Find research datasets worth reusing

Figure 18 in More than a gut feeling: utility of midgut anatomy in phylogeny of the Cerithioidea (Mollusca: Caenogastropoda)

Figure 18. Midgut evolution of cerithioideans. Strict consensus of 122 equally parsimonious trees, tree length, L = 766 steps, consistency index, CI = 0.31, retention index, RI = 0.65, resulting from parsimony analysis of 151 morphological characters for 56 taxa (47 ingroup, nine outgroup taxa) (Strong et al., in press; fig. 4); six nodes collapse in the strict consensus. Optimization of 28 midgut characters is shown using ACCTRAN optimization. Black hashmarks indicate forward changes, white hashmarks indicate homoplasies. Jackknife values are indicated at the nodes on the right; Bremer support (above) and parititioned Bremer support for midgut characters (below) are indicated at the nodes on the left. Three main assemblages are numbered. White arrows indicate families resolved as non-monophyletic.

Figure 2 in More than a gut feeling: utility of midgut anatomy in phylogeny of the Cerithioidea (Mollusca: Caenogastropoda)

Figure 2. Midgut anatomy of Plesiotrochidae. Plesiotrochus unicinctus (USNM 1083784). Scale bar: 0.5 mm; refer to the text for a list of anatomical abbreviations.

Figure 1 in More than a gut feeling: utility of midgut anatomy in phylogeny of the Cerithioidea (Mollusca: Caenogastropoda)

Figure 1. Generalized cerithioidean midgut anatomy; refer to the text for a list of anatomical abbreviations.

Figure 5 in More than a gut feeling: utility of midgut anatomy in phylogeny of the Cerithioidea (Mollusca: Caenogastropoda)

Figure 5. Midgut anatomy of Cerithiidae. A, Cerithium vulgatum (USNM 1143352). B, Cerithium nodulosum (ZMB 107.141). Scale bars: 1 mm; refer to the text for a list of anatomical abbreviations.

Figure 10 in More than a gut feeling: utility of midgut anatomy in phylogeny of the Cerithioidea (Mollusca: Caenogastropoda)

Figure 10. Midgut anatomy of Potamididae. A, Cerithidea scalariformis (USNM 1143351). B, Telescopium telescopium (USNM 828804). C, Terebralia semistriata (USNM 1083479). Note that a small accessory pad is present, but is not visible in this view. D, Tympanotonus fuscatus (USNM 858078). Scale bars: 1.0 mm; refer to the text for a list of anatomical abbreviations.

Figure 4 in More than a gut feeling: utility of midgut anatomy in phylogeny of the Cerithioidea (Mollusca: Caenogastropoda)

Figure 4. Midgut anatomy of Cerithiidae. A, Cerithidium fuscum (USNM 1084217). Scale bar: 0.5 mm. B, Bittiolum varium (USNM 1143345). Scale bar: 0.5 mm. C, Bittium reticulatum (USNM 858185). Scale bar: 0.5 mm. D, Cacozeliana granaria (USNM 1083787). Scale bar: 1 mm. E, Ittibittium parcum (USNM 857100). Scale bar: 0.5 mm. Refer to the text for a list of anatomical abbreviations.

Figure 14 in More than a gut feeling: utility of midgut anatomy in phylogeny of the Cerithioidea (Mollusca: Caenogastropoda)

Figure 14. Midgut anatomy of Pachychilidae. A, Tylomelania abendanoni (MNHN). B, Tylomelania palicolarum (MNHN). Scale bars: 1.0 mm; refer to the text for a list of anatomical abbreviations.

Figure 9 in More than a gut feeling: utility of midgut anatomy in phylogeny of the Cerithioidea (Mollusca: Caenogastropoda)

Figure 9. Midgut anatomy of Planaxidae. A, Fossarus ambiguus (USNM 857631). Scale bar: 0.5 mm. B, Planaxis sulcatus (USNM 1083482). Scale bar: 1.0 mm. Refer to the text for a list of anatomical abbreviations.

Figure 13 in More than a gut feeling: utility of midgut anatomy in phylogeny of the Cerithioidea (Mollusca: Caenogastropoda)

Figure 13. Midgut anatomy of Pachychilidae. A, Brotia pagodula (ZMH 3891). B, Faunus ater (USNM 1143354). C, Pachychilus indiorum (AM C.324125). D, Potadoma cf. freethi (MRAC 796831). Scale bars: 1.0 mm; refer to the text for a list of anatomical abbreviations.

Figure 5 in Phylogeny of the gastropod superfamily Cerithioidea using morphology and molecules

Figure 5. Analysis of extended molecular data set (16S, 28S). A, parsimony analysis; strict consensus of two equally parsimonious trees, length = 10 002, consistency index = 0.31, retention index = 0.44. Jackknife values (1000 replicates) greater than 50 are indicated at the node. B, Bayesian analysis; posterior probabilities are indicated at the node. Three main assemblages are numbered; see text for details. Open arrows indicate families resolved as nonmonophyletic.

Figure 1 in Phylogeny of the gastropod superfamily Cerithioidea using morphology and molecules

Figure 1. Shell diversity of representative marine (m), brackish (b), and freshwater (f) Cerithioidea. Not to scale; shell lengths given in parentheses. A, Ittibittium parcum (Gould, 1861) (Cerithiidae) (m) (2.8 mm); B, Diastoma melanioides (Reeve, 1849) (Diastomatidae) (m) (49.7 mm); C, Diala semistriata (Philippi, 1849) (Dialidae) (m) (4.7 mm); D, Tenagodus anguinus (Linné, 1758) (Siliquariidae) (m) (44.6 mm); E, Turritella terebra (Linné, 1758) (Turritellidae) (m) (91.8 mm); F, Cerithium atratum (Born, 1778) (Cerithiidae) (m) (28.3 mm); G, Scaliola bella Adams, 1860 (Scaliolidae) (m) (3.5 mm); H, Modulus modulus (Linné, 1758) (Modulidae) (m) (10.6 mm); I, Alaba monile Adams, 1862 (Litiopidae) (m) (5.8 mm); J, Planaxis sulcatus (Born, 1780)) (Planaxidae) (m) (23.8 mm; K, Fossarus garrettii Pease, 1868 (Planaxidae) (m) (5.5 mm); L, Telescopium telescopium (Linné, 1758) (Potamididae) (b) (81.5 mm); M, Pyrazus ebeninus (Bruguière, 1792) (Batillariidae) (m/b) (91.7 mm); N, Tympanotonus fuscatus (Linné, 1758) (Potamididae) (b) (41.9 mm); O, Cerithidea anticipata Iredale, 1929 (Potamididae) (b) (36.6 mm); P, Elimia virginica (Gmelin, 1791) (Pleuroceridae) (f) (20.0 mm); Q, Paludomus pictus Reeve, 1847 (Paludomidae) (f) (23.1 mm); R, Lavigeria grandis Smith, 1881 (Paludomidae) (f) (30.9 mm); S, Pleurocera canaliculata (Say, 1821) (Pleuroceridae) (f) (35.2 mm); T, Brotia pagodula (Gould, 1847) (Pachychilidae) (f) (29.8 mm); U, Faunus ater (Linné, 1758) (Pachychilidae) (b/f) (62.6 mm); V, Semisulcospira libertina (Gould, 1859) (Semisulcospiridae) (f) (32.9 mm); W, Melanopsis praemorsa (Linné, 1758) (Melanopsidae) (f) (22.2 mm); X, Stenomelania plicaria (Born, 1780) (Thiaridae) (f) (58.4 mm); Y, Thiara amarula (Linné, 1758) (Thiaridae) (f) (42.5 mm).

Figure 10 in Phylogeny of the gastropod superfamily Cerithioidea using morphology and molecules

Figure 10. Morphological evolution of cerithioideans. Morphological characters mapped with accelerated transformation (ACCTRAN) optimization on Bayesian topology for the combined morphological and pruned molecular data sets. Only changes and nodes shared with the topology obtained for morphological data alone are highlighted; for simplicity, autapomorphies along terminal branches are not shown. Characters in bold represent unambiguous character changes. * indicates a node that appears in the morphological phylogeny, with the exception of Scaliolidae. Black hashmarks indicate forward changes; white hashmarks indicate homoplasies. Three main assemblages are numbered. Open arrows indicate families resolved as nonmonophyletic.

Figure 6 in Phylogeny of the gastropod superfamily Cerithioidea using morphology and molecules

Figure 6. Analysis of extended molecular data set (16S, 28S) with unconserved regions removed. A, parsimony analysis; strict consensus of 14 equally parsimonious trees, length = 4870, consistency index = 0.34, retention index = 0.46. Jackknife values (1000 replicates) greater than 50 are indicated at the node. B, Bayesian analysis; posterior probabilities are indicated at the node. Three main assemblages are numbered; see text for details. Open arrows indicate families resolved as nonmonophyletic.

Figure 4 in Phylogeny of the gastropod superfamily Cerithioidea using morphology and molecules

Figure 4. Analysis of morphological data set. Strict consensus of 122 equally parsimonious trees, length = 766, consistency index = 0.31, retention index = 0.65, resulting from parsimony analysis of 151 characters for 56 taxa (47 ingroup, nine outgroup taxa). All characters unordered and equally weighted. Jackknife values (1000 replicates) greater than 50 are indicated at the node. Three main assemblages are numbered; see text for details. *, Scaliolidae occurs in assemblage 2 in all other topologies. Open arrows indicate families resolved as nonmonophyletic.

Figure 3 in Phylogeny of the gastropod superfamily Cerithioidea using morphology and molecules

Figure 3. Hypotheses of cerithioidean relationships based on molecular data, modified from Lydeard et al. (2002: figs 1, 2). A, strict consensus tree of four equally parsimonious trees based on parsimony analysis of mtLSU rDNA and flanking tRNA gene sequences, all characters unordered and equally weighted; B, single most parsimonious tree based on weighted parsimony analysis (transversions 2 ¥ transitions). Three main assemblages are numbered; see text for details. Open arrows indicate families resolved as nonmonophyletic.

Figure 9 in Phylogeny of the gastropod superfamily Cerithioidea using morphology and molecules

Figure 9. Comparative performance of parsimony (Par) and Bayesian (Bay) methods of inference in returning monophyletic clades of cerithioideans in analyses of the morphological partition (Morph), the extended 16S data set (Split 16S), the extended 28S data set (Split 28S), the extended 16S + 28S data sets combined (Split Mol) and with unconserved regions removed (Split Mol G), and the combined morphological and pruned molecular data sets (Morph Mol) and with unconserved regions removed (Morph Mol G). Black indicates monophyly, grey indicates nonmonophyly, white indicates not applicable. Abbreviations: Cerith, Cerithioidea; Pachy, Pachychilidae; Bat, Batillariidae; Turr, Turritellidae; Plan, Planaxidae; Cer, Cerithiidae; Sca, Scaliolidae; Pot, Potamididae; Pal, Paludomidae; Thi, Thiaridae; Mel, Melanopsidae; Pleur, Pleuroceridae; Sem, Semisulcospiridae; Group 1, Batillariidae, Cerithiidae, Dialidae, Diastomatidae, Litiopidae, Planaxidae, Siliquariidae, Turritellidae; Group 2, Modulidae, Paludomidae, Potamididae, Scaliolidae, Thiaridae; Group 3, Melanopsidae, Pleuroceridae, Semisulcospiridae. Note that taxon sampling is not identical, so that the composition of Groups 1, 2, and 3 may differ slightly.

Figure 2 in Phylogeny of the gastropod superfamily Cerithioidea using morphology and molecules

Figure 2. Hypotheses of cerithioidean relationships based on morphological data. A, modified from Houbrick (1988: fig. 2); B, modified from Ponder (1991: fig. 12); C, modified from Glaubrecht (1996: fig. 5); D, modified from Simone (2001: fig. 441). Open arrows indicate families resolved as nonmonophyletic.

Figure 8 in Phylogeny of the gastropod superfamily Cerithioidea using morphology and molecules

Figure 8. Simultaneous analysis of morphological and pruned molecular data sets (16S, 28S) with unconserved regions removed. A, parsimony analysis; strict consensus of four equally parsimonious trees, length = 6255, consistency index = 0.33, retention index = 0.47. Jackknife values (1000 replicates) greater than 50 are indicated at the node. B, Bayesian analysis; posterior probabilities are indicated at the node. Three main assemblages are numbered; see text for details. Open arrows indicate families resolved as nonmonophyletic.

Figure 7 in Phylogeny of the gastropod superfamily Cerithioidea using morphology and molecules

Figure 7. Simultaneous analysis of morphological and pruned molecular data sets (16S, 28S). A, parsimony analysis; strict consensus of ten equally parsimonious trees, length = 10067, consistency index = 0.32, retention index = 0.45. Jackknife values (1000 replicates) greater than 50 are indicated at the node. B, Bayesian analysis; posterior probabilities are indicated at the node. Three main assemblages are numbered; see text for details. Open arrows indicate families resolved as nonmonophyletic.