Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 2. Biguembia flavibrunnea n in Revisiting Biguembia Szumik, 1997 (Embioptera: Archembiidae): New species, phylogeny and natural history

Fig. 2. Biguembia flavibrunnea n. sp. (holotype male, A–I). A- habitus (dorsal view); B- habitus (ventral view); C- head (dorsal view); D- head (ventral view); E forewing (dorsal view); F- hind wing (dorsal view); G- hind basitarsus with medial bladder (ventral view); H- terminalia (dorsal view); I- terminalia (ventral view).

Fig. 4. Biguembia flavibrunnea n in Revisiting Biguembia Szumik, 1997 (Embioptera: Archembiidae): New species, phylogeny and natural history

Fig. 4. Biguembia flavibrunnea n. sp. (paratype female, A–G). A- habitus (dorsal view); B- habitus (ventral view); C- head (dorsal view); D- head (ventral view); E sternites 8–9 (ventral view); F- terminalia (dorsal view); G- terminalia (ventral view).

Fig. 3. Biguembia flavibrunnea n in Revisiting Biguembia Szumik, 1997 (Embioptera: Archembiidae): New species, phylogeny and natural history

Fig. 3. Biguembia flavibrunnea n. sp. (holotype male, A–E). A- head (dorsal view); B- mentum and submentum (ventral view); C- 10Lp1 (dorsal view); Dterminalia (dorsal view); E- terminalia (ventral view).

Fig. 6. Biguembia pulchra n in Revisiting Biguembia Szumik, 1997 (Embioptera: Archembiidae): New species, phylogeny and natural history

Fig. 6. Biguembia pulchra n. sp. (holotype male, A–I). A- habitus (dorsal view); B- habitus (ventral view); C- head (dorsal view); D- head (dorsal view); E forewing (dorsal view); F- hind wing (dorsal view); G- hind basitarsus with medial bladder (ventral view); H- terminalia (dorsal view); I- terminalia (ventral view).

Fig. 6 in Macroecology and Potential Drivers of Diversity in Webspinner Maternal Care (Order Embioptera)

Fig. 6. Scatterplot between predation threat (AET) and coarse parental care behavior. Here, parental care behavior is generalized as being 'high′ or 'low′ (1 or 0, respectively), based on whether species′ MCA-1 scores were higher or less than 0. Darker (red) circles and lines show parental care scores and phylogenetic logistic regression models estimated using all 29 species, while lighter gray circles and lines show parental care scores and phylogenetic logistic regression models estimated using only species sampled in their native range (n = 26). Thick, solid lines show the mean phylogenetic logistic regression model (95% confidence bands were calculated but not visible).Thin lines show each of the 1,000 phylogenetic logistic regression models for both data subsets. Circles are shifted vertically by small stochastic value to improve visibility of individual circles.

Fig. 4 in Macroecology and Potential Drivers of Diversity in Webspinner Maternal Care (Order Embioptera)

Fig. 4. Phylogeny of 29 Embioptera species and dotted lines delineating where specimens were sampled. Circles indicate species sampled in their native ranges, while triangles indicate species sampled outside of their native ranges. Brightness of circles and triangles indicate AET values, which are shown in the scale (lower left on the map).

Fig. 2 in Macroecology and Potential Drivers of Diversity in Webspinner Maternal Care (Order Embioptera)

Fig. 2. Photographs of egg handling configuration for Embioptera analyzed in this study (not to scale). (A) Anisembia texana (Melander 1902) (Anisembiidae) partially coated eggs suspended in silk, (B) Antipaluria urichi (Saussure 1896) (Clothodidae) with egg mass covering pulled aside (left) and eggs with covering removed to show cement coating and neat alignment (right), (C) Aposthonia borneensis (Hagen 1885) (Oligotomidae) close-up showing individual cement coating, alignment and silk covering, (D) Archembia n. sp. (Archembiidae) with the otherwise complex egg mass covering removed to show neat alignment, (E) Clothoda longicauda Ross 1987 (Clothodidae) with thick covering removed to reveal tight alignment and complex coatings of individual eggs; remnants of the egg mass covering at right of image, (F) Conicercembia septontrionalis (Mariño & Marquez 1988) (Scelembiidae) eggs, visible as white ovoids, scattered within lichen bits embedded in silk, (G) Diradius nigrinia (Ross 1944) (Teratembiidae) eggs individually coated but not aligned in neat rows, (H) Embia nuragica Stefani 1953 (Embiidae) with clean eggs stitched into silk, (I) Eosembia apterosa Poolprasert & Edgerly 2011 (Oligotomidae) egg mass neatly organized and coated, guarded by the female in this field photograph, (J) E. auripecta Ross 2007 egg mass underneath female; her eggs are coated individually, neatly organized and cemented to the substrate, (K) Haploembia solieri (Rambur 1842) (Oligotomidae) eggs are not organized but are neatly coated individually with gathered materials and covered with thin silk, (L) Metoligotoma brevispina Davis 1938 (Australembiidae) eggs minimally covered and gathered into a loose clump, guarded by the female in this image, (M) M. bidens Davis 1938 eggs are loosely clustered in silk but not arranged or affixed, (N) M. incompta (Ross 1963) eggs individually coated and organized into rows; an extra covering was pulled back to allow the photograph,(O) M. pentanesiana Davis 1938 eggs are partially covered and stuck into the substrate but not arranged into rows, (P) Neorhagadochir moreliensis (Ross 1984) (Scelembiidae) eggs are scattered with no coating or organization; coloration due to microscope lighting is not natural; eggs are naturally creamy white, (Q) Notoligotoma hardyi Friederichs 1932 (Notoligotomidae) eggs are stitched into the gallery silk but are not organized; gathered materials are loosely placed around the eggs, (R) Oligembia hubbardi (Hagen 1885) (Teratembiidae) eggs (at arrows) are scattered and hidden by protective materials, (S) Oligotoma saundersii (Westwood 1837) (Oligotomidae) eggs, clustered together with gathered materials, are covered with thin silk, (T) O. nigra (Hagen 1866) egg mass closely resembles congener (O. saundersii) with eggs placed together and loosely covered, (U) Pararhagadochir trinitatis (Saussure 1896) (Scelembiidae) egg mass with top covering intact (left) and removed (right) to show eggs thickly coated and arranged in neat rows, (V) Parthenembia reclusa Ross 1960 (Embiidae) with clustered eggs but no coatings or coverings, (W) Ptilocerembia catherinae Poolprasert & Edgerly 2014 (Ptilocerembiidae) with complex egg mass covering of lichen bits embedded in the silk above the eggs (left); eggs are organized, stuck, and covered by loosely gathered materials (right), (X) Rhagadochir virgo (Ross 1960) (Scelembiidae) eggs placed in small groups into the silk domicile and covered with gathered bits of lichen and macerated materials, (Y) Saussurembia calypso Edgerly, Szumik, McCreedy 2007 (Anisembiidae) eggs scattered into the silk gallery, (Z) Saussurembia davisi Ross 1992 eggs with thick egg mass covering (left) and with covering removed to reveal loose, clean eggs with gathered materials tucked here and there around the eggs. All photographs by J.S. Edgerly.Additional photographs not shown and used for analysis are as follows: from Ross (2000) Dinembia sp. (Embiidae) (Fig. 18), Enveja sp. (Embiidae) (Fig. 29B), and Gibocercus sp. (Scelembiidae) (Fig. 42A), and Eosembia paradorni (Fig. 3 of Poolprasert et al. (2011).

Fig. 1 in Macroecology and Potential Drivers of Diversity in Webspinner Maternal Care (Order Embioptera)

Fig. 1. Photographs of characters scored for a selection of species. (A) Individual egg treatment ranging from clean to covered with cement. (B) Egg arranged from scattered to highly organized. (C) Silk added thinly to very thick over the eggs. (D) Eggs loosely placed on or affixed to the substrate. (E) Egg mass bare or covered and hidden by collected materials.

Fig. 5 in Macroecology and Potential Drivers of Diversity in Webspinner Maternal Care (Order Embioptera)

Fig. 5. Scatterplot between predation threat (AET) and parental care behavior measured as the score of MCA-1. Darker (red) circles and lines show parental care scores and pGLS slopes that were estimated using all 29 species, while lighter gray circles and lines show parental care scores and pGLS slopes that were estimated using only species sampled in their native range (n = 26).Thick, solid lines show the mean slope, and intercepts of all models, while dotted lines show upper and lower extents of the 95% confidence band.Thin lines show each of the 1,000 pGLS models for both data subsets.

Fig. 3 in Macroecology and Potential Drivers of Diversity in Webspinner Maternal Care (Order Embioptera)

Fig. 3. Phylogeny and heatmap showing each species′ egg handling score. Species shown with † are species that were added stochastically usingTACT. Species shown with * are species sampled outside of their native range.

FIGURES 21–26. Biguembia mirador n in Gibocercus Szumik and Biguembia Szumik (Embioptera, Archembiidae): new species and the potentiality of female traits

FIGURES 21–26. Biguembia mirador n. sp. 21, Head; 22, Mentum + submentum; 23, Left hind basitarsus, ventral view; 24, Male Terminalia, dorsal view; 25, detail of 10Lp; 26, Male terminalia, ventral view.

FIGURES 27–31. Biguembia troncol n in Gibocercus Szumik and Biguembia Szumik (Embioptera, Archembiidae): new species and the potentiality of female traits

FIGURES 27–31. Biguembia troncol n. sp. 27, Head; 28, Mentum + submentum; 29, detail of 10Lp; 30, Male terminalia, dorsal view; 31, Male terminalia, ventral view.

FIGURES 15–17. Female hind basitasus. 15 in Gibocercus Szumik and Biguembia Szumik (Embioptera, Archembiidae): new species and the potentiality of female traits

FIGURES 15–17. Female hind basitasus. 15, Gibocercus chaco; 16, Gibocercus beni; 17, Biguembia copo.

FIGURES 9–14. Gibocercus podamita n in Gibocercus Szumik and Biguembia Szumik (Embioptera, Archembiidae): new species and the potentiality of female traits

FIGURES 9–14. Gibocercus podamita n. sp. 9, Head; 10, Mentum + submentum; 11, Left hind basitarsus, ventral view; 12, Male Terminalia, dorsal view; 13, Detail of 10Lp; 14, Male Terminalia, ventral view.

FIGURE 4 in Gibocercus Szumik and Biguembia Szumik (Embioptera, Archembiidae): new species and the potentiality of female traits

FIGURE 4. Bremer support, Relative Bremer support and symmetric resampling. Asterisks (*) indicate junior synonyms.

FIGURES 1–2. Gibocercus and Biguembia relationships. 1 in Gibocercus Szumik and Biguembia Szumik (Embioptera, Archembiidae): new species and the potentiality of female traits

FIGURES 1–2. Gibocercus and Biguembia relationships. 1. According to Szumik (1997); 2. According to the phylogeny of Embioptera in Szumik et al. (2008).

FIGURE 4 in Oligotomidae (Insecta: Embioptera) of Mt. Makiling, Los Baños, Philippines, with description of a new species

FIGURE 4. Oligotoma saundersii (Westwood 1837): habit of (A) male and (B) female; (C) male head with submentum; (D) male hind basitarsus; male terminalia, (E) dorsal and (F) ventral, (G) female abdominal sternites 9‒11.

FIGURE 3 in Oligotomidae (Insecta: Embioptera) of Mt. Makiling, Los Baños, Philippines, with description of a new species

FIGURE 3. Oligotoma humbertiana (Saussure 1896): habit of (A) male and (B) female; (C) male head with submentum; (D) male hind basitarsus; male terminalia, (E) dorsal and (F) ventral, (G) female abdominal sternites 9‒11.

FIGURE 2 in Oligotomidae (Insecta: Embioptera) of Mt. Makiling, Los Baños, Philippines, with description of a new species

FIGURE 2. Aposthonia merdelynae Lucañas and Lit n. sp.: habit of (A) male and (B) female; (C) male head with submentum; (D) male hind basitarsus; male terminalia, (E) dorsal and (F) ventral, (G) enlarged LPPT and (H) 10LP, (I) female abdominal sternites 9‒11.

FIGURE 1. Aposthonia borneensis Hagen 1885 in Oligotomidae (Insecta: Embioptera) of Mt. Makiling, Los Baños, Philippines, with description of a new species

FIGURE 1. Aposthonia borneensis Hagen 1885: habit of (A) male and (B) female; (C) Male head with submentum; (D) male hind basitarsus; Male terminalia: (E) dorsal and (F) ventral, (G) enlarged LPPT and (H) 10LP; (I) female abdominal sternites 9‒11.