Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
2,960
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
2,960 results for “elements”
FIG. 1 in The Serrialis Bone, Interparietals, "X" Elements, Entotympanics, And The Composition Of The Notoungulate Caudal Cranium
FIG. 1. Oldfieldthomasia cf. debilitata AMNH-VP 28600, left hemicranium in ventral (A; above), oblique ventrolateral (B; opposite), and caudal (C; opposite) aspects (after Simpson [1936], slightly modified and relabeled). Scale bar in C = 0.5 cm (all to same scale). Most but not all of the features identified in Simpson's (1936) original illustrations are included in the following key (updated with modern nomina where necessary): 1,?foramen; 2, part of (preotic) squamoso-alisphenoid suture; 3, apparent "suture" (in fact a fracture) delimiting element Xa according to Simpson (see text); 4, exposed cellule (not stylomastoid foramen, contra Simpson); 5, fractured area in tympanic roof; 6, broken edge of bulla; 7, retroarticular sinus, exposed by breakage; 8, floor of epitympanic sinus (not posttemporal canal/"mastoid foramen," contra Simpson). The specimen is obviously in poor condition, with many broken (br) structures. In the drawings as originally published, bone was not properly differentiated from matrix still adherent to inner walls of epitympanic sinus. In C, Simpson evidently assumed that the matrix-filled area (asterisk, *) incorporated the actual caudal wall of the theca, and that the declivity medial to it (8) was therefore the "mastoid foramen" (= posttemporal canal). Declivity is in fact curved floor of epitympanic sinus, not an aperture; true posttemporal canal lies, as indicated, more medially and dorsally within a groove appearing on original drawing but not called out as such. Stylomastoid and hypoglossal foramina originally drawn slightly out of place (now corrected); hyoid recess cannot be seen from this angle (thus omitted); and leader for Xp points to nothing interpretable as an independent element (as in original drawing). In A, small arrows with italicized figure numbers indicate approximate planes of virtual sections (figs. 6, 7).
FIG. 12 in Morphology and Evolution of Sesamoid Elements in Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera)
FIG. 12. Optimizations of selected sesamoids that were apparently lost independently in at least two bat lineages; red indicates presence of the sesamoid in a taxon or clade, blue indicates absence, and gray indicates ambiguity. The topology corresponds to the tree shown in figure 3.
FIG. 10 in Morphology and Evolution of Sesamoid Elements in Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera)
FIG. 10. Optimizations of selected sesamoids found to be present in just one terminal taxon; red indicates presence of the sesamoid in a taxon, blue indicates absence, and gray indicates ambiguity. The topology corresponds to the tree shown in figure 3.
FIG. 6 in Morphology and Evolution of Sesamoid Elements in Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera)
FIG. 6. Selected sesamoids in the hind limb and tail of various extant species. A. Left joint between pelvic girdle and femur of Carollia perspicillata (dorsal view). B. Right knee of Eptesicus furinalis (tibial). C. Left knee of Tadarida brasiliensis (fibular). D. Left knee of Sturnira lilium (tibial).
FIG. 4 in Morphology and Evolution of Sesamoid Elements in Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera)
FIG. 4. Selected sesamoids in the forelimb of various extant species. A. Left shoulder of Dasypterus ega (dorsal view). B. Left elbow of Molossops temminkii (dorsal). C. Left elbow of Tadarida brasiliensis (ventral). D. Right carpus of Eptesicus furinalis (dorsal).
FIG. 3 in Morphology and Evolution of Sesamoid Elements in Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera)
FIG. 3. Phylogeny used in the optimization analysis of sesamoid characters follows relationships proposed by Simmons et al. (2008; extinct taxa indicated with a dagger) and Amador et al. (2018; extant taxa). Species represented in our dataset exclusively by data from autopodial sesamoids compiled from prior studies are indicated with an asterisk (*).
FIG. 2 in Morphology and Evolution of Sesamoid Elements in Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera)
FIG. 2. Eocene bat fossils: Icaronycteris index YPM-PU 18150 showing some of the preserved sesamoids, highlighted with red lines. A. Left elbow (dorsal view). B. Left carpus (dorsal). C. Right tarsus (ventral-preaxial). D. Left knee (fibular). E. Right foot (ventral). F. Sequence of caudal vertebrae (dorsal).
FIG. 7 in Morphology and Evolution of Sesamoid Elements in Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera)
FIG. 7. Selected sesamoids in the hind limb and tail of various extant species. A. Right tarsus of Dasypterus ega (dorsal). B. Right autopodium of Artibeus planirostris (dorsal). C. Right autopodium of Eptesicus furinalis (ventral). D. Caudal vertebrae of E. furinalis (dorsal).
FIG. 1 in Morphology and Evolution of Sesamoid Elements in Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera)
FIG. 1. Eocene bat fossils: Onychonycteris finneyi AMNH 142467 showing some of the preserved sesamoids, highlighted with red lines. A. Left elbow (dorsal view). B. Left carpus (ventral-preaxial). C. Left knee (tibial). D. Right foot (dorsal).
FIG. 13 in Morphology and Evolution of Sesamoid Elements in Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera)
FIG. 13. Comparison between the elbow of bats (A, left elbow of Dasypterus ega; B, left elbow of Molossops temminkii) and humans (C, D, modified from Mittal et al., 2014), including either an olecranon (A, C) or an ulnar patella (B, D). The possible homology between the ulnar patella in bats and the anomalous "patella cubiti" in humans is shown.
FIG. 5 in Morphology and Evolution of Sesamoid Elements in Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera)
FIG. 5. Selected sesamoids in the forelimb of various extant species. A. Right carpus of Tadarida brasiliensis (ventral). B. Right carpus of Eptesicus furinalis (ventral). C. Metacarpo-phalangeal joint of wing digits II, III, and V of E. furinalis (ventral). D. Interphalangeal joints of wing digits III (lateral) and I (dorsolateral) of Artibeus planirostris.
FIG. 8 in Morphology and Evolution of Sesamoid Elements in Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera)
FIG. 8. Optimizations of selected sesamoids that characterize particular clades and which may represent synapomorphies; red indicates presence of the sesamoid in a taxon or clade, blue indicates absence, and gray indicates ambiguity. The topology corresponds to the tree shown in figure 3.
FIG. 9 in Morphology and Evolution of Sesamoid Elements in Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera)
FIG. 9. Optimizations of selected sesamoids interpreted in this study as probable plesiomorphic features of crown Chiroptera; red indicates presence of the sesamoid, and gray indicates ambiguity. The topology corresponds to the tree shown in figure 3.
Figure 5 in A new genus of xenophyophores (Foraminifera) from Japan Trench: morphological description, molecular phylogeny and elemental analysis
Figure 5. Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS) values for the composition of the total fragment and different structural parts of Shinkaiya lindsayi gen. et sp. nov. (total fragment), and of the environmental sediment. The mass of elemental aluminium (Al), lead (Pb), magnesium (Mg), uranium (U), barium (Ba), strontium (Sr), and mercury (Hg), per gram of dry material, is shown. A semiquantitative method has been used for Pb, U, and Hg.
Figure 4 in A new genus of xenophyophores (Foraminifera) from Japan Trench: morphological description, molecular phylogeny and elemental analysis
Figure 4. Phylogenetic position of Shinkaiya lindsayi gen et sp. nov. among Foraminifera, based on complete small-subunit ribosomal DNA (SSU rDNA) gene sequences. The tree was obtained using the maximum-likelihood method with the general time-reversible (GTR + G + I) model, with four rates categories, and 1000 replicates for bootstrap analysis. Only bootstrap support values higher than 70% are indicated.
Figure 3 in A new genus of xenophyophores (Foraminifera) from Japan Trench: morphological description, molecular phylogeny and elemental analysis
Figure 3. Shinkaiya lindsayi gen. et sp. nov. A, scanning electron micrograph (SEM) of an open tube, showing its inner surface with many radiolarian tests, a granellare string (right-hand arrow), and a stercomare string (left-hand arrow). B, SEM image of an open stercomare string, containing stercomata (spherical pellets). C, SEM image of the organic sheath of the granellare. D, SEM image showing details of the external surface of the test, with agglutinated material. E, F, transmission electronic microscopy (TEM) images of a stercomare section, showing its wall (W), stercomata (S), and cytoplasm (C). Scale bars: 100 Mm (A), 10 Mm (B–D), 2 Mm (E), 1 Mm (F).
Figure 1 in A new genus of xenophyophores (Foraminifera) from Japan Trench: morphological description, molecular phylogeny and elemental analysis
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the small-subunit ribosomal DNA (SSU rDNA) sequence of Shinkaiya lindsayi gen. et sp. nov., showing the conserved regions, as well as the largest insertion and primers used for DNA amplifications.
Figure 2 in A new genus of xenophyophores (Foraminifera) from Japan Trench: morphological description, molecular phylogeny and elemental analysis
Figure 2. Shinkaiya lindsayi gen. et sp. nov. A, holotype specimen in its push core, just after collection (the authors assumed that this was a whole specimen, almost unbroken by the corer tube). B, holotype specimen out of its core. C, D, microscopic views of fragments, revealing the internal organization (G, granellare; S, stercomare). C, transversal view showing the dark stercomare strings. D, the fragment is open along a longitudinal axis, displaying the obvious whitish granellare and the stercomare. E, F, fragments of granellare stained with diaminidophenylindol (DAPI), revealing thousands of nuclei in the cytoplasm. Scale bars: 15 mm (A), 15 mm (B), 250 Mm (C), 500 Mm (D), 250 Mm (E), and 30 Mm (F).
Data for Tekran Model 3425 performance evaluation report for elemental mercury
<p>During the SI-Hg performance evaluation of elemental mercury gas generators on the market three generators were tested, e.g., PSA 10.536 elemental Hg generator, bell-jar and Tekran Model 3425. Key characteristics were determined e.g.; the stabilisation period, short-term drift, precision, i.e., reproducibility and repeatability of the concentration generated, linearity, bias, sensitivity to sample gas pressure, sensitivity to surrounding temperature and sensitivity to electrical voltage. All three generators could be tested according to the calibration protocol developed within the project. The results obtained with the different gas generator clearly shows the importance of a metrological calibration. All three candidate generators show a different bias for the setpoint compared to the calibrated output. </p><p>The data obtained during the performance evaluation of the Tekran Model 3425 is published in this repository. The files of the following experiments can be found here:</p><ul><li>m1<ul><li>Calibration Tekran mercury gas generator m1 20230612</li><li>Calibration_Tekran_m1</li></ul></li><li>m2<ul><li>Calibration Tekran mercury gas generator m2 20230619</li><li>Calibration_Tekran_m2</li></ul></li><li>m3<ul><li>Calibration Tekran mercury gas generator m3 20230626</li><li>Calibration_Tekran_m3</li></ul></li><li>m4<ul><li>Calibration Tekran mercury gas generator m4 20230629</li><li>Calibration_Tekran_m4</li></ul></li><li>short-term drift<ul><li>m2<ul><li>Calibration Tekran mercury gas generator short term drift m2</li><li>Tekran_Short_Term_M2</li></ul></li><li>m3<ul><li>Calibration Tekran mercury gas generator short term drift m3</li><li>Tekran_Short_Term_M3</li></ul></li><li>m4<ul><li>Calibration Tekran mercury gas generator short term drift m4</li><li>Tekran_Short_Term_M4</li></ul></li><li>m5<ul><li>Calibration Tekran mercury gas generator short term drift m5</li><li>Tekran_Short_Term_M5</li></ul></li></ul></li><li>stability<ul><li>Calibration Tekran mercury gas generator 20230609 stability</li></ul></li></ul>
Data for SI-Hg D2 validation report for the calibration of elemental mercury gas generators including information on repeatability, reproducibility and uncertainty evaluation at emission and ambient levels extended to the sub ng/m3 level
<p>In deliverable 2 of the SI-Hg project the first validation results of the SI-Hg calibration protocol are reported. Within the SI-Hg project a protocol for the metrological calibration of elemental mercury gas generators used in the field was developed. For the validation the output of two different mercury gas generators was calibrated according to the protocol. As metrological reference standard the primary mercury gas standard from the Van Swinden Laboratory (VSL) was used. The measurements described in the protocol could be performed during the validation and the data was processed using a script to determine the output of the candidate generator and the uncertainty of the mercury concentration. Based on the validation measurements and data processing several improvements for the calibration protocol were identified and were used to improve the calibration protocol. </p><p>In this repository data obtained during the validation is published. The files of the following comparisons between reference generator and candidate generator can be found in this repository:</p><ul><li>VSL vs VSL<ul><li>m1<ul><li>09022022 calibration mercury gas generator VSL vs VSL m1</li><li>VSL_vs_VSL_m1</li></ul></li><li>m2 <ul><li>05072022 calibration mercury gas generator VSL vs VSL m2</li><li>VSL_vs_VSL_m2</li></ul></li><li>m3<ul><li>07072022 calibration mercury gas generator VSL vs VSL m3</li><li>VSL_vs_VSL_m3</li></ul></li></ul></li><li>VSL vs PSA before modification<ul><li>m1<ul><li>15032022 calibration mercury gas generator VSL vs PSA fixed m1</li><li>single_point_VSL_vs_PSA_fixed_m1_4</li><li>single_point_VSL_vs_PSA_fixed_m1_6</li><li>single_point_VSL_vs_PSA_fixed_m1_8</li><li>single_point_VSL_vs_PSA_fixed_m1_12</li></ul></li><li>m2<ul><li>28032022 calibration mercury gas generator VSL vs PSA fixed m2</li><li>single_point_VSL_vs_PSA_fixed_m2_4</li><li>single_point_VSL_vs_PSA_fixed_m2_6</li><li>single_point_VSL_vs_PSA_fixed_m2_8</li><li>single_point_VSL_vs_PSA_fixed_m2_12</li></ul></li><li>m3 <ul><li>06042022 calibration mercury gas generator VSL vs PSA fixed m3</li><li>single_point_VSL_vs_PSA_fixed_m3_4</li><li>single_point_VSL_vs_PSA_fixed_m3_6</li><li>single_point_VSL_vs_PSA_fixed_m3_8</li><li>single_point_VSL_vs_PSA_fixed_m3_12</li></ul></li><li>m4 <ul><li>12042022 calibration mercury gas generator VSL vs PSA fixed m4</li><li>single_point_VSL_vs_PSA_fixed_m4_4</li><li>single_point_VSL_vs_PSA_fixed_m4_6</li><li>single_point_VSL_vs_PSA_fixed_m4_8</li><li>single_point_VSL_vs_PSA_fixed_m4_12</li></ul></li><li>less tubing <ul><li>14042022 calibration mercury gas generator VSL vs PSA fixed less tubing</li><li>single_point_VSL_vs_PSA_fixed_less_tubing</li></ul></li><li>less tubing and air as complementary gas <ul><li>19042022 calibration mercury gas generator VSL vs PSA fixed less tubing in air</li><li>single_point_VSL_vs_PSA_fixed_less_tubing_air</li></ul></li></ul></li><li>VSL vs PSA after modification<ul><li>m1 air as complementary gas <ul><li>Calibration PSA fixed mercury gas generator air m1 20230324</li><li>PSA_fixed_air_m1_9</li><li>PSA_fixed_air_m1_11</li><li>PSA_fixed_air_m1_14</li></ul></li><li>m2 air as complementary gas <ul><li>Calibration PSA fixed mercury gas generator air m2 20230327</li><li>PSA_fixed_air_m2_9</li><li>PSA_fixed_air_m2_11</li><li>PSA_fixed_air_m2_14</li></ul></li><li>m3 air as complementary gas <ul><li>Calibration PSA fixed mercury gas generator air m3 20230329</li><li>PSA_fixed_air_m3_9</li><li>PSA_fixed_air_m3_11</li><li>PSA_fixed_air_m3_14</li></ul></li><li>m4 air as complementary gas <ul><li>Calibration PSA fixed mercury gas generator air m4 20230907</li><li>PSA_fixed_air_m4_9</li><li>PSA_fixed_air_m4_11</li><li>PSA_fixed_air_m4_14</li></ul></li><li>m5 air as complemantary gas <ul><li>Calibration PSA fixed mercury gas generator air m5 20230911</li><li>PSA_fixed_air_m5_9</li><li>PSA_fixed_air_m5_11</li><li>PSA_fixed_air_m5_14</li></ul></li><li>m1 nitrogen (N2) as complementary gas<ul><li>Calibration PSA fixed mercury gas generator nitrogen m1 20230330</li><li>PSA_fixed_N2_m1_9</li><li>PSA_fixed_N2_m1_11</li><li>PSA_fixed_N2_m1_14</li></ul></li><li>m2 N2 as complementary gas <ul><li>Calibration PSA fixed mercury gas generator nitrogen m2 20230331</li><li>PSA_fixed_N2_m2_9</li><li>PSA_fixed_N2_m2_11</li><li>PSA_fixed_N2_m2_14</li></ul></li><li>m3 N2 as complementary gas <ul><li>Calibration PSA fixed mercury gas generator nitrogen m3 20230405</li><li>PSA_fixed_N2_m3_9</li><li>PSA_fixed_N2_m3_11</li><li>PSA_fixed_N2_m3_14</li></ul></li><li>measurement at TUV<ul><li>PSA_Fixed_at_TUV</li></ul></li></ul></li></ul>
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.