Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 6 in A Tale of Two Setae: How Morphology and ITS2 Help Delimit a Cryptic Species Complex in Eulophidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea)

Fig. 6. Dorsal view of mesosomal color variation in Burkseus vittatus: (A) D4559, (B) D5320, (C) D5113, (D) D5101, (E) D4699, (F) D3640, (G) D4173, (H) D3665, (I) D3666, (J) D4177, (K) D3993, and (L) illustrated view. Scale bar = 0.2 mm.

Fig. 8 in A Tale of Two Setae: How Morphology and ITS2 Help Delimit a Cryptic Species Complex in Eulophidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea)

Fig. 8. Gaster color variation within females (A–E) and males (F–J) of the four Nearctic Burkseus species.

Fig. 5 in A Tale of Two Setae: How Morphology and ITS2 Help Delimit a Cryptic Species Complex in Eulophidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea)

Fig. 5. Mesosomal color variation. (A–H) Burkseus robustus: (A) D3674, (B) D3675, (C) D4591, (D) D4580, (E) D4581, (F) D4680, (G) D5326, (H) illustrated view. (I–L) B. sigillatus: (H) D5325, (I) D5324, (J) D4738, and (L) illustrated view. Scale bar = 0.2 mm.

Fig. 4 in A Tale of Two Setae: How Morphology and ITS2 Help Delimit a Cryptic Species Complex in Eulophidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea)

Fig. 4. Mesosomal color variation in Burkseus flavoviridis: (A) D4682, (B) D4741, (C) D3791 (specimen collapsed while drying), (D) D4593, (E) D4171, F) D4172, (G) D4679, (H) D4683, (I) D4176, (J) D4169, (K) D4175, and (L) illustrated view. Scale bar = 0.2 mm.

Fig. 9 in A Tale of Two Setae: How Morphology and ITS2 Help Delimit a Cryptic Species Complex in Eulophidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea)

Fig. 9. Habitus: (A) Burkseus elongatus (BMNH: NHMUK 10371836), (B) B. singa (MZH: UCRCENT 513243), (C) B. pinicolus (BMNH: NHMUK 10371840), (D) Cirrospilus curvineurus (MZH: UCRCENT 513242).

Fig. 2 in A Tale of Two Setae: How Morphology and ITS2 Help Delimit a Cryptic Species Complex in Eulophidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea)

Fig. 2. Fore wings, dorsal view: (A) Burkseus vittatus comb. n., (B) B. flavoviridis comb. n., (C) B. robustus n. sp., (D) B. sigillatus n. sp. The photographs of B. robustus and B. sigillatus were taken after DNA extraction, displaying how the dark colors on the submarginal vein setae (B. robustus and B. sigillatus), stigmal vein and uncus (B. robustus), and banding patterns (B. sigillatus) are resilient enough to remain visible after extraction. Scale bar = 0.5 mm. ams = admarginal setae, bsl = basal setal line, csl = cubital setal line, disc = fore wing disc, spc = speculum, smv = submarginal vein, stg = stigmal vein, unc = uncus.

Fig. 3 in A Tale of Two Setae: How Morphology and ITS2 Help Delimit a Cryptic Species Complex in Eulophidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea)

Fig. 3. Combined molecular and morphological maximum likelihood tree.The different symbols correspond with specimens collected at the same location. Each specimen of these groups was collected during the same collecting event, with the exception of D3665, D3666, and D3791, collected at the same location but 2 wk apart.

Fig. 1 in A Tale of Two Setae: How Morphology and ITS2 Help Delimit a Cryptic Species Complex in Eulophidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea)

Fig. 1. Morphological characters. (A–C) head: (A) Zagrammosoma mirum, (B) Burkseus flavoviridis, (C) Burkseus robustus. (D–G) dorsal view of mesosoma: (D) Cirrospilus sp. D3867, (E) Cirrospilus sp. D3865, (F) Zagrammosoma americanum, (G) Diglyphus begini. (H) Burkseus robustus hind leg. (I) Burkseus flavoviridis antennae. Scale bar in all photos = 0.2 mm. axl = axilla, bst = basitarsus, clv = clava, fu = funicular, mc = median carina, ms = malar sulcus, msc = mesoscutum, no = pronotum, not = notaulus, pdg = prodiscrimen groove, pl1 = propleura, ppd = propodeum, scp = scape, sct = mesoscutellum, set = setae (bristle-like setae), smg = submedian groove, sss = small scattered setae, tbs = tibial spur, vtx = vertex.

Fig. 1 in Phylogenomic Delimitation of Morphologically Cryptic Species in Globetrotting Nylanderia (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Species Complexes

Fig. 1. Maps of sampling localities for all 165 samples used in UCE library preparation for this study. (A) (top) indicates sampling localities of all nonglobetrotting species (i.e., species in their native ranges; red points). |(B) (bottom) indicates sampling localities of all globetrotting species. See Supp Table S1 [online only] for detailed locality information for each sample.

Fig. 5 in Phylogenomic Delimitation of Morphologically Cryptic Species in Globetrotting Nylanderia (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Species Complexes

Fig. 5. Species delimitation hypotheses of the bourbonica complex. (Left) Cloudogram based on the STACEY analysis using 565 SNPs extracted from the 'bourb27-phased_90p' dataset, with the 'root canal' (blue) summarizing the main features of the tree set. (Right) Summary of species delimitation schemes based on morphospecies sorting and for each analysis performed in this study, with each different colored bar (also labeled with different letters) representing a single species.

Fig. 4 in Phylogenomic Delimitation of Morphologically Cryptic Species in Globetrotting Nylanderia (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Species Complexes

Fig. 4. Multi-species coalescent phylogenies of the guatemalensis and fulva complexes, generated in ASTRAL-III using 75% complete alignment matrices. (A) (left) represents the unphased MSC analysis and (B) (right) represents the phased MSC analysis. Values on the internal nodes represent local posterior probabilities (LPP), with ≥0.95 indicating strong support and ≤0.75 indicating weak support. Scale bars under phylogenetic trees indicate number of substitutions per site. Photos of N. guatemalensis (Ny097), N. steinheili (Ny101), and N. fulva (Ny191) workers in profile view are to scale and were taken by Brandon Mai.

Fig. 2 in Phylogenomic Delimitation of Morphologically Cryptic Species in Globetrotting Nylanderia (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Species Complexes

Fig. 2. Circular maximum likelihood phylogeny of Nylanderia generated in IQ-TREE 2 from the 80% complete SWSC-partitioned UCE matrix. Biogeography of terminal taxa is based on inferred native ranges and may not indicate collecting locality for known non-native species. Samples indicated with red text are globetrotting species. Nodal support is provided in SH-aLRT (Shimodaira–Hasegawa approximate likelihood ratio test) values on the left side of the node, and UFBoot (ultrafast bootstrap) values on the right side of the node. For both support values, less than 80% is considered weak support, between 80 and 94.9% is considered moderate support, and greater than or equal to 95% is considered strong support.

Fig. 3 in Phylogenomic Delimitation of Morphologically Cryptic Species in Globetrotting Nylanderia (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Species Complexes

Fig. 3. Multi-species coalescent (MSC) phylogenies of the Australasian/Indomalayan clade including the bourbonica complex, generated in ASTRAL-III using 75% complete alignment matrices. (A) (left) represents the unphased MSC analysis and (B) (right) represents the phased MSC analysis.Values on the internal nodes represent local posterior probabilities (LPP), with ≥0.95 indicating strong support and ≤0.75 indicating weak support. Scale bars under phylogenetic trees indicate the number of substitutions per site. Photos of N. bourbonica (Ny201) and N. vaga (Ny204) workers in profile view are to scale and were taken by Milan Janda.

Fig. 6 in Phylogenomic Delimitation of Morphologically Cryptic Species in Globetrotting Nylanderia (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Species Complexes

Fig. 6. Species delimitation hypotheses of the fulva + guatemalensis complexes. (Left) Cloudogram based on the STACEY analysis using 609 SNPs extracted from the 'fg37-phased_90p' dataset, with the 'root canal' (blue) summarizing the main features of the tree set. (Right) Summary of species delimitation schemes based on morphospecies sorting and for each analysis performed in this study, with each different colored bar (also labeled with different letters) representing a single species.

Figure 3 in Shedding light on species boundaries in small endogeic animals through an integrative approach: species delimitation in the centipede Clinopodes carinthiacus (Chilopoda: Geophilidae) in the south-eastern Alps

Figure 3. Subdivision of specimens into candidate species according to a model-based cluster analysis through normal mixture models on ten morphological characters (Table 2). The ventral view of the forcipular segment is illustrated for representative specimens of the candidate species. Denticles are indicated by arrowheads. The lower panel shows Bayesian information criterion (BIC) values of different models (coded as in the paper by Scrucca et al., 2016) in relation to the hypothetical number of candidate species.

Figure 2 in Shedding light on species boundaries in small endogeic animals through an integrative approach: species delimitation in the centipede Clinopodes carinthiacus (Chilopoda: Geophilidae) in the south-eastern Alps

Figure 2. Subdivision of 16S, COI and 28S haplotypes into candidate species according to different species delimitation methods. The ultrametric trees used for the general mixed Yule coalescent (GMYC) analyses are illustrated for the haplotypes of 16S and COI (all nodes: bootstrap supports ≥ 81% for 16S and ≥ 71% for COI). The median-joining network is illustrated for the 28S haplotypes (see also Supporting Information, Fig. S2). Mountain ranges where the haplotypes were found are also indicated.

Figure 6 in Shedding light on species boundaries in small endogeic animals through an integrative approach: species delimitation in the centipede Clinopodes carinthiacus (Chilopoda: Geophilidae) in the south-eastern Alps

Figure 6. Geometric morphometric analysis of between-population variation of the shape of the forcipular coxosternite in Clinopodes carinthiacus s.s.. The left panel shows landmarks (circles) and semilandmarks (diamonds) on a representative specimen (PD-G 7787, from population GUI). The right panel shows the distribution of 40 specimens from eight populations (codes as in Table 1) on the first and second principal components (bgPC 1 and bgPC 2) obtained from a between-group principal components analysis of the symmetric component of the shape. Polygons indicate populations. The wireframes along the components represent the variation in shape (dark blue) in comparison to the average shape (light blue).

Figure 4 in Phylogeny, species delimitation and biogeography of the endemic Palaearctic tribe Tomarini (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)

Figure 4. Historical biogeography of Tomares. The most supported ancestral area reconstruction model (DIVALIKE+j) was estimated within the R package BIOGEOBEARS. Pie charts on each node depict the relative probabilities of ancestral ranges. A, North Africa. B, western Mediterranean. C, south-west Asia. D, Pontic-Caspian region. E, Central Asia; *, other regions. Classification follows Weidenhoffer & Bozano (2007) and Nazari & Ten Hagen (2020).

Figure 3. A in Phylogeny, species delimitation and biogeography of the endemic Palaearctic tribe Tomarini (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)

Figure 3. A, result of the statistical parsimony network analysis illustrating relationships of the 25 cytochrome c oxidase subunit I haplotypes of the Tomares nogelii species group. Colours of circles correspond to origins of samples. B, result of the statistical parsimony network analysis illustrating relationships of the 25 cytochrome c oxidase subunit I haplotypes of the T. nogelii species group. Colours of circles correspond to species previously considered within the group (Weidenhoffer & Bozano, 2007).

Figure 2 in Phylogeny, species delimitation and biogeography of the endemic Palaearctic tribe Tomarini (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)

Figure 2. Molecular phylogenetic tree and putative species boundaries, with selected male specimens of Tomares. The Bayesian inference phylogenetic hypothesis was obtained from the combined datasets of cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI), 28S rRNA (28S), histone 3 (H3) and elongation factor 1-alpha (EF1α). Numbers above branches indicate the posterior probabilities; numbers below branches indicate bootstrap values obtained from the maximum likelihood analysis. Methods of species delimitation are as follows: GMYC, generalized mixed Yule coalescent method; ABGD, authomatic barcode gap discovery and its models, JC69 (Jukes–Cantor), K80 (Kimura) and SD (uncorrected p-distance). Branch names of the tree follow Weidenhoffer & Bozano (2007) and Nazari & Ten Hagen (2020). An updated classification based on the results of our study is given near the tree. Specimens: 1,T. romanovi cachetinus, Azerbaijan, Alty-Agatch; 2,T. romanovi romanovi, Armenia, Noravank; 3, T. nogelii dobrogensis (phenotype monotona), Ukraine, Dnepropetrovsk (photograph by Vadim Tshikolovets); 4, T. nogelii nogelii, Lebanon, Ain Zhatta; 5, T. nogelii nogelii (phenotype nesimachus), Syria, north Damascus, voucher BPAL2357-14; 6, T. callimachus callimachus, Crimea, Ordzhonikidze, voucher TOM044; 7, T. callimachus dentata, Turkey, Van Province, Erek Mountain; 8, T. desinens desinens, Azerbaijan, Talysh, Zuvand (paratype); 9, T. fedtschenkoi fedtschenkoi, Tajikistan, Dushanbe, voucher TOM031; 10, T. ballus ballus, Morocco, Igherm; 11, T. mauritanicus mauritanicus, Morocco, Asni.