Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2023View details →

Table 2 in New record of endoparasitic Pseudempleurosoma haywardi (Monogenea: Dactylogyridae) in sillaginid fishes from Thailand, with updates on host range, zoogeography, and morphological variation

Table 2. Sequence data of 28S rRNA region of current monogeneans and their related monogeneans acquired from the NCBI database. Taxa with asterisks (*) denote their categorisation in the family Ancyrocephalidae according to the NCBI database.<table><tbody><tr><th>Species</th><th>Accession number</th><th>Reference</th></tr><tr><th>Family Dactylogyridae</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>Actinocleidus recurvatus *</th><td>AJ969951</td><td>&Scaron;imková et al. (2006)</td></tr><tr><th>Anacanthorus lepyrophallus</th><td>MH843718</td><td>Moreira et al. (unpublished)</td></tr><tr><th>Bravohollisia tecta *</th><td>KJ571012</td><td>Sun et al. (unpublished)</td></tr><tr><th>Cichlidogyrus arthracanthus *</th><td>HQ010022</td><td>Mendlová et al. (2010)</td></tr><tr><th>Dactylogyrus bicornis</th><td>KY629345</td><td>&Scaron;imková et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><th>Dactylogyrus extensus</th><td>AJ969944</td><td>Mendlová et al. (2010)</td></tr><tr><th>Demidospermus mortenthaleri</th><td>KP056245</td><td>Mendoza-Palmero et al. (2015)</td></tr><tr><th>Diaphorocleidus magnus *</th><td>MZ408903</td><td>Zago et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><th>Diaphorocleidus neotropicalis *</th><td>MZ408906</td><td>Zago et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><th>Enterogyrus coronatus *</th><td>HQ010030</td><td>Mendlová et al. (2010)</td></tr><tr><th>Enterogyrus malmbergi *</th><td>MN152976</td><td>Zhang (unpublished)</td></tr><tr><th>Euryhaliotrema pirulum *</th><td>AY820618</td><td>Plaisance et al. (2005)</td></tr><tr><th>Haliotrematoides guttata *</th><td>HQ615993</td><td>Soler-Jimenez et al. (unpublished)</td></tr><tr><th>Haliotrematoides spinatus *</th><td>HQ615995</td><td>Soler-Jimenez et al. (unpublished)</td></tr><tr><th>Heteropriapulus simplex</th><td>MF116372</td><td>Acosta et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><th>Ligophorus imitans *</th><td>JN996813</td><td>Blasco-Costa et al. (2012)</td></tr><tr><th>Ligophorus vanbenedenii *</th><td>JN996801</td><td>Blasco-Costa et al. (2012)</td></tr><tr><th>Metahaliotrema subancistroides *</th><td>EU836210</td><td>Sun & Yang (unpublished)</td></tr><tr><th>Mexicana rubra</th><td>KY553147</td><td>Camargo (2017)</td></tr><tr><th>Nanayella fluctuatrium</th><td>MG001327</td><td>Acosta et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><th>Onchocleidus similis *</th><td>AJ969938</td><td>&Scaron;imková et al. (2006)</td></tr><tr><th>Paradiplectanotrema klimpeli</th><td>MG763101</td><td>Theisen et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><th>Protogyrodactylus hainanensis</th><td>DQ157653</td><td>Wu et al. (2006)</td></tr><tr><th>Pseudempleurosoma haywardi</th><td>MF115715</td><td>Theisen et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><th>Pseudempleurosoma haywardi (MN28-1)</th><td>ON969400</td><td>Present study</td></tr><tr><th>Pseudempleurosoma haywardi (MN28-3)</th><td>ON969401</td><td>Present study</td></tr><tr><th>Sciadicleithrum bravohollisae</th><td>KY305879</td><td>Wu et al. (2006)</td></tr><tr><th>Sciadicleithrum meekii</th><td>KY305889</td><td>Mendoza-Palmero et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><th>Scutogyrus longicornis *</th><td>HQ010035</td><td>Mendlová et al. (2010)</td></tr><tr><th>Tetrancistrum indicum *</th><td>MN179335</td><td>Al-Jufaili (unpublished)</td></tr><tr><th>Urocleidoides digitabulum</th><td>MT556796</td><td>Zago et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><th>Vancleaveus janauacaensis</th><td>KP056247</td><td>Mendoza-Palmero et al. (2015)</td></tr><tr><th>Family Diplectanidae (outgroup)</th></tr><tr><th>Dolicirroplectanum lacustre</th><td>MK937579</td><td>Kmentová et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><th>Paradiplectanum sillagonum</th><td>AY553626</td><td>Wu et al. (2005)</td></tr><tr><th>Pseudorhabdosynochus grouperi</th><td>AY553628</td><td>Wu et al. (2005)</td></tr></tbody></table>

opennotspecifiedJun 2021View details →

FIGURE 3 in Morphological variations of Phrosina semilunata Risso, 1822 juveniles (Crustacea Amphipoda: Hyperiidea), new evidence from the Gulf of Mexico

FIGURE 3. Main morphological characteristics of Phrosina semilunata juveniles collected in the Gulf of Mexico. A1m, male antennae 1; A1f, female antennae 1; P3, pereopod 3; Plp1, pleopod 1; Us, urosome; T, telson. Scale bars = 0.2 mm.

opennotspecifiedJun 2021View details →

FIGURE 2. Phrosina semilunata juveniles. A in Morphological variations of Phrosina semilunata Risso, 1822 juveniles (Crustacea Amphipoda: Hyperiidea), new evidence from the Gulf of Mexico

FIGURE 2. Phrosina semilunata juveniles. A, habitus, male lateral view; B, habitus, female lateral view; C, uropod 2 distal margin with large spine; D, uropod 3 distal margin with large spine. Scale bars = 1 mm (A–B), 5 µm (C–D).

FIGURE 3 in Morphological variation and sexual dimorphism in the California skate, Raja inornata Jordan and Gilbert, 1881 from the Gulf of California, Mexico

FIGURE 3. Relationship between the number of middorsal thorns (T) and total length. Males (Π), T =0.003 TL + MD MD 2.51; r2=0.16; females (), T =0.01 TL – 0.76; r2=0.32.

FIGURE 2 in Morphological variation and sexual dimorphism in the California skate, Raja inornata Jordan and Gilbert, 1881 from the Gulf of California, Mexico

FIGURE 2. Relationship between the number of orbital thorns (T) and total length. Males (Π), T =0.01 TL+3.75; O O r2=0.16; females (), T =0.02 TL+1.31; r2=0.64.

FIGURE 5 in Morphological variation and sexual dimorphism in the California skate, Raja inornata Jordan and Gilbert, 1881 from the Gulf of California, Mexico

FIGURE 5. Bi-plot of canonical scores for factors 1 and 2 from DA of female and male R. inornata and male R. cortezensis. Discriminant analysis based on 12 morphometric characters. (+) R. inornata-males; () R. inornata-females and (o) R. cortezensis-males. (read text for explaination).

FIGURE 4 in Morphological variation and sexual dimorphism in the California skate, Raja inornata Jordan and Gilbert, 1881 from the Gulf of California, Mexico

FIGURE 4. Photographs of male and female upper jaw teeth (symphysial teeth) of juveniles and adults of Raja inornata: (A) mature female, 570 mm LT; (B) juvenile female, 262 mm LT; (C) mature male, 500 LT and (D) juvenile male, 262 mm LT (photographs 25 X).

FIGURE 1 in Morphological variation and sexual dimorphism in the California skate, Raja inornata Jordan and Gilbert, 1881 from the Gulf of California, Mexico

FIGURE 1. Morphometric measurements made on R. inornata and R. cortezensis. (A) Dorsal and (B) ventral views (see table 1 for definitions)(Figure from McEachran & Notarbartolo di Sciara, 1995).

opennotspecifiedFeb 2014View details →

FIGURE 1. Morphological variation within the N. commune strains. A, B in Polyphasic characterization of Nostoc commune (Cyanobacteria, Nostocaceae) isolated from rice growing agro-ecosystems of Dima Hasao district of Assam, North-East India

FIGURE 1. Morphological variation within the N. commune strains. A, B. Plate view and liquid culture of N. commune AUS-JR/DB/ NT-003. C, D. Plate view and liquid culture of N. commune AUS-JR/DB/NT-004. E. A single colony of N. commune AUS-JR/DB/NT- 003. F. A single colony of N. commune AUS-JR/DB/NT-004. G. Disintegration of the sheath. H. Individual trichomes. I. Aseriate filaments (h: heterocyst). J. Seriate filaments. K. Ensheathed coccoid cells. L. Old colonies with reduced trichome. Bar length = 50µm.

Figure 6. The maximum-likelihood phylogram for cytochrome oxidase subunit I in A case of biodiversity overestimation in the Balkan Belgrandiella A. J. Wagner, 1927 (Caenogastropoda: Hydrobiidae): molecular divergence not paralleled by high morphological variation

Figure 6. The maximum-likelihood phylogram for cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) haplotypes. Bootstrap support and Bayesian posterior probabilities are shown. Normal font indicates reference haplotypes, bold font indicates haplotypes obtained in present study.

Figure 3 in A case of biodiversity overestimation in the Balkan Belgrandiella A. J. Wagner, 1927 (Caenogastropoda: Hydrobiidae): molecular divergence not paralleled by high morphological variation

Figure 3. Shells of Belgrandiella: (a–f) molecular clade A: (a–d) Belgrandiella cf. robusta, spring of river LipsenjŠČica, Cerknica; (e, f) Belgrandiella cf. robusta, Dvorce, Čatež ob Savi; (g) Boleana umbilicata, topotype, spring MoČilnik; (h, i) molecular clade B: Belgrandiella cf. kuesteri, PotoČe; (j–r) molecular clade C: (j) Belgrandiella cf. fontinalis, PotoČe; (k–r) Belgrandiella cf. fontinalis, Babja luknja; (s, t) molecular clade D: Belgrandiella cf. koprivnensis, Izvor Plive 1A, DraganiĆ. Scale bar represents 1 mm.

Figure 2 in A case of biodiversity overestimation in the Balkan Belgrandiella A. J. Wagner, 1927 (Caenogastropoda: Hydrobiidae): molecular divergence not paralleled by high morphological variation

Figure 2. Shells of Belgrandiella (molecular clade A): (a–c) Belgrandiella kusceri, topotype, Rakek; (d, e) Belgrandiella zermanica, topotype, Zrmanja River; (f, g) Belgrandiella krupensis, topotype, Krupa River; (h–j) Belgrandiella cf. fontinalis, Krk Island; (k, l) Belgrandiella robusta, topotype, Veliki Obrh; (m, n) Belgrandiella cf. pageti, KrŠka jama, source of Krka River; (o) Belgrandiella cf. robusta, ŽerovniŠČica; (p–s) Belgrandiella cf. croatica, Rupa na Brodu. Scale bar represents 1 mm.

Figure 1 in A case of biodiversity overestimation in the Balkan Belgrandiella A. J. Wagner, 1927 (Caenogastropoda: Hydrobiidae): molecular divergence not paralleled by high morphological variation

Figure 1. Localities of the studied Belgrandiella and geographic distribution of clades (see Figures 6 and 7).

Figure 5 in A case of biodiversity overestimation in the Balkan Belgrandiella A. J. Wagner, 1927 (Caenogastropoda: Hydrobiidae): molecular divergence not paralleled by high morphological variation

Figure 5. Penes of Belgrandiella: (a) Belgrandiella cf. fontinalis, Babja luknja (molecular clade C); (b–d) Belgrandiella robusta, Obrh, type locality (molecular clade A). Scale bar represents 0.5 mm.

Figure 7. The maximum-likelihood phylogram for H3 in A case of biodiversity overestimation in the Balkan Belgrandiella A. J. Wagner, 1927 (Caenogastropoda: Hydrobiidae): molecular divergence not paralleled by high morphological variation

Figure 7. The maximum-likelihood phylogram for H3 haplotypes. Bootstrap support and Bayesian posterior probabilities are shown.

Figure 4 in A case of biodiversity overestimation in the Balkan Belgrandiella A. J. Wagner, 1927 (Caenogastropoda: Hydrobiidae): molecular divergence not paralleled by high morphological variation

Figure 4. Renal and pallial section of female reproductive organs of Belgrandiella: (a) Belgrandiella fontinalis, Babja luknja (molecular clade C); (b) Belgrandiella robusta, Obrh, type locality (molecular clade A) (bc, bursa copulatrix; cbc, duct of bursa copulatrix; ga, albuminoid gland; gn, nidamental gland; gp, gonoporus; ov, oviduct; ovl, loop of oviduct; rec, rectum; rs, receptaculum seminis). Scale bar represents 1 mm.

Figure 3 in Morphological variation of Eucyclops elegans (Herrick, 1884) (Copepoda: Cyclopoida) in the Americas and comments on records of Eucyclops conrowae Reid, 1992

Figure 3. Eucyclops elegans (Herrick, 1884) adult females. (A) P2, frontal MN; (B) P2, frontal AR; (C) endopod P2 MX; (D) exopod P2 MX; (E) intercoxal sclerite P2, frontal MX; (F) intercoxal sclerite P2, caudal MX; (G) protopodite P2, frontal MX; (H) exopod P3 MN; (I) endopod P3 MN; (J) protopodite and intercoxal sclerite P3, caudal MN; (K) intercoxal sclerite P3, caudal AR; (L) endopod P3 MX, (M) exopod P3 MX; (N) intercoxal sclerite P3, caudal MX; (O) intercoxal sclerite P3, frontal MX.

Figure 5 in Morphological variation of Eucyclops elegans (Herrick, 1884) (Copepoda: Cyclopoida) in the Americas and comments on records of Eucyclops conrowae Reid, 1992

Figure 5. Eucyclops elegans (Herrick, 1884) adult males (A–F) AR and (G–L) MX. (A) P5 and P6; (B) caudal rami, ventral; (C) antennule, segments 1–12; (D) antennule, segments 8–13; (E) antennule, segments 14–15; (F) P4, frontal; (G) P5 and P6; (H) caudal ramus, ventral; (I) antennule, segments 1–14; (J) antennule, segments 15–16; (K) antenna asis, frontal; (L) P4, caudal.

Figure 2 in Morphological variation of Eucyclops elegans (Herrick, 1884) (Copepoda: Cyclopoida) in the Americas and comments on records of Eucyclops conrowae Reid, 1992

Figure 2. Eucyclops elegans (Herrick, 1884) adult females. (A) antenna, caudal MX; (B) antenna, caudal BR; (C) antenna basipodite, frontal BR; (D) antenna basipodite, frontal MX; (E) P1 MX; (F) intercoxal sclerite P1, frontal MX; (G) P1, frontal AR; (H) P1, frontal MN.

Figure 7. Eucyclops conrowae Reid, 1992 in Morphological variation of Eucyclops elegans (Herrick, 1884) (Copepoda: Cyclopoida) in the Americas and comments on records of Eucyclops conrowae Reid, 1992

Figure 7. Eucyclops conrowae Reid, 1992 (A–F) adult female paratype (USNM-251327); (G) adult female holotype (USNM-251325). (A) P1, frontal; (B) P2, frontal; (C) P3, frontal; (D) intercoxal sclerite P3, caudal; (E) P4, frontal; (F) intercoxal sclerite and protopodite P4, caudal; (G) third exopod P4.