Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 6 in New Morphological Evidence for the Phylogeny of Artiodactyla, Cetacea, and Mesonychidae

Fig. 6. Proximal views of the cuboids of Archaeotherium and Pachyaena, with right and left stereopair views. Plantar is toward the top of the page, lateral is to the left, and the scale bars represent 10 mm. A. Right cuboid of the artiodactyl Archaeotherium (AMNH 1277). Note the distinct step between the articular facets for the astragalus and cuboid, a morphology common to all artiodactyls. B. Right cuboid of Pachyaena ossifraga (AMNH 16154). Note the wide articular facet for the cuboid. Abbreviations: asf, articular facet for the astragalus; caf, articular facet for the calcaneus.

Fig. 2 in New Morphological Evidence for the Phylogeny of Artiodactyla, Cetacea, and Mesonychidae

Fig. 2. Representative morphologies for the lingual margin of P4. Labial is toward the top of the page, anterior is to the left, and the scale bars represent 10 mm. A. The third and fourth upper premolars of the artiodactyl Elomeryx armatus (AMNH 582). Note the presence of a prominent entocingulum that nearly encircles the base of the protocone. An entocingulum on P4 is widely distributed among basal artiodactyl taxa; therefore, it is a potential synapomorphy of Artiodactyla. B. The third and fourth upper premolars of the mesonychid Harpagolestes orientalis (AMNH 26300). Note the complete absence of an entocingulum on P4. Abbreviations: en, entocingulum; P3, upper third premolar; P4, upper fourth premolar.

Fig. 5 in New Morphological Evidence for the Phylogeny of Artiodactyla, Cetacea, and Mesonychidae

Fig. 5. Plantar views of the right astragali of three ungulates. Line drawings are on page facing the stereopairs. Lateral is to the right, proximal is toward the top of the page, and the scale bars represent 10 mm. A. Plantar view of the right astragalus of the artiodactyl Archaeotherium sp. (AMNH 1277). Note the wide and laterally positioned sustentacular facet, absence of the interarticular sulcus, and the laterally facing ectal facet. B. Right astragalus of the mesonychid Pachyaena ossifraga (AMNH 16154). The astragalus of Pachyaena has a small and medially positioned sustentacular facet, an astragalar canal leading into an interarticular sulcus, and a large plantarfacing ectal facet. C. Left astragalus (photos reversed for comparison) of Phenacodus sp. (AMNH 15262). The astragalus of Phenacodus is very similar to that of Pachyaena except for an occluded astragalar canal and the absence of an articular facet with the cuboid. Abbreviations: ac, astragalar canal; cuf, articular facet for the cuboid; ecf, ectal facet; ins, interarticular sulcus; naf, articular facet for the navicular; suf, sustentacular facet.

Fig. 10. A in New Morphological Evidence for the Phylogeny of Artiodactyla, Cetacea, and Mesonychidae

Fig. 10. A. One of two most parsimonious trees based on the morphological data in appendix 3, if all extinct taxa and their character codings are excluded from the phylogenetic analysis. Sus and Tayassu do not form a clade in the other shortest tree; instead, Tayassu is the sister group to Neoselenodontia and Equus. Tree A has a length of 483 steps. B. The most parsimonious tree based on all data in appendix 3; unlike tree A, all taxa were included in the analysis (see fig. 8). The extinct taxa were pruned from the tree in fig. 8 to produce tree B, and the length was recalculated as 490 steps with all extinct taxa and their codings removed. C. The most parsimonious tree from the WHIPPO2 matrix of Gatesy et al. (1999a); by using the data for extant taxa only in appendix 3, the tree length is 499 steps. Unlike O'Leary and Geisler (1999), if all extinct taxa are excluded, the most parsimonious trees still exclude Cetacea from the clade including all extant artiodactyls (tree A). Even though the topology of the most parsimonious tree for the morphology matrix does not have a monophyletic Artiodactyla (tree A), the hypothesis based on all taxa (tree B) is still more parsimonious than a moleculebased hypothesis (tree C) by 16 steps. Bold branches in trees denote the clade that includes all extant artiodactyls; taxa in bold are extant cetaceans. Cetacea is excluded from the artiodactyl clade in trees A and B, while it is included within the artiodactyl clade in tree C.

Fig. 1 in New Morphological Evidence for the Phylogeny of Artiodactyla, Cetacea, and Mesonychidae

Fig. 1. Previous phylogenetic hypotheses for artiodactyls, cetaceans, and mesonychids. Taxa not included in this study were pruned from each tree, and taxa shared between the previous two studies are in boldface. A. The most parsimonious tree for the morphological data analyzed by O'Leary and Geisler (1999). Note that Artiodactyla, Neoselenodontia, and Suiformes are monophyletic. B. The strict consensus of the shortest trees for the WHIPPO2 molecular data set of Gatesy et al. (1999a). Unlike O'Leary and Geisler (1999), Artiodactyla, Neoselenodontia, and Suiformes are paraphyletic, while Whippomorpha, Cetruminantia, and Artiofabula are monophyletic.

Fig. 9 in New Morphological Evidence for the Phylogeny of Artiodactyla, Cetacea, and Mesonychidae

Fig. 9. The phylogeny within Artiodactyla, enlarged from the strict consensus shown in figure 8. Ruminantia is monophyletic in all most parsimonious trees as well as the superfamilies or families Cameloidea, Camelidae, Oreodontoidea, Protoceratidae, and Hippopotamidae. Taxon abbreviations: CA, Cameloidea; H, Hippopotamidae; L, Camelidae; N, Neoselenodontia; O, Oreodontoidea; R, Ruminantia; ''S'', Suina, which is paraphyletic because it excludes Perchoerus; T, Protoceratidae; U, Suiformes.

Figure 10 in Vertebral osteology in Delphinidae (Cetacea)

Figure 10. Isolated vertebrae from fossil cetaceans for which functional and/or evolutionary context may be predicted. A, 11 caudal vertebrae of 'Odontocete indet.' CMM-V-1694 in dorsal view, with an inferred gap in vertebral sequence. Note that the terminal (fluke) vertebrae are elongate. B, two mid torso vertebrae of Hadrodelphis calvertense CMM-V-11 in left lateral view. Metapophyses are present, neural processes are short and vertebrae are spool-shaped. C, six anterior and mid torso vertebrae of Albireo whistleri UCR 14589 in left lateral view. Metapophyses are present and low, but neural spines are very tall and centra are discoidal. D, three chest and five torso vertebrae of USNM 15727 'Tursiops sp.' in left lateral view. Note the lack of metapophyses on anterior torso vertebrae. All scale bars = 5 cm.

Figure 8 in Vertebral osteology in Delphinidae (Cetacea)

Figure 8. Two representations of the allocation of vertebrae to series in delphinid cetaceans. A, comparison of column subdivisions in terrestrial mammals, in cetaceans using terrestrial nomenclature and in cetaceans using cetacean nomenclature. Subdivision of the torso is applicable only to delphinids with syncliny. S = synclinal point. B, regional morphology of Lagenorhynchus acutus (MCZ 61008) by classic and cetacean column series in dorsal (above) and lateral (below) views. N = neck, TS = tail stock, F = fluke.

Figure 7 in Vertebral osteology in Delphinidae (Cetacea)

Figure 7. Neural spine inclination (NSI) at different locations along the column in four delphinid species: Orcinus orca, AMNH 34276, total count = 53; Sotalia fluviatilis (MCZ 7097, vertebral count = 54); Tursiops truncatus (MCZ 7899, vertebral count = 62+); Lagenorhynchus acutus (MCZ 60939; vertebral count = 82). Note that the position of the synclinal point (arrows) is more posterior in species with higher counts, and that Orcinus does not exhibit syncliny.

Figure 6 in Vertebral osteology in Delphinidae (Cetacea)

Figure 6. Vertebral count and shape in delphinids. A, relationship between total counts and series counts. B, relationship between total count and lumbar CL/CH. C, CL/CH traces for four species, each with syncliny and a secondary rise in CL (arrows). Note the progressive reduction in CL/CH with increasing total count.

Figure 4 in Vertebral osteology in Delphinidae (Cetacea)

Figure 4. Vertebral dimensions in Orcinus orca (AMNH 34276) and Lagenorhynchus acutus (MCZ 60939), with classic divisions of the column. Cervical and anterior thoracic vertebrae of the Orcinus column are mounted, making CH and CW measurements impossible. Cv = cervical.

Figure 1 in Vertebral osteology in Delphinidae (Cetacea)

Figure 1. Consensus phylogeny of the Family Delphinidae based on the work of Mead (1975), de Muizon (1988) and Perrin (1989). The Delphinapteridae serves as the outgroup.

Figure 3 in Vertebral osteology in Delphinidae (Cetacea)

Figure 3. Left lateral view of an anterior caudal vertebra with measurements used in this study indicated. CL = centrum length; CH = centrum height; CW = centrum width; NAH = neural arch height; NAI = neural arch inclination; NPH = neural process height; NSH = neural spine height; NSI = neural spine inclination.

Figure 2 in Vertebral osteology in Delphinidae (Cetacea)

Figure 2. Diagrammatic presentation of vertebral centra in lateral view to demonstrate the variations in face curvature and dimensions that affect intervertebral movement.

Figure 15 in Killer sperm whale: a new basal physeteroid (Mammalia, Cetacea) from the Late Miocene of Italy

Figure 15. Hypothetical reconstruction of a Late Miocene marine scenario showing the killer sperm whale Zygophyseter attacking a kentriodontid (delphinoid). Painting by Giovanni Bianucci.

Figure 14 in Killer sperm whale: a new basal physeteroid (Mammalia, Cetacea) from the Late Miocene of Italy

Figure 14. Hypothetical reconstructions of Zygophyseter varolai gen. et sp. nov. A, head in lateral view with a parasagittal section of the nasal area based on Physeter macrocephalus (Heyning, 1989: 36); B, head in dorsal view with evidence for the circular supracranial basin of the skull; C, body in lateral view.

Figure 8 in Killer sperm whale: a new basal physeteroid (Mammalia, Cetacea) from the Late Miocene of Italy

Figure 8. Zygophyseter varolai gen. et sp. nov. Teeth of the holotype (MAUL 229/1). A, reconstruction of the original orientation of two isolated maxillary teeth; B, three mandibular teeth in place showing the gingival collar and the occlusal wear of the roots; C, D, two isolated maxillary teeth (arrows show the wear due to the opposite teeth).

Figure 9 in Killer sperm whale: a new basal physeteroid (Mammalia, Cetacea) from the Late Miocene of Italy

Figure 9. Zygophyseter varolai gen. et sp. nov. Mandible (A–E) and isolated upper teeth (F, G) of the holotype (MAUL 229/1). A, anterior view; B, ventral view of the anterior portion of the symphysis; C, dorsal view; D, lateral view; E, medial view of left posterior portion of right dentary; F, lateral or medial views; G, posterior views.

Figure 10 in Killer sperm whale: a new basal physeteroid (Mammalia, Cetacea) from the Late Miocene of Italy

Figure 10. Zygophyseter varolai gen. et sp. nov. Postcranial skeleton of the holotype (MAUL 229/1). A, atlas; B, D, thoracic vertebrae; E, lumbar vertebra; in (1) anterior, (2) dorsal and (3) lateral views; F–Q, right ribs in lateral view; R, left scapula in medial view.

Figure 6 in Killer sperm whale: a new basal physeteroid (Mammalia, Cetacea) from the Late Miocene of Italy

Figure 6. Zygophyseter varolai gen. et sp. nov. Left incomplete ear bones of the holotype (MAUL 229/1). A–F, periotic in (A) dorsal, (B) dorsomedial, (C, D) ventral, (E) medial and (F) anterior views. G, articulated periotic and tympanic bulla in lateral view; H–L, tympanic bulla in (H) dorsal, (J) ventral, (K) medial and (L) anterior views. D shows detail of the anterior process with the accessory ossicle not removed.