Find research datasets worth reusing

FIGURE 9 in Revision of the subgenus Phortica (sensu stricto) (Diptera, Drosophilidae) from East Asia, with assessment of species delimitation using DNA barcodes

FIGURE 9. Phortica (Phortica) conifera (Okada, 1977) from Baiyunshan, Henan, China, male. A. Epandrium and cercus (lateral view); B. Surstylus (frontal view); C. Hypandrium, paramere, aedeagus, gonopod, and aedeagal apodeme (lateral view). Scale bars = 0.1 mm.

FIGURE 10 in Revision of the subgenus Phortica (sensu stricto) (Diptera, Drosophilidae) from East Asia, with assessment of species delimitation using DNA barcodes

FIGURE 10. Phortica (Phortica) eparmata (Okada, 1977) from Dongyanshan, Taiwan, China, male. A. Epandrium and cercus (lateral view); B. Surstylus (frontal view); C. Hypandrium, paramere, aedeagus, gonopod, and aedeagal apodeme (lateral view). Scale bars = 0.1 mm.

FIGURE 21 in Revision of the subgenus Phortica (sensu stricto) (Diptera, Drosophilidae) from East Asia, with assessment of species delimitation using DNA barcodes

FIGURE 21. Phortica (Phortica) okadai (Máca, 1977) from Guanmenshan Forest Park, Liaoning, China, male. A. Epandrium, surstylus, and cercus (lateral view); B. Surstylus (frontal view); C. Hypandrium, paramere, aedeagus, gonopod, and aedeagal apodeme (lateral view). Scale bars = 0.1 mm.

FIGURE 15 in Revision of the subgenus Phortica (sensu stricto) (Diptera, Drosophilidae) from East Asia, with assessment of species delimitation using DNA barcodes

FIGURE 15. Phortica (Phortica) glabtabula Chen & Gao, 2005 from Chebaling, Guangdong, China, male. A. Arista; B. Sixth tergite (lateral view); C. Epandrium, surstylus, and cercus (lateral view); D. Surstylus (frontal view); E. Hypandrium, paramere, aedeagus, gonopod, and aedeagal apodeme (lateral view). Scale bars = 0.1 mm.

FIGURE 13 in Revision of the subgenus Phortica (sensu stricto) (Diptera, Drosophilidae) from East Asia, with assessment of species delimitation using DNA barcodes

FIGURE 13. Phortica (Phortica) flexuosa (Zhang & Gan, 1986) from Nantou, Taiwan, China, male. A. Epandrium, surstylus, and cercus (lateral view); B. Surstylus (frontal view); C. Hypandrium, paramere, aedeagus, gonopod, and aedeagal apodeme (lateral view). Scale bars = 0.1 mm.

opennotspecifiedOct 2016View details →

Fig. 2 in Molecular and morphological delimitation of Australian Triops species (Crustacea: Branchiopoda: Notostraca)-large diversity and little morphological differentiation

Fig. 2 Morphology of the head (a) and posterior margin of the carapace (b) and position of landmarks for morphometrics as well as position of telsonic spines on the dorsal surface of the telson (c). Landmark (LM) 1: anterior right corner of telson; LM 2: tip of largest right lateral spine; LM 3: intersection between telson and furca (right); LM 4: most posterior extension of the right telson lobe; LM 5: center of telson notch; LM 6: most posterior extension of the left telson lobe; LM 7: intersection between telson and furca (left); LM 8: tip of largest left lateral spine;

opennotspecifiedOct 2016View details →

Fig. 4 in Molecular and morphological delimitation of Australian Triops species (Crustacea: Branchiopoda: Notostraca)-large diversity and little morphological differentiation

Fig. 4 Bayesian inference majority rule tree based on EF1α. Triops main and sublineages derived from COI are highlighted. All available EF1α sequences were included. Colors represent the individual's location (see Fig. 1). Numbers of terminals correspond to Australian Museum (AM) registration numbers (see also Supplement Table S1). For each node,

opennotspecifiedOct 2016View details →

Fig. 1 in Molecular and morphological delimitation of Australian Triops species (Crustacea: Branchiopoda: Notostraca)-large diversity and little morphological differentiation

Fig. 1 Map showing all collection localities. The larger map depicts the main drainage systems (red lines) and the catchments basins of individual rivers (black lines). Geographically closely associated localities were grouped together, and the color-coding corresponds to Figs. 3 and 4. The numbers correspond to the locality numbers in Table 1 and Supplement Table S2. Scale bars correspond to 200 km each

opennotspecifiedMar 2019View details →

Fig. 2 in COI-based species delimitation in Indochinese Tetraserica chafers reveal hybridisation despite strong divergence in male copulation organs

Fig. 2 Tree from Bayesian inference along with the information about morphospecies assignment (column morphology, paraphyletic morphospecies red), collecting sites (cf. Fig. 1), results from the various methods of species delimitation (columns 3–8, mPTP and GMYC with results for all specimens (all) and for unique haplotypes (ht)) and illustrations of the respective morphospecies' aedeagi. Green boxes indicate

opennotspecifiedMar 2019View details →

Fig. 1 in COI-based species delimitation in Indochinese Tetraserica chafers reveal hybridisation despite strong divergence in male copulation organs

Fig. 1 Map of Southeast Asia showing collecting sites of studied individuals. Numbers refer to Supplement Table 1 and Fig. 2

Fig. 3 Chronogram showing the relationships and divergence times for 80 bears, estimated from a concatenated mitochondrial dataset comprising all 13 protein coding and 2 in Examining the sensitivity of molecular species delimitations to the choice of mitochondrial marker

Fig. 3 Chronogram showing the relationships and divergence times for 80 bears, estimated from a concatenated mitochondrial dataset comprising all 13 protein coding and 2 ribosomal RNA genes. Groups delimited as species by the GMYC analysis are shown as triangles. The horizontal axis shows the timescale, measured in millions of years.

Fig. 2 Chronogram showing the relationships and divergence times for 357 cetaceans, estimated from a concatenated mitochondrial dataset comprising all 13 protein coding and 2 in Examining the sensitivity of molecular species delimitations to the choice of mitochondrial marker

Fig. 2 Chronogram showing the relationships and divergence times for 357 cetaceans, estimated from a concatenated mitochondrial dataset comprising all 13 protein coding and 2 ribosomal RNA genes. Groups delimited as species by the GMYC analysis are shown as triangles. The horizontal axis shows the timescale, measured in millions of years.

Fig. 1 in Examining the sensitivity of molecular species delimitations to the choice of mitochondrial marker

Fig. 1 Number of markers analysed in a survey of 109 studies using GMYC published between January 2013 and December 2014. Columns indicate the total number of studies in the sample using the relevant number of markers. The lower dark grey portion of each column refers to the number of studies using only mitochondrial markers, while the upper light grey portion refers to all other studies

Fig. 5 in Examining the sensitivity of molecular species delimitations to the choice of mitochondrial marker

Fig. 5 Numbers of species delimited by different mitochondrial genes in GMYC analysis of three datasets: a cetaceans; b bears (Ursidae); and c European whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus) and allies. In each case, the value at which the horizontal axis crosses the vertical axis corresponds to the number of named species (47 cetaceans, 8 bears, 4 whitefish). Columns represent the number of species delimited in the most likely hypotheses identified by GMYC using individual genes, while error bars show the range of species counts found in the 95 % confidence set of species hypotheses generated by GMYC. Genes marked 'NS' did not provide sufficient evidence to reject the one-species null hypothesis (likelihood-ratio test, p> 0.05). Substantial variation is observed between delimitations given by different genes

opennotspecifiedNov 2015View details →

Fig. 5 in Phylogeography of three closely related myrmecophytic pioneer tree species in SE Asia: implications for species delimitation

Fig. 5 Distribution of the different ant species on their respective host plants M. constricta, M. griffithiana, and M. motleyana (including data from Quek et al. 2007 = lineages A, B, D, K, and G/H)

opennotspecifiedNov 2015View details →

Fig. 2 in Phylogeography of three closely related myrmecophytic pioneer tree species in SE Asia: implications for species delimitation

Fig. 2 Statistical parsimony network based on cpDNA haplotype data, generated with the TCS program (Clement et al. 2000). Each circle represents a unique haplotype (indicated by numbers). Circle sizes are proportional to the number of individuals carrying the respective

opennotspecifiedJan 2015View details →

Fig. 2 Ultrametric tree showing the GMYC delimitation results obtained from the Cox1 in Focus on the details: morphological evidence supports new cryptic land flatworm (Platyhelminthes) species revealed with molecules

Fig. 2 Ultrametric tree showing the GMYC delimitation results obtained from the Cox1Del dataset. Threshold separating speciation and coalescent processes plotted as grey vertical line that delimits 18 entities (including 7 singletons)

opennotspecifiedOct 2012View details →

Fig. 4 in Systematics and phylogenetic species delimitation within Polinices s.l. (Caenogastropoda: Naticidae) based on molecular data and shell morphology

Fig. 4 NeighborNet network based on the concatenated data set (COI, 16S, 18S, 28S, H3). Bootstrap values are indicated

opennotspecifiedDec 2011View details →

Fig. 2 in Using haplotype networks, estimation of gene flow and phenotypic characters to understand species delimitation in fungi of a predominantly Antarctic Usnea group (Ascomycota, Parmeliaceae)

Fig. 2 Enlargement of the Usnea aurantiaco-atra group of the Bayesian inference (Fig. 1) depicting 101 taxa. Posterior probabilities ≥ 0.95 are visualized by bold branches. Colors match the sampling site colours in Fig. 4a. A! fertile specimen with apothecia, S! vegetative reproduction via soralia. Most important clades of the nested clade analysis (Fig. 4a,b) are plotted on the phylogenetic tree