Find research datasets worth reusing

Figure 2 in Geometric morphometric analysis of shell shape variation in Conus (Gastropoda: Conidae)

Figure 2. Landmarks (LM) on a Conus specimen. LM1 – apex of the shell; LM2–5 – sutures between major whorls on right profile; LM6 – junction between end of suture and apertural lip; LM7 – outermost curve of aperture; LM8 – lowest point of aperture at base; LM9 – lowest point of last whorl at base; LM10 – most external point on left profile of last whorl; LM11 – shoulder on left profile, where last whorl curves; LM12 – point opposite to LM5 on left profile; LM13 – point opposite LM4 on left profile; LM14 – point opposite LM3 on left profile; LM15 – point opposite LM2 on left profile; LM16 – most external point on right profile of last whorl.

Figure 5 in Geometric morphometric analysis of shell shape variation in Conus (Gastropoda: Conidae)

Figure 5. Phylogram depicting relationships amongst the five Conus species based on morphological distances (between landmark coordinates), generated by the NEIGHBOR program of PHYLIP 3.69.

Figure 4 in Geometric morphometric analysis of shell shape variation in Conus (Gastropoda: Conidae)

Figure 4. Plot of the results of the principal components analysis of the 32 coordinates of 16 landmarks on Conus specimens grouped by dietary requirements. +, piscivores;, vermivores; °, molluscivores.

Figure 8 in Geometric morphometric analysis of shell shape variation in Conus (Gastropoda: Conidae)

Figure 8. Thin-plate spline grids; warps in reference to mean shape. Numbers indicate area expansion or compression factors (i.e. degree of local growth). Green represents expansion, purple compression. A, Conus consors; B, Conus miles; C, Conus stercusmuscarum; D, Conus striatus; E, Conus textile.

Figure 3 in Geometric morphometric analysis of shell shape variation in Conus (Gastropoda: Conidae)

Figure 3. Plot of the results of the principal components analysis of the 32 coordinates of 16 landmarks on Conus specimens. +, Conus consors;, Conus miles; ¥, Conus stercusmuscarum; O, Conus striatus; °, Conus textile.

Figure 16 in The evolution of Metriorhynchoidea (mesoeucrocodylia, thalattosuchia): an integrated approach using geometric morphometrics, analysis of disparity, and biomechanics

Figure 16. Principle coordinates morphospace subdivided into four time bins: (A) Middle Jurassic (Bajocian–Callovian); (B) Oxfordian–Kimmeridgian; (C) Tithonian; (D) Early Cretaceous (Berriasian–Valanginian). The black ellipse contains the metriorhynchine taxa, whereas the grey ellipse contains the Geosaurinae.

Figure 7 in The evolution of Metriorhynchoidea (mesoeucrocodylia, thalattosuchia): an integrated approach using geometric morphometrics, analysis of disparity, and biomechanics

Figure 7. Metriorhynchoidea phylogeny, with dental characters mapped. The thin branches refer to smooth carinated crowns, whereas the bold black lines refer to denticulate carinae. The bold grey indicates crowns lacking carinae. The symbols refer to tooth morphology guilds from Massare (1987) and Ciampaglio et al. (2005).

Figure 4. Comparative metriorhynchid cranial morphology. A in The evolution of Metriorhynchoidea (mesoeucrocodylia, thalattosuchia): an integrated approach using geometric morphometrics, analysis of disparity, and biomechanics

Figure 4. Comparative metriorhynchid cranial morphology. A, Eoneustes gaudryi comb. nov., holotype, NHM R.3353. B, Geosaurus araucanensis, holotype, MLP 72-IV-7-1. C, Cricosaurus suevicus, lectotype, SMNS 9808. D, Enaliosuchus schroederi, holotype, MMGLV#. E, Suchodus durobrivensis, referred specimen, NHM R.2618. F, Metriorhynchus superciliosus, referred specimen, MNHN 1908-6. G, Geosaurus giganteus, referred specimen, NHM 37020. H, Dakosaurus maximus, neotype, SMNS 8203. Scale bars: 20 mm. We thank N. Knötschke for photograph (D), and P. Hurst and P.M. Barrett for photograph (G).

Figure 3 in The evolution of Metriorhynchoidea (mesoeucrocodylia, thalattosuchia): an integrated approach using geometric morphometrics, analysis of disparity, and biomechanics

Figure 3. Metriorhynchoidea phylogeny, with character complexes relating to marine adaptation mapped by shading. The light-grey shading indicates taxa demonstrating the 'typical' adaptations of metriorhynchids, i.e. hypocercal tails, no osteoderms, and no external mandibular fenestrae. The mid-grey shading refers to taxa with dorsally inclined paroccipital processes and verticalized squamosals; whereas the dark-grey shading highlights taxa with streamlined crania (lateral processes of the frontal reoriented caudally, creating an acute angle between the medial and lateral processes of the frontal) and more flattened humeri.

Figure 6 in The evolution of Metriorhynchoidea (mesoeucrocodylia, thalattosuchia): an integrated approach using geometric morphometrics, analysis of disparity, and biomechanics

Figure 6. Lateral aspect cranial reconstructions, with the muscle line of action indicated: (A) Teleidosaurus calvadosii (modified from Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1867–1869); (B) Metriorhynchus superciliosus (composite based upon specimens from NHM and MNHN). The broken line represents the musculus pseudotemporalis–intramandibularis, whereas the solid black line is the musculus depressor mandibulae. The pterygoids are reconstructed based upon teleosaurids.

Figure 15 in The evolution of Metriorhynchoidea (mesoeucrocodylia, thalattosuchia): an integrated approach using geometric morphometrics, analysis of disparity, and biomechanics

Figure 15. Rarefaction plots for two metrics (sum of ranges and sum of variances) that measure metriorhynchoid disparity (all taxa) throughout time. A, sum of ranges. B, sum of variances. The sum of variances shows little obvious relationship with sample size, in keeping with the theoretical robustness of the measure to differences in sample size (see Wills et al., 1994). The sum of ranges curve suggests that, although this measure is highly sensitive to sample size (Wills et al., 1994), the patterns for metriorhynchoids are robust. Notably, the relative ordering of disparity measures from high (Tithonian) to low (Bathonian) is seen at all sample sizes, from N = 3 upwards. Abbreviations: B, Bathonian; C, Callovian; EK, Early Cretaceous; K, Kimmeridgian; O, Oxfordian; T, Tithonian.

Figure 5 in The evolution of Metriorhynchoidea (mesoeucrocodylia, thalattosuchia): an integrated approach using geometric morphometrics, analysis of disparity, and biomechanics

Figure 5. Postcranial marine adaptations of metriorhynchids (Rhacheosaurus gracilis NHM R.3948): (A) tail fluke with an impression of the fleshy upper lobe (the only specimen preserving this feature); (B) hindlimbs, note the high proportion that the pes makes, compared with the tibia–fibula, and how poorly developed the pelvis is.

Figure 8 in The evolution of Metriorhynchoidea (mesoeucrocodylia, thalattosuchia): an integrated approach using geometric morphometrics, analysis of disparity, and biomechanics

Figure 8. Comparative metriorhynchid dental morphology: (A) in situ crowns of Geosaurus giganteus NHM R.1229; (B) isolated crown of Dakosaurus maximus HMN R.4313; (C) in situ crowns of Suchodus durobrivensis NHM R.2618; (D) isolated crown of Suchodus brachyrhynchus HMN R.3386.2; (E) in situ crowns of Cricosaurus schroederi MMGLV#; (F) isolated crowns of Metriorhynchus superciliosus NMW 19 96 G15a. Scale bars: 10 mm. We thank for N. Knötschke for photograph (E).

Figure 2 in The evolution of Metriorhynchoidea (mesoeucrocodylia, thalattosuchia): an integrated approach using geometric morphometrics, analysis of disparity, and biomechanics

Figure 2. Strict consensus of Metriorhynchoidea from Young & Andrade (2009), calibrated by Tethys ammonite zones. See the Appendix for further details regarding genera and taxonomy.

Figure 17 in The evolution of Metriorhynchoidea (mesoeucrocodylia, thalattosuchia): an integrated approach using geometric morphometrics, analysis of disparity, and biomechanics

Figure 17. von Mises stress contour plots for each taxon placed within the phylogenetic context. The left-hand models are those in dorsal aspect (with the appropriate scale), whereas those on the right are the lateral-aspect models (with their own respective scale).

Figure 14 in The evolution of Metriorhynchoidea (mesoeucrocodylia, thalattosuchia): an integrated approach using geometric morphometrics, analysis of disparity, and biomechanics

Figure 14. The disparity (morphological diversity) of metriorhynchoids through time, based on two metrics (sum of ranges and sum of variances, derived from a PCO analysis; see text for details). A, B, disparity of all metriorhynchoids through time. C, D, disparity of metriorhynchines through time. E, F, disparity of geosaurines through time. Squares represent the disparity metric and error bars denote 95% confidence intervals, based on bootstrapping. There are no error bars for the Early Cretaceous geosaurines because of the small sample size (N = 2).

Figure 9 in The evolution of Metriorhynchoidea (mesoeucrocodylia, thalattosuchia): an integrated approach using geometric morphometrics, analysis of disparity, and biomechanics

Figure 9. Species diversity of Metriorhynchoidea (both taxic and phylogenetically corrected) for each stage subdivision.

Figure 13 in The evolution of Metriorhynchoidea (mesoeucrocodylia, thalattosuchia): an integrated approach using geometric morphometrics, analysis of disparity, and biomechanics

Figure 13. Principle coordinates cladistic character morphospace, delimited by the first two axes. The black ellipse contains the metriorhynchine taxa, whereas the grey ellipse contains the Geosaurinae.

Figure 12 in The evolution of Metriorhynchoidea (mesoeucrocodylia, thalattosuchia): an integrated approach using geometric morphometrics, analysis of disparity, and biomechanics

Figure 12. Relative warps morphospace subdivided into three time bins: (A) Callovian; (B) Oxfordian–Kimmeridgian; (C) Tithonian–Berriasian.