Find research datasets worth reusing

Figure 8 in High level of phenotypic homoplasy amongst eutardigrades (Tardigrada) based on morphological and total evidence phylogenetic analyses

Figure 8. Maximum clade credibility phylogram obtained with Bayesian inference using combined data: morphological matrix without gamete-related characters and molecular data (18S rRNA and 28S rRNA). Values above branches are posterior probabilities supports.

Figure 3 in High level of phenotypic homoplasy amongst eutardigrades (Tardigrada) based on morphological and total evidence phylogenetic analyses

Figure 3. The four states coded in the present study for the shape of the apophyses for the insertion of the stylet muscles (AISM) (characters 14, 15; Table 2). A State 1: AISM divided in two; B AISM shaped as one ridge; C AISM shaped as two ridges; D AISM shaped as three ridges. The images represent half a buccal tube in lateral view. The arrow in B indicates an apophysis for the insertion of the stylet muscles connecting with the end of the mouth. The rest of the apophyses for the insertion of the stylet muscles connect with the beginning of the buccal tube.

Figure 1 in High level of phenotypic homoplasy amongst eutardigrades (Tardigrada) based on morphological and total evidence phylogenetic analyses

Figure 1. Eutardigrade peribuccal structures indicated by arrows. A, lamellae (state 1 in Tables 3 and 4); B, papulae (state 3 in Tables 3 and 4); C, lobes.

Figure 7 in High level of phenotypic homoplasy amongst eutardigrades (Tardigrada) based on morphological and total evidence phylogenetic analyses

Figure 7. Agreement subtree with groups present with all concavities obtained with the Ratchet algorithm for parsimonious analyses using combined data: morphological matrix without gamete-related characters and molecular data (18S rRNA and 28S rRNA). Values above branches are bootstrap supports after 1000 replicates with a k-value of 16. Values under branches are Bremer relative supports with a k-value of 16.

Figure 5. Agreement subtree cladogram obtained with the Ratchet algorithm for parsimonious analyses using the complete morphological matrix without gamete-related characters. Values above branches are bootstrap supports after 1000 in High level of phenotypic homoplasy amongst eutardigrades (Tardigrada) based on morphological and total evidence phylogenetic analyses

Figure 5. Agreement subtree cladogram obtained with the Ratchet algorithm for parsimonious analyses using the complete morphological matrix without gamete-related characters. Values above branches are bootstrap supports after 1000 replicates; values under branches are Bremer relative supports.

Figure 2 in High level of phenotypic homoplasy amongst eutardigrades (Tardigrada) based on morphological and total evidence phylogenetic analyses

Figure 2. Different states (from 0 to 5) coded in the present study for the shape of the furcae (character 13; Table 2).

Figure 4 in High level of phenotypic homoplasy amongst eutardigrades (Tardigrada) based on morphological and total evidence phylogenetic analyses

Figure 4. Different types of claws present amongst eutardigrades (A–N) and in the outgroup Echiniscidae (O). M modified from Pilato (1971). Dotted lines in F and G indicate right angles in Isohypsibius- and Hypsibius-type claws, respectively. Arrows in D and E indicate cuticular bars joining external and internal claws in Dactylobiotus and Macroversum, respectively. Arrows in L indicate claw position. PIII, third pair of legs. PIV, fourth pair of legs.

Figure 4 in Phylogenetic analysis of the tribe Macropelopiini (Chironomidae: Tanypodinae): adjusting homoplasies

Figure 4. Paggipelopia spaccesii gen. et sp. nov., A, cephalic setation, ventral; B, cephalic setation, dorsal; C, apex of antenna; D, mandible; E, ligula and paraligula; F, dorsomental plate. Scale bars = 100 μm, except B = 20 μm.

Figure 2 in Phylogenetic analysis of the tribe Macropelopiini (Chironomidae: Tanypodinae): adjusting homoplasies

Figure 2. Paggipelopia spaccesii gen. et sp. nov., adults. A–D, Male. A, abdomen in dorsal view; B, wing, borders and veins lined over electronically; C, hypopygium in dorsal view; D, drawing of hypopygium in dorsal (left) and ventral (right) view. E–G, Female. E, antenna; F, wing, borders and veins lined over; G, genitalia. Scale bars = 200 μm; except C,D = 50 μm.

Figure 3 in Phylogenetic analysis of the tribe Macropelopiini (Chironomidae: Tanypodinae): adjusting homoplasies

Figure 3. Paggipelopia spaccesii gen. et sp. nov., pupa. A, cephalothorax, general view; B, frontal apotome; C, thoracic setae: Dc1, Dc2 and Sa from left to right; D, thoracic horn; E, abdominal segment IV, dorsal view, borders and left setae lined over; F, abdominal segments VII, VIII and anal lobe; G, detail of apex of anal lobe: male (left) and female (right).

Figure 1. Cladogram obtained under K in Phylogenetic analysis of the tribe Macropelopiini (Chironomidae: Tanypodinae): adjusting homoplasies

Figure 1. Cladogram obtained under K = 5. The numbers above the nodes represent, from left to right the absolute and relative Bremer supports, respectively.

opennotspecifiedSep 2021View details →

Figure 4 in Mosaic patterns of homoplasy accompany the parallel evolution of suspensory adaptations in the forelimb of tree sloths (Folivora: Xenarthra)

Figure 4. Geometric morphometric principal components analysis of the ulna, humerus and scapula of xenarthrans. A, the first two axes of the ulna GM analysis. No other principal components (PC) axis accounts for more than 5% of variation. B, the first two axes of the humerus GM analysis. The small amount of variation accounted for by PC2 is likely due to the small sample sizes for the taxa it differentiates, specifically armadillos, the two giant ground sloths, and to a lesser extent Hapalops. PC3 accounts for 5.6% of variation and differentiates Cyclopes from Paramylodon and Glossotherium. No other axes account for more than 5% of variation. C, the first two PCs of the scapula GM analysis. PCs 3 and 4 account for 8.6% and 6.3% of variation, respectively. PC 3 separates Cyclopes from other taxa, and PC 4 separates Cyclopes and Dasypus from Choloepus. No other PC accounts for more than 5% of variation. Sloth scapula specimens identified with a thick rimmed circle and black dot indicate the specimens shown in 4D. D, Choloepus (centre) has a relatively conserved gross scapular morphology (compare with Paramylodon on right), especially when compared with Bradypus (left), but it has mapped functional traits such as an angled scapular spine onto that conserved bauplan. Squares indicate armadillos, rounded squares indicate anteaters, and circles indicate sloths.

opennotspecifiedSep 2021View details →

Figure 5 in Mosaic patterns of homoplasy accompany the parallel evolution of suspensory adaptations in the forelimb of tree sloths (Folivora: Xenarthra)

Figure 5. Geometric morphometric phylomorphospace of the ulna, humerus and scapula. A, phylomorphospace of the ulna shows that tree sloths inhabit the same region of morphospace, suggesting extensive parallel evolution relative to their last common ancestor, while giant ground sloths and armadillos diverged in the opposite direction and anteaters appear to have diverged little from the last

opennotspecifiedSep 2021View details →

Figure 1 in Mosaic patterns of homoplasy accompany the parallel evolution of suspensory adaptations in the forelimb of tree sloths (Folivora: Xenarthra)

Figure 1. Phylogeny used in this study showing the relationships among living xenarthrans and extinct sloths based on recent molecular studies (see methods for details on how the tree was constructed). Extant tree sloths are labelled in purple. Hapalops and Acratocnus have been argued to show adaptations for arboreality, although these adaptations might also reflect digging habits. Other sloths are almost certainly terrestrial based on size. None of these forms show adaptation to suspensory behaviours and thus it is likely that this morphobehavioural suite evolved independently in living sloths. A cross symbol (†) indicates an extinct taxon.

Figure 24 in Homoplasy in shells discombobulated the taxonomy: revision of the larger helicarionid land snails of northern Queensland, Australia (Stylommatophora: Helicarionidae)

Figure 24. Genitalia of Elatonitor suturalis. a, c-d) AM C.524931, Wooroonooran NP. b) QM MO76507, Babinda. a) Reproductive system. b) Spermatophore. c) Penis interior. d) Details of the basal reproductive system. Scale bars: 1 mm.

Figure 22 in Homoplasy in shells discombobulated the taxonomy: revision of the larger helicarionid land snails of northern Queensland, Australia (Stylommatophora: Helicarionidae)

Figure 22. Shells of Elatonitor. a) Elatonitor montanus, QM MO48601 (holotype). b) Elatonitor suturalis, NHRM 940 (paralectotype). Scale bar: 10 mm.

Figure 19 in Homoplasy in shells discombobulated the taxonomy: revision of the larger helicarionid land snails of northern Queensland, Australia (Stylommatophora: Helicarionidae)

Figure 19. Genitalia of Pravonitor monteithi. a) QM MO48669, Isley Hills. Reproductive system. b-c) QM MO48203, Lamb's Head. b) Spermatophore. c) Penis interior. Scale bars: 1 mm.

Figure 18 in Homoplasy in shells discombobulated the taxonomy: revision of the larger helicarionid land snails of northern Queensland, Australia (Stylommatophora: Helicarionidae)

Figure 18. Genitalia of Pravonitor kreffti, QM MO86003 (neotype), Thursday Island. a) Reproductive system. b) Penis interior. Scale bars: 1 mm.

Figure 17 in Homoplasy in shells discombobulated the taxonomy: revision of the larger helicarionid land snails of northern Queensland, Australia (Stylommatophora: Helicarionidae)

Figure 17. Genitalia of Pravonitor ferrugineus, QM MO21506, Heathlands. a) Reproductive system. b) Penis interior. Scale bars: 1 mm.

Figure 16 in Homoplasy in shells discombobulated the taxonomy: revision of the larger helicarionid land snails of northern Queensland, Australia (Stylommatophora: Helicarionidae)

Figure 16. Genitalia of Pravonitor aquilonia. a, f) QM MO24773, Mt Lewis. b-e) AM C.533529, Cape Tribulation. a) Reproductive system. b) Spermatophore. c) Penis with tunica opened. d) base of reproductive system. e) Penis interior. f) Penis interior. Scale bars: 1 mm.