Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Aug 2015View details →

Fig. 3 in Functional morphology and biomechanics of the cynodont Trucidocynodon riograndensis from the Triassic of Southern Brazil: Pectoral girdle and forelimb

Fig. 3. Pectoral appendicular skeleton of non-mammalian cynodont Trucidocynodon riograndensis Oliveira, Soares, and Schultz, 2010 (UFRGS PV- 1051-T) from Carnian (Upper Triassic) of Agudo municipality, state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. A–D. Pectoral girdle; right scapulocoracoid in lateral A) and ventral (D) views; right clavicle in dorsal view (C); interclavicle in ventral view (B). E–J. Forelimb; left humerus in anterior (E) and posterior F) views (F1, photograph; F2, interpretation of the attachment areas of some muscles); right ulna (G) and right radius (H) in lateral view; right hand in dorsal view (I). J. Reconstruction of the hand in dorsal (J1) and lateral (J2) views (gray-shaded bones were not preserved; the black bar in J2 represents the potential orientation of the forearm bones).

opencc-by-4.0Aug 2015View details →

Fig. 7 in Functional morphology and biomechanics of the cynodont Trucidocynodon riograndensis from the Triassic of Southern Brazil: Pectoral girdle and forelimb

Fig. 7. Locomotory cycle of the right forelimb of Trucidocynodon riograndensis, in lateral (A) and anterior (B) views. The cycle begins with the leftmost image and its phases are those described in the text.

Fig. 8 in Functional morphology and modifications on spine growth in the productid brachiopod Heteralosia slocomi

Fig. 8. Detail of spines of productid brachiopod Heteralosia slocomi King, 1938; Moorman Ridge, White Pine County, Nevada, USA; middle Desmoinesian (Moscovian). A. UCMP 155658, external view of the posterior region of a ventral valve attached to a bryozoan colony. B. UCMP 155658, internal view of a ventral valve, with spines attached to the same bryozoan colony as in A. Arrows point to changing orientation towards the ring structures within a bryozoan colony. Scale bars 1 mm.

Fig. 5. Productid brachiopod Heteralosia slocomi King, 1938 in Functional morphology and modifications on spine growth in the productid brachiopod Heteralosia slocomi

Fig. 5. Productid brachiopod Heteralosia slocomi King, 1938; Moorman Ridge, White Pine County, Nevada, USA; middle Desmoinesian (Moscovian), UCMP 155660. A. Disarticulated ventral valve of a specimen attached in situ to a bryozoan colony, showing spines modified up to 90° (arrowed) from the original direction of growth. B. Spines adap− ted and following grooves (arrowed) developed on the surface of a bryozoan colony. Scale bars 1 mm.

Fig. 3 in Functional morphology and modifications on spine growth in the productid brachiopod Heteralosia slocomi

Fig. 3. Tubular hollow spines developed on the surface of a ventral valve of productid brachiopod Heteralosia slocomi King, 1938; Moorman Ridge, White Pine County, Nevada, USA; middle Desmoinesian (Moscovian); UCMP 155651. A. SEM photograph. B. Enlargement showing detail of the arrangement of spines. Scale bars 1 mm.

Fig. 2 in Functional morphology and modifications on spine growth in the productid brachiopod Heteralosia slocomi

Fig. 2. Ontogenetic stages of productid brachiopod Heteralosia slocomi King, 1938; Moorman Ridge, White Pine County, Nevada, USA; middle Desmoinesian (Moscovian); based on length and width measurements of studied specimens (N = 44). Gray arrows indicate the image of the characteristic morphology of specimens from ontogenetic stages 1 and 2, and the dark arrow reflects a change in size from stage 1 to stage 6 (see additional information in the text and on Fig. 4).

Fig. 1 in Functional morphology and modifications on spine growth in the productid brachiopod Heteralosia slocomi

Fig. 1. Overall morphology of productid brachiopod Heteralosia slocomi King, 1938; Moorman Ridge, White Pine County, Nevada, USA; middle Desmoinesian (Moscovian). A. UCMP 155651, dorsal (A1) and ventral (A2) views of a silicified complete specimen. B. UCMP155656, interior view of a silicified dorsal valve. C. UCMP 155653, dorsal (C1) and ventral (C2) views of a silicified complete juvenile specimen. D. UCMP 155654, interior view of a silicified ventral valve. Scale bars 5 mm.

Fig. 6. Juvenile productid brachiopod Heteralosia slocomi King, 1938 in Functional morphology and modifications on spine growth in the productid brachiopod Heteralosia slocomi

Fig. 6. Juvenile productid brachiopod Heteralosia slocomi King, 1938; Moorman Ridge, White Pine County, Nevada, USA; middle Desmoinesian (Moscovian). A. UCPM 155661, disarticulated valve of a specimen inside of a ventral valve of a mature specimen. B. UCMP 155662, specimen growing in situ inside of a dissociated ventral valve of a dead individual, with spines modifying the original course of growth (arrowed) to prevent breakage. Scale bars 1 mm.

Fig. 4 in Functional morphology and modifications on spine growth in the productid brachiopod Heteralosia slocomi

Fig. 4. Growth and arrangement of spines during the ontogeny productid brachiopod Heteralosia slocomi King, 1938; Moorman Ridge, White Pine County, Nevada, USA; middle Desmoinesian (Moscovian). A. UCMP 155655, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image image of the external morphology of the ventral valve of a specimen from the ontogenetic Stage 1. B. UCMP 155655, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image image of the external morphology of the ventral valve of a specimen from the ontogenetic Stage 2. C. UCMP 155651, macro−photographic image of the external morphology of the ventral valve of a specimen from the ontogenetic Stage 6. Photographs of growth stages in specimens (see Fig. 2) (A1–C1) and corresponding schematic diagrams (A2–C2) of progressive emplacement of spines (circles representing growth lamellae).

Fig. 9 in Morphological requirements in limulid and decapod gills: A case study in deducing the function of lamellipedian exopod lamellae

Fig. 9. Conceptual figure showing growth accompanied amplification of pyramidial shaped multi−foliated gills. A. Limulid type of gills with low−relief conical profile. B. Decapod type of gills with high relief.

Fig. 8 in Morphological requirements in limulid and decapod gills: A case study in deducing the function of lamellipedian exopod lamellae

Fig. 8. Body−weight specific lamellar numbers and average single lamellar area in bi−logarithmic coefficients. A. Bi−logarithmic graph of total number of lamellae with respect to dry−body weight in Limulus polyphemus (close circle), Tachypleus rotundicauda (open circle), Callinectes sapidus (solid square) and Libinia dubia (open square). B. Results of allometric analysis shown in Fig. 5A. Sample size (N), correlation coefficient (r), reduced major axis of logW = αlogNL + logβ, and K = α – α / [(s)2 + (s)2]1/2 where s is the standard deviation of α. K is a statistic with the standard normal distribution used for 1 2 α1 α2 α discrimination of the differences of α significant or not. If K>1.96 or K <−1.96, the difference is significant. See also Fig. 7 for the abbreviations of W and NL. C. Bi−logarithmic graph of average area per lamella with respect to dry−body weight. Abbreviations as in Fig. 5A. D. Results of allometric analysis shown in Fig. 5C. Same abbreviations as in Fig. 5B. The data of two decapods are referred to Hughes (1983), which presented average, maximum and minimum specific dry−body weight and lamellar number among the examined samples as well as α and logβ of the allometric analysis with respect to their dry−body weight. Readers are referred to the results of T. rotundicauda as reference data, because too small numbers have been examined. This is to show the trend that the results of a species fall in a neighboring area to that of a taxonomically close species.

Fig. 7 in Morphological requirements in limulid and decapod gills: A case study in deducing the function of lamellipedian exopod lamellae

Fig. 7. Allometric relationships between respiratory surface and dry−body weight in Limulus polyphemus (dots and solid regression line) in bi−logarithmic coefficients. Abbreviations are: correlation coefficients (r); drybody weight (W); total area for respiratory surface (A); allometric scaling exponent (α). For comparisons, the results on the gills of decapod crustaceans Callinectes sapidus and Libinia dubia are shown in dashed lines, the data are referred to Hughes (1983).

Fig. 6 in Morphological requirements in limulid and decapod gills: A case study in deducing the function of lamellipedian exopod lamellae

Fig. 6. Phyllobranchiate gill of a decapod crustacean Atergatris sp. Top one−fourth is shown. SEM photo.

Fig. 5 in Morphological requirements in limulid and decapod gills: A case study in deducing the function of lamellipedian exopod lamellae

Fig. 5. The area of every gill lamella of selected first branchial appendages. A. Instar stage 4 of dry−body weight 0.01 g. B. Instar stage 10 of dry−body weight 0.43 g. C. Instar stage 14 of dry−body weight 6.7 g. D. Instar stage 18 of dry body weight 177.09 g. Grey shaded area corresponds to possible newly established lamellae in each instar stage. Darker shade ranges to minimum established number, while lighter maximum. Total respiratory area (T), respiratory area for newly established lamellae of minimum (Nmin) and maximum value (Nmax) are also noted. These ratios relative to the total area are shown in parentheses. The lamellae left to dashed lines lack an osmoregulatory area.

Fig. 4 in Morphological requirements in limulid and decapod gills: A case study in deducing the function of lamellipedian exopod lamellae

Fig. 4. Growth−related change in gill morphology of Limulus polyphemus shown in instar−stage series. A. Mean total respiratory (white bars) and osmoregulatory area for each instar stage (grey bars) and their increment rates (black and grey line graph denotes respiratory and osmoregulatory area, respectively). B. Average total lamellar number for each instar stage (bar graph) and its increment rates (line graph). C. Average area per single lamellae for each instar stage (bar graph) and its increment rates (line graph). The bar graphs should refer to left indexes shown in exponential form (A and C) or in actual numbers (B), and the line graphs right indexes. Error bars denote the maximum and the minimum lamellar numbers. Numbers shown above the columns represent the numbers of examined specimens.

Fig. 10 in Morphological requirements in limulid and decapod gills: A case study in deducing the function of lamellipedian exopod lamellae

Fig. 10. Lamellipedian exopod of the trilobite Olenoides serratus. A. Camera lucida drawing; traced from Whittington (1980: text−fig. 6). B. Estimated area of each exite shown in A.

Fig. 3 in Morphological requirements in limulid and decapod gills: A case study in deducing the function of lamellipedian exopod lamellae

Fig. 3. Posterior view of first instar stage of Limulus polyphemus Linnaeus, 1758. Only five gill lamellae (gl) are visible between the operculate division of first (ba1) and second branchial appendage (ba2). Other abbreviations: op, operculum; pr, prosoma. SEM photo.

Fig. 2 in Morphological requirements in limulid and decapod gills: A case study in deducing the function of lamellipedian exopod lamellae

Fig. 2. Book gill of Limulus polyphemus Linnaeus, 1758. A. Dorsal view of left first branchial appendage of instar stage 14. Endopod and exopod of the operculate division of branchial appendage as well as lamellae of book gill are shown. SEM photo. B. Dorsal view of left first branchial appendage of instar stage 4. SEM photo. C. Transparent microscopic photo of a gill lamella dyed with toluidine blue, showing osmoregulatory and respiratory area.

opencc-by-4.0Jul 2013View details →

Fig. 3 in Taxonomy, phylogeny, and functional morphology of the foraminiferal genus Involutina

Fig. 3. Structural model of Involutina (in axial section). The presence of a semitube, as defined by Piller (1978), is only barely discernible in few of our specimens.