Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 5 in Phylogeny and Evolutionary History of Old World Suboscine Birds (Aves: Eurylaimides)

Fig. 5. Parsimonious reconstruction of the evolution of diet in the Eurylaimides. Key: black branches, insectivorous; dark gray branches, frugivorous; light gray branches, nectivorous; and dotted branches, polymorphic/equivocal.

Fig. 3 in Phylogeny and Evolutionary History of Old World Suboscine Birds (Aves: Eurylaimides)

Fig. 3. Maximum likelihood (ML) estimate of phylogeny from sequences of the RAG-1 and RAG-2 nuclear exons. Numbers by nodes indicate MP bootstrap support/ ML bootstrap support/ Bayesian posterior probability. Asterisks (*) indicate bootstrap support of 100% or posterior probability of 1.0.

Fig. 2 in Phylogeny and Evolutionary History of Old World Suboscine Birds (Aves: Eurylaimides)

Fig. 2. Strict consensus of four maximum parsimony (MP) trees from analysis of combined RAG-1, RAG-2, Fib5, and morphological characters. Numbers by nodes indicate MP bootstrap support.

Fig. 4 in Phylogeny and Evolutionary History of Old World Suboscine Birds (Aves: Eurylaimides)

Fig. 4. Single MP tree from analysis of RAG-1, RAG-2, and Fib5 data. Numbers above branches indicate MP bootstrap support, numbers below branches are ML bootstrap support.

Figure 18 in Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion

Figure 18. Detailed segment of strict consensus tree of all MPTs recovered in present study. Part G. Neornithes: Piciformes, and Passeriformes. Nodes are labelled above by percentages of bootstrapped replicates in which node was retained (italics), and below by Bremer support indices (bold type).

Figure 15 in Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion

Figure 15. Detailed segment of strict consensus tree of all MPTs recovered in present study. Part D. Neornithes: Gruiformes and Charadriiformes. Nodes are labelled above by percentages of bootstrapped replicates in which node was retained (italics), and below by Bremer support indices (bold type).

Figure 11 in Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion

Figure 11. Simplified summary tree for uppermost, supraordinal ranks of avian classification. Dashed internodes correspond to marginally supported clades. For complete classification, see Appendix 1.

Figure 14 in Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion

Figure 14. Detailed segment of strict consensus tree of all MPTs recovered in present study. Part C. Neornithes: nodes are labelled above by percentages of bootstrapped replicates in which node was retained (italics), and below by Bremer support indices (bold type).

Figure 6 in Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion

Figure 6. Molecular phylogenetic trees proposed in previous studies (see Fig. 1 for details), VI. A, Van Tuinen et al. (2000); B, Van Tuinen et al. (2001).

Figure 5 in Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion

Figure 5. Molecular phylogenetic trees proposed in previous studies (see Fig. 1 for details), V. A, Espinosa de los Monteros (2000); B, Johansson et al. (2001).

Figure 4 in Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion

Figure 4. Molecular phylogenetic trees proposed in previous studies (see Fig. 1 for details), IV. A, Sibley & Ahlquist (1990: figs 354–356), simplified to orders, wherein parenthetical 'para' indicates paraphyly of sampled members, and 'aug' indicates unconventional content; B, Mindell et al. (1997).

Figure 2 in Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion

Figure 2. Morphological phylogenetic trees proposed in previous studies (see Fig. 1 for details), II. A, Mayr & Clarke (2003); B, Bourdon et al. (2005).

Figure 10 in Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion

Figure 10. Ordinal-level strict consensus tree for orders of Neornithes based on 2954 morphological characters, indicating delimitations of segments detailed in Figures 12–18.

Figure 1 in Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion

Figure 1. Morphological phylogenetic trees proposed in previous studies, I. A, Cracraft (1988); B, Mayr et al. (2003). Some trees were subjected to topologically neutral modifications of taxa to facilitate comparisons (also Figs 2–9). See corresponding papers for analytical methods and topological statistics.

Figure 13 in Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion

Figure 13. Detailed segment of strict consensus tree of all MPTs recovered in present study. Part B. Neornithes: Palaeognathae and Galloanserae. Nodes are labelled above by percentages of bootstrapped replicates in which node was retained (italics), and below by Bremer support indices (bold type).

Figure 17 in Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion

Figure 17. Detailed segment of strict consensus tree of all MPTs recovered in present study. Part F. Neornithes: Columbiformes, Caprimulgiformes, Apodiformes, Coliiformes, Trogoniformes and Coraciiformes. Nodes are labelled above by percentages of bootstrapped replicates in which node was retained (italics), and below by Bremer support indices (bold type).

Figure 7 in Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion

Figure 7. Molecular phylogenetic trees proposed in previous studies (see Fig. 1 for details), VII. A, Paton et al. (2002); B, Sorenson et al. (2003).

Figure 3 in Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion

Figure 3. Morphological phylogenetic trees proposed in previous studies (see Fig. 1 for details), III. A, Mayr (2005b); B, Mayr (2005f: fig. 9), excluding fossils Prefica and Paraprefica.

Figure 16 in Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion

Figure 16. Detailed segment of strict consensus tree of all MPTs recovered in present study. Part E. Neornithes: Falconiformes, Strigiformes, Cuculiformes and Psittaciformes. Nodes are labelled above by percentages of bootstrapped replicates in which node was retained (italics), and below by Bremer support indices (bold type).

Figure 12 in Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion

Figure 12. Detailed segments of strict consensus tree of all MPTs recovered in present study. Part A. Outgroup (non-neornithine) taxa. Nodes are labelled by percentages of bootstrapped replicates in which node was retained (numerator), and below by Bremer support indices (denominator).