Find research datasets worth reusing

Text-fig. 5. Allosorex stenodus FEJFAR, 1966 – fragment of left P4 and left M3, Ivanovce, fissure 6523. a–d: P4 sin. (Z 28201 – OF 6523; a, c – lingual view, b, d – occlusal view, a–b – hypothetical reconstruction of the premolar), e–f: M3 sin. (Z 28202 – OF 6523; occlusal view). in Allosorex Stenodus Fejfar, 1966 (Eulipotyphla, Soricidae): Re-Description Of Type Material And Re-Interpretation Of Its Fossil Record

Text-fig. 5. Allosorex stenodus FEJFAR, 1966 – fragment of left P4 and left M3, Ivanovce, fissure 6523. a–d: P4 sin. (Z 28201 – OF 6523; a, c – lingual view, b, d – occlusal view, a–b – hypothetical reconstruction of the premolar), e–f: M3 sin. (Z 28202 – OF 6523; occlusal view).

Text-fig. 7. Enamel microstructure in the molars of (a) Allosorex stenodus (KOE-4196 / Z 28207 – OF 6512) and (b) Blarina brevicauda (KOE-1435). SEM photos showing transverse sections of the paralophid in a lower molar. The schmelzmuster of Allosorex is one-layered and formed exclusively from radial enamel (RE), whereas the schmelzmuster of Blarina is two-layered, with an inner enamel of laterally inclined radial enamel with distinct interrow sheets (REIS). The radial enamel of the outer layer is heavily pigmented and therefore poorly etched. The pigmentation does not affect the schmelzmuster. in Allosorex Stenodus Fejfar, 1966 (Eulipotyphla, Soricidae): Re-Description Of Type Material And Re-Interpretation Of Its Fossil Record

Text-fig. 7. Enamel microstructure in the molars of (a) Allosorex stenodus (KOE-4196 / Z 28207 – OF 6512) and (b) Blarina brevicauda (KOE-1435). SEM photos showing transverse sections of the paralophid in a lower molar. The schmelzmuster of Allosorex is one-layered and formed exclusively from radial enamel (RE), whereas the schmelzmuster of Blarina is two-layered, with an inner enamel of laterally inclined radial enamel with distinct interrow sheets (REIS). The radial enamel of the outer layer is heavily pigmented and therefore poorly etched. The pigmentation does not affect the schmelzmuster.

Text-fig. 8. The limited differentiation the schmelzmuster in Allosorex (Allosoricinae) indicates its phylogenetic position in Soricomorpha. The numbers to the right refer to the different types of schmelzmuster found in Soricidae: 1 – Soricella-schmelzmuster, 2 – Anourosorex- schmelzmuster, 3 – Crocidura-schmelzmuster, 4 – Notiosorex-schmelzmuster, 5 – Sorex-schmelzmuster, and 6 – Blarina-schmelzmuster (ex Koenigswald and Reumer 2020). in Allosorex Stenodus Fejfar, 1966 (Eulipotyphla, Soricidae): Re-Description Of Type Material And Re-Interpretation Of Its Fossil Record

Text-fig. 8. The limited differentiation the schmelzmuster in Allosorex (Allosoricinae) indicates its phylogenetic position in Soricomorpha. The numbers to the right refer to the different types of schmelzmuster found in Soricidae: 1 – Soricella-schmelzmuster, 2 – Anourosorex- schmelzmuster, 3 – Crocidura-schmelzmuster, 4 – Notiosorex-schmelzmuster, 5 – Sorex-schmelzmuster, and 6 – Blarina-schmelzmuster (ex Koenigswald and Reumer 2020).

Text-fig. 3. Allosorex stenodus FEJFAR, 1966 – paratype (Z 28209 – OF 652356), Ivanovce, fissure 6523. a–c: recontruction of the mandible with antemolar, m1 and m2 (a – buccal view, b – occlusal view, c – lingual view), d: condylar facets (posterior view), e: paratype mandible without the antemolar (SEM buccal view), f–h: lost antemolar (f – occlusal view, g – buccal view, h – anterior view), i–k: detail view on the antemolar and molars (i – buccal view, j – occlusal view, k – lingual view), l: detail SEM buccal view on m1 and m2. in Allosorex Stenodus Fejfar, 1966 (Eulipotyphla, Soricidae): Re-Description Of Type Material And Re-Interpretation Of Its Fossil Record

Text-fig. 3. Allosorex stenodus FEJFAR, 1966 – paratype (Z 28209 – OF 652356), Ivanovce, fissure 6523. a–c: recontruction of the mandible with antemolar, m1 and m2 (a – buccal view, b – occlusal view, c – lingual view), d: condylar facets (posterior view), e: paratype mandible without the antemolar (SEM buccal view), f–h: lost antemolar (f – occlusal view, g – buccal view, h – anterior view), i–k: detail view on the antemolar and molars (i – buccal view, j – occlusal view, k – lingual view), l: detail SEM buccal view on m1 and m2.

Text-fig. 2. Allosorex stenodus FEJFAR, 1966 – holotype (Z 28208 – OF 651273), Ivanovce, fissure 6512. a–c: recontruction of the mandible with incisor (a – buccal view, b – occlusal view, c – lingual view), d–e: condylar facets (d – posterior view, e – ventral view), f: holotype lower incisor (SEM lingual view), g: holotype mandible (SEM lingual view). in Allosorex Stenodus Fejfar, 1966 (Eulipotyphla, Soricidae): Re-Description Of Type Material And Re-Interpretation Of Its Fossil Record

Text-fig. 2. Allosorex stenodus FEJFAR, 1966 – holotype (Z 28208 – OF 651273), Ivanovce, fissure 6512. a–c: recontruction of the mandible with incisor (a – buccal view, b – occlusal view, c – lingual view), d–e: condylar facets (d – posterior view, e – ventral view), f: holotype lower incisor (SEM lingual view), g: holotype mandible (SEM lingual view).

Text-fig. 4. Allosorex stenodus FEJFAR, 1966 – upper and lower incisors, Ivanovce, fissure 6523. a–g: upper left incisor (Z 28193 – OF 652360; a, f – buccal view, b, g – lingual view, c – anterior view, d – dorsal view, e – ventral view), h–i: upper right incisor (Z 28192 – OF 6523; h – buccal view, i – lingual view), j–m: lower right incisor (Z 28197 – OF 652363; j, m – buccal view, k – lingual view, l – dorsal view), n–o: lower right incisor (Z 28196 – OF 652362; n – lingual view, o – crown cross-section), p–q: lower right incisor (Z 28195 – OF 652361; p – lingual view, l – crown cross-section), r: lower left incisor (Z 28199 – OF 6523; lingual view). in Allosorex Stenodus Fejfar, 1966 (Eulipotyphla, Soricidae): Re-Description Of Type Material And Re-Interpretation Of Its Fossil Record

Text-fig. 4. Allosorex stenodus FEJFAR, 1966 – upper and lower incisors, Ivanovce, fissure 6523. a–g: upper left incisor (Z 28193 – OF 652360; a, f – buccal view, b, g – lingual view, c – anterior view, d – dorsal view, e – ventral view), h–i: upper right incisor (Z 28192 – OF 6523; h – buccal view, i – lingual view), j–m: lower right incisor (Z 28197 – OF 652363; j, m – buccal view, k – lingual view, l – dorsal view), n–o: lower right incisor (Z 28196 – OF 652362; n – lingual view, o – crown cross-section), p–q: lower right incisor (Z 28195 – OF 652361; p – lingual view, l – crown cross-section), r: lower left incisor (Z 28199 – OF 6523; lingual view).

Text-fig. 1. Location of Ivanovce Pliocene primate site in Slovakia within the wider area of the Carpathians-Pannonian Basin (white circle). The northern wall of the former limestone quarry at Ivanovce near Trenčín in western Slovakia. Several karst fillings provided a rich early Pliocene vertebrate assemblage. a: schematic sketch of the site showing the location of different karst fillings, b: photo of the same site during the palaeontological research in 1960s. in Allosorex Stenodus Fejfar, 1966 (Eulipotyphla, Soricidae): Re-Description Of Type Material And Re-Interpretation Of Its Fossil Record

Text-fig. 1. Location of Ivanovce Pliocene primate site in Slovakia within the wider area of the Carpathians-Pannonian Basin (white circle). The northern wall of the former limestone quarry at Ivanovce near Trenčín in western Slovakia. Several karst fillings provided a rich early Pliocene vertebrate assemblage. a: schematic sketch of the site showing the location of different karst fillings, b: photo of the same site during the palaeontological research in 1960s.

opencc-zeroJun 2012View details →

FIG. 7. — Angiosperms type 1 in A new uppermost Albian flora from Teruel province, northeastern Spain

FIG. 7. — Angiosperms type 1 leaf morphology and venation pattern:A, detail of insect feeding holes in the surface of a leaf; B, complete leaf apical fragment showing feeding holes and fungi black marks; C, nearly complete leaf with characteristic spatulate morphology; D, detail of venation pattern in the apical part of an angiosperm type 1; E, detail of venation pattern in the central part of a leaf. Scale bars: 1 cm.

opencc-zeroDec 2012View details →

FIG. 2 in Rediscovery of the type material of Eryon cuvieri Desmarest, 1817 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Eryonidae) and nomenclatural consequences

FIG. 2. — Eryon cuvieri Desmarest, 1817 from the Late Jurassic of Solnhofen (Bavaria, southern Germany): A, paralectotype (MNHN.F.R65101, Brongniart coll., ex. Faujas de Saint-Fond coll.), ventral view; B, illustration of the second paralectotype by Knorr (1755), the original figure has been rotated 180 degrees, to allow comparison. Scale bar: 2 cm. Photographs by C. Lemzaouda (MNHN).

opencc-zeroDec 2012View details →

FIG. 1 in Rediscovery of the type material of Eryon cuvieri Desmarest, 1817 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Eryonidae) and nomenclatural consequences

FIG. 1. — Eryon cuvieri Desmarest, 1817 from the Late Jurassic of Solnhofen (Bavaria, southern Germany): A, B, lectotype, designated herein (MNHN.F.A32407, Faujas de Saint-Fond coll.), complete specimen in dorsal view (A) and under ultraviolet light (B); C, lower side of the slab showing the original inscription in French: "Pappenheim provenant du Cabinet de Mr Faujas St Fond." [= "Pappenheim, from the Cabinet of Mr Faujas St Fond."]; D, original label dating the period of the cataloguing of the Collection de Géologie (before 1853). Scale bars: 2 cm. Photographs by C. Lemzaouda (MNHN).

FIG. 11 in Camelus thomasi Pomel, 1893 from the Pleistocene type-locality Tighennif (Algeria). Comparisons with modern Camelus

FIG. 11. — Bivariate plot of width of shaft vs length of the metatarsus of Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758, C. dromedarius Linnaeus, 1758 and C. thomasi Pomel, 1893 (Mp12 vs Mp1 of Martini et al. 2017).

FIG. 9 in Camelus thomasi Pomel, 1893 from the Pleistocene type-locality Tighennif (Algeria). Comparisons with modern Camelus

FIG. 9. — Bivariate plot of width of shaft vs length of the tibia of Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758, C. dromedarius Linnaeus, 1758 and C. thomasi Pomel, 1893 (Ti13 vs Ti3 of Martini et al. 2017).

FIG. 8 in Camelus thomasi Pomel, 1893 from the Pleistocene type-locality Tighennif (Algeria). Comparisons with modern Camelus

FIG. 8. — Camelus thomasi Pomel, 1893, Tighennif (Algeria):A, metapodials, from left to right metatarsals MNHN.F.TER1664, TER1690, and metacarpals TER1648, TER1681, and TER1652; B, right tibia TER1682; B1, lateral view; B2, proximal view; C, left astragalus TER1670; C1, anterior view; C2, plantar view; C3, medial view; C4, distal view; D, left calcaneus TER1666; D1, anterior view; D2, plantar view; D3, medial view; E, left cuboid 1982-5-60; E1, proximal view; E2, distal view; E3, medial view; F, right navicular TER1679; F1, proximal view; F2, distal view; F3, lateral view. Scale bar: A, B, 40 cm; 20 cm for all others.

FIG. 10 in Camelus thomasi Pomel, 1893 from the Pleistocene type-locality Tighennif (Algeria). Comparisons with modern Camelus

FIG. 10. — Bivariate plot of the widths of the cuboid facet vs navicular facet of the astragalus of Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758, C. dromedarius Linnaeus, 1758 and C. thomasi Pomel, 1893 (Ta15 vs Ta14 of Martini et al. 2017).

FIG. 7 in Camelus thomasi Pomel, 1893 from the Pleistocene type-locality Tighennif (Algeria). Comparisons with modern Camelus

FIG. 7. — Bivariate plot of depth vs thickness of the mandibular corpus of Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758, C. dromedarius Linnaeus, 1758 and C. thomasi Pomel, 1893 (M20 vs M15 of Martini et al. 2017).

FIG. 6 in Camelus thomasi Pomel, 1893 from the Pleistocene type-locality Tighennif (Algeria). Comparisons with modern Camelus

FIG. 6. — Bivariate plot of mesial vs distal widths of M2 of Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758, C. dromedarius Linnaeus, 1758 and C. thomasi Pomel, 1893 (Ds24 vs Ds25 of Martini et al. 2017).

FIG. 5 in Camelus thomasi Pomel, 1893 from the Pleistocene type-locality Tighennif (Algeria). Comparisons with modern Camelus

FIG. 5. — Bivariate plot of M2 mesial width vs length of molar row of Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758, C. dromedarius Linnaeus, 1758 and C. thomasi Pomel, 1893 (C34 vs Ds24 of Martini et al. 2017).

FIG. 3 in Camelus thomasi Pomel, 1893 from the Pleistocene type-locality Tighennif (Algeria). Comparisons with modern Camelus

FIG. 3. — Bivariate plot of cranial measurements of Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758, C. dromedarius Linnaeus, 1758 and C. thomasi Pomel, 1893 showing the position of the orbit (C24 vs C14 of Martini et al. 2017).

FIG. 2 in Camelus thomasi Pomel, 1893 from the Pleistocene type-locality Tighennif (Algeria). Comparisons with modern Camelus

FIG. 2. — Camelus thomasi Pomel, 1893, Tighennif (Algeria): A, maxilla MNHN.F.TER1816, occlusal view; B, maxilla with M1-M2 and tentatively associated M3, holotype no. 7236001; B1, right lateral view; B2, occlusal view; C, partial mandible 1900-27, dorsal view; D, partial mandible TER1688, dorsal view; E, partial mandible TER1686, dorsal view; F, mandible TER1683; F1, dorsal view; F2, lateral view; G, mandible TER1685; G1, dorsal view; G2, medial view. Holotype no. 7236001 (B) is housed in the Musée de Géologie (Algier); all others specimens are housed in the MNHN. Scale bar: F2, G2, 40 cm; 20 cm for all others.

FIG. 1 in Camelus thomasi Pomel, 1893 from the Pleistocene type-locality Tighennif (Algeria). Comparisons with modern Camelus

FIG. 1. — Camelus thomasi Pomel, 1893, Tighennif (Algeria), cranium, MNHN.F.TER1689: A, left lateral view; B, ventral view of the cranial basis (stereo); C, ventral view; D, dorsal view. Scale bar: 40 cm.