Find research datasets worth reusing

Figure 10 in A preliminary report on the World species of Bemisia Quaintance and Baker and its congeners (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) with a comparative analysis of morphological variation and its role in the recognition of species Raymond Gill

Figure 10. Bemisia tabaci complex, Hong Kong, Middle Gap Road, 01 Dec. 2003, S.K. Lau and J.H. Martin, coll., JHM #7881, ex. Phyllanthus cochinchinensis.

Figure 6 in A preliminary report on the World species of Bemisia Quaintance and Baker and its congeners (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) with a comparative analysis of morphological variation and its role in the recognition of species Raymond Gill

Figure 6. Bemisia argentifolii Bellows and Perring, Paratype, Stock Culture, U.C. Riverside, Dec. 1992, ex: Phaseolus limensis.

Figure 2 in A preliminary report on the World species of Bemisia Quaintance and Baker and its congeners (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) with a comparative analysis of morphological variation and its role in the recognition of species Raymond Gill

Figure 2. Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius), (labeled as "extreme variant" by Louise Russell), Yucca Valley, Calif., 8-XI-61, ex: Hibiscus.

Figure 9 in A preliminary report on the World species of Bemisia Quaintance and Baker and its congeners (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) with a comparative analysis of morphological variation and its role in the recognition of species Raymond Gill

Figure 9. Bemisia tabaci complex, West Malaysia, Genting Highlands, 10/2/85, ex. Fern Fronds. (Reprinted by permission from Springer Science+Business Media B.V.).

Figure 5 in A preliminary report on the World species of Bemisia Quaintance and Baker and its congeners (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) with a comparative analysis of morphological variation and its role in the recognition of species Raymond Gill

Figure 5. Holotype, Bemisia argentifolii Bellows and Perring, From Lab Culture, U.C. Riverside, Dec. 1992, ex: Phaseolus limensis.

Figure 1 in A preliminary report on the World species of Bemisia Quaintance and Baker and its congeners (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) with a comparative analysis of morphological variation and its role in the recognition of species Raymond Gill

Figure 1. SYNTYPE, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) Slide #1, Specimen #4, Athens, Greece, June 10, 1889, P. Gennadius, coll., Q3120, Bur. Ent. #4449.

Figure 4 in A preliminary report on the World species of Bemisia Quaintance and Baker and its congeners (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) with a comparative analysis of morphological variation and its role in the recognition of species Raymond Gill

Figure 4. Type material, Bemisia poinsettiae Hempel, Belo Horizante, Minas, Brazil, II-192, ex: Poinsettia.

Figure 7 in A preliminary report on the World species of Bemisia Quaintance and Baker and its congeners (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) with a comparative analysis of morphological variation and its role in the recognition of species Raymond Gill

Figure 7. Bemisia argentifolii Bellows and Perring, specimen 108D, Mecca California, IX-9-91, ex. Citrus.

Figure 8 in A preliminary report on the World species of Bemisia Quaintance and Baker and its congeners (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) with a comparative analysis of morphological variation and its role in the recognition of species Raymond Gill

Figure 8. Bemisia argentifolii Bellows and Perring, specimen 68B #4, University of Arizona stock culture, Tucson, ex. cotton.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2013View details →

Figure 4. a in The gill morphology of the date mussel Lithophaga lithophaga (Bivalvia: Mytilidae)

Figure 4. a. Inner sides of the food grooves of the filaments in L. lithophaga with a thick ciliary head and fan-shaped ciliary connection of the lamellae (arrows). b. Filaments attached by continual ciliary junctions (cj). c. Discs formed by condensed tufts of simple cilia. Scale bar: a = 60 µm, b = 20 µm, c = 6 µm.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2013View details →

Figure 3. a in The gill morphology of the date mussel Lithophaga lithophaga (Bivalvia: Mytilidae)

Figure 3. a. Frontal and abfrontal (arrow) views of the demibranches of L. lithophaga. b. Canal formation and food grooves are very prominent at the ventral end of the filaments. Leveled connective discs occur at regular intervals along the filaments; cj: ciliary junction. c. Enlarged free end with marginal groove (mg) and duct (d) on the surface. Scale bar: a = 200 µm, b = 100 µm, c = 40 µm.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2013View details →

Figure 6. a in The gill morphology of the date mussel Lithophaga lithophaga (Bivalvia: Mytilidae)

Figure 6. a. An ascending lamella showing a series of bricklike structures on the abfrontal edges (arrows) in the gill of L. lithophaga. b. Tissue blocks with a toothed plane on the surface (*). Scale bars = 20 µm.

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.