Find research datasets worth reusing

opennotspecifiedOct 2015View details →

Fig. 2 in Functional morphology of the cave bear (Ursus spelaeus) mandible: a 3D geometric morphometric analysis

Fig. 2 Mandibles of Ursus spelaeus (a, b) and Tremarctos ornatus (c) and showing the position of the masseteric fossa (MF) and the premasseteric fossa (PMF). Positions of the landmarks on a mandible of Ursus spelaeus on the lingual side (a) and the labial side (b). The landmarks are described in Table 3. Not to scale. Part A of the figure also displays the biomechanics. The resistance (Fout) at the carnassial of the lower jaw depends on the muscular input force (Fin), the angle of insertion of the muscle onto the jaw (α) and the ratio of in-lever arm or moment arm (Li) to out-lever arm (Lo). Angle of insertion of jaw muscles changes during jaw closing and determines the moment arm of the muscular input force (Mi). Mass pertaining to the masseter, Temp pertaining to the temporalis. Li Mass and Mi Mass happen to be the same in this diagram

opennotspecifiedOct 2015View details →

Fig. 5 2B in Functional morphology of the cave bear (Ursus spelaeus) mandible: a 3D geometric morphometric analysis

Fig. 5 2B-PLS on the regression residuals of all extant Ursidae and U. spelaeus after a regression analysis of the Procrustes coordinates onto log centroid size pooled per species. A phylogenetic overlay is shown in gray

Fig. 4 in Several Subspecies or Phenotypic Plasticity? A Geometric Morphometric and Molecular Analysis of Variability of the Mayan Cichlid Mayaheros urophthalmus in the Yucatan

Fig. 4. Axis of CVA under aquatic environment approach with ellipses of the probability of 95%, and the grid of morphometric space of CVA with a factor of deformation ¼ 0.1; (A) axis 1 of CVA and (B) axis 2 of CVA.

Fig. 3. CVA 1 in Several Subspecies or Phenotypic Plasticity? A Geometric Morphometric and Molecular Analysis of Variability of the Mayan Cichlid Mayaheros urophthalmus in the Yucatan

Fig. 3. CVA 1 vs. CVA 2 by population at geometric morphometric space delimited by minimum convex polygons, and the grid of morphometric space of CVA with a factor of deformation ¼ 0.1; (A) axis 1 of CVA and (B) axis 2 of CVA.

Fig. 1 in Several Subspecies or Phenotypic Plasticity? A Geometric Morphometric and Molecular Analysis of Variability of the Mayan Cichlid Mayaheros urophthalmus in the Yucatan

Fig. 1. Study area, Yucatan Peninsula. Localities of M. urophthalmus taken into account for the geometric morphometric analysis, in gray numbers. Localities with genetic data, marked with an asterisk. Localities from nominal species included in the morphometric analysis: M. alborus (15), M. cienagae (10), M. conchitae (8), M. mayorum (6), and M. zebra (9).

Fig. 2 in Several Subspecies or Phenotypic Plasticity? A Geometric Morphometric and Molecular Analysis of Variability of the Mayan Cichlid Mayaheros urophthalmus in the Yucatan

Fig. 2. Constellation of landmarks and semilandmarks for the geometric morphometric analysis showing Procrustes superimposition of landmarks and semilandmarks. Anatomical positions of landmarks: Landmark 1—intersection between the posterior base of dorsal fin and caudal peduncle; Landmark 2—the most distal pore of the end of lateral line; Landmark 3—intersection between the posterior base of the pelvic fin and caudal peduncle; Landmark 4—intersection between anterior base of pelvic fin and belly; Landmark 5—apical intersection between subopercle and interopercle; Landmark 6—commissure of dentary at the more posterior end at its junction with the anguloarticular, quadrates, and ectometapterygoid bone; Landmarks 7 and 8—delimitation of the width of the commissure of dentary at its junction with the maxilla; Landmarks 9 and 10—delimitation of the width of the dentary at the more anterior end; Landmarks 10 and 12—delimitation of the width of the premaxilla at the more anterior end; Landmark 11—dorsal end of edge between opercle and cheek; Landmarks 12 to 24—the curve of 13 semilandmarks beginning at the intersection between the premaxilla and ascending process at semilandmark 12, the curve traced upwards until the base of dorsal fin at semilandmark 24.

Figure 3 in Taxonomic revision of the Hydroporus bodemeyeri species complex (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) with a geometric morphometric analysis of body shape within the group

Figure 3. Average landmark configuration and body shape of (A) Hydroporus anatolicus anatolicus; (B) H. anatolicus koksali ssp. nov.; (C) H. kurdistanicus sp. nov.; (D) H. bodemeyeri guignoti; (E) H. bodemeyeri bodemeyeri; (F) H. bodemeyeri cariaensis ssp. nov.; (G) H. cuprescens.

Figure 2 in Taxonomic revision of the Hydroporus bodemeyeri species complex (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) with a geometric morphometric analysis of body shape within the group

Figure 2(A–L). Median lobe in lateral and ventral view of (A) Hydroporus anatolicus anatolicus; (C) H. anatolicus koksali ssp. nov.; (E) H. bodemeyeri bodemeyeri; (G) H. bodemeyeri cariaensis ssp. nov.; (H) H. bodemeyeri guignoti; (I) H. cuprescens; (K) H. kurdistanicus sp. nov. Paramere of (B) Hydroporus anatolicus anatolicus; (D) H. anatolicus koksali ssp. nov.; (F) H. bodemeyeri bodemeyeri; (J) H. cuprescens; (L) H. kurdistanicus sp. nov.

Figure 4 in Taxonomic revision of the Hydroporus bodemeyeri species complex (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) with a geometric morphometric analysis of body shape within the group

Figure 4(A–C). Canonical variate analysis (CVA) on the specimen coordinates for body shape. Body shape variation along the first (x) and second (y) axis is depicted by superimposed extreme body shapes (black lines: negative sides of the axes; grey lines: positive sides of the axes). (A) all taxa examined; (B) group A: "anatolicus-kurdistanicus group"; (C) group B: the "bodemeyeri-cuprescens group".

Figure 1 in Taxonomic revision of the Hydroporus bodemeyeri species complex (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) with a geometric morphometric analysis of body shape within the group

Figure 1. Location of the landmarks (black circles) and sliding semilandmarks (white circles) on the body of Hydroporus.

Figure 6 in Species boundaries in Philaethria butterflies: an integrative taxonomic analysis based on genitalia ultrastructure, wing geometric morphometrics, DNA sequences, and amplified fragment length polymorphisms

Figure 6. Evolutionary relationships of Philaethria based on DNA sequences from specimens of Philaethria wernickei (southern population; Atlantic Rain Forest) and individuals previously described as Philaethria pygmalion (northern population; Amazon Forest), depicted by the green shading (grey in print version). Philaethria diatonica and Philaethria dido were used to root the tree. Purple (grey) circles represent individuals from the Atlantic Rain Forest and black triangles indicate samples from the Amazon Basin. A, consensus Bayesian tree based on mitochondrial (cytochrome oxidase subunit I, Co-I) and nuclear [triose-phosphate isomerase (Tpi), wingless (Wg), and tyrosine hydroxylase (TH)] DNA sequences. Posterior probabilities are shown above branches. Bootstrap node support based on maximum likelihood analysis is indicated below branches. Asterisks indicate node support lower than 70%. B, Median-joining network based on mtDNA and nuclear loci sequence data describing the relationship between haplotypes (purple indicates southern population, and black, northern population). Nucleotide substitutions are shown on the branches as small transverse bars. Circle size is proportional to haplotype frequency.

Figure 2 in Species boundaries in Philaethria butterflies: an integrative taxonomic analysis based on genitalia ultrastructure, wing geometric morphometrics, DNA sequences, and amplified fragment length polymorphisms

Figure 2. Location of linear measurements (A) and schematic representation (B, C) of Philaethria wings showing veins and landmarks adopted in this study. A, hind wing dorsal and ventral (detail) views, showing measured vectors. B, fore wing. C, hind wing. See Appendix S2 for details on morphological definitions of landmarks.

Figure 4 in Species boundaries in Philaethria butterflies: an integrative taxonomic analysis based on genitalia ultrastructure, wing geometric morphometrics, DNA sequences, and amplified fragment length polymorphisms

Figure 4. Linear variation in hind wing size and medial postdiscal bands for Philaethria wernickei and Philaethria pygmalion (left column), and in relation to latitude when samples from the two species are combined (right column). A, D, hind wing length. B, E, hind wing length/postdiscal band ratio (AB/DE). C, F, inner and medial postdiscal band ratio (EF/DF). See Fig. 2A for details on wing position of corresponding measurements. Numbers above boxes indicate the number of specimens measured in each class.

Figure 1 in Species boundaries in Philaethria butterflies: an integrative taxonomic analysis based on genitalia ultrastructure, wing geometric morphometrics, DNA sequences, and amplified fragment length polymorphisms

Figure 1. Geographical distributions of Philaethria wernickei and Philaethria pygmalion, and corresponding variation in male genitalia ultrastructure and ventral hind wing colour. A, shaded areas show distribution ranges proposed by Constantino & Salazar (2010) for P. wernickei (green) and P. pygmalion (red); green circles and red triangles represent collection localities of the material analysed in this study. B, variation in valva's cucullus, external view. C, variation in the colour pattern of hind wing surface, ventral view.

Figure 3 in Species boundaries in Philaethria butterflies: an integrative taxonomic analysis based on genitalia ultrastructure, wing geometric morphometrics, DNA sequences, and amplified fragment length polymorphisms

Figure 3. Male genitalia of Philaethria wernickei and Philaethria pygmalion. A, P. wernickei, lateral view. B, P. pygmalion, lateral view. C, schematic representation of generalized genitalia for both, in lateral view. D, F, H, J, scanning electron micrographs of P. wernickei; E, G, I, K, scanning electron micrographs of P. pygmalion. D, E, ampulla external view. F, G, ampulla internal view. H, I, ampulla ornamentation in detail. J, K, fultura inferior distal end. Scale bars = 150, 30, and 100 μm, for D–G, H–I, and J–K, respectively.

Figure 8 in Species boundaries in Philaethria butterflies: an integrative taxonomic analysis based on genitalia ultrastructure, wing geometric morphometrics, DNA sequences, and amplified fragment length polymorphisms

Figure 8. STRUCTURE-based clustering of Philaethria wernickei individuals from low (0–10°S) to high (20–25°S) latitudes (north and south populations, respectively) based on amplified fragment length polymorphism loci. Each individual is represented by a vertical line divided into segments of different colour that represent genetic clusters (K) from 1–4.

Figure 7 in Species boundaries in Philaethria butterflies: an integrative taxonomic analysis based on genitalia ultrastructure, wing geometric morphometrics, DNA sequences, and amplified fragment length polymorphisms

Figure 7. Multilocus consensus Bayesian tree based on cytochrome oxidase subunit I (Co-I), triose-phosphate isomerase (Tpi), wingless (Wg), and tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) sequences from specimens of Philaethria wernickei (Atlantic Rain Forest, purple circles) and individuals previously described as Philaethria pygmalion (Amazon Forest, black triangles) depicted by the green shading (grey in print version). Philaethria pygmalion and Philaethria dido were used to root the tree. Posterior probabilities are shown above branches and bootstrap node support based on maximum likelihood analysis is indicated below branches. Asterisks indicate node support lower than 70%.

opennotspecifiedMay 2012View details →

Figure 6 in Geometric morphometric analysis of shell shape variation in Conus (Gastropoda: Conidae)

Figure 6. Plot of the results of the principal components analysis (PCA) with the identified Conus specimens and specimens unidentified a priori. Labels indicate identification of specimens after the PCA. +, Conus consors;, Conus miles; ¥, Conus stercusmuscarum; O, Conus striatus; °, Conus textile; •, unidentified.

opennotspecifiedMay 2012View details →

Figure 1 in Geometric morphometric analysis of shell shape variation in Conus (Gastropoda: Conidae)

Figure 1. Conus species used in this study. A, Conus consors Sowerby ii, 1833; B, Conus miles Linnaeus, 1758; C, Conus stercusmuscarum Linnaeus, 1758; D, Conus striatus Linnaeus, 1758; E, Conus textile Linnaeus, 1758.