Find research datasets worth reusing

Figure 5 in Comparative morphology of the dermal palate in squamate reptiles, with comments on phylogenetic implications

Figure 5. Three-dimensional high-resolution X-ray computed tomographic (HRXCT) reconstructions. A, Rhacodactylus auriculatus, ventral view; B, R. auriculatus, transverse cutaway slice 038; C, Saltuarius cornutus, sagittal cutaway slice 176; D, R. auriculatus, sagittal cutaway slice 184. Scale bars = 5 mm.

Figure 4 in Comparative morphology of the dermal palate in squamate reptiles, with comments on phylogenetic implications

Figure 4. Three-dimensional high-resolution X-ray computed tomographic (HRXCT) reconstructions. A, Uromastyx aegyptia, ventral view; B, U. aegyptia, transverse cutaway slice 047; C, Plica plica, sagittal cutaway slice 148; D, Morunasaurus annularis, sagittal cutaway slice 163. Scale bars = 5 mm.

Figure 3 in Comparative morphology of the dermal palate in squamate reptiles, with comments on phylogenetic implications

Figure 3. Three-dimensional high-resolution X-ray computed tomographic (HRXCT) reconstructions of Sphenodon punctatus. A, ventral view; B, transverse cutaway slice 024. Scale bar = 5 mm.

Figure 10 in Comparative morphology of the dermal palate in squamate reptiles, with comments on phylogenetic implications

Figure 10. Three-dimensional high-resolution X-ray computed tomographic (HRXCT) reconstructions. A, Typhlops jamaicensis, transverse cutaway slice 146; B, Lampropeltis getula (Linnaeus, 1766), transverse cutaway slice 089; C, Dibamus novaeguineae, transverse cutaway slice 113; D, T. jamaicensis, transverse cutaway slice 186; E, Homalopsis buccata (Linnaeus, 1758), transverse cutaway slice 081; F, Xenodermus javanicus, transverse cutaway slice 070. Scale bars = 2 mm.

Figure 2 in Comparative morphology of the dermal palate in squamate reptiles, with comments on phylogenetic implications

Figure 2. Three-dimensional high-resolution X-ray computed tomographic (HRXCT) reconstructions. A, Morunasaurus annularis, ventral view; B, M. annularis, transverse cutaway slice 151; C, Tiliqua scincoides (White, 1790), ventral view; D, T. scincoides, transverse cutaway slice 150. Scale bars = 5 mm.

Figure 9 in Comparative morphology of the dermal palate in squamate reptiles, with comments on phylogenetic implications

Figure 9. Three-dimensional high-resolution X-ray computed tomographic (HRXCT) reconstructions. A, Heloderma horridum (Wiegmann, 1829), ventral view; B, H. horridum, sagittal cutaway slice 160; C, Lanthanotus borneensis, ventral view; D, L. borneensis, transverse cutaway slice 067. Scale bars = 5 mm.

Figure 6 in Comparative morphology of the dermal palate in squamate reptiles, with comments on phylogenetic implications

Figure 6. Three-dimensional high-resolution X-ray computed tomographic (HRXCT) reconstructions. A, Lacerta viridis (Laurenti, 1768), ventral view; B, L. viridis, transverse cutaway slice 066; C, L. viridis, sagittal cutaway slice 173; D, L. viridis, transverse cutaway slice 087; E, Cordylus mossambicus (Fitzsimons, 1958), transverse cutaway slice 107. Scale bars = 5 mm.

Figure 7 in Comparative morphology of the dermal palate in squamate reptiles, with comments on phylogenetic implications

Figure 7. Three-dimensional high-resolution X-ray computed tomographic (HRXCT) reconstructions of Ophisaurus apodus. A, ventral view; B, sagittal cutaway slice 161; C, transverse cutaway slice 091. Scale bar = 5 mm.

Figure 32. Dorsal gill arches. A in Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)

Figure 32. Dorsal gill arches. A, Hiodon alosoides (UMA F10597, 62 mm SL). B, Xenomystus nigri (FMNH 69494, approx. 90 mm SL). C, Myomyrus macrodon (MCZ 50218, 102 mm SL). D, Osteoglossum bicirrhosum (UMA F10336, approx. 55 mm SL); iph1 of the left side is missing from this specimen and is indicated by dashed line. E, Pantodon buchholzi (FMNH 63752, 74 mm SL); iph2 of right side is abnormally small. F, Arapaima gigas (UMA F11261, 145 mm SL); gill rakers omitted from the left side. All in ventral (= oral) view except Hiodon, which is in dorsal view. Cartilage shown in black. Anterior facing left. Illustration of Hiodon modified from Hilton (2002: fig. 56).

Figure 41 in Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)

Figure 41. Semi-schematic illustrations of right opercles in medial view (except C, which is left opercle in lateral view). A, Elops (UMA F10255; 425 mm SL). B, Hiodon (UMA F10177; 267 mm SL). C, †Lycoptera (Modified from Jin et al., 1995: fig. 6). D, Arapaima (UMA F11263; est. 1270 mm SL). E, Pantodon (UMA F11264; 70 mm SL). F, Xenomystus (FMNH 69494; approx. 90 mm SL). G, Scleropages (UMA F11266, approx. 320 mm SL). H, Osteoglossum (UMA F10160, 365 mm SL). I, Gnathonemus (UMA F11267, approx. 140 mm SL). Anterior facing left.

Figure 38. Caudal skeleton. A in Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)

Figure 38. Caudal skeleton. A, †Phareodus testis (UMA F11332, 260 mm SL). B, Osteoglossum bicirrhosum (FMNH 109232a, 270 mm SL). C, Pantodon buchholzi (FMNH 63752, 62 mm SL). D, Heterotis niloticus (UMA F10653, 75 mm SL). Anterior facing left.

Figure 31 in Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)

Figure 31. Ventral elements of the gill arches and basihyal of mormyrids. A, Petrocephalus simus (MCZ 50113, 55 mm SL). B, Campylomormyrus tamandua (FMNH 55300B, 84 mm SL). C, basibranchial toothplate, basibranchial 1 and urohyal of C. rhynchophorus (MCZ 50166, 97 mm SL). A & B shown in dorsal and ventral views; C shown in lateral view. Arrow in A & B indicates the position at which the hypohyals and ceratohyals meet the basihyal/basibranchial skeleton. Cartilage shown in black. Anterior facing left.

Figure 23 in Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)

Figure 23. Suspensorium and opercular bones in lateral view. A, Chitala chitala (UMA F10349, 437 mm SL). B, Osteoglossum bicirrhosum (UMA F10160, 365 mm SL). Note the groove-like opening in the ventral portion of the preopercular sensory canal. Also notice that in Chitala there is are no distinct horizontal and vertical limbs of the preopercle (see Discussion in Characters Not Used in Analysis). The element labelled 'dpl + ecp' has been suggested in the past to be a fusion of the dermopalatine and the ectopterygoid, although no ontogenetic evidence supports this (see Character 30). Anterior facing left.

Figure 18 in Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)

Figure 18. Occipital region in ventral view. A, Elops saurus (UMA F10255, 425 mm SL). B, Hiodon alosoides (UMA F10581, 315 mm SL). C, Osteoglossum bicirrhosum (UMA F10160, 365 mm SL). D, Arapaima gigas (UMA F10355, est. 1500 + mm TL). E, Gnathonemus petersii (UMA F11267, approx. 140 mm SL). F, Chitala chitala (UMA F10349, 437 mm SL). G, Pantodon buchholzi (UMA F11265, approx. 50 mm SL). Anterior facing left.

Figure 24 in Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)

Figure 24. Suspensorium and opercular bones in medial view. A, Chitala chitala (UMA F10349, 437 mm SL). B, Osteoglossum bicirrhosum (UMA F10160, 365 mm SL). Note that the subopercle is absent in Chitala (as it is in all notopterids) and is reduced and positioned along the anteroventral margin of the opercle in Osteoglossum. The interopercle is missing in this specimen of Osteoglossum. The element labelled 'dpl + ecp' has been suggested in the past to be a fusion of the dermopalatine and the ectopterygoid, although no ontogenetic evidence supports this (see Character 30). Anterior facing right.

Figure 35 in Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)

Figure 35. Caudal skeleton of two small juveniles of Arapaima gigas. A, photograph and B, line drawing of a 57-mm SL specimen (FMNH 97450a). C, photograph and D, line drawing of an 145 SL specimen (UMA F11261). Fin rays omitted from drawings. Note the two fused neural arches and spines on pu2 in FMNH 97450a (A & B). Note also the teratological nature of pu3 in UMA F11261 (C & D). In FMNH 97450a, the only elements of the caudal skeleton that have fused are hypurals 3 and 4, which have partially fused to each other as well as firmly fused to the second ural centrum (A & B). By 145 mm SL (UMA F11261; C & D), hypurals 3 through 6 have all fused to u2, and the uroneural is partially fused to hypural 6. Anterior facing left.

Figure 17 in Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)

Figure 17. Head of †Lycoptera cf. davidi (UMA F10652, 110 mm SL) in lateral view. Arrows indicate well-developed parasphenoid teeth. Anterior facing right.

Figure 30 in Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)

Figure 30. Ventral elements of the gill arches and the basihyal shown in dorsal (= oral) and ventral views. A, Hiodon alosoides (UMA F10597, 62 mm SL). B, Xenomystus nigri (FMNH 69494, approx. 90 mm SL). C, Arapaima gigas (UMA F11261, 145 mm SL), gill rakers omitted from the right side. D, Pantodon buchholzi (FMNH 63752, 74 mm SL). Cartilage shown in black. Anterior facing left. Arrow indicates the position at which the hypohyals meet the basihyal/basibranchial skeleton. Illustration of ventral view of Hiodon modified from Hilton (2002: fig. 56).

Figure 15 in Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)

Figure 15. †Lycoptera davidi. A, isolated skull roof from a small specimen (MNHN 1927-13-06 a¢). This specimen is preserved as an impression in ventral view. Note the small length of the frontals relative to the parietals. B, isolated elements of the lower jaw and hyoid arch (MNHN 1927-13- 06 e¢). This partial specimen, which is preserved in dorsal view (right lower jaw in medial view), clearly shows the presence of a gular plate. The impression left by what is possibly the basihyal toothplate (visible on the counterpart of this specimen) is marked by a dashed grey line. Anterior facing left.

Figure 12. A in Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)

Figure 12. A specimen identified as †Joffrichthys sp. (FMNH PF12171b). This specimen is a black latex peel dusted with ammonium chloride made from a natural mould of one half of the specimen. This specimen was collected from the Sentinel Butte Formation, North Dakota – the same locality as †J. triangulpterus Newbrey & Bozek, 2000. The type species of the genus, †J. symmetropterus Li & Wilson, 1996b, is known from the Paskapoo Formation of Alberta, Canada. Although this specimen consists of only a disarticulated skull, pectoral girdle, pectoral fin and pelvic fin, much detail of the morphology is visible. The specimen was identified as †Joffrichthys based on the combination of the shape of the opercle and preopercle and the morphology of the parasphenoid and maxilla. Note that the subopercle is large, extending along the entire ventral edge of the opercle. Scale in millimeters. Anterior facing left.