Find research datasets worth reusing

FIGURE 1 in Toward a unified taxonomy of Niphargus (Crustacea: Amphipoda): a review of morphological variability

FIGURE 1. Body types and variability of body sizes. A: Niphargus pupetta, (4 mm, after Sket 1971); B: N. jovanovici (10 mm, after S. Karaman 1943a); C: N. skopljensis, (7.5 mm, after S. Karaman 1943a); D: N. balcanicus (30 mm, after S. Karaman 1932); E: N. macedonicus (19 mm, after S. Karaman 1943a); F: N. sanctinaumi (22 mm, after S. Karaman 1943a); G: differences in size between N. orcinus and N. transitivus (25 and 2.2 mm, respectively, adapted from Sket 1999). Note the variability in general aspects of proportions of some body parts such as lengths of antennae, pereopods, uropods and size of gnathopods. The polygon on N. macedonicus indicates the line along which we measured the body length.

FIGURE 5 in Toward a unified taxonomy of Niphargus (Crustacea: Amphipoda): a review of morphological variability

FIGURE 5. Variable proportions of parts of antenna I (A–F), antenna II (L–N) and various degree of development of additional structures. A: N. macedonicus, l1–l3 indicate the lines along which we measured the lengths of antenna I peduncle (adapted from S. Karaman 1950); B: N. orcinus (after S. Karaman 1950); C: N. grandii (after Sket 1972); D: N. krameri (after G. Karaman 1984b); E: N. pectinicauda (after Sket 1971); F N. rostratus (after Sket 1971); G: accessory flagellum of N. jovanovici (S. Karaman 1943a); H: accessory flagellum of N. rostratus (after Sket 1971); I: number of aesthetascs in N. macedonicus (S. Karaman 1943a); J: number of aesthetascs in N. smederevanus (after S. Karaman 1950); K: visor on the peduncle article I of antenna I in N. pupetta (after Sket 1971); L: N. dalmatinus l4–l6 indicate the lines along which we measured lengths of antenna II (original drawing); M: N. grandii (after Sket 1972); N: N. croaticus (after Jurinac 1888).

FIGURE 8 in Toward a unified taxonomy of Niphargus (Crustacea: Amphipoda): a review of morphological variability

FIGURE 8. Variability of carpus, propodus and dactylus of gnathopods I and II. Note differences in sizes of propodi I–II, inclination of palm, relative length of carpus and the size of posterior enlargement on carpus. A: N. croaticus (Jurinac 1888), B: N. trullipes (G. Karaman 1984a); C: N. bilecanus (S. Karaman 1953); D: N. orcinus (S. Karaman 1950); E: N. salonitanus (G. Karaman 1984a); F: N. grandii (Sket 1972); G: N. maximus (S. Karaman 1943a); H: N. parvus (S. Karaman 1943a); I: N. tamaninii (Ruffo 1953b); J: N. brevirostris; K: N. rostratus; L: N. transitivus (J–L after Sket 1971).

FIGURE 2 in Toward a unified taxonomy of Niphargus (Crustacea: Amphipoda): a review of morphological variability

FIGURE 2. Variability of a head. A: well developed rostrum (the arrow indicates the tip of the rostrum), Niphargus rostratus (after Sket 1971); B: extremely narrowed and elongated genal lobes N. pupetta (after Sket 1971); extraordinary spiniform setae of N. balcanicus (after S. Karaman 1932). The arrow indicates the line along which the head length was measured.

Figure 5 in Integrative taxonomy of the primitively segmented spider genus Ganthela (Araneae: Mesothelae: Liphistiidae): DNA barcoding gap agrees with morphology

Figure 5. Ganthela jianensis Xu, Kuntner & Chen sp. nov. A, female (XUX-2013-536). B, C, female genitalia (XUX-2013-534): B, dorsal view; C, ventral view; RC, receptacular cluster. Scale bar 0.5 mm.

Figure 2 in Integrative taxonomy of the primitively segmented spider genus Ganthela (Araneae: Mesothelae: Liphistiidae): DNA barcoding gap agrees with morphology

Figure 2. DNA barcoding gap for Ganthela. Histograms show division of intraspecific (grey) and interspecific (black) COI sequence variation based on Kimura two-parameter (K2P, A) and uncorrected p-distance (B).

Figure 8 in Integrative taxonomy of the primitively segmented spider genus Ganthela (Araneae: Mesothelae: Liphistiidae): DNA barcoding gap agrees with morphology

Figure 8. Ganthela xianyouensis Xu, Kuntner & Chen sp. nov. A, female (XUX-2013-151). B, C, female genitalia (XUX- 2013-153): B, dorsal view; C, ventral view. RC, receptacular cluster. Scale bar: 0.5 mm.

Figure 4 in Integrative taxonomy of the primitively segmented spider genus Ganthela (Araneae: Mesothelae: Liphistiidae): DNA barcoding gap agrees with morphology

Figure 4. Ganthela cipingensis (Wang, 1989). A, female (XUX-2013-516). B, C, female genitalia (XUX-2013-517): B, dorsal view; C, ventral view; RC, receptacular cluster. Scale bar: 0.5 mm.

Figure 7 in Integrative taxonomy of the primitively segmented spider genus Ganthela (Araneae: Mesothelae: Liphistiidae): DNA barcoding gap agrees with morphology

Figure 7. Ganthela wangjiangensis Xu, Kuntner & Liu sp. nov. A, B, female genitalia (XUX-2013-159). A, dorsal view; B, ventral view. RC, receptacular cluster. Scale bar: 0.5 mm.

Figure 3 in Integrative taxonomy of the primitively segmented spider genus Ganthela (Araneae: Mesothelae: Liphistiidae): DNA barcoding gap agrees with morphology

Figure 3. Haplotype networks of Ganthela under a 95% parsimony criterion. The size of each open circle indicates haplotype frequency, numbers preceded by 'H' indicate haplotype number, and numbers in brackets indicate population sizes. Open dots on lines connecting haplotypes indicate a substitution. Dashed lines enclosing haplotype networks correspond to morphological and consensus species.

Figure 6 in Integrative taxonomy of the primitively segmented spider genus Ganthela (Araneae: Mesothelae: Liphistiidae): DNA barcoding gap agrees with morphology

Figure 6. Ganthela qingyuanensis Xu, Kuntner & Liu sp. nov. A, female (XUX-2013-139). B, C, female genitalia (XUX- 2013-142). D, E, female genitalia (XUX-2013-148). B, D, dorsal view; C, E, ventral view. F–H, male (XUX-2012-228) palp: F, prolateral view; G, ventral view; H, retrolateral view. Abbreviations: Co, conductor; CT, contrategulum; E, embolus; PC, paracymbium; T, tegulum; Scale bars: B–E, 0.5 mm; F–H, 1 mm.

Figure 9 in Integrative taxonomy of the primitively segmented spider genus Ganthela (Araneae: Mesothelae: Liphistiidae): DNA barcoding gap agrees with morphology

Figure 9. Ganthela venus Xu sp. nov. A, B, female genitalia (XUX-2013-160): A, dorsal view; B, ventral view. RC, receptacular cluster. Scale bar: 0.5 mm.

Figure 1. Bayesian COI gene tree for 51 in Integrative taxonomy of the primitively segmented spider genus Ganthela (Araneae: Mesothelae: Liphistiidae): DNA barcoding gap agrees with morphology

Figure 1. Bayesian COI gene tree for 51 terminals of Ganthela, with the results of five different species delimitation approaches, in addition to morphology (see legend). Numbers above branches show posterior probability and bootstrap supports, and values below branches show mean intraspecific (black) and interspecific genetic distances (red), calculated as Kimura two-parameter (K2P)/p-distance. Species names and locality group terminals (for specimen codes, see Table 1) according to consensus results of species delimitation approaches.

Figures 55–61 in Taxonomy and phylogeny of the Asphondylia species (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) of North American goldenrods: challenging morphology, complex host associations, and cryptic speciation

Figures 55–61. Asphondylia silva sp. nov.: 55, male head; 56, female head; 57, female flagellomere 5; 58, female abdomen; 59, male terminalia, dorsal; 60, 61, larval spatulae. Scale bars: 0.1 mm.

Figures 50–54 in Taxonomy and phylogeny of the Asphondylia species (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) of North American goldenrods: challenging morphology, complex host associations, and cryptic speciation

Figures 50–54. Asphondylia pseudorosa sp. nov. larval spatulae: 50, 51, from inflorescence galls; 52–54, from bud galls. Scale bars: 0.1 mm.

Figures 38–44 in Taxonomy and phylogeny of the Asphondylia species (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) of North American goldenrods: challenging morphology, complex host associations, and cryptic speciation

Figures 38–44. Asphondylia larval spatulae: 38, 39, Asphondylia solidaginis; 40, 41, Asphondylia rosulata sp. nov.; 42–44, spatulae of larvae taken from Solidago gigantea snap galls. Scale bars: 0.1 mm.

Figures 31–37 in Taxonomy and phylogeny of the Asphondylia species (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) of North American goldenrods: challenging morphology, complex host associations, and cryptic speciation

Figures 31–37. Asphondylia monacha, larva: 31, head and prothorax; 32–34, spatula of spring-generation larvae; 35– 37, spatula of summer-generation larvae. Scale bars: 0.1 mm.

Figures 45–49 in Taxonomy and phylogeny of the Asphondylia species (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) of North American goldenrods: challenging morphology, complex host associations, and cryptic speciation

Figures 45–49. Asphondylia pseudorosa sp. nov.: 45, male head; 46, female head; 47, female flagellomeres 10–12; 48, male terminalia, dorsal; 49, male hypoprocts showing intraspecific morphological diversity. Scale bars: 0.1 mm.

Figures 28–30 in Taxonomy and phylogeny of the Asphondylia species (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) of North American goldenrods: challenging morphology, complex host associations, and cryptic speciation

Figures 28–30. Asphondylia monacha, male terminalia: 28, dorsal; 29, ventral; 30, lateral. Scale bars: 0.1 mm.

Figures 23–27 in Taxonomy and phylogeny of the Asphondylia species (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) of North American goldenrods: challenging morphology, complex host associations, and cryptic speciation

Figures 23–27. Asphondylia monacha: 23, male flagellomere 5; 24, female flagellomere 5; 25, female flagellomeres 10– 12; 26, female abdomen; 27, male abdomen. Scale bars: 0.1 mm.