Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Jan 2020View details →

A set of six databases used in a study of the biogeography of Greater Caribbean reef fishes entitled: Comparing biodiversity databases: Greater Caribbean reef-fishes as a case study Iliana Chollett1, D. Ross Robertson2 1 Sea Cottage, Louisburgh, Co. Mayo, Ireland 2 Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Panamá

A set of six databases used in a study of the biogeography of Greater Caribbean reef fishes entitled:   Comparing biodiversity databases: Greater Caribbean reef-fishes as a case study                                    Iliana Chollett, D. Ross Robertson     Database Authors: D Ross Robertson and Ernesto Peña, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panamá   This set of six databases contains georeferenced location records from six sources as described below.These six sources provided georeferenced records of occurrence of fishes found in the Greater Caribbean study area (6-330 N, 57-1000 W). Each occurrence record consists of a species name and associated latitude and longitude. Databases included in the comparisons made here are from five major online aggregators. Since their content overlaps to some extent, and OBIS, iDigBio and FishNet collaborate with GBIF, their data might be expected to produce similar biogeographic patterns. STRI includes a curated compendium of data from those five aggregators, enriched with data from many additional sources.   Only reef-associated fish species were included in the present analysis. These mostly represent demersal species known to occur on hard bottoms (coral, rock and oyster substrata), but also include species living on rubble, sand and vegetated bottoms within and around the immediate fringes of reefs, and pelagic species regularly found on reefs. All exotic and non-resident species and species other than reef-associated fishes were excluded from all databases prior to comparisons. Non-residents were defined as otherwise widespread species only rarely seen in the study area. Shore-fishes, including what are generally regarded as reef fishes, include those found in the waters of continental and insular shelves, i.e. between 0-200m. Reef-fish assemblages dominated by shallow-water taxa extend down to that depth in the study area (Baldwin et al. 2018). We used the shelf edge as a breakpoint and excluded records in areas deeper than 200m, identifying those areas using the General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (Kapoor, 1981; GEBCO Compilation Group, 2019).   Before the analyses, for all databases, duplicate records were deleted. Subsequently, records in the Pacific or on land were deleted. We used the Global Self-consistent, Hierarchical, High-resolution Geography Database (Wessel & Smith, 1996) to identify these areas. The spatial distribution of species-records in each database is shown in Figure 1 of the publication.   Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF, https://www.gbif.org/): GBIF is an international network and research infrastructure aimed at providing open access to data about all types of life on earth. GBIF works through participant nodes using common standards and open-source tools that enable them to share information. Data from among the 49,000+ datasets hosted by GBIF that were used here range from those on museum specimens collected since the 18th century, to published scientific checklists, to curated  local checklists produced by trained science sources such as the Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Assessment Program (https://www.agrra.org/),to geotagged smartphone photos (that act as vouchers allowing verification) shared by amateur and scientific naturalists through iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org/), to unvouchered, unverified and unverifiable observation records from untrained divers such as those contributing to DiveBoard (http://www.diveboard.com). GBIF data are standardized in Darwin Core format. GBIF data were obtained from a polygon of the region of study and subject to taxonomic review and selection after downloading. GBIF data were obtained from a polygon of the study area and subject to taxonomic review after downloading (accessed through the GBIF portal, https://www.gbif.org/, on or about 2019-05-19).   Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS,  <a href="https://obis.org/">https://obis.org/</a>): OBIS is a global open-access data and information clearing-house on marine biodiversity (OBIS, 2019) that was adopted as a project of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Data and Information Exchange of the Intergovernmental Commission of UNESCO . Its range of sources is similar to that of GBIF. OBIS hosts data from organizations or programs that join it as one of 13 “nodes”, and harvest the data from the IPT (Integrated Publishing Toolkit), where providers publish their data. The IPT is developed and maintained by the GBIF, and OBIS is a major contributor of marine data to GBIF. Data are standardized in Darwin Core format. OBIS data were obtained for the region of study by downloading data on each family, then retaining only data inside the study area, which were then subject to taxonomic review and selection (accessed through the OBIS portal, https://obis.org/, on or about 2019-05-19).   Integrated Digitized Biocollections (iDigBio, https://portal.idigbio.org/portal/search): iDigBio is sponsored by the a US National Science Foundation and run by the University of Florida that provides digital data from public, non-federal, US collections. Data are standardized in a Darwin Core format, and provided “as is”. IDigBio joined the GBIF network in 2017. IDigBio records were downloaded from a polygon of the region of study and subject to taxonomic review and selection (accessed through the iDigBio portal, https://portal.idigbio.org/portal/search, on or about 2019-05-19).   FishNet2 (http://www.fishnet2.net/): FishNet2 is a collaborative effort that aggregates data on fish collections around the world to share and distribute data on specimen holdings from ~75 museums, universities and other institutions. FishNet2 distributes data in Darwin Core, and data are provided “as is”. FishNet2 is part of the network VerNet, which has contributed to GBIF since 2013 and became part of IDigBio in 2016. While FishNet2 has made substantial efforts to georeference location-record data it hosts, many hosted records still lack georeferencing. FishNet2 data were obtained from a polygon of the study area and subject to taxonomic review after downloading (accessed through the Fishnet2 Portal, www.fishnet2.org, 2019-05-19).   FishBase (<a href="http://www.fishbase.org/">http://www.fishbase.org</a>): FishBase is a global biodiversity information system supervise by a consortium of nine non-USA international institutions, and hosts data on fin fishes and elasmobranchs  (Froese & Pauly, 2009). Information presented in FishBase is extracted from the scientific literature, reports and museum or aggregator (GBIF) databases, and standardized by a team of specialists. Data from Fishbase were downloaded for the following ecosystems: Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Atlantic Ocean, Sargasso Sea and Bermuda, and subject to taxonomic review and selection after downloading (2019-05-19).   Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI; <a href="https://biogeodb.stri.si.edu/caribbean/en/pages">https://biogeodb.stri.si.edu/caribbean/en/pages</a>): The STRI database was compiled by DRR and Ernesto Peña at STRI’s Naos Marine Laboratory, and represents about 15 years accumulation of curated data (see below) from the following sources:  data downloaded at roughly two year intervals from the five aggregators; data from online databases of various museums that supply aggregators (data directly downloaded from a museum sometimes differs from that available in an aggregator from the same museum), including the Swedish Museum of Natural History, the American Museum of Natural History, the Natural History Museum of Denmark, the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, the Colombian Museum of Natural Marine History, the United States National Museum, and the United States Geological Survey; data from national aggregators of Colombia (Sistema de Información Sobre Biodiversidad de Colombia (https://sibcolombia.net/), and  Sistema de Información Ambiental Marina de Colombia, https://siam.invemar.org.co/), Mexico (La Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, CONABIO;   http://www.conabio.gob.mx/informacion/gis/), and Costa Rica (Museo de Zoologia de la Universidad de Costa Rica, http://museo.biologia.ucr.ac.cr/); verified (by DRR) underwater photographs of fishes taken at known locations; peer reviewed publications containing location information (species descriptions; taxonomic revisions of species, genera and families; regional and local checklists); fisheries reports; digital tagging data for species such as elasmobranchs; diving surveys and collections of local faunas by DRR (e.g. Robertson et al. 2019). In addition selected data from two sources that collect species lists at sites scattered throughout the Greater Caribbean are incorporated: from the Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment program (AGRRA, https://www.agrra.org/: Kramer & Lang, 2003) and from trained citizen scientists who contribute data on fishes to the Reef Environmental Education Foundation’s database (REEF: Pattengill-Semmens & Semmens, 2003). The bibliographic module (https://biogeodb.stri.si.edu/caribbean/en/library) of Robertson & VanTassel (2019) contains ~1700 publications linked to species names, among them the publications from which location data were extracted.   Data from the aggregators is presented “as is” and the aggregators themselves do not do data curation. Duplicates (and occasionally triplicates and quaduplicates) of the same museum record often are included from multiple sources (e.g. the original museum source, derivative checklists, an aggregator), sometimes with slightly different georeferenced coordinates. Data available in one year may subsequently disappear from an aggregator, and different data may be available for the same species under different names (e.g. the old and new names when a species is reassigned to another genus). Errors, sometimes large errors (Robertson, 2008), are common in aggregator data, from museums as well as other sources, and longstanding errors can seem to take on a perpetual existence. For example the damselfish Abudefduf saxatilis is a common and widespread inhabitant of tropical reefs on both sides of the Atlantic, but does not naturally occur outside that ocean. Despite the fact that its taxonomic status and range were resolved ~30 y ago (e.g. see Allen, 1991) museum data presented by the all five aggregators that contributed to the multi-source database used in this study currently (December 10, 2019) show large numbers of records of this species throughout the entire tropical Indo-Pacific, as well as across its native range in the Atlantic. Since many of the databases accumulating on aggregators are derivative (lists derived from records and from other derivative lists) it will become increasingly difficult to eliminate such errors as corrections to data in primary sources do not automatically propagate through the chain of usage by different databases. Due to increasing limitations on resources for taxonomic work, museums themselves have difficulty dealing with errors in specimen identity and location, and old specimens become unidentifiable, specimens never get returned when loaned out, or simply vanish, and entire collections can get destroyed by hurricanes or fires, or get dumped when museums close or experience a major change in mission. Georeferenced location data on fish distributions in the neotropics (and presumably most other areas) hosted by aggregators, particularly GBIF and OBIS, which take data from a broad range of source types, might best be described as messy, and the significant potential for errors in location records and an inability to verify records always needs to be taken into account when incorporating data from aggregators, primary museum sources, and analog sources.   Data considered for inclusion in the STRI database were screened as follows to exclude questionable records.  Data from two databases hosted by OBIS and GBIF were excluded entirely due to lack of reliability: BioGoMx (https://www.gulfbase.org/project/biodiversity-gulf-mexico-biogomx-database) and Diveboard (http://www.diveboard.com).  The only REEF data used were from “expert” REEF recorders on readily identifiable species that are unlikely to be confused with similar species (e.g. data for some genera of sparids, gerreids, labrisomids and gobies that include various sympatric species with very similar appearances, were not used).  After data from aggregators and museum sources were combined into a single database duplicate records were filtered out by rounding all records to three decimal places and eliminating duplicates, a process that inevitably deleted some valid records as well as duplicates. The sizes of the databases and abundance of such duplicates precluded individual manual exclusion. Finally, all location data for each species were revised by DRR by examining the distribution of its georeferenced coordinates overlayed on a digital map of the current known distribution range of that species (for such range information see Carpenter & De Angelis, 2002; Ebert et al., 2013; Last et al., 2016; Robertson & Van Tassell, 2019; IUCN Redlist species accounts for most species considered here: https://www.iucnredlist.org/search). Such revision took into account any recent modifications to taxonomy and distributions due to new data and new publications, or as a result of discussions between DRR and experts in the taxonomy of particular species or genera. Source information of many individual questionable records provided by aggregators with the hosted data was inspected to try and assess their validity. Records thought likely to be erroneous were deleted. Those included inexplicable records lacking adequate documentation located well outside the known distribution range, and records in unlikely habitats (e.g. on land for marine species; in deep water for shallow-water species). This revision process reduced the number of records by about 30%.   Data from the five individual aggregator databases that are used in the comparisons described here were all downloaded from their online portals during May, 2019. However, data from those five aggregators that were incorporated in the STRI database were downloaded in March 2017, with data from other sources described above added to the STRI database intermittently between then and May 2019, when the entire dataset was curated as described above. Hence the five individual aggregator databases analyzed in this study undoubtedly contain data not included in the version of the STRI database used in the present analyses.   Acknowledgements   Data acquisition and construction of the STRI database was supported by funds from STRI, the Smithsonian Marine Science Network, the Smithsonian Publications Fund, the Smithsonian’s Deep Reef Observation Project, the National Geographic Society, the IUCN Red List program, the Harte Research Institute, and CONABIO. We thank REEF and AGRRA for supplying species-location records, various people for taxonomic and location-record information used to construct that database (principal among them C Baldwin, S Brandl, K Conway B Frable, T Menut, T Munroe, R Robins, L Tornabene, J Van Tassell and B Victor), and hundreds of citizen-scientist submarine photographers whose images (see <a href="https://biogeodb.stri.si.edu/caribbean/en/contributors/citizen_scientists">https://biogeodb.stri.si.edu/caribbean/en/contributors/citizen_scientists</a>) acted as vouchers for location records.   References   Allen, G.R. (1991) Damselfishes of the World. Mergus, Melle, 271 p. Baldwin, C.C., Tornabene, L. & Robertson, D.R. (2018) Below the mesophotic. Scientific Reports, 8, 4920. Carpenter, K.E. (Ed) (2002) The living marine resources of the Western Central Atlantic. Vols 1-3, FAO, Rome, 2127 p. Ebert, D.A., Fowler, S., Compagno, L. (2013) Sharks of the World: a fully illustrated guide. Wild Nature Press, Plymouth. 528 p. GEBCO Compilation Group (2019) GEBCO 2019 Grid (doi:10.5285/836f016a-33be-6ddc-e053-6c86abc0788e). Kapoor, D.C. (1981) General bathymetric chart of the oceans (GEBCO). Marine Geodesy, 5, 73–80. Kramer, P.R. & Lang, J.C. (2003) Appendix one: The Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA) Protocols: Former Version 2. 2. Atoll Research Bulletin, 496, 611–624. Last, P. R., White, W.A., de Carvalho, M.R., Séret, B., Stehmann, F.W., & Naylor, J.P. (2016). Rays of the World. CSIRO, Clayton. 790 p. Pattengill-Semmens, C.V. & Semmens, B.X. (2003) Conservation and management applications of the reef volunteer fish monitoring program. Coastal Monitoring through Partnerships: Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Pensacola Beach, FL, U.S.A., April 24–27, 2001 (ed. by B.D. Melzian), V. Engle), M. McAlister), S. Sandhu), and L.K. Eads), pp. 43–50. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht. Robertson, D. R. (2008) Global biogeographic databases on marine fishes: caveat emptor. Diversity and Distributions, 14, 891-892 Robertson, D.R,, Dominguez-Dominguez, O., Lopez Arollo, Y.M., Moreno Mendoza. R., Simoes, N. (2019) Reef-associated fishes from the offshore reefs of western Campeche Bank, Mexico, with a discussion of mangroves and seagrass beds as nursery habitats. Zookeys 843: 71-115. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.843.33873">https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.843.33873</a> Robertson, D.R & Van Tassell, J. (2019) Shorefishes of the Greater Caribbean: online information system. Version 2.0. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Panamá. <a href="https://biogeodb.stri.si.edu/caribbean/en/pages">https://biogeodb.stri.si.edu/caribbean/en/pages</a>. Wessel, P. & Smith, W.H.F. (1996) A global, self-consistent, hierarchical, high-resolution shoreline database. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 101, 8741–8743.

dryad40/100

Variation in successional dynamics shape biodiversity patterns over a tropical-temperate latitudinal gradient

Successional dynamics can vary due to a range of ecological and environmental factors, but our understanding of biogeographic variation in succession, and the processes contributing to community development across ecosystems, is limited. The pattern and rate of recruitment of dispersive propagules likely differs over large spatial scales and can be an important predictor of successional trajectory. Over a 20-degree tropical-temperate latitudinal gradient, we measured sessile invertebrates over 12 months of community development and successive 3-month recruitment windows to understand succession and how it is influenced by recruitment. Succession and recruitment patterns varied over latitude. In the tropics, fast temporal turnover, fluctuating abundances, and lack of successional progression suggest that the contribution of stochastic processes was high. As latitude increased, successional progression became more apparent, characterized by increasing species richness and community cover, and a shift to more competitive taxa over time. At temperate locations, species identities were similar between older communities and recruiting assemblages, however community composition became more variable across space over time. Such divergence suggests an important role of early colonisers and species interactions on community structure. These findings demonstrate differences in the processes contributing to community development and biodiversity patterns over latitude. Understanding such biogeographic variation in community dynamics and identifying the prevalence of different processes can provide insights into how communities assemble and persist in response to environmental variability.

opencc-zeroJun 2024View details →

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2015View details →

Fig. 2 in Biodiversity of frog haemoparasites from sub-tropical northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Fig. 2. Micrographs of various frog haemoparasites encountered in the current study. Haemoparasites from the peripheral blood of 15 frog species collected from three localities in northern KwaZulu-Natal, stained with Giemsa stain (A–E) gamonts of Hepatozoon species; (F–G) primary and secondary stage gamonts of Dactylosoma species; (H–J) viral or bacterial inclusions; (K) microfilarid nematode species; (L–T) Trypanosoma species. Scale bar: 10 μm.

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2015View details →

Fig. 1 in Biodiversity of frog haemoparasites from sub-tropical northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Fig. 1. Map displaying the three sampling localities in northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Map displaying the three sampling localities at which frogs were surveyed for haemoparasite biodiversity, top to bottom: Ndumo Game Reserve (NGR), outside NGR and Kwa Nyamazane Conservancy, in northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. All sampling sites were directly or indirectly linked to the Phongolo River.

FIGURE 4 in Fish biodiversity of a tropical estuary under severe anthropic pressure (Doce River, Brazil)

FIGURE 4 | Main human-driven impacts after the 19th century and their consequences on the Doce River basin. Photos by A. Villela (Exotic species) and E. Nascimento (Mining dam collapse); the other pictures belong to the public domain (Tab. S2).

FIGURE 2 in Fish biodiversity of a tropical estuary under severe anthropic pressure (Doce River, Brazil)

FIGURE 2 | Number of species, genera and families for fish orders in the Doce River estuary. The following orders were represented by a single species and were omitted in the figure: Anguilliformes, Atheriniformes, Aulopiformes, Beloniformes, Blenniiformes, Centrarchiformes, Cyprinodontiformes, Elopiformes, Scombriformes, Spariformes, Symbranchiformes and Syngnathiformes (illustrative taxa images from Phylopic.org).

FIGURE 1 in Fish biodiversity of a tropical estuary under severe anthropic pressure (Doce River, Brazil)

FIGURE 1 | Location of the study area in Eastern Brazil with some features detailed: A. Sandy banks; B. Marginal creek; and C. Main channel of the Doce River estuary (DRE). Photos: Helder C. Guabiroba (A; C), Alexandre Villela (B). Aerial image source: (GEOBASES, 2015).

FIGURE 3 in Fish biodiversity of a tropical estuary under severe anthropic pressure (Doce River, Brazil)

FIGURE 3 | Examples of fishes recorded for the first time in the Doce River estuary. A. Cichlasoma dimerus; B. Pygocentrus nattereri; C. Coptodon rendalli; D. Butis koilomatodon; E. Lutjanus cyanopterus; F. Genidens barbus; G. Pimelodus maculatus; H. Catathyridium garmani. Photos: Helder C. Guabiroba (A, B, C, E, H), Flávio T. Szablak (D, F, G).

opencc-zeroJan 2024View details →

Linked collectors and determiners for: Cryptic biodiversity of tropical hesperiid caterpillar-attacking parasitoid wasps: three new species of Creagrura Townes (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Cremastinae) from Costa Rica and Perú.

Natural history specimen data linked to collectors and determiners held within, "Cryptic biodiversity of tropical hesperiid caterpillar-attacking parasitoid wasps: three new species of Creagrura Townes (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Cremastinae) from Costa Rica and Perú". Claims or attributions were made on Bionomia by volunteer Scribes, <a href="https://bionomia.net/dataset/01014af1-0a18-413a-a9df-636469c183fa">https://bionomia.net/dataset/01014af1-0a18-413a-a9df-636469c183fa</a> using specimen data from the dataset aggregated by the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, <a href="https://gbif.org/dataset/01014af1-0a18-413a-a9df-636469c183fa">https://gbif.org/dataset/01014af1-0a18-413a-a9df-636469c183fa</a>. Formatted as a Frictionless Data package.

dryad40/100

Dataset from: The effects of crop type, landscape composition and agroecological practices on biodiversity and ecosystem services in tropical smallholder farms

1. In the tropics, smallholder farming characterizes some of the world's most biodiverse landscapes. Agroecology as a pathway to sustainable agriculture has been proposed and implemented in sub-Saharan Africa, but the effects of agricultural practices in smallholder agriculture on biodiversity and ecosystem services are understudied. Similarly, the contribution of different landscape elements, such as shrubland or grassland cover, on biodiversity and ecosystem services to fields remains unknown. 2. We selected 24 villages situated in landscapes with varying shrubland and grassland cover in Malawi. In each village, we assessed biodiversity of eight taxa and ecosystem services in relation to crop type, shrubland and grassland cover and the number of agroecological pest and soil management practices on smallholder's fields of different crop types (bean monoculture, maize-bean intercrop, and maize monoculture). 3. Increasing shrubland cover altered carabid and soil bacteria communities. Carabid abundance increased in maize but decreased in intercrop and bean fields with increasing shrubland cover. Carabid abundance and richness and wasp abundance increased with soil management practices. Carabid, spider, and parasitoid abundances were higher in bean monocultures, but this was modulated by surrounding shrubland cover. Natural enemy abundances in beans were especially high in landscapes with little shrubland, possibly leading to lower bean damage in monocultures compared to intercropped fields, whereas maize monocultures had higher damage. In maize, grassland cover and pest management practices were positively related to damage. Carabid abundance was higher in fields with high bean damage and increased carabid richness in fields with high maize damage. Parasitoid abundance was negatively associated with bean damage. 4. Synthesis and application: Our results suggest that maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services on smallholder farms is not achievable with a "one size fits all" approach but should instead be adapted to the landscape context and the priorities of smallholders. Shrubland is important to maintain carabid and soil bacterial diversity, but legume cultivation beneficial to natural enemies could complement pest management in landscapes with a low shrubland cover. An increased number of agroecological soil management practices can lead to improved pest control whilst the effectiveness of agroecological pest management practices needs to be re-evaluated.

opencc-zeroFeb 2023View details →

Fig. 7 in A review of the previously monotypic tribe Dibolostethini (Chelodesmidae: Chelodesminae) with description of two new species and a summary of the Chelodesmidae of the Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot

Fig. 7. Dibolostethus kattani Means, Bouzan, Martínez-Torres & Ivanov sp. nov., holotype, ♂ (ICN- MD-1317A), right gonopod. A. Mesal view. B. Anterior view. C. Lateral view. Red circles = cingulum. Dashed lines = prostatic groove. Abbreviations: Lb = lobe; PfP = prefemoral process; S = solenomere; Sh = shelf.

Fig. 5. Dibolostethus sicarius Hoffman, 2009 in A review of the previously monotypic tribe Dibolostethini (Chelodesmidae: Chelodesminae) with description of two new species and a summary of the Chelodesmidae of the Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot

Fig. 5. Dibolostethus sicarius Hoffman, 2009, holotype, ♂ (VMNH110810), left gonopod. A. Lateral view. B. Anterior view. C. Mesal view. Red circles = cingulum. Dashed lines = prostatic groove. Abbreviations: PfP = prefemoral process; S = solenomere.

Fig. 4. Body ring 4, sternal projections. A–B. Dibolostethus sicarius Hoffman, 2009 in A review of the previously monotypic tribe Dibolostethini (Chelodesmidae: Chelodesminae) with description of two new species and a summary of the Chelodesmidae of the Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot

Fig. 4. Body ring 4, sternal projections. A–B. Dibolostethus sicarius Hoffman, 2009, holotype, ♂ (VMNH110810). C–D. D. inopinatus Means, Bouzan & Ivanov sp. nov., holotype, ♂ (VMNH110813). A, C. Lateral views. B, D. Posterolateral views. Abbreviation: Cx = coxae.

Fig. 3. Dibolostethus Hoffman, 2009 somatic characters continued. A, E. Dibolostethus sicarius Hoffman, 2009 in A review of the previously monotypic tribe Dibolostethini (Chelodesmidae: Chelodesminae) with description of two new species and a summary of the Chelodesmidae of the Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot

Fig. 3. Dibolostethus Hoffman, 2009 somatic characters continued. A, E. Dibolostethus sicarius Hoffman, 2009, holotype, ♂ (VMNH110810). B–D. D. kattani Means, Bouzan, Martínez-Torres & Ivanov sp. nov., holotype, ♂ (ICN-MD-1317-1). A. Coxa 2, mesal view, red arrow = gonopore. B. Left leg 4, posterior view, red arrow = tibial ventro-apical projection. C. Left leg of 5th leg pair showing incrassate femur, red arrow = tibial ventro-apical projection. D. Body ring 5, lateral view, red circle = anterior pair of sternal projections. E. Prefemur 5, red arrow = basal pore. Abbreviations: Cx = coxa; Pf = prefemur.

Fig. 1 in A review of the previously monotypic tribe Dibolostethini (Chelodesmidae: Chelodesminae) with description of two new species and a summary of the Chelodesmidae of the Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot

Fig. 1. Dibolostethus kattani Means, Bouzan, Martínez-Torres & Ivanov sp. nov., ♂ (ICN-MD-1367), habitus. Scale bar = 5 mm.

Fig. 9 in A review of the previously monotypic tribe Dibolostethini (Chelodesmidae: Chelodesminae) with description of two new species and a summary of the Chelodesmidae of the Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot

Fig. 9. Distribution of Chelodesmidae spp. in the Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot, by country. Note: the type locality of Dibolostethus sicarius Hoffman, 2009 is included for completeness although it falls just outside of the boundaries of the Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot. For information on these taxa see Supp. file 1.

Fig. 2 in A review of the previously monotypic tribe Dibolostethini (Chelodesmidae: Chelodesminae) with description of two new species and a summary of the Chelodesmidae of the Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot

Fig. 2. Scanning electron microscope images of Dibolostethus Hoffman, 2009 showing somatic characters. Dibolostethus kattani Means, Bouzan, Martínez-Torres & Ivanov sp. nov., paratype, ♂ (ICN- MD-1317B). A. Body rings 9th and 10th, red rectangle = median metazonal sulcus. B. Venter of 4th body ring, showing paired sternal projections, red oval = stigma. C. Venter of head, showing narrow gnathochilarium. D. Tip of seventh antennomere, red arrow = narrow slit connecting pocket containing sensilla basiconica and sensory cone area.

Fig. 6 in A review of the previously monotypic tribe Dibolostethini (Chelodesmidae: Chelodesminae) with description of two new species and a summary of the Chelodesmidae of the Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot

Fig. 6. Dibolostethus inopinatus Means, Bouzan & Ivanov sp. nov., holotype, ♂ (VMNH110813), left gonopod. A. Lateral view, red circle = cingulum. B. Anterior view. C. Mesal view. Dashed lines = prostatic groove. Abbreviations: PfP = prefemoral process; S = solenomere.

Fig. 8. Dibolostethus sicarius Hoffman, 2009 in A review of the previously monotypic tribe Dibolostethini (Chelodesmidae: Chelodesminae) with description of two new species and a summary of the Chelodesmidae of the Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot

Fig. 8. Dibolostethus sicarius Hoffman, 2009, paratype, ♀ (VMNH110811), vulvae. A. Left vulva, lateroventral view, with operculum at base. B. Vulvae in situ, held appressed to 2nd leg pair coxae with valve openings facing each other. C. Left vulva, lateral view.