Find research datasets worth reusing

FIGURE 7. Mimetus subulatus n in New species of the pirate spider genus Mimetus Hentz, 1832 from China with a cladistic hypothesis on their phylogenetic placement (Araneae, Mimetidae)

FIGURE 7. Mimetus subulatus n. sp., male holotype. A, left palp, prolateral view; B, ditto, ventral view; C, ditto, frontolateral view; D, ditto, retrolateral view. Abbreviations: CA = cymbial apex, Cy = cymbium, E = embolus, MCO = membranous conductor, PC = paracymbium, PCP = pilose cuticular projections, SCO = sclerotized conductor, ST = subtegulum, STA = subtegular apophysis, T = tegulum. Scale bars: A–D, 0.1mm.

FIGURE 3 in New species of the pirate spider genus Mimetus Hentz, 1832 from China with a cladistic hypothesis on their phylogenetic placement (Araneae, Mimetidae)

FIGURE 3. SEMs of male palp (holotype), frontolateral view A, B, Mimetus subulatus n. sp.; C, D, Mimetus uncatus n. sp. Abbreviations: STA = subtegular apophysis, PCP = pilose cuticular projections. Scale bars: A, 0.1mm; B–D, 0.02mm

FIGURE 6. Mimetus subulatus n in New species of the pirate spider genus Mimetus Hentz, 1832 from China with a cladistic hypothesis on their phylogenetic placement (Araneae, Mimetidae)

FIGURE 6. Mimetus subulatus n. sp., epigynum of paratype. A, B, epigynum, ventral view; C, D, dorsal view; E, F, frontal view. Abbreviations: FD = fertilization ducts. Scale bars: A–F, 0.05mm.

FIGURE 4. Mimetus subulatus n in New species of the pirate spider genus Mimetus Hentz, 1832 from China with a cladistic hypothesis on their phylogenetic placement (Araneae, Mimetidae)

FIGURE 4. Mimetus subulatus n. sp., male holotype. A, habitus, dorsal view; B, cephalothorax, frontal view; C, ditto, lateral view; D, abdomen, lateral view; E, left palp, prolateral view; F, ditto, ventral view; G, ditto, frontolateral view; H, ditto, retrolateral view; I, left legs I–IV, retrolateral view; J, femur of left leg I, retrolateral view. Scale bars: A, 0.5mm; B, C, 0.2mm; D, 0.4mm; E–H, J, 0.1mm; I, 0.7mm.

FIGURE 1 in New species of the pirate spider genus Mimetus Hentz, 1832 from China with a cladistic hypothesis on their phylogenetic placement (Araneae, Mimetidae)

FIGURE 1. Phylogenetic hypotheses of Mimetidae based on parsimony analyses of morphological characters using two search strategies, a traditional approach (TS1) and a more aggressive strategy (TS2), with each performed under equal-weights (EW) and implied weights (IW); see text for additional details. A, strict consensus (L= 648) of 96 cladograms (L=642, CI=0.347; RI=0.715) under EW and TS2; B, strict consensus (L= 647) of 47 cladograms (of L=643, CI=0.347; RI=0.714) under IW (k = 12) and TS2; C, strict consensus (L= 648) of 102 cladograms (L=642, CI=0.347; RI=0.715) under EW and TS1; D, strict consensus (L= 647) of 51 cladograms (of L=643, CI=0.347; RI=0.714) under IW (k = 12) and TS1.

FIGURE 5. Mimetus subulatus n in New species of the pirate spider genus Mimetus Hentz, 1832 from China with a cladistic hypothesis on their phylogenetic placement (Araneae, Mimetidae)

FIGURE 5. Mimetus subulatus n. sp., female paratype. A, habitus, dorsal view; B, ditto, ventral view; C, ditto, lateral view; D, cephalothorax, frontal view; E, left legs I and II, retrolateral view; F, left legs III and IV, retrolateral view; G, femur of left leg I, retrolateral view. Scale bars: A–C, 0.5mm; D, 0.2mm; E, F, 0.8mm; G, 0.1mm.

FIGURE 2 in New species of the pirate spider genus Mimetus Hentz, 1832 from China with a cladistic hypothesis on their phylogenetic placement (Araneae, Mimetidae)

FIGURE 2. Phylogeny of Mimetidae (including new species) based on parsimony analysis of the expanded morphological matrix of Benavides & Hormiga (2020). This topology is the strict consensus (L= 648) of 96 cladograms of minimal length (L=642, CI=0.347; RI=0.715) under EW and the TS2 search strategy (see text for additional details). Multistate characters are treated as non-additive and characters are optimized using the "fast" algorithm of Winclada. Nodal support values are Bremer/ jacknife/bootstrap. Black circles indicate non-homoplasious character state transformations, whereas the white circles indicate homoplasious character state transformations.

Figure 6 in Past and present taxonomy of the Liolaemus lineomaculatus section (Liolaemidae): is the morphological arrangement hypothesis valid?

Figure 6. Snout–vent length (SVL, expressed in millimetres) amongst individuals of all the species of the Liolaemus archeforus, Liolaemus kingii, Liolaemus lineomaculatus, and Liolaemus magellanicus groups. Female data are shown in white and male in grey.

Figure 4 in Past and present taxonomy of the Liolaemus lineomaculatus section (Liolaemidae): is the morphological arrangement hypothesis valid?

Figure 4. Number of midbody scales amongst individuals of the Liolaemus archeforus, Liolaemus kingii, Liolaemus lineomaculatus, and Liolaemus magellanicus groups. No statistically significant differences were found between the L. kingii and L. archeforus groups. Female data are shown in white and male in grey.

Figure 3 in Past and present taxonomy of the Liolaemus lineomaculatus section (Liolaemidae): is the morphological arrangement hypothesis valid?

Figure 3. Pictures of dorsal scales of all the species belonging to the Liolaemus archeforus, Liolaemus kingii, Liolaemus lineomaculatus, and Liolaemus magellanicus groups. Squares are 1 cm2. No differences or trends can be observed between scales of the species included in the L. kingii and L. archeforus groups.

Figure 2 in Past and present taxonomy of the Liolaemus lineomaculatus section (Liolaemidae): is the morphological arrangement hypothesis valid?

Figure 2. Phylogenetic relationships hypothesized for the Liolaemus lineomaculatus section using nuclear (nu) and/or mitochondrial (mt) genes; A, species tree inferred using mt and nu genes by Breitman et al. (2011a); posterior probability (Pp) values higher than 0.5 are shown, bold branches show clades with Pp> 0.95; B, Bayesian tree, representing concatenated analyses and summarizing information from maximum parsimony (MP) and maximum likelihood (ML) methods from Breitman et al. (2011a); nodes with high support from three methods (MP jack-knife and ML bootstrap> 0.70; Pp> 0.95) are identified by bold branches; open squares show nodes with weak MP support, and circles nodes with weak MP and ML support; C, ML tree recovered using mt genes by Schulte & Moreno-Roark (2010).

Figure 5 in Past and present taxonomy of the Liolaemus lineomaculatus section (Liolaemidae): is the morphological arrangement hypothesis valid?

Figure 5. Snout–vent length (SVL, expressed in millimetres) amongst individuals of the Liolaemus archeforus, Liolaemus kingii, Liolaemus lineomaculatus, and Liolaemus magellanicus groups. No statistically significant differences were found between the L. kingii and L. archeforus groups. Female data are shown in white and males in grey.

Figures 136–143 in Phylogeny of Neotropical Castniinae (Lepidoptera: Cossoidea: Castniidae): testing the hypothesis of the mimics as a monophyletic group and implications for the arrangement of the genera

Figures 136–143. Female genitalia and associated characters, ventral view: 136, Telchin atymnius (Dalman, 1824); 137, Synpalamides amycus (Cramer [1779]) comb. nov.; 138, Geyeria decussata (Godart, [1824]); 139, Athis superba (Strand, 1913) incertae sedis; 140, Corybantes pylades (Stoll, 1872); 141, Yagra dalmannii (Gray, 1838); 142, Imara satrapes (Kollar, 1839); 143, Synpalamides hegemon (Kollar, 1839) comb. nov. Scale bar: 1 mm.

Figures 81–86 in Phylogeny of Neotropical Castniinae (Lepidoptera: Cossoidea: Castniidae): testing the hypothesis of the mimics as a monophyletic group and implications for the arrangement of the genera

Figures 81–86. Genital capsule and associated characters, lateral view: 81, Yagra dalmannii (Gray, 1838); 82, Imara therapon (Kollar, 1839); 83, Eupalamides cyparissias (Fabricius, 1776); 84, Telchin cacica (Herrich-Schäffer, [1854]) comb. nov.; 85, Athis inca (Walker, 1854); 86, Ircila hecate (Herrich-Schäffer, [1854]). Scale bar: 1 mm.

Figures 117–122 in Phylogeny of Neotropical Castniinae (Lepidoptera: Cossoidea: Castniidae): testing the hypothesis of the mimics as a monophyletic group and implications for the arrangement of the genera

Figures 117–122. Structures of the female genitalia: 117, Prometheus heliconioides (Herrich-Schäffer, [1853]) comb. nov., spiral portion of ductus bursae; 118, Telchin licus (Drury, 1773), spiral portion of ductus bursae, with the covering membrane removed to show the internal ornamentation; 119, Telchin licus (Drury, 1773), detail of one spiral and the microsclerotized plates; 120, Telchin licus (Drury, 1773), detail of the sclerotized plate on the posterior end of the spiral portion of ductus bursae; 121, Imara pallasia (Eschscholtz, 1821), inner surface of the bulla seminalis covered with micropapillae; 122, Yagra fonscolombe (Godart, [1824]), sclerotized plate on the anterior portion of antrum.

Figures 105–110 in Phylogeny of Neotropical Castniinae (Lepidoptera: Cossoidea: Castniidae): testing the hypothesis of the mimics as a monophyletic group and implications for the arrangement of the genera

Figures 105–110. Saccus, juxta, and associated characters. 105–108, saccus, ventral view: 105, Corybantes pylades (Stoll, 1872); 106, Athis inca (Walker, 1854); 107, Athis hechtiae (Dyar, 1910); 108, Telchin syphax (Fabricius, 1775). 109–110, juxta, posterior view: 109, Imara pallasia (Eschscholtz, 1821); 110, Eupalamides cyparissias (Fabricius, 1776). Scale bars: 1 mm.

Figure 52 in Phylogeny of Neotropical Castniinae (Lepidoptera: Cossoidea: Castniidae): testing the hypothesis of the mimics as a monophyletic group and implications for the arrangement of the genera

Figure 52. Diagram with the colour bands used to code the characters of the wing pattern. Scale bar: 1 cm.

Figures 96–104. Gnathos and associated characters. 96–101 in Phylogeny of Neotropical Castniinae (Lepidoptera: Cossoidea: Castniidae): testing the hypothesis of the mimics as a monophyletic group and implications for the arrangement of the genera

Figures 96–104. Gnathos and associated characters. 96–101, lateral view: 96, Imara therapon (Kollar, 1839) comb. nov.; 97, Geyeria galinthias (Hopffer, 1856) comb. nov.; 98, Yagra fonscolombe (Godart, [1824]); 99, Telchin licus (Drury, 1773); 100, Corybantes pylades (Stoll, 1782); 101, Prometheus cochrus (Fabricius, 1787). 102–104, posterior view: 102, Telchin syphax (Fabricius, 1775); 103, Synpalamides phalaris (Fabricius, 1793); 104, Corybantes pylades (Stoll, 1872). Scale bars: 1 mm.

Figures 123–127 in Phylogeny of Neotropical Castniinae (Lepidoptera: Cossoidea: Castniidae): testing the hypothesis of the mimics as a monophyletic group and implications for the arrangement of the genera

Figures 123–127. Detail of the inner surface of bulla seminalis: 123, Castnia invaria Walker, 1854, without micropapillae; 124, Prometheus cochrus (Fabricius, 1787), small and flattened micropapillae present in low density; 125, Yagra fonscolombe (Godart, [1824]), micropapillae present in moderate density; 126, Prometheus heliconioides (Herrich-Schäffer, [1853]) comb. nov., cylindrical micropapillae present in high density; 127, Prometheus heliconioides (Herrich-Schäffer, [1853]) comb. nov., detail of the micropapillae.

Figures 46–48 in Phylogeny of Neotropical Castniinae (Lepidoptera: Cossoidea: Castniidae): testing the hypothesis of the mimics as a monophyletic group and implications for the arrangement of the genera

Figures 46–48. Wing venation and associated characters: 46, Geyeria decussata (Godart, [1824]); 47, Imara pallasia (Eschscholtz, 1821); 48, Yagra fonscolombe (Godart, [1824]). Scale bars: 1 cm.