Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 13 in Erect bifoliate species of Microporella (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata), fossil and modern

Fig. 13. Geographical distribution of the nine bifoliate species of Microporella Hincks, 1877 known to date. Red circles indicate fossil occurrences, while black lozenges indicate living records. 1 = M. bifoliata, Miocene, Maryland, USA; 2 = M. tanyae sp. nov., Pliocene, Virginia, USA; 3 = M. hastigera (Busk, 1884), Recent, Azores, Central Atlantic; 4 = M. hyadesi (Jullien, 1888), Recent, Falklands Islands and Magellan Strait, South Atlantic; 5 = M. ordo Brown, 1952, Pleistocene (Wanganui Basin) to Recent (Spirits Bay) New Zealand; 6 = M. ordoides sp. nov., Recent, Campbell Plateau, New Zealand; 7 = M. lingulata sp. nov., Recent, Foveaux Strait, New Zealand; 8 = M. modesta sp. nov., Recent, Mediterranean off Algeria; 9 = M. sp. 1, Recent, Puysegur Bank, New Zealand.

Fig. 12 in Erect bifoliate species of Microporella (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata), fossil and modern

Fig. 12. Microporella sp. 1, BLEED 151, Recent, Puysegur Bank. A. General view of the branch fragment. B. Group of autozooids. C. Close-up of orifice, ascopore and aVicularium. D. Close-up of an autozooid with paired avicularia. E. Close-up of an autozooid with avicularium showing intramural budding. Scale bars: A = 1 mm; B = 500 µm; C–E = 150 µm.

Fig. 10 in Erect bifoliate species of Microporella (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata), fossil and modern

Fig. 10. Microporella lingulata sp. nov., paratypes, Recent, Foveaux strait, New Zealand. A–B. NIWA 144887. A. Group of ovicellate and non-ovicellate zooids. B. Close-up of an autozooid showing the reniform, cribrate ascopore. C–D. NIWA 144888. C. General view of the branch proximal tip including the ancestrular area. D. Close-up of damaged ancestrula and periancestrular zooids. E–F. NIWA 144889. E. Ovicellate zooids. F. Close-up of orifice, ascopore and aVicularium in an oVicellate zooid. Scale bars: A, C–E = 200 µm; B, F = 100 µm.

Fig. 7. Microporella ordo Brown, 1952 in Erect bifoliate species of Microporella (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata), fossil and modern

Fig. 7. Microporella ordo Brown, 1952, Recent, Spirits Bay, New Zealand. A–C. NIWA 144880. A. General view of a branch fragment. B. Group of ovicellate and non-ovicellate zooids. C. Close-up of two autozooids, that on the right with preserVed filigree sieVe plate. D. NIWA 144881, transversal view of the bifoliate branch showing multiporous septula. E–F. NIWA 144882. E. Group of unbleached autozooids showing opercula and thin, pointed avicularian mandibles. F. Close-up of the ascopore and the aVicularian mandible. Scale bars: A = 1 mm; B, D–E = 200 µm; C = 100 µm; F = 50 µm.

Fig. 6 in Erect bifoliate species of Microporella (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata), fossil and modern

Fig. 6. Microporella hyadesi (Jullien, 1888), Recent, Discovery Expedition. A–D. NHMUK 1990.10.22.14. A. General view of a branch fragment. B. Group of zooids, one ovicellate, at the growing edge of the branch. Note the growing edge intermediate between a smooth and a stepped edge. C. Closeup of the orifice, ascopore and adVentitious aVicularia. Note also the borehole patched by an aVicularium (top centre). D. Group of zooids showing seVeral repared boreholes and sealed orifices. E–F. NHMUK 1990.10.10.25. E. Aberrant autozooid with smooth, non-pseudoporous frontal shield. F. Close-up of three ovicellate zooids, the ovicell on the left showing teratology. G. NHMUK 1990.10.31.12, autozooids with adventitious avicularia preserving triangular mandibles. Scale bars: A–B = 1 mm; C, E–G = 200 µm; D = 400 µm.

Fig. 3 in Erect bifoliate species of Microporella (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata), fossil and modern

Fig. 3. Microporella tanyae sp. nov., holotype, NHMUK PI BZ 8890, Pliocene, Yorktown Formation, Virginia, USA. A. Group of ovicellate and non-ovicellate zooids. B. Close-up of an ovicell. C. Closeup of an autozooid. D. Close-up of the ascopore and avicularium with intramural buds. Scale bars: A = 400 µm; B–C = 200 µm; C = 200 µm; D = 40 µm.

Fig. 5 in Erect bifoliate species of Microporella (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata), fossil and modern

Fig. 5. Microporella hastigera (Busk, 1884), paralectotype, NHMUK 1887.12.9.549a (bleached), Recent, Challenger Expedition, St. 75. A. Group of zooids at branch bifurcation. B. Close-up of two ovicellate zooids with coalescent ovicells. C. Close-up of an orifice with four oral spine bases distally, ascopore and avicularium. D. Close-up of the ascopore. E. OVicellate zooid with sealed orifice. F. Closeup of an orifice with three oral spine bases distally. Scale bars: A–B = 400 µm; C = 100 µm; D = 40 µm; E = 200 µm; F = 50 µm.

Fig. 2 in Erect bifoliate species of Microporella (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata), fossil and modern

Fig. 2. Colony of Microporella tanyae sp. nov. USNM 387373, Pliocene, Yorktown Formation, Krause Pit, lower York County, Virginia, USA (Edgar Campbell Col.).

Fig. 1 in Erect bifoliate species of Microporella (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata), fossil and modern

Fig. 1. Microporella bifoliata Ulrich & Bassler, 1904, Miocene, Choptank Formation, Maryland, USA. A–B. Lectotype USNM 68592A. A. General view of the branch fragment. B. Group of zooids, mostly ovicellate. C–D. Paralectotype USNM 68592B. C. Group of autozooids. D. Close-up of an autozooid. Scale bars: A = 1 mm; B–C = 200 µm; D = 100 µm.

Fig. 4 in Erect bifoliate species of Microporella (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata), fossil and modern

Fig. 4. Microporella hastigera (Busk, 1884), lectotype, NHMUK 1887.12.9.547 (unbleached), Recent, Challenger Expedition, St. 75. A. Group of zooids at the branch tip. B. Close-up of autozooids. C–E. Close-ups of the ascopore and adventitious avicularium with the lanceolate mandible either closed (C, E) or open (D). Scale bars: A = 500 µm; B = 200 µm; C–D = 50 µm; E = 100 µm.

opencc-zeroAug 2020View details →

dryad28/100

Quantifying shell outline variability in extant and fossil Laqueus (Brachiopoda: Terebratulida): are outlines good proxies for long-looped brachidial morphology and can they help us characterize species?

Extant and extinct terebratulide brachiopod species have been defined primarily on the basis of morphology. What is the fidelity of morphological species to biological species? And how can we test this fidelity with fossils? Taxonomically and phylogenetically, the most informative internal feature in the brachiopod suborder Terebratellidina is the geometrically complex long-looped brachidium, which, given their fragile nature, are not commonly preserved in the fossil record. In their absence, it is essential to test other sources of morphological data when trying to recognize and identify species. We analyzed valve outlines and brachidia in the genus Laqueus to explore the utility of shell shape in discriminating extant and fossil species. Using geometric morphometric methods, we quantified valve outline variability using elliptical Fourier methods and tested whether long-looped brachidial morphology correlates with shell outline shape. We then built classification models based on machine learning algorithms using outlines as shape variables to predict fossil species' identities. Our results demonstrate that valve outline shape is significantly correlated with long-looped brachidial shape and that even relatively simple outlines are sufficiently morphologically distinct to enable extant Laqueus species to be identified, validating current taxonomic assignments. These are encouraging results for the study and delimitation of fossil terebratulide species, and their recognition as biological species. In addition, machine learning algorithms can be successfully applied to help solve species recognition and delimitation problems in paleontology, especially when morphology can be characterized quantitatively and analyzed statistically.

Figure 1 from: Martins AL, Melo GAR (2020) Revision of the fossil species of Thaumatodryinus Perkins from Dominican amber, with a new combination and description of a new species (Hymenoptera, Dryinidae). Journal of Hymenoptera Research 79: 77-88. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.79.57686

Figure 1 †Thaumatodryinus fuscescens sp. nov., female holotype. A habitus, dorsal view B right antenna, dorsal view C head and mesosoma, antero-ventral view D head and mesosoma, dorsal view E apical portion of flagellum, with details of flagellomeres 5–8 F–G Apical portion of fore leg, with details of the chela. Scale bars: 2 mm (A), 0.5 mm (B), 0.5 mm (C–D), 0.3 mm (E–G).

Figure 3 from: Martins AL, Melo GAR (2020) Revision of the fossil species of Thaumatodryinus Perkins from Dominican amber, with a new combination and description of a new species (Hymenoptera, Dryinidae). Journal of Hymenoptera Research 79: 77-88. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.79.57686

Figure 3 †Thaumatodryinus priscus (Olmi, 1998), female holotype. A habitus, lateral view B habitus, ventral view C head and mesosoma, lateral view D head and mesosoma, dorsal view E head and mesosoma, ventral view F apical portion of fore leg, with details of the chela. Scales: 1 mm (A), 1 mm (B), 0.5 mm (C), 0.5 mm (D–F).

Figure 2 from: Martins AL, Melo GAR (2020) Revision of the fossil species of Thaumatodryinus Perkins from Dominican amber, with a new combination and description of a new species (Hymenoptera, Dryinidae). Journal of Hymenoptera Research 79: 77-88. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.79.57686

Figure 2 †Thaumatodryinus miocenicus Olmi, 1995, female holotype. A habitus, dorsal view B habitus, ventral view C habitus, lateral view D habitus, dorsal view E head and mesosoma, ventral view F habitus, lateral view. Scale bars: 1 mm (A–C), 1 mm (D, F), 1 mm (E).

Figure 6 from: Domer TC, Burks RA, Krogmann L, Heraty JM (2020) Patching up the past one fossil at a time: A new genus and species of Eulophidae from Eocene Baltic Amber (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea). Journal of Hymenoptera Research 79: 27-42. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.79.55899

Figure 6 Strict consensus of two of most parsimonious trees based on morphology. Voucher specimens were chosen from those used in ongoing anchored enrichment molecular analyses. Some taxa were added for better coverage of Tetrastichinae. Unambiguous character state changes are plotted with bars.

Figure 3 from: Domer TC, Burks RA, Krogmann L, Heraty JM (2020) Patching up the past one fossil at a time: A new genus and species of Eulophidae from Eocene Baltic Amber (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea). Journal of Hymenoptera Research 79: 27-42. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.79.55899

Figure 3 A–F. AKressleinius celans gen. et sp. nov. holotype female, mesosoma, lateral, tps = transepimeral sulcus BAprostocetus hibus, mesosoma, lateral, syn = syntergum CCirrospilus cinctithorax, mesosoma lateral DPnigalio coloni, mesosoma, lateral EAprostocetus hibus, mesosoma dorsal smg = submarginal grooves FNesolynx sp., mesosoma, dorsal.

Figure 2 from: Domer TC, Burks RA, Krogmann L, Heraty JM (2020) Patching up the past one fossil at a time: A new genus and species of Eulophidae from Eocene Baltic Amber (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea). Journal of Hymenoptera Research 79: 27-42. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.79.55899

Figure 2 A–E. AKressleinius celans gen. et sp. nov., holotype female, fore wing venation, pmv = postmarginal vein, ams = admarginal setae, sms = submarginal vein setae B, CPeckelachertus sp.: B fore wing C habitus DNesolynx sp. habitus EQuadrastichodella sp., habitus.

Figure 1 from: Domer TC, Burks RA, Krogmann L, Heraty JM (2020) Patching up the past one fossil at a time: A new genus and species of Eulophidae from Eocene Baltic Amber (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea). Journal of Hymenoptera Research 79: 27-42. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.79.55899

Figure 1 A–F.Kressleinius celans gen. et sp. nov., holotype female (SMNS BB-2847) A habitus B habitus, dorsal view, not = notaulus C body, ventral view, pl1 = propleuron D antenna, ocs = ocellar triangle sulcus E mesosoma, lateral, pre = prepectus, tps = transepimeral sulcus F mesosoma, oblique lateral, axl = axillula, pcs = propodeal callus setae, pet = petiole.

Figure 5 from: Domer TC, Burks RA, Krogmann L, Heraty JM (2020) Patching up the past one fossil at a time: A new genus and species of Eulophidae from Eocene Baltic Amber (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea). Journal of Hymenoptera Research 79: 27-42. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.79.55899

Figure 5 A–D. ASympiesis cf. conica, head, tfs = transfacial sulcus, scs = scrobal sulcus BCrataepus marbis, head, oos = occellar ocular sulcus, ocs = occellar triangle sulcus, uos = upper ocular sulcus CZagrammosoma americanum, mesosoma lateral, pcs = propodeal callus setae DFoersterella erdoesi, mesosoma, lateral.

Figure 4 from: Domer TC, Burks RA, Krogmann L, Heraty JM (2020) Patching up the past one fossil at a time: A new genus and species of Eulophidae from Eocene Baltic Amber (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea). Journal of Hymenoptera Research 79: 27-42. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.79.55899

Figure 4 A–F. AQuadrastichodella sp., head. F1 = first funicular segment C1 = first clavomere BSympiesis cf. conica, head CBurkseus vittatus, head DNaumanniola sp. head EAprostocetus hibus, mesosoma lateral pcs = propodeal callus setae FDicladocerus westwoodii, mesosoma lateral.