Find research datasets worth reusing

Figures 15–22 in Parajulid milliped studies XII: Initial assessment of Ptyoiulus Cook 1895 and neotype designations for Julus impressus Say 1821 and J. montanus Cope 1869 (Diplopoda: Julida)

Figures 15–22. Gonopodal variation in P. montanus. 15) Distal extremity of right anterior gonopod of male from Montgomery Co., Virginia, caudal view. 16) The same of male from Tishomingo Co., Mississippi. 17) The same of male from DeKalb Co., Georgia. 18) The same of male from Craighead Co., Arkansas. 19) The same of male from Clay Co., Arkansas. 20) Right posterior gonopod of male from Mason Co., Tennessee, lateral view. 21) The same of male from Tishomingo Co., Mississippi. 22) The same of male from Montgomery Co., Virginia. Abbreviations as in Fig. 5–6.

Figures 7–13 in Parajulid milliped studies XII: Initial assessment of Ptyoiulus Cook 1895 and neotype designations for Julus impressus Say 1821 and J. montanus Cope 1869 (Diplopoda: Julida)

Figures 7–13. Gonopodal variation in P. impressus. 7) Distal extremity of right anterior gonopod of neotype, caudal view. 8) The same of male from Rabun Co., Georgia. 9) The same of male from Liberty Co., Florida. 10) The same of male from Leon Co., Florida. 11) The same of male from Greene Co., Arkansas. 12) Right posterior gonopod of male from Rabun Co., Georgia, lateral view. 13) The same of male from Greene Co., Arkansas. Abbreviations as in Fig. 5–6.

Figure 14 in Parajulid milliped studies XII: Initial assessment of Ptyoiulus Cook 1895 and neotype designations for Julus impressus Say 1821 and J. montanus Cope 1869 (Diplopoda: Julida)

Figure 14. Distributions of species of Ptyoiulus. Black dots, P. impressus. Open black circle in southeastern Pennsylvania, denoted by the black arrow, is the neotype locality. Red dots, P. montanus. Open red circle in central North Carolina, denoted by the red arrow, is the neotype locality. Blue dots, geographically significant samples lacking adult males and presently unidentifiable to species.

Figures 5–6. Ptyoiulus spp. anterior gonopods, caudal views. 5 in Parajulid milliped studies XII: Initial assessment of Ptyoiulus Cook 1895 and neotype designations for Julus impressus Say 1821 and J. montanus Cope 1869 (Diplopoda: Julida)

Figures 5–6. Ptyoiulus spp. anterior gonopods, caudal views. 5) P. impressus. 6) P. montanus. at, anterior gonopod telopodite; ca, calyx; cp, coxal process stem.

Figure 4 in Parajulid milliped studies XII: Initial assessment of Ptyoiulus Cook 1895 and neotype designations for Julus impressus Say 1821 and J. montanus Cope 1869 (Diplopoda: Julida)

Figure 4. Distributions of Ptyoiulus/Ptyoiulinae plotted against the maximal extent of the Western Interior Seaway during the Cretaceous Period, Mesozoic Era. All land areas shown are in the eastern land mass, Appalachia, which was separated from western Laramidia by the vertical, latitudinal arm of the Seaway (not shown), which segregated Ptyoiulus from bollmaniulinines in Laramidia but is irrelevant to Ptyoiulus itself. The Seaway spread eastward south of Appalachia and when it receded, P. impressus spread southward into the formerly inundated area. 1, large, contiguous main range area. 2, small, disjunct northernmost population extending from Montreal, Québec, to northern Vermont. 3, disjunct population along the southwestern coast of Lake Michigan. 4, disjunct area in northeastern/eastcentral Arkansas. 5, point locality in northeastern Louisiana vouchered by females. The transect denoted by the red lines near the center of the distribution is the band occupied by both P. montanus and P. impressus; the latter occurs alone to the north and south.

Figures 1–3 in Parajulid milliped studies XII: Initial assessment of Ptyoiulus Cook 1895 and neotype designations for Julus impressus Say 1821 and J. montanus Cope 1869 (Diplopoda: Julida)

Figures 1–3. Pilosity and epiproct variation on caudalmost rings of Ptyoiulus impressus. 1) Specimen from Morgan Co., Ohio. 2) Specimen from Allen Co., Kentucky. 3) Specimen from Leon Co., Florida. e, epiproct; h, hypoproct; lp, left paraproct.

Figs 36–44. 36–40 in Identity of taxa proposed inClythra (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Cryptocephalinae) by Carl Peter Forsberg (1821)

Figs 36–44. 36–40 – Tituboea biguttata (Olivier, 1791) (holotype of Clythra sexpunctata Forsberg, 1821, ♀, 8.5 mm): 36 – dorsal habitus; 37 – lateral habitus; 38 – frontal habitus; 39 – box label; 40 – label of holotype. 41–44 – Tituboea macropus (Illiger, 1800) (holotype of Clythra coalita Forsberg, 1821, J, 10.0 mm): 41 – dorsal habitus; 42 – lateral habitus; 43 – box label; 44 – label of holotype.

Figs 45–49 in Identity of taxa proposed inClythra (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Cryptocephalinae) by Carl Peter Forsberg (1821)

Figs 45–49. Tituboea biguttata (Olivier, 1791) (holotype of Clythra quadrisignata Forsberg, 1821, ♀, 6.2 mm): 45 – dorsal habitus; 46 – lateral habitus; 47 – frontal habitus; 48 – box label; 49 – label of holotype.

Figs 7–16. 7–11 in Identity of taxa proposed inClythra (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Cryptocephalinae) by Carl Peter Forsberg (1821)

Figs 7–16. 7–11 – Clytra duodecimmaculata duodecimmaculata (Fabricius, 1775) (holotype of Clythra gigas Forsberg, 1821, J, 11.5 mm): 7 – dorsal habitus; 8 – lateral habitus; 9 – frontal habitus; 10 – box label; 11 – label of holotype. 12–16 – Coptocephala plagiocephala (Fabricius, 1792) (holotype of Clythra bipunctata Forsberg, 1821, ♀, 7.5 mm): 12 – dorsal habitus; 13 – lateral habitus; 14 – frontal habitus; 15 – box label; 16 – label of holotype.

Figs 17–26. 17–21 in Identity of taxa proposed inClythra (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Cryptocephalinae) by Carl Peter Forsberg (1821)

Figs 17–26. 17–21 – Macrolenes dentipes (Olivier, 1808) (holotype of Clythra crassimana Forsberg, 1821, J, length of elytra 4.0 mm): 17 – dorsal habitus; 18 – lateral habitus; 19 – frontal habitus; 20 – box label; 21 – label of holotype. 22–26 – Megalostomis analis (Forsberg, 1821) (holotype, J, 9.5 mm): 22 – dorsal habitus; 23 – lateral habitus; 24 – frontal habitus; 25 – box label; 26 – label of holotype.

Figs 1–6 in Identity of taxa proposed inClythra (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Cryptocephalinae) by Carl Peter Forsberg (1821)

Figs 1–6. Mastostethus ruficauda (Forsberg, 1821) (holotype, 9.5 mm): 1 – dorsal habitus; 2 – lateral habitus; 3 – ventral habitus; 4 – frontal habitus; 5 – box label; 6 – label of holotype.

Figs 1-4 in Four new species of genus Acinopus DEJEAN, 1821, subgenus Acinopus from southern Iran, from Sinai, and from western Saudi Arabia, and faunistic and taxonomic notes on species previously described (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Harpalini, Harpalina)

Figs 1-4: Acinopus DEJEAN, 1821. Habitus. (1) A. orszuliki nov.sp. (male paratype, type locality). (2) A. sinaiticus nov.sp. (male paratype, Mt. Katherine). (3) A. brittoni nov.sp. (female paratype, type locality). (4) A. arabicus nov.sp. (male paratype, type locality).

Fig. 17 in Four new species of genus Acinopus DEJEAN, 1821, subgenus Acinopus from southern Iran, from Sinai, and from western Saudi Arabia, and faunistic and taxonomic notes on species previously described (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Harpalini, Harpalina)

Fig. 17: One of the localities where A. orszuliki nov.sp. was found (Mahan, SE Kerman, 2500 m, Artemisia-high-altitude steppe).

Figs 13-16 in Four new species of genus Acinopus DEJEAN, 1821, subgenus Acinopus from southern Iran, from Sinai, and from western Saudi Arabia, and faunistic and taxonomic notes on species previously described (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Harpalini, Harpalina)

Figs 13-16: Acinopus DEJEAN, 1821. Female genitalia, (right hemisternite, gonocoxite1, 2, ventral view). (13) A. orszuliki nov.sp. (paratype, type locality). (14) A. sinaiticus nov.sp. (paratype, Mt. Katherine). (15) A. brittoni nov.sp. (paratype, type locality). (16) A. arabicus nov.sp. (paratype, type locality). Scale bar: 1.0 mm.

Figs 9-12 in Four new species of genus Acinopus DEJEAN, 1821, subgenus Acinopus from southern Iran, from Sinai, and from western Saudi Arabia, and faunistic and taxonomic notes on species previously described (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Harpalini, Harpalina)

Figs 9-12: Acinopus DEJEAN, 1821. Median lobe of male. (9, 10) A. brittoni nov.sp. (9) Lateral view (holotype). (10) dorsal view (paratype). (11, 12) A. arabicus nov.sp. (11) Lateral view (paratype). (12) dorsal view (holotype). Scale bar: 1.6 mm.

Figs 5-8 in Four new species of genus Acinopus DEJEAN, 1821, subgenus Acinopus from southern Iran, from Sinai, and from western Saudi Arabia, and faunistic and taxonomic notes on species previously described (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Harpalini, Harpalina)

Figs 5-8: Acinopus DEJEAN, 1821. Median lobe of male. (5, 6) A. orszuliki nov.sp. (5) Lateral view (holotype). (6) dorsal view (paratype, type locality). (7, 8) A. sinaiticus nov.sp. (7) Lateral view (holotype). (8) dorsal view (paratype, Mt. Katherine). Scale bar: 1.6 mm.

Fig 1 in Evolutionary relationships of Macaca fascicularis fascicularis (Raffles 1821) (Primates: Cercopithecidae) from Singapore revealed by Bayesian analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequences

Fig 1. Map of Southeast Asia showing the approximate location of the new (Singapore and Bali) and GenBank sequences included in the study. Numbers correspond to the following locations (haplotype IDs in parentheses): ★, Singapore (Sing1–3); 1, Vietnam (Viet1 & 2); 2, Cambodia (Camb1 & 2); 3, Thailand (Thai1); 4, Thailand (Thai2); 5, Malaysia (Selangor1 & 2); 6, Malaysia (Johor); 7, south Sumatra, Indonesia (Sumatra1 & 2, Java1); 8, Java (Java1); 9, Kalimantan, Borneo (Borneo3); 10, Sarawak, Borneo (Borneo1); 11, Sepilok, Borneo (Borneo2); 12, Bali, Indonesia (Bali1 & 2); 13, Sibuyan, Philippines (Phil1); 14, Bangkok, Thailand (Thai3 & 4); 15, Malaysia (W. Malay); 16, Malaysia (E. Malay2); 17 Malaysia (E. Malay1);18, north Sumatra (Sumatra3–6, 9); 19, west Borneo, Indonesia (Borneo9); 20, west Borneo, Indonesia (Borneo4–7); 21, central Borneo, Indonesia (Borneo4 & 6); 22, Bangka, south Sumatra (Sumatra 7 & 8); 23, Java, Indonesia (Java2 & 3); 24, northeast Borneo, Indonesia (Borneo8); 25, Mindanao, Philippines (Phil2); 26, Timor (Timor). Several Borneo haplotypes appear in multiple locations.

Fig 4. Median-joining haplotype network for M in Evolutionary relationships of Macaca fascicularis fascicularis (Raffles 1821) (Primates: Cercopithecidae) from Singapore revealed by Bayesian analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequences

Fig 4. Median-joining haplotype network for M. fascicularis. The size of the circular nodes representing haplotypes is proportional to the number of sequences comprising the haplotype. Shading of circular nodes corresponds to general geographic groupings including Sundaic islands (white), mainland Indochina (gray), Malay Peninsula and northern Sumatra (dark gray), and Singapore (black). Haplotype identifications are presented in Table 1.

Fig 3 in Evolutionary relationships of Macaca fascicularis fascicularis (Raffles 1821) (Primates: Cercopithecidae) from Singapore revealed by Bayesian analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequences

Fig 3. Phylogenetic tree topology from Bayesian inference of 12S/tRNA-val/16S mtDNA sequences using a Birth-Death speciation tree prior, and HYK+G+I nucleotide substitution model in BEAST v2.1.3. Lettered identifications for clades are presented below the branches at major nodes. Posterior probabilities are displayed above the branches at nodes. Numbers in parentheses appearing with haplotype identifications are presented in Table 1, and correspond to numbered locations presented on the Figure 1 map. The Singapore haplotypes form two phylogenetic subgroupings, one from the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve (Sing1) and the other from the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (Sing2 & Sing3).

Fig 2 in Evolutionary relationships of Macaca fascicularis fascicularis (Raffles 1821) (Primates: Cercopithecidae) from Singapore revealed by Bayesian analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequences

Fig 2. Map of central Singapore showing the sampling locations in the Bukit Timah (BTNR) and Central Catchment (CCNR) Nature Reserves. Map created using ArcGIS® (ESRI® 2015).