Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 6 in The Chinchilla Local Fauna: An exceptionally rich and well-preserved Pliocene vertebrate assemblage from fluviatile deposits of south-eastern Queensland, Australia

Fig. 6. Mammal species of uncertain taxonomic identity from unspecified localities near Chinchilla, Australia, Pliocene. A. Koalemus ingens de Vis, 1889, QM F683, partial right fibula. B. Synaptodon aevorum de Vis, 1888, QM F811, right dentary fragment. C. Archizonurus securus de Vis, 1889, QM F682, proximal left scapula. D. Phalanger procuscus (de Vis, 1889), QM F687, right scapula. E. Chronozoon australe de Vis, 1883, QM F610, calvarium. F. Brachalletes palmeri de Vis, 1883, QM F3308, right femur. Scale bars 10 mm.

Fig. 7 in The Chinchilla Local Fauna: An exceptionally rich and well-preserved Pliocene vertebrate assemblage from fluviatile deposits of south-eastern Queensland, Australia

Fig. 7. Non-macropodid marsupials from Chinchilla Sand, Australia, Pliocene. A. Dasyurus dunmalli Bartholomai, 1971, QM F6579, Chinchilla Rifle Range, left mandibular ramus. B. Koobor notabilis (de Vis, 1889), QM F691, unspecified locality near Chinchilla, left maxillary fragment. C. Phascolarctidae gen. et sp. indet., QM F52287, Chinchilla Rifle Range, left dentary fragment. D. Phascolarctos?stirtoni Bartholomai, 1968, QM F52289, Chinchilla Rifle Range, isolated RM1, RM2 or RM3 fragment. E. Archerium chinchillaensis Wroe and Mackness, 2000, QM F39847, Chinchilla Rifle Range, left maxillary fragment. F. Thylacoleo crassidentatus Bartholomai, 1962, QM F3565, right mandibular ramus. G. Euryzygoma dunense (de Vis, 1888), QM F376, unspecified locality near Chinchilla, left mandible. H. Vombatus ursinus (Shaw, 1800), QM F743, unspecified locality near Chinchilla, proximal right tibia. I. Palorchestes parvus de Vis, 1895, QM F783, unspecified locality near Chinchilla, left mandibular fragment. J. Euowenia grata (de Vis, 1887), QM F519, north bank of Condamine River, mandible. K. Thylacinus cynocephalus (Harris, 1808), QM F9476, Chinchilla Rifle Range, right mandibular fragment.

Fig. 2 in The Chinchilla Local Fauna: An exceptionally rich and well-preserved Pliocene vertebrate assemblage from fluviatile deposits of south-eastern Queensland, Australia

Fig. 2. Part of the Chinchilla gully system in the Chinchilla Rifle Range, showing the dominant sedimentary units present.

Fig. 5 in The Chinchilla Local Fauna: An exceptionally rich and well-preserved Pliocene vertebrate assemblage from fluviatile deposits of south-eastern Queensland, Australia

Fig. 5. Birds from unspecified localities near Chinchilla, Australia, Pliocene. A. Aythya australis Eyton, 1838, QM F1124, left tibiotarsus. B. Leipoa gallinacean (de Vis, 1888), QM F1132, partial carpometacarpus. C. Biziura lobata Shaw, 1796, QM F1125, partial left humerus. D. Anas superciliosa Gmelin, 1789, QM F5550, left coracoid. E. Fulica atra Linneaus, 1758, QM F1129, proximal right humerus. F. Gallinula morterii du Bus, 1840, QM F1138, distal right humerus. G. Charadriiformes gen. et sp. indet., QM F5543, proximal left femur. H. Necrastur alecer de Vis, 1892, QM F1136, proximal right humerus. I. Microcarbo melanoleucos Vieillot, 1817, QM F1130, right humerus. J. Ciconia nana (de Vis, 1888), QM F1131, distal right tibiotarsus. K. Dromaius novaehollandiae (Latham, 1790), QM F56203, third trochlea of the tarsometatarsus. Scale bars 10 mm.

Fig. 3 in The Chinchilla Local Fauna: An exceptionally rich and well-preserved Pliocene vertebrate assemblage from fluviatile deposits of south-eastern Queensland, Australia

Fig. 3. Lungfish toothplates from unspecified locality near Chinchilla, Australia, Pliocene. A. Metaceratodus palmeri (Krefft, 1874), QM F10537. B. Neoceratodus forsteri (Krefft, 1870), QM F56224. Scale bars 10 mm.

Fig. 4 in The Chinchilla Local Fauna: An exceptionally rich and well-preserved Pliocene vertebrate assemblage from fluviatile deposits of south-eastern Queensland, Australia

Fig. 4. Reptiles from Chinchilla Sand, Australia, Pliocene. A.?Reptilia, QM F56197, Chinchilla Rifle Range, unidentified fragments (A 1 –A 3), showing the WPC registration numbers of Agamidae sp. indet. cited by Hutchinson and Mackness (2002). B. Varanus sp. QM F56189, "Wilkinson's Quarry" Chinchilla Rifle Range, dorsal vertebra. C. Quinkana sp., QM F10204, Chinchilla Rifle Range, isolated tooth. D. Trionychidae sp. indet. QM F9037, Fairymeadow, carapace fragment. E. Emydura sp., QM F7035, Middle Gully, Chinchilla Rifle Range, anterior half of carapace. F. Pallimnarchus pollens de Vis, 1886, QM F11612, "Sand Scree locality, 4'6" from top of bank of Condamine River", symphyseal portion of dentary. G. Varanus komodoensis Ouwens, 1912, QM F874, unspecified locality near Chinchilla, right maxilla. Scale bars 20 mm.

Fig. 1 in The Chinchilla Local Fauna: An exceptionally rich and well-preserved Pliocene vertebrate assemblage from fluviatile deposits of south-eastern Queensland, Australia

Fig. 1. Physiography of the Chinchilla local area, showing the location of Chinchilla relative to the Condamine River System. Redrawn after Reiser 1971).

Fig. 6 in Ecomorphology of radii in Canidae: Application to fragmentary fossils from Plio-Pleistocene hominin assemblages

Fig. 6. Neighbour-joining cluster analysis performed using Euclidean distances extracted from distal measurements. Bootstrap values show the support for each internal node.

Fig. 4 in Ecomorphology of radii in Canidae: Application to fragmentary fossils from Plio-Pleistocene hominin assemblages

Fig. 4. Neighbour-joining cluster analysis performed using Euclidean distances extracted from all measurements. Bootstrap values show the support for each internal node.

Fig. 3 in Ecomorphology of radii in Canidae: Application to fragmentary fossils from Plio-Pleistocene hominin assemblages

Fig. 3. Plot of the first two linear discriminant functions extracted from a combination of radial measurements used to classify habitat preferences within Canidae.

Fig. 1. Measurement scheme for the canid radius, illustrated using a in Ecomorphology of radii in Canidae: Application to fragmentary fossils from Plio-Pleistocene hominin assemblages

Fig. 1. Measurement scheme for the canid radius, illustrated using a left radius of Cuon alpinus, NHMUK M1888.2.5.22_159.d, in posterior view (A1), proximal (A2) and distal (A3) end; lateral view proximal (B1) and distal (B2) end; distal view of radius lower extremity (C), proximal (D) and distal (E) views of radius epiphyses. Not to scale. Explanation of radial measurements 1–29 in Table 1.

Fig. 2 in Ecomorphology of radii in Canidae: Application to fragmentary fossils from Plio-Pleistocene hominin assemblages

Fig. 2. Plot of the first two linear discriminant functions extracted from a combination of radial measurements used to classify genera within Canidae.

Fig. 5 in Ecomorphology of radii in Canidae: Application to fragmentary fossils from Plio-Pleistocene hominin assemblages

Fig. 5. Neighbour-joining cluster analysis performed using Euclidean distances extracted from proximal measurements. Bootstrap values show the support for each internal node.

Fig. 6 in Temporal dynamics of the geographic differentiation of Late Devonian Palmatolepis assemblages in the Prototethys

Fig. 6. Size (estimated by the zeroth harmonic of a Fourier analysis of the platform outline) and shape variations of Palmatolepis (Manticolepis) through Coumiac (France), Mrirt (Morocco), Xom Nha (Vietnam) and Thong Pha Phum (Thailand). Shape is estimated by the score on PC1 (25.5%) and by the score on PC1sf (24.4%). The symbols represent the average value per level; error bars correspond to the 95% confidence interval. The grey beld corresponds to the Upper Kellwasser (UKW). Open symbols: Frasnian; grey and black symbols: Famennian; circles = Coumiac, squares = Mrirt, triangles = Xom Nha, diamond = Thong Pha Phum. Grey boxes = the 3 time−slices.

Fig. 1 in Temporal dynamics of the geographic differentiation of Late Devonian Palmatolepis assemblages in the Prototethys

Fig. 1. Palaeogeographic map of the Late Devonian showing the location of the sections considered in the present study (after Scotese and McKerrow 1990; Scotese and Golonka 1992). Circle = Coumiac Upper Quarry (France), square = Mrirt (Morocco), triangle = Xom Nha (Vietnam), diamond = Thong Pha Phum (Thailand).

Fig. 5 in Temporal dynamics of the geographic differentiation of Late Devonian Palmatolepis assemblages in the Prototethys

Fig. 5. Differences in size and shape variance through time and space. A. Size distribution of the Palmatolepis (Manticolepis) elements per geographical region and per time slice. Each dot corresponds to a value. Size is estimated by the zeroth harmonic of a Fourier analysis of the platform outline. B. Shape distribution, of the Palmatolepis (Manticolepis) elements per geographical region and per time slice. Shape is estimated by the scores on PC1. Each dot corresponds to a value. C. Distribution of the size−free shape, estimated by the scores on PC1sf, of the Palmatolepis (Manticolepis) elements per geographical region and per time slice. Each dot represents single specimen; the grey beld corresponds to the Upper Kellwasser (UKW). Abbreviations: M, mean (Kruskall−Wallis); V, variance (Levene test).

Fig. 2 in Temporal dynamics of the geographic differentiation of Late Devonian Palmatolepis assemblages in the Prototethys

Fig. 2. Stratigraphical logs of the four compared sections, Coumiac (France), Mrirt (Morocco), Xom Nha (Vietnam) and Thong Pha Phum (Thailand). The studied levels are marked by a black circle. In gray, the dysoxic Kellwasser (UKW = Upper Kellwasser). Pa., Palmatolepis.

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2009View details →

Fig. 5 in A monospecific assemblage of terebratulide brachiopods in the Upper Cretaceous seep deposits of Omagari, Hokkaido, Japan

Fig. 5. Terebratulide brachiopod Eucalathis methanophila Bitner sp. nov., Campanian, Omagari, Japan. A. UMUT MB30197, transverse section of ventral valve, visible fused fibres (A1), visible boundary of primary and secondary layers (A2). B. UMUT MB30203, ventral valve, transverse sections of the whole shell (B1), visible boundary between primary and secondary layers, and punctae (B2). All SEM.

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2009View details →

Fig. 4 in A monospecific assemblage of terebratulide brachiopods in the Upper Cretaceous seep deposits of Omagari, Hokkaido, Japan

Fig. 4. Recontruction of internal structures of Eucalathis methanophila Bitner sp. nov. based on transverse serial sections (Fig. 3) and 3D digital reconstruction (see at http://app.pan.pl/SOM/app55-Kaim_etal_SOM.pdf). Drawing by Ewa Widłak−Kaim.