Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 7 in A Small Derived Theropod from Öösh, Early Cretaceous, Baykhangor Mongolia

Fig. 7. Systematic variation in jugal morphology among dromaeosaurid theropods. Tsaagan mangas (IGM 100/1015), top, illustrating a wide jugal process of the maxilla below the external antorbital fenestra (character 238.1). Velociraptor mongoliensis (AMNH FR 6515), bottom, illustrating a narrow jugal process of the maxilla below the external antorbital fenestra (character 238.0). Images not to scale.

Fig. 13 in A Small Derived Theropod from Öösh, Early Cretaceous, Baykhangor Mongolia

Fig. 13. Systematic variation in jugal/antorbital fenestra morphology in theropod dinosaurs. Oviraptor philoceratops (AMNH 6517), bottom, illustrating a jugal that does not participate in the antorbital fenestra (character 246.0). Tsaagan mangas (IGM 100/1015), top, illustrating a jugal that does participate in the antorbital fenestra (character 246.1). Images not to scale.

Fig. 10 in A Small Derived Theropod from Öösh, Early Cretaceous, Baykhangor Mongolia

Fig. 10. Systematic variation in antorbital fossa morphology among coelurosaur theropods. Velociraptor mongoliensis (AMNH FR 6515), top, illustrating a dorsal border of the antorbital fossa formed by the lacrimal and maxilla (character 243.0). Archaeopteryx lithographica (WDC-CSG-100), middle, illustrating a dorsal border of the antorbital fossa formed by the lacrimal and nasal (character 243.1). From Mayr et al. (2005). Reprinted with permission from AAAS. Citipati osmolskae (IGM 100/978), bottom, illustrating a dorsal border of the antorbital fossa formed by the maxilla, premaxilla, and lacrimal (character 243.2). Images not to scale.

Fig. 3 in A Small Derived Theropod from Öösh, Early Cretaceous, Baykhangor Mongolia

Fig. 3. Detail of posterior tooth morphology in IGM 100/1119. Note serrations on posterior carinae and unconstricted root-crown transition.

Fig. 17 in A Small Derived Theropod from Öösh, Early Cretaceous, Baykhangor Mongolia

Fig. 17. Systematic variation in first premaxillary tooth size among coelurosaur theropods. Tsaagan mangas (IGM 100/1015), top, illustrating a first premaxillary tooth similar in size to premaxillary teeth 2 and 3 (character 251.0). Velociraptor mongoliensis (IGM 100/982), middle, illustrating a first premaxillary tooth much smaller than premaxillary teeth 2 and 3 (character 251.1). Incisivosaurus gauthieri (IVPP V13326), bottom, illustrating a first premaxillary tooth much larger than premaxillary teeth 2 and 3 (character 251.2). Images not to scale.

Fig. 1 in A Small Derived Theropod from Öösh, Early Cretaceous, Baykhangor Mongolia

Fig. 1. Map of Mongolia showing geographical relationship of the Öösh locality to other Gobi fossil localities.

Fig. 5 in A Small Derived Theropod from Öösh, Early Cretaceous, Baykhangor Mongolia

Fig. 5. Phylogenetic placement of IGM 100/1119. A. Strict consensus of 552 most parsimonious reconstructions of coelurosaurian interrelationships found in our phylogenetic analysis of 251 characters and 56 coelurosaurian taxa. The new taxon is indicated in bold. B. Adams consensus topology of nonunenlagiine dromaeosaurids recovered in from this analysis.

Fig. 4 in A Small Derived Theropod from Öösh, Early Cretaceous, Baykhangor Mongolia

Fig. 4. Detail of the tooth morphology and size variation seen in the dentary of IGM 100/1119. Anatomical labels in appendix 3.

Fig. 12 in A Small Derived Theropod from Öösh, Early Cretaceous, Baykhangor Mongolia

Fig. 12. Systematic variation in supratemporal fossa morphology among theropod dinosaurs. Mei long (IVPP V12733), top, illustrating a supratemporal fossa with limited extension onto the dorsal surface of the frontal and postorbital (character 245.0). Tyrannosaurus rex (FMNH PR2081), bottom, illustrating a supratemporal fossa with extensive covering of the frontal process of the postorbital and dorsal surface of the frontal (character 245.1). Images not to scale.

Fig. 11 in A Small Derived Theropod from Öösh, Early Cretaceous, Baykhangor Mongolia

Fig. 11. Systematic variation in maxilla morphology among paravian theropods. Velociraptor mongoliensis (AMNH FR 6515), top, illustrating a large, prominent lateral lamina of the ventral ramus of nasal process of maxilla (character 244.0). Shanag ashile (IGM 100/1119), bottom, illustrating a reduced, small triangular exposure of the lateral lamina of the ventral ramus of nasal process of maxilla (character 244.1). Images not to scale.

Fig. 9 in A Small Derived Theropod from Öösh, Early Cretaceous, Baykhangor Mongolia

Fig. 9. Systematic variation in internal antorbital fenestra morphology among paravian theropods. Archaeopteryx lithographica (WDC-CSG-100), top, illustrating a dorsal border of the internal antorbital fenestra formed by the lacrimal and maxilla (character 242.0). From Mayr et al. (2005). Reprinted with permission from AAAS. Confuciusornis sanctus (GMV 2131), bottom, illustrating a dorsal border of the internal antorbital fenestra formed by the lacrimal and/or nasal (character 242.1). Images not to scale.

Fig. 16 in A Small Derived Theropod from Öösh, Early Cretaceous, Baykhangor Mongolia

Fig. 16. Systematic variation in splenial morphology among theropod dinosaurs. Citipati osmolskae (IGM 100/978), top, illustrating a splenial that does not form a notched anterior margin of the internal mandibular fenestra (character 250.0). Tyrannosaurus rex (FMNH PR2081), bottom, illustrating a splenial that forms a notch anterior margin to the internal mandibular fenestra (character 250.1). Images not to scale.

Fig. 15 in A Small Derived Theropod from Öösh, Early Cretaceous, Baykhangor Mongolia

Fig. 15. Systematic variation in maxillary tooth orientation and height in deinonychosaurian theropods. Saurornithoides mongoliensis (AMNH FR 6516), middle, illustrating maxillary teeth perpendicular to the jaw margin (character 248.0) and isodont teeth with no replacement gaps (character 249.1). Bambiraptor feinbergorum (AMNH FR 30554), bottom, illustrating maxillary teeth strongly inclined posteroventrally (character 248.1). Velociraptor mongoliensis (AMNH FR 6515), top, illustrating maxillary teeth with variable height and tooth replacement gaps (character 249.0). Images not to scale.

Fig. 8 in A Small Derived Theropod from Öösh, Early Cretaceous, Baykhangor Mongolia

Fig. 8. Systematic variation in antorbital fenestra morphology among paravian theropods. Diomedea epomophora (AMNH 5311), top, illustrating a reduced dorsal ramus of the nasal process of maxilla (character 240.1) and a ventral ramus of the maxilla with no dorsal projection participating in the anterior margin of the antorbital fenestra (character 241.2). Velociraptor mongoliensis (AMNH FR 6515), bottom, illustrating a prominent dorsal ramus of the nasal process of maxilla that is exposed medially and laterally (character 240.0) and extensive participation of the ventral ramus of the nasal process of the maxilla in the anterior margin of the antorbital fenestra (character 241.0). Images not to scale.

Fig. 14 in A Small Derived Theropod from Öösh, Early Cretaceous, Baykhangor Mongolia

Fig. 14. Systematic variation in tooth denticle size among theropod dinosaurs. Dromaeosaurus albertensis (AMNH FR 5356), top, illustrating anterior and posterior denticles not significantly different in size (character 247.0). Velociraptor mongoliensis (IGM 100/1252), bottom, illustrating anterior denticles that are significantly smaller than posterior denticles (character 247.1). Images not to scale.

Text-fig. 7. Number of required character state changes under parsimony (steps) for various positions of Mugideiriflora portugallica, based on the Doyle and Endress character matrix and backbone tree (Doyle and Endress 2000, 2014). in Multiparted, Apocarpous Flowers From The Early Cretaceous Of Eastern North America And Portugal

Text-fig. 7. Number of required character state changes under parsimony (steps) for various positions of Mugideiriflora portugallica, based on the Doyle and Endress character matrix and backbone tree (Doyle and Endress 2000, 2014).

Text-fig. 3. Scanning electron micrographs (a, b) and synchrotron radiation X-ray tomographic microscopy orthoslices (c–e) of flower of Lambertiflora elegans gen. et sp. nov. from the Early Cretaceous Puddledock locality, Virginia, USA (holotype, PP53796, Puddledock sample 082). a) Flower in lateral view showing long pedicel and overlapping elongated tepals; b) Detail of flower showing overlapping elongated tepals; note the numerous holes indicating the position of probable secretory cells; c) Flower in longitudinal section showing overlapping elongated tepals, remains of probable poorly developed stamens or staminodes and probable poorly developed carpels on the central conical gynoecial region of the receptacle (cut between orthoslices xz0510 and 0570); d) Flower in longitudinal section (comparable to c) showing overlapping tepals, poorly developed stamens or staminodes, and probable poorly developed carpels on the central conical gynoecial region of the receptacle; note the prominent cavities from secretory cells scattered through the tissues (cut between orthoslice xz0560 and 0575); e) Flower in transverse section showing overlapping tepals, poorly developed stamens or staminodes, and remains of probable poorly developed carpels (cut between orthoslices xy1160 and 1180). Scale bars = 1 mm (a), 500 µm (b–e). in Multiparted, Apocarpous Flowers From The Early Cretaceous Of Eastern North America And Portugal

Text-fig. 3. Scanning electron micrographs (a, b) and synchrotron radiation X-ray tomographic microscopy orthoslices (c–e) of flower of Lambertiflora elegans gen. et sp. nov. from the Early Cretaceous Puddledock locality, Virginia, USA (holotype, PP53796, Puddledock sample 082). a) Flower in lateral view showing long pedicel and overlapping elongated tepals; b) Detail of flower showing overlapping elongated tepals; note the numerous holes indicating the position of probable secretory cells; c) Flower in longitudinal section showing overlapping elongated tepals, remains of probable poorly developed stamens or staminodes and probable poorly developed carpels on the central conical gynoecial region of the receptacle (cut between orthoslices xz0510 and 0570); d) Flower in longitudinal section (comparable to c) showing overlapping tepals, poorly developed stamens or staminodes, and probable poorly developed carpels on the central conical gynoecial region of the receptacle; note the prominent cavities from secretory cells scattered through the tissues (cut between orthoslice xz0560 and 0575); e) Flower in transverse section showing overlapping tepals, poorly developed stamens or staminodes, and remains of probable poorly developed carpels (cut between orthoslices xy1160 and 1180). Scale bars = 1 mm (a), 500 µm (b–e).

Text-fig. 8. Number of required character state changes under parsimony (steps) for various positions of Lambertiflora elegans, based on the Doyle and Endress character matrix and backbone tree (Doyle and Endress 2000, 2014). in Multiparted, Apocarpous Flowers From The Early Cretaceous Of Eastern North America And Portugal

Text-fig. 8. Number of required character state changes under parsimony (steps) for various positions of Lambertiflora elegans, based on the Doyle and Endress character matrix and backbone tree (Doyle and Endress 2000, 2014).

Text-fig. 2. Synchrotron radiation X-ray tomographic microscopy volume renderings (a, b) and orthoslices (c–e) of Mugideiriflora portugallica gen. et sp. nov. from the Early Cretaceous Catefica locality, Portugal (holotype, S174254, Catefica sample 150). Yellow dots – stamens, red dots – carpels. a) Flower in lateral view showing the broad bases of the laminar tepals; b) Flower in longitudinal section showing the flat to slightly concave floral receptacle with a central conical gynoecial region (cut between orthoslices yz0800 and 1220); c) Flower in transverse section showing the numerous laminar tepals in several series and the stamens cut in the region of the poorly differentiated anthers; note cellular differences between outer (op) and inner (in) perianth parts, as well as and transverse sections of anthers, apparently with laterally to slightly dorsally placed pollen sacs (arrow heads) (cut at orthoslice xy0770); d) Flower in transverse section showing the numerous laminar tepals in several series, flattened rhomboidal stamen bases in several series, and poorly differentiated carpels (cut at orthoslice xy0820); e) Flower in transverse section showing the numerous laminar tepals in several series, flattened rhomboidal stamen bases in several series, and poorly differentiated carpels (cut at orthoslice xy0920); f) Flower in longitudinal section showing the shallowly concave floral receptacle with laminar tepals, stamens, and a central conical gynoecial region bearing poorly differentiated carpels (cut at orthoslice yz0900); g) Flower in longitudinal section perpendicular to that in (f) showing stamens and poorly differentiated carpels (cut at orthoslice xz1630). Scale bars = 1 mm (a, b), 500 µm (c–g). in Multiparted, Apocarpous Flowers From The Early Cretaceous Of Eastern North America And Portugal

Text-fig. 2. Synchrotron radiation X-ray tomographic microscopy volume renderings (a, b) and orthoslices (c–e) of Mugideiriflora portugallica gen. et sp. nov. from the Early Cretaceous Catefica locality, Portugal (holotype, S174254, Catefica sample 150). Yellow dots – stamens, red dots – carpels. a) Flower in lateral view showing the broad bases of the laminar tepals; b) Flower in longitudinal section showing the flat to slightly concave floral receptacle with a central conical gynoecial region (cut between orthoslices yz0800 and 1220); c) Flower in transverse section showing the numerous laminar tepals in several series and the stamens cut in the region of the poorly differentiated anthers; note cellular differences between outer (op) and inner (in) perianth parts, as well as and transverse sections of anthers, apparently with laterally to slightly dorsally placed pollen sacs (arrow heads) (cut at orthoslice xy0770); d) Flower in transverse section showing the numerous laminar tepals in several series, flattened rhomboidal stamen bases in several series, and poorly differentiated carpels (cut at orthoslice xy0820); e) Flower in transverse section showing the numerous laminar tepals in several series, flattened rhomboidal stamen bases in several series, and poorly differentiated carpels (cut at orthoslice xy0920); f) Flower in longitudinal section showing the shallowly concave floral receptacle with laminar tepals, stamens, and a central conical gynoecial region bearing poorly differentiated carpels (cut at orthoslice yz0900); g) Flower in longitudinal section perpendicular to that in (f) showing stamens and poorly differentiated carpels (cut at orthoslice xz1630). Scale bars = 1 mm (a, b), 500 µm (c–g).

Text-fig. 1. Scanning electron micrographs of Mugideiriflora portugallica gen. et sp. nov. from the Early Cretaceous Catefica locality, Portugal (holotype, S174254, Catefica sample 150). a) Flower in oblique lateral view showing numerous broad tepals, numerous inwardly curved stamens and the flat floral receptacle with a conical gynoecial region; b–c) Flower in two different oblique apical views showing numerous broad laminar tepals and inwardly curved stamens surrounding the carpels; note cellular differences between outer (op) and inner (in) perianth parts, as well as bases of anthers, apparently with laterally to slightly dorsally placed pollen sacs (arrow heads); d) Detail of flower showing a cluster of poorly differentiated carpels in the center surrounded by elongated stamens; note grooves in the dorsal surface of the stamens indicating the position of the pollen sacs; e) Detail of flower showing the broad bases of the laminar tepals, rhomboidal stamen bases and poorly differentiated carpels; f) Detail of flower showing inwardly arched stamens and poorly differentiated carpels. Scale bars = 1 mm (a–c), 200 µm (d–f). in Multiparted, Apocarpous Flowers From The Early Cretaceous Of Eastern North America And Portugal

Text-fig. 1. Scanning electron micrographs of Mugideiriflora portugallica gen. et sp. nov. from the Early Cretaceous Catefica locality, Portugal (holotype, S174254, Catefica sample 150). a) Flower in oblique lateral view showing numerous broad tepals, numerous inwardly curved stamens and the flat floral receptacle with a conical gynoecial region; b–c) Flower in two different oblique apical views showing numerous broad laminar tepals and inwardly curved stamens surrounding the carpels; note cellular differences between outer (op) and inner (in) perianth parts, as well as bases of anthers, apparently with laterally to slightly dorsally placed pollen sacs (arrow heads); d) Detail of flower showing a cluster of poorly differentiated carpels in the center surrounded by elongated stamens; note grooves in the dorsal surface of the stamens indicating the position of the pollen sacs; e) Detail of flower showing the broad bases of the laminar tepals, rhomboidal stamen bases and poorly differentiated carpels; f) Detail of flower showing inwardly arched stamens and poorly differentiated carpels. Scale bars = 1 mm (a–c), 200 µm (d–f).