Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 8 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study

Fig. 8. Septal suture lines of several Lytoceratoidea (A–D) and Eoderoceratoidea (E–H) for comparisons with those of the scholtheimiid ammonoids Angulaticeras and Phricodoceras (Fig. 7). A. Zaghouanites arcanum (Wiedenmayer, 1977) (from Rakús and Guex 2002: fig. 54e, modified). B. Eolytoceras tasekoi Frebold, 1967 (from Wiedmann 1970: text−fig. 9c, modified). C. Pleuroacanthites biformis (Sowerby in De La Beche, 1831) (from Canavari 1888: text–fig. 2.3, modified). D. Analytoceras gr. articulatum (Sowerby in De La Beche, 1831) (from Wiedmann 1970: text–fig. 8a, modified). E. Epideroceras planarmatum (Quenstedt, 1856) (from Schlatter 1980: beil. 15a, modified). F. Xipheroceras rasinodum (Quenstedt, 1884) (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 57, modified). G. Xipheroceras ziphus (Zieten, 1830) (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 56, modified). H. Eoderoceras bisbinigerum (Buckman, 1918) (from Schlegelmilch 1992: 62, modified). For each suture line the whorl height (wh) is indicated, if known. The main elements of the suture line are indicated by following abbreviations: E, external lobe; L, lateral lobe; U1, U2, umbilical lobes; I, internal lobe.

Fig. 7 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study

Fig. 7. Septal suture lines of several Schlotheimiidae belonging to the genera Phricodoceras (A–E) and Angulaticeras (F–J). A. Phricodoceras urkuticum (Géczy, 1959) (from Géczy 1976: fig. 49, modified). B. Phricodoceras taylori (Sowerby, 1826) (from Dommergues 2003: fig. 6A, modified). C. Phricodoceras taylori (from Dommergues 2003: fig. 6B, modified). D. Phricodoceras taylori (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 61, modified). E. Phricodoceras gr. taylori (Sowerby, 1826) (from Schlatter 1990: fig. 3, modified). F. Angulaticeras martinischmidti (Lange, 1951) (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 38, modified). G. Angulaticeras charmassei (Orbigny, 1844) (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 38, modified). H. Angulaticeras densilobatum (Pompeckj, 1893) (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 39, modified). I. Angulaticeras lacunatum (J. Buckman, 1844) (from Schlegelmilch 1976, 38, modified). J. Angulaticeras rumpens (Oppel, 1862) (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 39, modified). For each suture line the whorl height (wh) is indicated, if known. The main elements of the suture line are indicated by following abbreviations: E, external lobe; L, lateral lobe; U1, U2, umbilical lobes; I, internal lobe.

Fig. 4 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study

Fig. 4. Position and terminology of the tubercles, spines and/or bullae on Phricodoceras shells (juvenile and/or microconch. A, B. Normal view. C, D. Shaded view with indication of the main ornamental structure outlines (white lines). Abbreviations: t1, latero−umbilical position; t2, latero−ventral position; t3, peri−siphonal position; us, umbilical seam; vb, ventral band.

Fig. 3 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study

Fig. 3. Microconch (m) / macroconch (M) dimorphism expressed by scholtheimiid ammonoid Phricodoceras exemplified by the NW Europe forms in the Uptonia jamesoni to Tragophylloceras ibex chronozones. A. Phricodoceras lamellosum (Orbigny, 1844) (M), UBGD 277451, Mazenay, Saône et Loire, France, probably early Uptonia jamesoni Chronozone, in apertural (A1), lateral (A2), and ventral (A3) views. B. Phricodoceras lamellosum (M), Kircheim unter Teck, Baden−Würtemberg, Germany, Early Pliensbachian (from Schlegelmilch 1976: pl. 27: 4, modified; original from Quenstedt 1884: pl. 28: 24), in apertural (B1), lateral (B2), and ventral (B3) views. C. Phricodoceras taylori (Sowerby, 1826) (m), Corbigny, Nièvre, France, Uptonia jamesoni Chronozone, Phricodoceras taylori Subchronozone (from Dommergues 2003: pl. 1: 4), in lateral view. D. Phricodoceras aff. cornutum (Simpson, 1843) (m), Fresnayle−Puceux, Calvados, France, Early Pliensbachian (from Dommergues et al. 2008: pl. 3: 6, modified), in ventral (D1) and lateral (D2) views. E. Phricodoceras taylori (m), Fresnay−le−Puceux, Calvados, France, Early Pliensbachian (from Dommergues et al. 2008: pl. 3: 5, modified), in ventral (E1) and lateral (E2) views. The two specimens corresponding to A, B are incomplete phragmocones (juvenile or immature shells) but the three corresponding to C–E are adult microconchs with the major part of the body chamber. The end of the phragmocone is starred. Notice the progressive ontogenetic transformation from tubercle (t3) to faint shoulder (s3) in specimen B. Abbreviations: t2, tubercle in latero−ventral position; t3, tubercle in peri−siphonal position; s3, shoulder peri−siphonal position.

Fig. 9 in Live-live and live-dead interactions in marine death assemblages: The case of the Patagonian clam Venus antiqua

Fig. 9. Orientation of Venus antiqua King, 1832 in various situations. A. Reclining or reworked orientation. B. Erect probing orientation. C. Infaunal orientation. D. Semi-infaunal orientation.

Fig. 7 in Live-live and live-dead interactions in marine death assemblages: The case of the Patagonian clam Venus antiqua

Fig. 7. Comparison between observed and expected frequencies of Crepidula spp. encrustations on Venus antiqua King, 1832 shells from Bustamante Bay.

Fig. 6 in Live-live and live-dead interactions in marine death assemblages: The case of the Patagonian clam Venus antiqua

Fig. 6. Different types of damage recorded in modern Trophon geversianus shells collected from the same samples that the Venus antiqua King, 1832 shells, Bahía Bustamante. A. Shell with predatory drill hole. B. Intact shell. C. Shell with damage to shell aperture margin. D. Shell with crack in body whorl. E. Shell with a major damage in last whorl. F. Shell with columella damage. Pie charts show the proportion of snails (N = 34) with each type of damage, used here to infer crushing and drilling predation. Scale bars 10 mm.

Fig. 5 in Live-live and live-dead interactions in marine death assemblages: The case of the Patagonian clam Venus antiqua

Fig. 5. Shell size frequency distribution of drilled (white bars) and undrilled (black bars) modern Venus antiqua King, 1832 shells. A. Shell length. B. Shell height. C. Geometric mean of shell length and height.

Fig. 4 in Live-live and live-dead interactions in marine death assemblages: The case of the Patagonian clam Venus antiqua

Fig. 4. Marks of epibionts on Venus antiqua King, 1832 shells, Recent, Bahía Bustamante. A. CEGH-UNC 25333, external view of a right valve with a mark that reproduces the basal outline shape of Crepidula. The central dark zone reproduces the rounded muscular foot of Crepidula. B. CEGH-UNC 25334, internal view of a right valve covered with calcareous tubes of tubiculous polychaetes. This figure also shows hinge ligament remains. Scale bars 10 mm.

Fig. 8 in Live-live and live-dead interactions in marine death assemblages: The case of the Patagonian clam Venus antiqua

Fig. 8. Bar charts showing proportion of modern Venus antiqua King, 1832 shells exhibing two different biotic interactions.

Fig. 1 in Live-live and live-dead interactions in marine death assemblages: The case of the Patagonian clam Venus antiqua

Fig. 1. Scheme showing biotic interactions (live/live interactions) and postmortem encrustation (live/dead interactions) associated with Venus antiqua King, 1832 shells preserved in molluscan death assemblages.

Fig. 1 in Assessing confidence intervals for stratigraphic ranges of higher taxa: The case of Lissamphibia

Fig. 1. Current hypotheses on the origin of the extant amphibians. Extant taxa in bold, paraphyletic taxa in quotation marks. A, B. Monophyletic origin from within the temnospondyls, with lepospondyls at the basalmost part of the amphibian stem (Panchen and Smithson 1988; Trueb and Cloutier 1991; Lombard and Sumida 1992; Ahlberg and Milner 1994). C, D. Monophyletic origin from within the temnospondyls, with the lepospondyls as reptiliomorphs (Ruta and Coates 2007; see also Ruta et al. 2003). E. Monophyletic origin from within the lepospondyls (Vallin and Laurin 2004; see also Laurin and Reisz 1997, 1999). F. Diphyletic origin with the anurans as temnospondyls, caecilians as lepospondyls, and urodeles as either temnospondyls or lepospondyls (Carroll and Currie 1975; Carroll and Holmes 1980; Carroll et al. 2004).

Fig. 4. A in Assessing confidence intervals for stratigraphic ranges of higher taxa: The case of Lissamphibia

Fig. 4. A comparison of the origination (A–C) and diversification (B, C) times of Lissamphibia according to time−calibrated phylogenetic trees of (A) Stegocephali, (B) Lissamphibia based on the molecular analysis by Zhang et al. (2005), and (C) Lissamphibia based on the fossil record (Marjanović and Laurin 2007). In A, the stem of Lissamphibia is placed as high in the geological section as plausible under the various phylogenetic hypotheses: (I) as the sister−group of Doleserpeton; (II) within Branchiosauridae; (III) as the sister−group of the Doleserpeton + Amphibamus clade; (IV) as the sister−group of Lysorophia; (V) polyphyletic from within "lepospondyls" (caecilians, or caecilians and caudates) and "temnospondyls". Known stratigraphic ranges are shown as thick lines, ghost ranges as thin lines. In B, the 95% credibility intervals of molecular dates are represented by blank boxes; the best estimates and lower and upper boundaries of the credibility intervals are also indicated in parentheses. In C, the numbers given next to the nodes represent the age estimates (Ma) based on the assumptions used for the supertree by Marjanović and Laurin (2007: fig. 9b). In parentheses follow the ranges of minimum (rather than actual) divergence dates as obtained using various minimum branch length assumptions (Marjanović and Laurin 2007: appendix 4); these ranges, also represented as blank boxes, are not true confidence intervals. The colored boxes represent the confidence intervals on the lower bound of the stratigraphic range of Lissamphibia calculated in the present paper (1–6 correspond to the lower half of Table 4: CI 1–Cl 6), where the bottom of the rectangle shows the lower limit of the 75% confidence interval and the black bar in each colored box corresponds to the lower limit of the 50% confidence interval. Abbreviations: Arch, Archaeobatrachia; Cry, Cryptobranchoidea; Mississi., Mississippian; Sal, Salamandridae.

Fig. 3. A in Assessing confidence intervals for stratigraphic ranges of higher taxa: The case of Lissamphibia

Fig. 3. A histogram of the curves (C) representing the recovery potential functions showing each period's or epoch's fraction of the total recovery potential calculated under eleven different assumptions (Table 4: CI 1–CI 6, which assume six different rates across extinction events and two different ages of origin for each except CI 6 which is independent of the age of origin). A bar chart of these data would be more appropriate than a dot−andline graph, but much more difficult to read. The total recovery potential un− der each assumption (i.e., the area under each "curve") is 1. Note the wide divergence between CI 6, which is based only on the exposure area of sedimentary rocks (Table 1), and all others, which include an exponential model of diversification. The much lower recovery potential of CI 1–Cl 5 in the Paleozoic generates correspondingly wider CIs.

Fig. 2. Lissamphibian biodiversity through time. A in Assessing confidence intervals for stratigraphic ranges of higher taxa: The case of Lissamphibia

Fig. 2. Lissamphibian biodiversity through time. A. Number of species found in each geologic stage. B. Standardized species numbers, calculated to account for uneven stage durations. C. Number of lineages, obtained by adding the number of recorded species and the number of ghost lineages for each geologic stage. Major biological crises identified in other taxa are shown as continuous gray lines. Minor crises that may have affected lissamphibians are shown as dashed gray lines. Since most post−Miocene species are excluded, this figure ends with the terminal Miocene. Minimum (white) and maximum (black) values have been calculated under various assumptions about the age of several middle Miocene species and the status of specimens with questionable affinities. The geologic timescale follows Gradstein et al. (2004) in all figures. Abbreviations: J, Jurassic; K, Cretaceous; M, Miocene; O, Oligocene; P, Permian; Pg, Paleogene; Tr, Triassic.

Fig. 5. Triakid shark Gomphogaleus rodgersi Case, 1994 in New fossil triakid sharks from the early Eocene of Prémontré, France, and comments on fossil record of the family

Fig. 5. Triakid shark Gomphogaleus rodgersi Case, 1994. Prémontré Abbey, late Ypresian. A. UM−PRE 16, anterior tooth, labial face (A1), profile view (A2), and lingual face (A3). B. UM−PRE 17, holotype, antero−lateral tooth, labial face (B1), apical view (B2), and lingual face (B3).

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.