Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 12 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 12. Lophiomus immaculioralis sp. nov., holotype (NTUM16313, sample ID: WJC7777). A. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. B. Ditto, ventral view. C. Ditto, fresh specimen. D. Ditto, floor of mouth.

Fig. 13 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 13. Lophiomus nigriventris sp. nov. A–D. Holotype (NTUM15096, sample ID: WJC5808). E–H. Subadult paratype (NTUM12188, sample ID: PNG3184). A. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. B. Ditto, ventral view. C. Ditto, fresh specimen. D. Ditto, floor of mouth. E. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. F. Ditto, ventral view. G. Ditto, fresh specimen. H. Ditto, floor of mouth.

Fig. 8 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 8. Lophiomus setigerus (Vahl, 1797). A–D. Neotype (NTUM10408, sample ID: WJC0905). E–H. Large specimens (NTUM14414, sample ID: WJC7223). A. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. B. Ditto, ventral view. C. Ditto, fresh specimen. D. Ditto, floor of mouth. E. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. F. Ditto, ventral view. G. Ditto, fresh specimen. H. Ditto, floor of mouth.

Fig. 11. Lophiomus laticeps stat. rev., newly collected specimens. A–D in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 11. Lophiomus laticeps stat. rev., newly collected specimens. A–D. Large (NTUM13463, sample ID: NC1375). E–H. Small (NTUM13468, sample ID: NC964). A. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. B. Ditto, ventral view. C. Ditto, fresh specimen. D. Ditto, floor of mouth. E. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. F. Ditto, ventral view. G. Ditto, fresh specimen. H. Ditto, floor of mouth.

Fig. 9. Lophius indicus Alock, 1889. A–D in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 9. Lophius indicus Alock, 1889. A–D. Large syntype (BMNH 1890.11.28.45). E–H. Small syntype (BMNH 1890.11.28.45.46). A. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. B. Ditto, ventral view. C. Ditto, floor of mouth. D. Ditto, X-ray radiograph. E. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. F. Ditto, ventral view. G. Ditto, floor of mouth. H. Ditto, X-ray radiograph. Photographed by L. Goodayle. © Trustees of the Natural History Museum, London (available under CC-BY 4.0).

Fig. 10. Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 10. Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910, holotype (AMS E. 2973). A. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. B. Ventral view. C. Floor of mouth. D. X-ray radiograph in dorsal view. E. X-ray radiograph in lateral view (white triangles indicate the dorsal-fin spines; gray triangles indicate the dorsal-fin rays). Photographed by K. Parkinson.

Fig. 6 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 6. CVA biplot of the first and second canonical variates (CV1 and CV2) of species of Lophiomus Gill, 1883 based on 16 measurements and meristic counts (see Results).

Fig. 14 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 14. Lophiomus carusoi sp. nov., holotype (MNHN 2024-0099, sample ID: NC2059). A. Preserved specimen, dorsal view. B. Ditto, ventral view. C. Fresh specimen. D. Preserved specimen, floor of mouth.

Fig. 7 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 7. Cranial comparative osteology of the three lophiid genera. A. Lophiodes mutilus (Alcock, 1894). B. Lophius litulon (Jordan, 1902). C. Lophiomus setigerus (Vahl, 1797). Scale bars = 10 mm.

Fig. 4 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 4. Phylogenetic trees of species of Lophiomus Gill, 1883 reconstructed by partitioned maximumlikelihood and Bayesian inference methods based on the TC dataset (4146 bp, COI: 663 bp; cytb: 1143 bp; RAG1: 1440 bp; Rhodopsin: 900 bp; ML: TN + F + I (partition 1, 1–663), GTR + F + I + G4 (partition 2, 664–1806), TPM3 + F + G4 (partition 3, 1807–3246), TPM2u+F+I (partition 4, 3247–4146); BI: with the same partition but changed to HKY + I (partition 1), GTR + I + G (partition 2), GTR + G (partition 3), GTR+I (partition 4)). Phylogenetic tree branch lengths are proportional to inferred nucleotide substitutions except the connection to distant outgroup Lophiodes mutilus. Node numbers represent 'SH-aLRT / UFBoot / pp.' values, with the former two values expressed in percent (%). See the caption of Fig. 2 for locality abbreviations. Terminal names in bold suggest the newly described or resurrected taxa in this study.

Fig. 5 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 5. PCA biplot of the first and second principal components (PC1 and PC2) of species of Lophiomus Gill, 1883, with a total of 49.2% of explained variation based on 16 measurements and meristic counts (see Results). Ellipses indicate the confidence interval level set at 0.68 for each group. Arrows represent the direction of the variables projected into the 2D plane of PC1 and PC2.

Fig. 3 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 3. Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree of species of Lophiomus Gill, 1883 based on the NU dataset (2340 bp, RAG1: 1440 bp;Rhodopsin: 900 bp; TPM3u + F + G4 (1–1440 bp), TPM2u + F + I (1441– 2340 bp)). Phylogenetic tree branch lengths are proportional to inferred nucleotide substitutions except the connection to distant outgroup Lophiodes mutilus. Node numbers represent 'SH-aLRT / UFBoot' values in percent (%). See the caption of Fig. 2 for locality abbreviations. The terminal names in bold suggest the newly described or resurrected taxa in this study.

Fig. 1 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 1. Bathymetric terrain map of eastern Indian Ocean and West Pacific showing the occurrence points of species of Lophiomus Gill, 1883 based on the samples/sequences included in the analyses of this study. White circle: type locality of the species of Lophiomus.

Fig. 2 in Integrative taxonomy reveals unanticipated hidden diversity in the monotypic goosefish genus Lophiomus (Teleostei, Lophiidae), with description of three new species and resurrection of Chirolophius laticeps Ogilby, 1910

Fig. 2. Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree of the species of Lophiomus Gill, 1883 based on the MT dataset (1806 bp, COI: 663 bp; cytb: 1143 bp; TN + F + I (1–663 bp), GTR + F + I + G4 (664–1806 bp)) with species delimitation analyses (vertical bars on the right side of the tree). Branch lengths of the phylogenetic tree are proportional to the inferred nucleotide substitutions except for the one connecting to the distant outgroup of Lophiodes mutilus. Node numbers represent 'SH-aLRT / UFBoot' values in percent (%). Locality abbreviations: AU = Australia (NSW = New South Wales; Qld = Queensland; WA = Western Australia); CS = Coral Sea; HN = Hainan Island; IN = India; NC = New Caledonia; PH = Penghu Island; PL = Philippine; PNG = Papua New Guinea; SCS = South China Sea; TH = Thailand; TW = Taiwan. Text next to final decisions represents inferred taxon names and numbers of supported criteria covering all available criteria, with proportions in parentheses.

Fig. 10 in Integrative taxonomy helps to revise systematics and questions the purported cosmopolitan nature of the type species within the genus Diaforobiotus (Eutardigrada: Richtersiusidae)

Fig. 10 Diaforobiotus svalbardicus sp. nov.: eggs seen in PCM: A, D, G focus on egg processes surface; B, E, H focus on egg processes midsections; C, F, I focus on egg surface between processes. Triples A–C, D–F, G–I represent three different eggs photographed with dif-

Fig. 1 in Integrative taxonomy helps to revise systematics and questions the purported cosmopolitan nature of the type species within the genus Diaforobiotus (Eutardigrada: Richtersiusidae)

Fig. 1 Diaforobiotus islandicus (Richters, 1904): habitus and cuticular pores seen in PCM: A adult habitus, dorso-ventral projection (neotype); B, C cuticular pores on dorsal and ventral side of the body, respectively; D pulvinus on the internal surface of leg III. Filled flat arrowheads indicate cuticular bars above the claws in legs I–III. Scale bars inμm

Fig. 8 in Integrative taxonomy helps to revise systematics and questions the purported cosmopolitan nature of the type species within the genus Diaforobiotus (Eutardigrada: Richtersiusidae)

Fig. 8 Diaforobiotus svalbardicus sp. nov.: bucco-pharyngeal apparatus seen in PCM: A dorsal projection of the entire bucco-pharyngeal apparatus; B, C dorsal (B) and ventral (C) views of the oral cavity armature; D, E dorsal (D) and ventral (E) view of macroplacoids. Empty arrows indicate dorsal spikes, filled flat arrowheads indicate the first band of teeth, empty flat arrowheads indicate the second band of teeth, filled indented arrowheads indicate the third band of teeth, empty indented arrowhead indicates the medial tooth in dorsal portion of the third band of teeth whereas filled arrows indicate constrictions in macroplacoids. Scale bars in μm

Fig. 4 in Integrative taxonomy helps to revise systematics and questions the purported cosmopolitan nature of the type species within the genus Diaforobiotus (Eutardigrada: Richtersiusidae)

Fig. 4 Diaforobiotus islandicus (Richters, 1904): eggs seen in PCM: A, C, E focus on egg processes; B, D, F focus on egg surface between processes. Pairs A–B, C–D, E–F represent three different eggs photographed with different focus. Filled flat arrowheads indicate rings of pores surrounding egg processes. Scale bars in μm

Fig. 6 in Integrative taxonomy helps to revise systematics and questions the purported cosmopolitan nature of the type species within the genus Diaforobiotus (Eutardigrada: Richtersiusidae)

Fig. 6 Diaforobiotus svalbardicus sp. nov.: habitus and cuticular pores seen in PCM: A adult habitus, dorso-ventral projection (holotype); B, C cuticular pores on dorsal and ventral side of the body, respectively (holotype). Filled flat arrowheads indicate cuticular bars above the claws in legs I–III. Scale bars in μm