Find research datasets worth reusing

FIGURE 2. Ellobius lower m1s in Distinguishing between three modern Ellobius species (Rodentia, Mammalia) and identification of fossil Ellobius from Kaldar Cave (Iran) using geometric morphometric analyses of the first lower molar

FIGURE 2. Ellobius lower m1s (all figured as right ones) from the extant reference collections and Kaldar Cave. A) Ellobius fuscocapillus: A.1-Kaldar Cave, 2014/4/SL5II/E6/125-130, right lower m1, number 157. A.2-Kaldar Cave, 2014/4/SL5/E5/109-111, right lower m1, number 520. A.3-Kaldar Cave, 2014/5/SL7II/E7/170-180, right lower m1, number 104. A.4- Kaldar Cave, 2014/5/SL7II/F6/135-145, right lower m1, number 547.A.5-modern, NHM86101513, Afghanistan, right lower m1. A.6-modern, FM111846, Iran, right lower m1. A.7-modern, NHM86101512, Afghanistan, right lower m1; B) Ellobius lutescens: B.1-Kaldar Cave, 2014/5/SL7II/F6/130-140, right lower m1, number 319. B.2- Kaldar Cave, 2014/4/SL5II/F7/115-118, right lower m1, number 90. B.3- Kaldar Cave, 2014/4/SL5II/F7/115-118, right lower m1, number 91. B.4- Kaldar Cave, 2014/5/SL7II/E7/145-150, right lower m1, number 436. B.5-modern, NMH916416, Turkey, right lower m1. B.6-modern, NMH916414, Turkey, right lower m1. B.7-modern, NMH916412, Turkey, right lower m1; C) Ellobius talpinus: C.1-modern, NHM3421126, Russia, right lower m1. C.2-modern, FM103163, Afghanistan, right lower m1. C.3-modern, AMNH59797, Mongolia, right lower m1. Scale 1 mm.

FIGURE 1. A in Distinguishing between three modern Ellobius species (Rodentia, Mammalia) and identification of fossil Ellobius from Kaldar Cave (Iran) using geometric morphometric analyses of the first lower molar

FIGURE 1. A) Occlusal surface of Ellobius right lower m1: triangle (T); buccal re-entrant angle (BRA); lingual reentrant angle (LRA); anterior cap (AC); posterior lobe (PL); B) Lingual view of left lower m1.

FIGURE 5 in Distinguishing between three modern Ellobius species (Rodentia, Mammalia) and identification of fossil Ellobius from Kaldar Cave (Iran) using geometric morphometric analyses of the first lower molar

FIGURE 5. Principal component analysis on the normalized landmarks and sliding semilandmarks and shape configuration at the extreme ends of the two first PCs.

FIGURE 7 in Distinguishing between three modern Ellobius species (Rodentia, Mammalia) and identification of fossil Ellobius from Kaldar Cave (Iran) using geometric morphometric analyses of the first lower molar

FIGURE 7. Morphological differences between Ellobius fuscocapillus (left) and Ellobius lutescens (right). Arrows depict the displacements between corresponding landmarks in the reference (dots) and Ellobius lutescens as target specimens.

FIGURE 8 in Geometric morphometric analysis of Protoconites minor from the Cambrian (Terreneuvian) Yanjiahe Formation in Three Gorges, South China

FIGURE 8. The ordinary least-squares linear regression of the shape of mirrored Protoconites minor with log10- transformed centroid size. Characteristic specimens are shown in thin-plate splines corresponding to the shapes of specimens in RW 1–2 plane.

FIGURE 9 in Geometric morphometric analysis of Protoconites minor from the Cambrian (Terreneuvian) Yanjiahe Formation in Three Gorges, South China

FIGURE 9. The ordinary least-squares linear regression of the shape of straight-shelled Protoconites minor with log10- transformed centroid size. Characteristic specimens are shown in thin-plate splines corresponding to the shapes of specimens in RW 1–2 plane.

FIGURE 10 in Geometric morphometric analysis of Protoconites minor from the Cambrian (Terreneuvian) Yanjiahe Formation in Three Gorges, South China

FIGURE 10. Protoconites minor from the Cambrian (Terreneuvian) Yanjiahe Formation showing morphological variance during the ontogeny. Size of these specimens increases from right to left and from top to bottom. 1. No. Y-596 (2)- 2; 2. No. Y-735A (20)-2; 3. No. Y-800A (19)-2; 4. No. Y-469B (5); 5. No. Y-581 (2); 6. No. Y-134 (10); 7. No. Y-523; 8. No. Y-1236 (2); 9. No. Y-29; 10. No. Y-617A (4)-3; 11. No. Y-558A (17); 12. No. Y-141A (19)-1; 13. No. Y-558A (33); 14. No. Y-617A (2); 15. No. Y-546A (2); 16. No. Y-732A (20); 17. No. Y-142A (8)-1; 18. No. Y-816A (4); 19. No. Y-1230A (45); 20. No. Y-425A (2); 21. No. Y-561A (5); 22. No. Y-567 (2); 23. No. Y-732A (32)-1; 24. No. Y-173A (4); 25. No. Y-1227A (10); 26. No. Y-51A (2); 27. No. Y-24B (2). "Y" means the locality of the fossils from Yangjiachong section.

FIGURE 7 in Geometric morphometric analysis of Protoconites minor from the Cambrian (Terreneuvian) Yanjiahe Formation in Three Gorges, South China

FIGURE 7. Morphospace of straight shell Protoconites minor generated by the Relative Warp (RW) analysis. 1. plot for RW 1–2; 2. plot for RW 1–3. All thin-plate splines correspond to the shapes of specimens in RW 1–2 and RW 1–3 planes, respectively.

FIGURE 6 in Geometric morphometric analysis of Protoconites minor from the Cambrian (Terreneuvian) Yanjiahe Formation in Three Gorges, South China

FIGURE 6. Protoconites minor morphospace generated by the Relative Warp (RW) analysis using mirrored specimens. 1. plot for RW 1–2; 2. plot for RW 1–3. All thin-plate splines correspond to points (indicated as a line) within the morphospace in RW 1–2 and RW 1–3 planes, respectively.

FIGURE 5 in Geometric morphometric analysis of Protoconites minor from the Cambrian (Terreneuvian) Yanjiahe Formation in Three Gorges, South China

FIGURE 5. Protoconites minor morphospace generated by the Relative Warp (RW) analysis using un-mirrored specimens with indication of characteristic thin-plate splines. 1. plot for RW 1–2; 2. plot for RW 1–3. Thin-plate splines show the shapes of specimens in RW 1–2 and RW 1–3 planes, respectively.

FIGURE 4 in Geometric morphometric analysis of Protoconites minor from the Cambrian (Terreneuvian) Yanjiahe Formation in Three Gorges, South China

FIGURE 4. Histogram showing the size spectra of Protoconites minor. 1. size distribution of all specimens analyzed in this study; 2. size distribution without laterally bended specimens.

FIGURE 2 in Geometric morphometric analysis of Protoconites minor from the Cambrian (Terreneuvian) Yanjiahe Formation in Three Gorges, South China

FIGURE 2. Protoconites minor from the Cambrian (Terreneuvian) Yanjiahe Formation in Yichang, Hubei, China. 1. No. Y-24B (2); 2. No. Y-41A (5)-1; 3. No. Y-765A (3); 4. No. Y-127B (1); 5. No. Y-28 (2); 6. No. CH-179A (3); 7. No. Y-273A (1); 8. No. Y-41A (14); 9. No. Y-445 (2); 10. No. Y-494 (2)-2; 11. No. Y-40A (11); 12. No. Y-1234 (3); 13. No. Y-844A (2); 14. No. Y-785 (2); 15. No. Y-40B (9)-1; 16. No. Y-880 (6); 17. No. Y-596 (2)-1; 18. No. Y-531 (3)-2. "CH" means the locality of the fossils from Dingjiaping section, "Y" means the locality of the fossils from Yangjiachong section.

FIGURE 3 in Geometric morphometric analysis of Protoconites minor from the Cambrian (Terreneuvian) Yanjiahe Formation in Three Gorges, South China

FIGURE 3. Definition of landmarks and semi-landmarks and the result of superimposition. 1. and 2. landmarks and semi-landmarks set on both straight and laterally bent specimens. Type II landmarks are 1, 2, and 3, and sliding semilandmarks are 4–34 in 1. and 2.; 3. consensus configuration after superimposition using Generalized Procrustes Analysis.

FIGURE 1 in Geometric morphometric analysis of Protoconites minor from the Cambrian (Terreneuvian) Yanjiahe Formation in Three Gorges, South China

FIGURE 1. Locality and stratigraphy of the Cambrian (Terreneuvian) Yanjiahe Formation in Yichang, Hubei Province, China. 1. Sketch map of the People's Republic of China, showing the position of the collecting locality in Hubei Province; 2. Simplified geological sketch map of the Three Gorges area, Hubei Province, South China, showing the outcrops of Cambrian strata. Red boxes around 3 (Yanjiahe area) and 4 (Dingjiaping area) denote areas that are enlarged for additional detail; 3. Detailed geological sketch map of the Yanjiahe area, showing the outcrops of the Yanjiahe Formation; 4. Detailed geological sketch map of the Dingjiaping area, showing the outcrops of the Yanjiahe Formation. (In 3 and 4 map: White = Ediacaran Dengying Formation; Pink and light green = Cambrian Yanjiahe Formation; Yellow and light blue = the Cambrian Shuijingtuo Formation; Green = Cambrian Shipai Formation; Black triangles indicate locations of measured stratigraphic sections) 5. Stratigraphic sequence of Lower Cambrian strata in the Gunziao section, Three Gorge area, indicating the horizons where fossils were collected.

Fig. 4 in A practical, step-by-step, guide to taxonomic comparisons using Procrustes geometric morphometrics and user-friendly software (part B): group comparisons

Fig. 4. Ordinations summarizing species variation in shape using the first two axes of (a) a conventional PCA (total variance in parentheses) or (b) those of a bgPCA (between group variance in parentheses).

Fig. 3 in A practical, step-by-step, guide to taxonomic comparisons using Procrustes geometric morphometrics and user-friendly software (part B): group comparisons

Fig. 3. Visualizations of species by sex interactions using group means.a. Mean CS profile plot. For size, males are on average slightly larger than females, but the difference is small and roughly similar in all species. Thus, lines are approximately parallel in the profile plot. b. Phenogram of mean shapes. In the phenogram, with the exception of the Alaskan marmot (bro) (whose sampling error is huge, having only eight individuals of known sex), female and male means are paired within each species with almost identical shape distances between sexes in each species. The similarity of SDM shape distances provides an information equivalent, in terms of the magnitude of the sex differences, to that of the parallel lines in the CS profile plot (Fig. 3a).

Fig. 7 in A practical, step-by-step, guide to taxonomic comparisons using Procrustes geometric morphometrics and user-friendly software (part B): group comparisons

Fig. 7. UPGMA phenogram of Procrustes mean shape distances for the random, mutually exclusive, species subsamples. Shape variation (magnified five times, relative to the grand mean of all species) is illustrated using the six species mean shapes (all specimens included) with wireframes and thin-plate spline deformation grids (drawn in Morpheus et al. - Slice 1999) - but equivalent to those made using MorphoJ or the TPS Series).

Fig. 6 in A practical, step-by-step, guide to taxonomic comparisons using Procrustes geometric morphometrics and user-friendly software (part B): group comparisons

Fig. 6. PC1–PC2 of mean shapes for the random, mutually exclusive, species subsamples. Shape variation (magnified five times) at the opposite extremes of each PC is shown using wireframes, as well as deformation grids and expansion factors computed in PAST using the thin plate spline interpolation. (In these wireframes, unlike those in MorphoJ, the mental foramen is also connected by a line to its neighbouring landmarks, as PAST constrains users to link all landmarks: the difference is, however, minimal and purely visual).

Fig. 5 in A practical, step-by-step, guide to taxonomic comparisons using Procrustes geometric morphometrics and user-friendly software (part B): group comparisons

Fig. 5. Example of visualization of shape change: hoary marmot SDM illustrated using (a) superimposed shapes (male mean, in black, and grand mean of female and male means, in grey) or separate diagrams for male (b) and female (c) mean shapes. Focusing on the coronoid region, the violet arrow shows the potentially misleading effect of the superimposition, suggesting a backward 'movement' of the tip of the coronoid in males. Separate diagrams (b–c), in contrast, correctly suggest that change happens in the region whose boundary are marked by the landmarks, with the rostral margin of the coronoid becoming longer (red arrow) in males and shorter (blue arrows) in females.

Fig. 9 in A practical, step-by-step, guide to taxonomic comparisons using Procrustes geometric morphometrics and user-friendly software (part B): group comparisons

Fig. 9. Divergent allometries and their effect on size-corrected shape. (a) PLS1 summarizing allometries (35% of variance in allometric predictions) vs CS. The vertical lines emphasize the scores of speciesspecific predicted allometric shapes for either the smallest mandible of all North American marmots (CS = 56 mm, emphasized with a vertical yellow line and arrows to show the extrapolations of the allometric trajectories to CS = 56 mm) or the mean CS of all species (CS = 77 mm, emphasized with a light grey vertical line). (b1) Scatterplot of bgPC1–2 (percentages of between group shape variance in parentheses) for the size-corrected shapes predicted using species-specific allometries (i.e., separate slopes) and CS = 56 mm as 'common' size. (b2, inset) Scatterplot of bgPC1–2 of size-corrected shapes using independent trajectories (as in b1) and CS = 77 mm: if differences in slopes were negligible, b1 and b2 should be almost identical.