Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2007View details →

Fig. 8 in Fractal analysis of ostracod shell variability: A comparison with geometric and classic morphometrics

Fig. 8. This plot is the same as in Fig. 7, except for marks have been appended according to sample of provenance instead of species.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2007View details →

Fig. 3 in Fractal analysis of ostracod shell variability: A comparison with geometric and classic morphometrics

Fig. 3. Krithe compressa (Seguenza, 1880), right valves; transparence drawings from external view; sample 50 (A–G), sample 51 (H–R), sample 58 (S–BB); upper Pliocene. A. KC−01, B.O.C. 2519. B. KC−02, B.O.C. 2520. C. KC−03, B.O.C. 2521. D. KC−04, B.O.C. 2522.E. KC−05, B.O.C. 2523. F. KC−06, B.O.C. 2524. G. KC−07, B.O.C. 2525. H. KC−08, B.O.C. 2526. I. KC−09, B.O.C. 2527. J. KC−10, B.O.C. 2528. K. KC−11, B.O.C. 2529. L. KC−12, B.O.C. 2530. M. KC−13, B.O.C. 2531. N. KC−14, B.O.C. 2532. O. KC−15, B.O.C. 2533. P. KC−16, B.O.C. 2534. Q. KC−17, B.O.C. 2535. R. KC−18, B.O.C. 2536. S. KC−19, B.O.C. 2537. T. KC−20, B.O.C. 2538. U. KC−21, B.O.C. 2539. V. KC−22, B.O.C. 2540. W. KC−23, B.O.C. 2541. X. KC−24, B.O.C. 2542. Y. KC−25, B.O.C. 2543. Z. KC−26, B.O.C. 2544. AA. KC−27, B.O.C. 2545. BB. KC−28, B.O.C. 2546.

Figure 2 in Geometric morphometric analysis of Eysarcoris guttiger, E. annamita and E. ventralis (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae)

Figure 2. Boxplot of the centroid sizes of the four Eysarcoris species. A. Fore wing. B. Hind wing. C. Pygophore.

Figure 3 in Further geometric morphometric analysis on the genus Eysarcoris (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) from China

Figure 3. Canonical variate analysis (CVA) based on the shape variables of different characters showing 90% confidence ellipses of population means. A. Forewing, B. Hindwing. C. Pygophore. D. Head. E. Pronotum. F. Scutellum.

Figure 2 in Further geometric morphometric analysis on the genus Eysarcoris (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) from China

Figure 2. Comparisons of CS variables among species of Eysarcoris. A. Forewing, B. Hindwing. C. Pygophore. D. Head. E. Pronotum. F. Scutellum.

Figure 1 in Further geometric morphometric analysis on the genus Eysarcoris (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) from China

Figure 1. Curves selection of three characters, resampled into 30, 100 and 50 semi-landmarks respectively. A. Head, outline curved of the tylus and jugum. B. Pronotum, outline curved. C. Scutellum, outline curved.

Figure 6 in Evolution of the zygomasseteric construction in Rodentia, as revealed by a geometric morphometric analysis of the mandible of Graphiurus (Rodentia, Gliridae)

Figure 6. Zygomasseteric construction in extinct and extant Gliridae with the origin and insertion of the lateral (thin arrows) and medial (thick arrows) portions of the masseteric muscle. A, QP 625, Gliravus majori (Quercy, France, Oligocene), protrogomorphy; B, ITD 140 Bransatoglis micio [Itardies, Quercy, Oligocene (MP23)], derived protrogomorphy (or primitive myomorphy); C, Glis glis, myomorphy; D, Graphiurus hueti, hystricomorphy. The dotted lines are reconstructions. Abbreviations: iof, infraorbital foramen; zp, zygomatic plate. Scale bar, 5 mm.

Figure 4 in Evolution of the zygomasseteric construction in Rodentia, as revealed by a geometric morphometric analysis of the mandible of Graphiurus (Rodentia, Gliridae)

Figure 4. Plot of the discriminant analysis of the Fourier coefficients versus morphological type. Solid symbols indicate families with hystricomorphous skull: squares, Anomaluridae; rhombi, Ctenodactylidae; circles, Pedetidae; triangles, Dipodidae; stars, Graphiurinae. Open symbols indicate myomorph families: stars, Gliridae (Glirinae/Leithiinae); rhombi, Nesomyidae; circles, Muridae; triangles, Cricetidae.

Figure 2 in Evolution of the zygomasseteric construction in Rodentia, as revealed by a geometric morphometric analysis of the mandible of Graphiurus (Rodentia, Gliridae)

Figure 2. Phylogenetic hypotheses for Graphiurus (A) based on cranial and dental characters of fossils and living species (Vianey-Liaud & Jaeger, 1996), (B) based on cranial and dental characters of living species (Wahlert et al., 1993), (C) based on dental morphological characters of fossils and extant species (Daams & De Brujn, 1995), (D) based on incisor enamel microstructure (Koenigswald, 1995), (E) based on partial mitochondrial gene sequences (Bentz & Montgelard, 1999), and (F) based on partial mitochondrial and nuclear gene sequences (Montgelard et al., 2003).

Figure 1 in Evolution of the zygomasseteric construction in Rodentia, as revealed by a geometric morphometric analysis of the mandible of Graphiurus (Rodentia, Gliridae)

Figure 1. The four basic types of rodent skulls. A, protrogomorphy; B, sciuromorphy; C, hystricomorphy; D, myomorphy. Thin and thick arrows show the origin and the insertion of the lateral and medial portions of the masseter respectively.

Fig. 10 in Landmark and outline-based geometric morphometrics analysis of three Stomoxys flies (Diptera: Muscidae)

Fig. 10. Outline-based discriminant analysis. Factor map of canonical variates (i.e. discriminant factors) derived from the principal components of the Normalised Elliptic Fourier coefficients of three species of Stomoxys Geoffroy, 1762, in males (A) and females (B).

Fig. 6 in Landmark and outline-based geometric morphometrics analysis of three Stomoxys flies (Diptera: Muscidae)

Fig. 6. Configurations of the ten anatomical landmarks connected by a straight line after procrustes superimposition of three species of Stomoxys Geoffroy, 1762, in males (A) and females (B).

Fig. 2 in Landmark and outline-based geometric morphometrics analysis of three Stomoxys flies (Diptera: Muscidae)

Fig. 2. Morphological characters of tibia and tarsus used to separate Stomoxys pullus Austen, 1909 (A), S. uruma Shinonaga et Kano, 1966 (B) and S. indicus Picard, 1908 (C).

Fig. 3 in Landmark and outline-based geometric morphometrics analysis of three Stomoxys flies (Diptera: Muscidae)

Fig. 3. Ten landmarks digitised on wings of species of Stomoxys Geoffroy, 1762 flies for landmark-based geometric morphometrics analysis (see Table 2 for description).

Fig. 9 in Landmark and outline-based geometric morphometrics analysis of three Stomoxys flies (Diptera: Muscidae)

Fig. 9. Configurations of the outlines after Elliptic Fourier Analysis of Stomoxys pullus Austen, 1909, S. uruma Shinonaga et Kano, 1966 and S. indicus Picard, 1908, in males (A) and females (B). Areas outlined by different colours represent shape, not size.

Fig. 5 in Landmark and outline-based geometric morphometrics analysis of three Stomoxys flies (Diptera: Muscidae)

Fig. 5. Centroid size variation of the wings between species and sexes, shown as quartile boxes. Each box shows the group median separating the 25th and 75th quartiles. Vertical bars under the boxes represent the wing (units as mm).

Fig. 1 in Landmark and outline-based geometric morphometrics analysis of three Stomoxys flies (Diptera: Muscidae)

Fig. 1. Morphological characters of palpi used to separate Stomoxys pullus Austen, 1909 (A), S. uruma Shinonaga et Kano, 1966 (B) and S. indicus Picard, 1908 (C).

Fig. 8 in Landmark and outline-based geometric morphometrics analysis of three Stomoxys flies (Diptera: Muscidae)

Fig. 8. Perimeter variation of the wings between species and sexes, shown as quartile boxes. Each box shows the group median sepa- rating the 25th and 75th quartiles. Vertical bars under the boxes represent the wing (units as mm).

Fig. 7 in Landmark and outline-based geometric morphometrics analysis of three Stomoxys flies (Diptera: Muscidae)

Fig. 7. Landmark-based discriminant analysis. Factor map of canonical variates resulting from comparison among the three species of Stomoxys Geoffroy, 1762, in males (A) and females (B).

Fig. 4 in Landmark and outline-based geometric morphometrics analysis of three Stomoxys flies (Diptera: Muscidae)

Fig. 4. Contour digitised on Stomoxys Geoffroy, 1762 flies wing for outline-based geometric morphometrics analysis. A short, artificial segment is computed by the digitising program to completely close the contour.