Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
1,245
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
1,245 results for “hypothesis”
FIGURE 23. Hypothesis C4 in Opiliones are no longer the same—on suprafamilial groups in harvestmen (Arthropoda: Arachnida)
FIGURE 23. Hypothesis C4 of phylogeny of the Cyphophthalmi (Giribet et al. 2011). Finally material of Ogoveidae was obtained for molecular study. The result was this asymmetrical tree, with Pettalidae as sister group of the rest as in Clouse et al. (2010). They recovered one of Shear's clades, the Ogoveoidea. Three new infraordinal names were proposed.
FIGURE 20. Hypothesis C1 in Opiliones are no longer the same—on suprafamilial groups in harvestmen (Arthropoda: Arachnida)
FIGURE 20. Hypothesis C1 of phylogeny of the Cyphophthalmi (Shear 1980/1993, morph). Shear (1980) was the first attempt ever of a cladistic analysis of the Cyphophthalmi. The analysis resulted in a symmetrical arrangement. Shear proposed the two infraorders Tropicophthalmi and Temperophthalmi. A sixth family was added in 1993. This graph is a combination of both works by Shear.
FIGURE 17. Hypothesis L6 in Opiliones are no longer the same—on suprafamilial groups in harvestmen (Arthropoda: Arachnida)
FIGURE 17. Hypothesis L6 of phylogeny of the Laniatores (Shultz 1998). Shultz morphological analysis (1998) and Shultz & Regier molecular analysis (2001) made a scarce sample of the Laniatores. The Insidiatores were dismantled, but the position of Synthetonychia was not made explicit, by not having been used in the analyses. The proximity of the Travuniidae with the Grassatores resembled Loman's view of the Laniatores.
FIGURE 14. Hypothesis L3 in Opiliones are no longer the same—on suprafamilial groups in harvestmen (Arthropoda: Arachnida)
FIGURE 14. Hypothesis L3 of phylogeny of the Laniatores (Loman 1903). Only two years after creating the Insidiatores, Loman (1903) separated the Oncopodidae (which he called Sterrhonoti, here represented by Gnomulus) against the other Laniatores sensu stricto, called Camptonoti. This hypothesis lost support with the removal of the Cladonychiidae (here represented by Erebomaster) from the Phalangodidae by Briggs (1969).
FIGURE 19. Hypothesis L8 in Opiliones are no longer the same—on suprafamilial groups in harvestmen (Arthropoda: Arachnida)
FIGURE 19. Hypothesis L8 of phylogeny of the Laniatores (Giribet et al. 2010, mol). Grassatores remained firm, and the Insidiatores were dismantled, but in a novel way: the Synthetonychiidae were for the first time considered sister group to the other Laniatores. This result has been repeated by Sharma & Giribet (2011, mol). The new name Eulaniatores is proposed here to identify this clade, frontally conflicting with the Tricospilata concept illustrated in Fig. 18.
FIGURE 13. Hypothesis L2 in Opiliones are no longer the same—on suprafamilial groups in harvestmen (Arthropoda: Arachnida)
FIGURE 13. Hypothesis L2 of phylogeny of the Laniatores (Loman 1901; 1902). This author proposed a sharp separation between the Triaenonychidae (which he called Insidiatores, here represented by Equitius) against all other Laniatores (which he called simply Laniatores [sensu stricto] and here called Lomaniatores). Pocock (1902) followed this hypothesis of phylogeny. The term Insidiatores was later reused in a broader sense.
FIGURE 11. Hypothesis O11 in Opiliones are no longer the same—on suprafamilial groups in harvestmen (Arthropoda: Arachnida)
FIGURE 11. Hypothesis O11 of phylogeny of the Opiliones (Giribet et al. 1999, comb; 2002, comb). Following his 1997 thesis, Giribet recovered the early branching off for the Cyphophthalmi and resurrected the name Phalangida for its sister group. A new clade was also firstly proposed and named, causing the diphyly of the Palpatores—the Dyspnolaniatores. Both this hypothesis and J are the modern contrasting views of the deep relationships among Opiliones groups.
FIGURE 16. Hypothesis L5 in Opiliones are no longer the same—on suprafamilial groups in harvestmen (Arthropoda: Arachnida)
FIGURE 16. Hypothesis L5 of phylogeny of the Laniatores Šilhavý (1961). Šilhavý recognized the Travunioidea of Kratochvíl (here marked as "Insidiatores", in blue) and made a change contraposing Oncopodidae against all other Laniatores, which has been anticipated by Mello-Leitão (1944), who had produced a surprisingly similar phylogeny (the famous cactus). This arrangement was conserved by Bristowe (1976).
FIGURE 18. Hypothesis L7 in Opiliones are no longer the same—on suprafamilial groups in harvestmen (Arthropoda: Arachnida)
FIGURE 18. Hypothesis L7 of phylogeny of the Laniatores (Kury 2002). A series of morphological studies—Kury (2002, morph), Giribet & Kury (2007, morph) and Mendes (2009, morph)—also favored the dismantlement of the Insidiatores, but joining the Triaenonychidae with the Grassatores. The new name Tricospilata is here proposed for this clade.
FIGURE 10. Hypothesis O10 in Opiliones are no longer the same—on suprafamilial groups in harvestmen (Arthropoda: Arachnida)
FIGURE 10. Hypothesis O10 of phylogeny of the Opiliones (Shultz 1998, morph). This analysis recovered the old Sundevall's concept (Cyphophthalmi versus Phalangida), and Simon's Plagiostethi (by then already universally called "Palpatores"). Within Palpatores, he recognized the Dyspnoi, burying the Apagosterni. Surprisingly, a molecular analysis by Shultz & Regier (2001, mol) recovered the same configuration. After some analyses which did not recover the Palpatores (see hypothesis K in Fig. 11 below), Giribet et al. (2010, mol) obtained the same pattern.
FIGURE 9. Hypothesis O9 in Opiliones are no longer the same—on suprafamilial groups in harvestmen (Arthropoda: Arachnida)
FIGURE 9. Hypothesis O9 of phylogeny of the Opiliones (Martens 1980, morphological, non-numerical). By the end of the 20th century, the original concept of Palpatores was lost, so that a hypothesis recovering this clade received the new name Cyphopalpatores Martens. This was the first cladistic analysis of the Opiliones.
FIGURE 7. Hypothesis O7 in Opiliones are no longer the same—on suprafamilial groups in harvestmen (Arthropoda: Arachnida)
FIGURE 7. Hypothesis O7 of phylogeny of the Opiliones (Mello-Leitão 1944). This author combined some older hypotheses such as the dichotomy Laniatores versus Palpatores (still using the original Thorell's concept) and reintroduced the Apagosterni.
FIGURE 5. Hypothesis O5 in Opiliones are no longer the same—on suprafamilial groups in harvestmen (Arthropoda: Arachnida)
FIGURE 5. Hypothesis O5 of phylogeny of the Opiliones (Pocock 1902). Pocock suggested a group formed by today's Phalangioidea + Ischyropsalidoidea, thus introducing the name and the concept of Apagosterni. Loman (1903) was the first to accept this clade, which alternately lost and regained favor, but endured for a century.
FIGURE 15. Hypothesis L4 in Opiliones are no longer the same—on suprafamilial groups in harvestmen (Arthropoda: Arachnida)
FIGURE 15. Hypothesis L4 of phylogeny of the Laniatores Kratochvíl (1958). After the work of Forster (1954), who created the Synthetonychiidae, this family went straight into the vicinity of the Triaenonychidae in the views of all most authors. Kratochvíl proposed a symmetrical arrangement of the groups we now know as Insidiatores versus Grassatores (then respectively called Travunioidea and Oncopodoidea). The morphological cladistic analysis by Martens (1980) recovered this arrangement, as well as both combined analyses by Giribet et al. (1999; 2002). Kury in his catalogue (2003) resurrected and expanded the original concept of Loman's Insidiatores, using this name for the same clade recognized by Kratochvíl as Travunioidea.
FIGURE 6. Hypothesis O6 in Opiliones are no longer the same—on suprafamilial groups in harvestmen (Arthropoda: Arachnida)
FIGURE 6. Hypothesis O6 of phylogeny of the Opiliones (Hansen & Sørensen 1904). The Danes kept the solid Plagiostethi (= "Palpatores" in blue) and dismantled the Apagosterni resurrecting and firstly naming Thorell's Dyspnoi as opposed to the Eupnoi. This hypothesis was also defended by Roewer (1923) and Shear (1975) and became the classic triad of the 20th century: Cyphophthalmi, Palpatores and Laniatores.
FIGURE 22. Hypothesis C3 in Opiliones are no longer the same—on suprafamilial groups in harvestmen (Arthropoda: Arachnida)
FIGURE 22. Hypothesis C3 of phylogeny of the Cyphophthalmi (Clouse & Giribet 2010, mol; Clouse et. al. 2010, comb). Mostly molecular, which also did not include Ogoveidae. It was substantially different from Boyer's analysis. They have not proposed any superfamilial names, but did recover the clade later known as Boreophthalmi.
FIGURE 4. Hypothesis O4 in Opiliones are no longer the same—on suprafamilial groups in harvestmen (Arthropoda: Arachnida)
FIGURE 4. Hypothesis O4 of phylogeny of the Opiliones (Simon 1879). Simon was the first to define a group that he called Plagiostethi (green), as opposed to the Mecostethi (here represented by Gonyleptes and identical to Thorell's Laniatores). This name as of today has been abandoned in favor of a different usage of the name Palpatores Thorell.
FIGURE 3. Hypothesis O3 in Opiliones are no longer the same—on suprafamilial groups in harvestmen (Arthropoda: Arachnida)
FIGURE 3. Hypothesis O3 of phylogeny of the Opiliones (Thorell 1876). Thorell created the name Palpatores (green) as opposed to the also new group Laniatores (here represented by Gonyleptes). Thorell's Palpatores is currently called Cyphopalpatores Martens (blue), a name coined a century later, while the name Palpatores is used for another group (see Fig. 4 below). Thorell also recognized what later was to be known as Dyspnoi (blue), following Sørensen (1873).
FIGURE 2. Hypothesis O2 in Opiliones are no longer the same—on suprafamilial groups in harvestmen (Arthropoda: Arachnida)
FIGURE 2. Hypothesis O2 of phylogeny of the Opiliones (Sundevall 1833). The original concept of the Opiliones ("Opiliones" in green) excluded the Cyphophthalmi (here represented by Siro). This group is currently called Phalangida (in blue). Ischyropsalis was still to be unknown for 6 years.
FIGURE 8. Hypothesis O8 in Opiliones are no longer the same—on suprafamilial groups in harvestmen (Arthropoda: Arachnida)
FIGURE 8. Hypothesis O8 of phylogeny of the Opiliones (Šilhavý 1961). This author presented a hypothesis with very little information putting almost all groups as coordinate categories.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.