Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-zeroSep 2022View details →

Supplementary material 3 from: Yang C, Du X, Liu Y, Yuan H, Wang Q, Hou X, Gong H, Wang Y, Huang Y, Li X, Ye H (2022) Comparative mitogenomics of the genus Motacilla (Aves, Passeriformes) and its phylogenetic implications. ZooKeys 1109: 49-65. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1109.81125

Figure S3

opennotspecifiedSep 2017View details →

Fig.11 in Comparative Morphology of the Orthopteran Thorax With a Discussion of Phylogenetically Relevant Characters

Fig.11. Dorsoventral musculature in the thorax of Orthoptera.

opennotspecifiedAug 2024View details →

FIGURE 54 in Reassessment of the phylogenetic position of the spiny-scale pricklefish Hispidoberyx ambagiosus (Teleostei: Hispidoberycidae) based on comparative morphology

FIGURE 54. Evolution of fresh body coloration among Stephanoberycoidei.

dryad28/100

Data from: A novel Bayesian method for inferring and interpreting the dynamics of adaptive landscapes from phylogenetic comparative data

Our understanding of macroevolutionary patterns of adaptive evolution has greatly increased with the advent of large-scale phylogenetic comparative methods. Widely used Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) models can describe an adaptive process of divergence and selection. However, inference of the dynamics of adaptive landscapes from comparative data is complicated by interpretational difficulties, lack of identifiability among parameter values and the common requirement that adaptive hypotheses must be assigned a priori. Here we develop a reversible-jump Bayesian method of fitting multi-optima OU models to phylogenetic comparative data that estimates the placement and magnitude of adaptive shifts directly from the data. We show how biologically informed hypotheses can be tested against this inferred posterior of shift locations using Bayes Factors to establish whether our a priori models adequately describe the dynamics of adaptive peak shifts. Furthermore, we show how the inclusion of informative priors can be used to restrict models to biologically realistic parameter space and test particular biological interpretations of evolutionary models. We argue that Bayesian model-fitting of OU models to comparative data provides a framework for integrating of multiple sources of biological data–such as microevolutionary estimates of selection parameters and paleontological timeseries–allowing inference of adaptive landscape dynamics with explicit, process-based biological interpretations.

opencc-zeroDec 2013View details →

Fig. 7 in Dorsolateral head muscles of the catfish families Nematogenyidae and Trichomycteridae (Siluriformes: Loricarioidei): comparative anatomy and phylogenetic analysis

Fig. 7. Left lateral view of head of Trichogenes longipinnis (Trichogeninae), LIRP 1059 (75.5 mm SL). Antorbital and core of nasal barbels removed.

Fig. 36 in Dorsolateral head muscles of the catfish families Nematogenyidae and Trichomycteridae (Siluriformes: Loricarioidei): comparative anatomy and phylogenetic analysis

Fig. 36. Illustrations of cranial musculature of Nematogenys inermis by (A) Howes (1983a) (right dorsolateral view of anterior region of head) and (B) Diogo et al. (2006) (right lateral view of head). Both illustrations flipped horizontally to facilitate comparisons with other figures. Drawings not altered, but labels modified in order to clarify different names for portions of adductor mandibulae (see explanation on text). Terminology used in the present study marked with gray background.

Fig. 6 in Dorsolateral head muscles of the catfish families Nematogenyidae and Trichomycteridae (Siluriformes: Loricarioidei): comparative anatomy and phylogenetic analysis

Fig. 6. Ventral view of left half of neurocranial floor and suspensorium of Copionodon pecten (Copionodontinae), LIRP 1012 (49.5 mm SL). Internal suspensorial muscles and upper pharyngeal tooth plate with attached levator internus 4 retained; remaining elements of branchial arches removed. Arrow indicates site of origin of adductor operculi.

Fig. 13 in Dorsolateral head muscles of the catfish families Nematogenyidae and Trichomycteridae (Siluriformes: Loricarioidei): comparative anatomy and phylogenetic analysis

Fig. 13. Ventral view of left half of neurocranial floor of Ituglanis cf. gracilior (Trichomycterinae), MZUSP 86821 (53.2 mm SL). Internal suspensorial muscles and upper pharyngeal tooth plate with attached levator internus 4 retained; remaining elements of branchial arches removed.

Fig. 22 in Dorsolateral head muscles of the catfish families Nematogenyidae and Trichomycteridae (Siluriformes: Loricarioidei): comparative anatomy and phylogenetic analysis

Fig. 22. Left lateral view of head of Haemomaster venezuelae (Stegophilinae), LIRP 7438 (36.9 mm SL).

Fig. 28 in Dorsolateral head muscles of the catfish families Nematogenyidae and Trichomycteridae (Siluriformes: Loricarioidei): comparative anatomy and phylogenetic analysis

Fig. 28. Left lateral view of head of Vandellia sanguinea (Vandelliinae), LIRP 7414 (77.1 mm SL). Ventral most premaxillary claw-like teeth removed.

Fig. 9 in Dorsolateral head muscles of the catfish families Nematogenyidae and Trichomycteridae (Siluriformes: Loricarioidei): comparative anatomy and phylogenetic analysis

Fig. 9. Left lateral view of head of Trichomycterus brasiliensis (Trichomycterinae), LIRP 1968 (76.4 mm SL). Core of nasal barbels removed.

opencc-by-4.0Jan 2008View details →

Figure 1 in Comparative morphology of the dermal palate in squamate reptiles, with comments on phylogenetic implications

Figure 1. The variation of the dermal palate in squamates as classified by Lakjer (1927) (redrawn after Guibé, 1970: fig. 80). A, the palaeochoanate condition; B, the incomplete neochoanate condition; C, the neochoanate condition.

opennotspecifiedJan 2011View details →

Figure 8 in Comparative morphology, phylogenetic relationships, and historical biogeography of plesiolebiasine seasonal killifishes (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes: Rivulidae)

Figure 8. General area cladogram for plesiolebiasine areas of endemism.

Figure 39 in Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)

Figure 39. Lateral line scales of osteoglossomorph fishes, taken from mid-body. A, Hiodon tergisus (UMA F10610, 100 mm SL). B, Chitala sp. (MCZ 156815, 420 mm SL). C, Petrocephalus simus (MCZ 50113, 70 mm SL). D, Pantodon buchholzi (MCZ 156814, 60 mm SL). E, Osteoglossum bicirrhosum (FMNH 109232a, 270 mm SL). F, Arapaima gigas (MCZ 156812, 160 mm SL). Anterior facing left. Scale bars = 1 mm.

Figure 27 in Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)

Figure 27. Skulls of †Phareodus in lateral view. A, †Phareodus encaustus (UMA F10155; 480 mm SL). B, †Phareodus testis (UMA F11332, 260 mm SL). Note that there is not much difference in the shape of the preopercle between these two species (see Characters Not Used in Analysis). Also note that the subopercle, although not quite as reduced as in other taxa (e.g. Osteoglossum), is relatively small and is positioned along the anteroventral margin of the opercle. The specimen of †P. encaustus (UMA F10155) is the same as the one labelled as LG 6.1 by Grande (1984: fig. II.31). Anterior facing left.

Figure 16 in Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)

Figure 16. Parasphenoid and vomer in ventral view. A, Elops saurus (UMA F10255, 425 mm SL). B, Alosa sapidissima (UMA F10359, 390 mm SL). C, Hiodon alosoides (UMA F10586, 273 mm SL). D, Osteoglossum bicirrhosum (UMA F10160, 365 mm SL). E, Pantodon buchholzi (UMA F11265, approx. 50 mm SL). F, Gnathonemus petersii (UMA F11267, approx. 140 mm SL). G, Heterotis niloticus (MCZ 50959, adult, unknown SL). H, Chitala chitala (UMA F10349, 437 mm SL). Note that the mesethmoid is fused to the vomer in Chitala and Heterotis. Anterior facing left. Illustration of Hiodon modified from Hilton (2002: fig. 31).

Figure 14 in Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)

Figure 14. Skull roof of a juvenile specimen of Heterotis niloticus (UMA F10653, 75 mm SL) in dorsal view. A, photograph. B, line drawing. Note that some skull elements are not included in line drawing (e.g. posterior flanges of the parietals, see Fig. 13). The course of the sensory canals is outlined on the left side. At this stage, the frontals are still tapered slightly anteriorly, so that the anterior margin is narrower than the posterior margin (although this is not as extreme as in the 62 mm SL specimen illustrated by Taverne, 1977: fig. 95).

Figure 28 in Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)

Figure 28. Maxilla and supramaxilla in lateral and ventral (= oral) views. A, Elops saurus (UMA F10255, 425 mm SL). B, Coregonus hoyi (FMNH 94848, 115 mm SL). C, Hiodon alosoides (UMA F10587, 272 mm SL). Anterior facing left. Illustrations of Hiodon modified from Hilton (2002: figs 38, 39).

Figure 7. A in Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)

Figure 7. A hypothesis of the interrelationships of the osteoglossomorph fishes based on the results of this analysis (see Figs 4 and 5). In this figure, I collapsed all nodes of the strict consensus tree shown in Fig. 5 that have no synapomorphies or are not supported by observed data (see Character Optimization and Node Support). Some more prominent characters (although not necessarily uniquely derived) supporting the various nodes are provided here. Osteoglossomorpha: parasphenoid teeth large and found along the length of the parasphenoid; supraorbital bone absent; four bones in the infraorbital series; supramaxillae absent. Hiodontidae: nasal bones tubular and strongly curved; posterodorsal spine on the opercle. Osteoglossiformes: bony process on the second hypobranchial; one ossified pair of hypohyals; six or fewer hypurals. Osteoglossoidei (= Osteoglossidae + Notopteridae): nasal bones meet each other in the midline; supratemporal commissure passing through the parietals; 15 or fewer branched caudal fin rays; one neural spine on ural centrum 1. Osteoglossidae: nasal bones flat and broad; palatoquadrate area behind and below the orbit completely covered by infraorbitals; scales with reticulate furrows over the entire scale. Heterotinae: enlarged first infraorbital; posterior bones of the lower jaw all separate; infrapharyngobranchial 3 divided into two elements. Osteoglossinae: opercle depth to width ratio about two or greater than two; first pectoral fin ray greatly enlarged and extremely long. Notopteridae: autogenous bony elements associated with the second ventral gill arch; abdominal scutes present as paired structures; posterior end of anal fin continuous with caudal fin. Mormyridae: proximal tip of infrapharyngobranchial 1 posteriorly directed; cleithrum with a broad medial lamina; scales with both radial and reticulate furrows. Mormyrinae: hypohyal greatly reduced in size; basihyal toothplate absent.

Figure 22 in Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)

Figure 22. Hyomandibula in medial view. A, Albula vulpes (AMNH 93356SD, approx. 390 mm SL). B, Hiodon alosoides (UMA F10177, 267 mm SL). C, Scleropages formosus (UMA F11266, approx. 320 mm SL). Anterior facing left. Illustration of Hiodon modified from Hilton (2002: fig. 48), is of the right side, and is reversed so that anterior is facing left.