Find research datasets worth reusing

Figures 10–17. Hamaederus spp. 10–14 in A review of the history of the names Hamaticherus Dejean and Plocaederus Dejean and description of a new genus and species (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae)

Figures 10–17. Hamaederus spp. 10–14) Hamaederus bipartitus (Buquet, 1860), female from Ecuador. 10) Dorsal habitus. 11) Ventral habitus. 12) Lateral habitus. 13) Prosternal and mesoventral processes, lateral view. 14) Prosternal and mesoventral processes, oblique ventral view. 15–17) Hamaederus fragosoi (Martins and Monné, 2002), male from French Guiana. 15) Dorsal habitus. 16) Scape, pedicel, and antennomeres III–V. 17) Prosternal and mesoventral processes, lateral view. Figures 10–14 by Steven W. Lingafelter.

Figures 1–9 in A review of the history of the names Hamaticherus Dejean and Plocaederus Dejean and description of a new genus and species (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae)

Figures 1–9. Hamaederus bipartitus (Buquet, 1860). 1–2) Male from French Guiana, specimen 1. 1) Dorsal habitus. 2) Ventral habitus. 3) Male from French Guiana, specimen 2, dorsal habitus. 4) Male from French Guiana, specimen 1, antennomeres III–IV. 5–6) Prosternal and mesoventral processes, oblique ventral view, females from French Guiana. 5) Specimen 1. 6) Specimen 2. 7–9) Prosternal and mesoventral processes, lateral view, specimens from French Guiana. 7) Female, specimen 1. 8) Male. 9) Female, specimen 2.

Figures 50–58 in A review of the history of the names Hamaticherus Dejean and Plocaederus Dejean and description of a new genus and species (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae)

Figures 50–58. Hamaederus glaberrimus (Martins, 1979). 50–56) Male. 50) Dorsal habitus. 51) Ventral habitus. 52) Lateral habitus. 53) Head, frontal view. 54) Scape. 55) Scape, pedicel, and antennomeres III–V. 56) Prosternal and mesoventral processes. 57–58) Female. 57) Dorsal habitus. 58) Prosternal and mesoventral processes.

Figures 24–33 in A review of the history of the names Hamaticherus Dejean and Plocaederus Dejean and description of a new genus and species (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae)

Figures 24–33. Hamaederus fasciatus (Martins and Monné, 1975). 24–27) Holotype female. 24) Dorsal habitus. 25) Ventral habitus. 26) Lateral habitus. 27) Head, frontal view. 28–31) Male. 28) Dorsal habitus. 29) Head, frontal view. 30) Ventral habitus. 31) Lateral habitus. 32) Prosternal process, oblique view. 33) Prosternal and mesoventral processes.

Figures 43–49 in A review of the history of the names Hamaticherus Dejean and Plocaederus Dejean and description of a new genus and species (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae)

Figures 43–49. Hamaederus glaberrimus (Martins, 1979). 43–48) Holotype female. 43) Dorsal habitus. 44) Ventral habitus. 45) Scape, pedicel, and antennomeres III–V. 46) Scape. 47) Lateral habitus. 48) Prosternal and mesoventral processes. 49) Male, dorsal habitus.

Figures 18–23 in A review of the history of the names Hamaticherus Dejean and Plocaederus Dejean and description of a new genus and species (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae)

Figures 18–23. Hamaederus bipartitus (Buquet, 1860), specimens from Bolivia (Santa Cruz). 18–22) Male. 18) Dorsal habitus. 19) Ventral habitus. 20) Lateral habitus. 21) Prosternal and mesoventral processes, lateral view. 22) Prosternal and mesoventral processes. 23) Female, dorsal habitus.

Figures 71–81 in A review of the history of the names Hamaticherus Dejean and Plocaederus Dejean and description of a new genus and species (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae)

Figures 71–81. Hamaederus yucatecus (Chemsak and Noguera, 1997). 71) Male from Bolivia, Santa Cruz (Buena Vista), dorsal habitus. 72) Male from Costa Rica, Guanacaste (near Bagaces). 73) Male from Mexico, Chiapas (near Ocozocoautla), dorsal habitus. 74) Male from Mexico, Chiapas (El Chorreodero Canyon), dorsal habitus. 75–76) Plocaederus barauna Martins and Monné, 2002 (= H. yucatecus (Chemsak and Noguera, 1997)), paratypes. 75) Dorsal habitus, female. 76) Antennomeres III–IV, male. 77–81) Scape. 77) Male from Bolivia. 78) Male from Mexico. 79) Male from Mexico. 80) Paratype male of P. confusus from Brazil. 81) Paratype female of P. confusus from Brazil.

Figures 65–70 in A review of the history of the names Hamaticherus Dejean and Plocaederus Dejean and description of a new genus and species (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae)

Figures 65–70. Hamaederus confusus Martins and Monné, 2002 (= H. yucatecus (Chemsak and Noguera, 1997)). 65–67) Holotype male. 65) Dorsal habitus. 66) Ventral habitus. 67) Prosternal and mesoventral processes, lateral view. 68) Paratype female, dorsal habitus, from Brazil (São Paulo). 69) Paratype male, dorsal habitus, from Brazil (Rio de Janeiro). 70) Paratype male, dorsal habitus, from Brazil (São Paulo).

Fig. 16 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 16. Esca of Lophiomus spp. A. Lm. laticeps (Ogilby, 1910) stat. rev. (NTUM13463, sample ID: NC1375). B. Ditto (NTUM13468, sample ID: NC964). C. Lm. nigriventris sp. nov., holotype (NTUM15096, sample ID: WJC5808). D. Lm. immaculioralis sp. nov., holotype (NTUM16313, sample ID: WJC7777). E. Lm. carusoi sp. nov., holotype (MNHN 2024-0099, sample ID: NC2059). F. Ditto, paratype (NTUM17682, sample ID: NC1978). G. Lm. setigerus (Vahl, 1797) (NTUM14414, sample ID: WJC7223). H. Ditto (NTUM14414, sample ID: WJC7224). Scale bars = 1 mm.

Fig. 15. X in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 15. X-ray radiographs in dorsal view and zoom-in images of left pectoral-fin of Lophiomus spp. collected in this study for visualizing interspecific variations in pectoral-fin ray counts. A. Lm. setigerus (Vahl, 1797), neotype (NTUM10408, sample ID: WJC0905). B. Lm. laticeps (Ogilby, 1910) stat. rev. (NTUM13463, sample ID: NC1375). C. Lm. immaculioralis sp. nov., holotype (NTUM16313, sample ID: WJC7777). D. Lm. nigriventris sp. nov., holotype (NTUM15096, sample ID: WJC5808). E. Lm. carusoi sp. nov., holotype (MNHN 2024-0099, sample ID: NC2059).

Fig. 12 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 12. Lophiomus immaculioralis sp. nov., holotype (NTUM16313, sample ID: WJC7777). A. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. B. Ditto, ventral view. C. Ditto, fresh specimen. D. Ditto, floor of mouth.

Fig. 13 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 13. Lophiomus nigriventris sp. nov. A–D. Holotype (NTUM15096, sample ID: WJC5808). E–H. Subadult paratype (NTUM12188, sample ID: PNG3184). A. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. B. Ditto, ventral view. C. Ditto, fresh specimen. D. Ditto, floor of mouth. E. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. F. Ditto, ventral view. G. Ditto, fresh specimen. H. Ditto, floor of mouth.

Fig. 8 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 8. Lophiomus setigerus (Vahl, 1797). A–D. Neotype (NTUM10408, sample ID: WJC0905). E–H. Large specimens (NTUM14414, sample ID: WJC7223). A. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. B. Ditto, ventral view. C. Ditto, fresh specimen. D. Ditto, floor of mouth. E. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. F. Ditto, ventral view. G. Ditto, fresh specimen. H. Ditto, floor of mouth.

Fig. 11. Lophiomus laticeps stat. rev., newly collected specimens. A–D in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 11. Lophiomus laticeps stat. rev., newly collected specimens. A–D. Large (NTUM13463, sample ID: NC1375). E–H. Small (NTUM13468, sample ID: NC964). A. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. B. Ditto, ventral view. C. Ditto, fresh specimen. D. Ditto, floor of mouth. E. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. F. Ditto, ventral view. G. Ditto, fresh specimen. H. Ditto, floor of mouth.

Fig. 9. Lophius indicus Alock, 1889. A–D in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 9. Lophius indicus Alock, 1889. A–D. Large syntype (BMNH 1890.11.28.45). E–H. Small syntype (BMNH 1890.11.28.45.46). A. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. B. Ditto, ventral view. C. Ditto, floor of mouth. D. Ditto, X-ray radiograph. E. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. F. Ditto, ventral view. G. Ditto, floor of mouth. H. Ditto, X-ray radiograph. Photographed by L. Goodayle. © Trustees of the Natural History Museum, London (available under CC-BY 4.0).

Fig. 10. Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 10. Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910, holotype (AMS E. 2973). A. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. B. Ventral view. C. Floor of mouth. D. X-ray radiograph in dorsal view. E. X-ray radiograph in lateral view (white triangles indicate the dorsal-fin spines; gray triangles indicate the dorsal-fin rays). Photographed by K. Parkinson.

Fig. 6 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 6. CVA biplot of the first and second canonical variates (CV1 and CV2) of species of Lophiomus Gill, 1883 based on 16 measurements and meristic counts (see Results).

Fig. 14 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 14. Lophiomus carusoi sp. nov., holotype (MNHN 2024-0099, sample ID: NC2059). A. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. B. Ditto, ventral view. C. Fresh specimen. D. Preserved specimen, floor of mouth.

Fig. 7 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 7. Cranial comparative osteology of the three lophiid genera. A. Lophiodes mutilus (Alcock, 1894). B. Lophius litulon (Jordan, 1902). C. Lophiomus setigerus (Vahl, 1797). Scale bars = 10 mm.

Fig. 4 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 4. Phylogenetic trees of species of Lophiomus Gill, 1883 reconstructed by partitioned maximumlikelihood and Bayesian inference methods based on the TC dataset (4146 bp, COI: 663 bp; cytb: 1143 bp; RAG1: 1440 bp; Rhodopsin: 900 bp; ML: TN + F + I (partition 1, 1–663), GTR + F + I + G4 (partition 2, 664–1806), TPM3 + F + G4 (partition 3, 1807–3246), TPM2u+F+I (partition 4, 3247–4146); BI: with the same partition but changed to HKY + I (partition 1), GTR + I + G (partition 2), GTR + G (partition 3), GTR+I (partition 4)). Phylogenetic tree branch lengths are proportional to inferred nucleotide substitutions except the connection to distant outgroup Lophiodes mutilus. Node numbers represent 'SH-aLRT / UFBoot / pp.' values, with the former two values expressed in percent (%). See the caption of Fig. 2 for locality abbreviations. Terminal names in bold suggest the newly described or resurrected taxa in this study.