C, Antenna with cephalic plate and TT1–5; D, Tergites 9–10; E, Sternites 9–10; F–H. Spiracles on segments 3, 5 and 8, respectively; I, Tergite and sternite of ultimate-leg bearing segment; J, Pore field on left and right coxopleura; K, Dorsal view of ultimate leg prefemur; L, Ventral view of ultimate leg prefemur; M–N, Leg 20 left and right with spine on distal part of prefemora.