Find research datasets worth reusing

FIG. 5 in Analysis of the type material of Synedra deformis W.Sm. and Synedra vaucheriae var. deformis Grunow (Fragilariaceae, Bacillariophyta)

FIG. 5. — Fragilaria pectinalis (O.F.Müll.) Lyngb. Images taken from the River Aa, province of Antwerp, Belgium: A-S, LM views of more or less normally formed valves of the population arranged in decreasing length; T, U, LM views of two frustules connected in girdle view; V-AJ, LM views of several deformed valves of the population arranged in decreasing length; AK, SEM external view of a frustule in oblique view showing the girdle bands and the mantle plaques; AL, SEM external view of an entire valve; AM, SEM external detail of a valve apex with the rimoportula; AN, SEM external detail of a valve apex lacking the rimoportula. Note the spines and small granules at the valve margin; AO, SEM internal view of an entire valve showing the slightly eccentric position of the rimoportula at one apex. Scale bars: A-AL, AN, 10 µm; AM, AO, 1 µm.

FIG. 2 in Analysis of the type material of Synedra deformis W.Sm. and Synedra vaucheriae var. deformis Grunow (Fragilariaceae, Bacillariophyta)

FIG. 2. — Synedra vaucheriae var. deformis Grunow. Images taken from the type material (Grunow sample 907): A, LM view of four frustules connected in girdle view; B-Q, LM views of the population arranged in decreasing length; R, original drawing and notes made by Grunow (Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Austria); S, SEM external detail of the apex of a frustule girdle view showing the girdle bands and the apical pore fields; T, SEM external view of an entire valve; U, SEM external detail of a valve apex with the rimoportula; V, SEM internal view of an entire valve showing the slightly eccentric position of the rimoportula at one apex. Scale bars: A-Q, T, V, 10 µm; S, U, 1 µm.

FIG. 1. — Synedra deformis W in Analysis of the type material of Synedra deformis W.Sm. and Synedra vaucheriae var. deformis Grunow (Fragilariaceae, Bacillariophyta)

FIG. 1. — Synedra deformis W.Sm. Images taken from the type material (P. Mill Pond, Lewes, Sussex, United Kingdom): A, LM view of two frustules connected in girdle view; B-R, LM views of the population arranged in decreasing length; S, SEM external view of a frustule in girdle view; T, SEM external view of an entire valve. The arrows indicate interruptions in the areola series of the striae; U, V, SEM external view of two smaller valves. The arrows indicate the rimoportula; W, SEM external detail of the valve apex showing the rimoportula (arrow) and the apical pore field; X, SEM internal view of an entire valve showing the central position of the rimoportula at one apex; Y, SEM internal detail showing the eccentric position of the rimoportula. Scale bars: A-V, X, 10 µm; W, Y, 1 µm.

FIG. 4 in Analysis of the type material of Synedra deformis W.Sm. and Synedra vaucheriae var. deformis Grunow (Fragilariaceae, Bacillariophyta)

FIG. 4. — Fragilaria joachimii Kahlert. Images taken from the type material (Strain TCC887 isolated from BrostrÖmmen near Norrtälje, Sweden): A-R, LM views of the population arranged in decreasing length; S, T, LM views of several frustules connected to form long chains in girdle view; U, SEM external view of several frustules in girdle view connected via mucus (indicated by the arrows); V, SEM external view of a frustule in girdle view showing the girdle bands and the mantle plaques. Note the small spines and granules near the valve face/mantle junction; W, SEM external view of an entire valve with scattered small spines on the margin; X, SEM external detail of a valve apex with the rimoportula and the apical pore field. Scale bars: A-W, 10 µm; X, 1 µm.

FIG. 6 in Analysis of the type material of Synedra deformis W.Sm. and Synedra vaucheriae var. deformis Grunow (Fragilariaceae, Bacillariophyta)

FIG. 6. — Fragilaria vaucheriae (Kütz.) J.B.Petersen. Images taken from the type population (Quellen bei Leisling, Weissenfels, Germany): A, B, LM views of two frustules connected in girdle view; C-P, LM views of the population arranged in decreasing length. Scale bar: 10 µm.

FIG. 3 in Analysis of the type material of Synedra deformis W.Sm. and Synedra vaucheriae var. deformis Grunow (Fragilariaceae, Bacillariophyta)

FIG. 3. — Fragilaria candidagilae Almeida, C.Delgado, Novais & S.Blanco. Images taken from the type material (Ribeira do Botão, Mondego River Basin, Coimbra Portugal): A, LM view of two frustules connected in girdle view; B-R, LM views of the population arranged in decreasing length; S, SEM external view of a frustule in girdle view showing the girdle bands, the apical pore fields and the mantle plaques; T, SEM external view of an entire valve; U, SEM external view of an entire small valve; V, SEM external detail of a valve apex with the rimoportula and the apical pore field; W, SEM internal view of an entire valve showing the slightly eccentric position of the rimoportula at one apex. Scale bars: A-U, W, 10 µm; V, 1 µm.

FIGURE 4 in Why is Synedra berolinensis so hard to classify? More on monotypic taxa

FIGURE 4. Tree representing the results of Kim et al. (2010: fig. 11). In this tree, there are 13 species related to one another in varying degrees; the tree is fully resolved with 12 nodes; 9 of the 13 species are monotypic genera (taxon names are followed by a figure to indicate numbers of included species).

FIGURE 3 in Why is Synedra berolinensis so hard to classify? More on monotypic taxa

FIGURE 3. Hypothetical tree (classification) of 12 species with 7 nodes (0–6). See Table 5 and text. Node 1 suggests there is evidence to support a group E–L to the exclusion of A–D; that there is evidence to support a group E–H to the exclusion of A–D and I–L; that there is evidence to support a group E–F to the exclusion of A–D and G–L, etc., through all nodes 4–6. The assignment of taxonomic level is not particularly important (see Table 5, for an example), only the monophyly of each: data, relationships and the classification hierarchy are isomorphic.

FIGURE 2 in Why is Synedra berolinensis so hard to classify? More on monotypic taxa

FIGURE 2. (a) Branching diagram representing the classification of Synedra in Hustedt (1930) and (b) Hustedt (1932).

FIGURE 1 in Why is Synedra berolinensis so hard to classify? More on monotypic taxa

FIGURE 1. (a) Branching diagram representing the classification of Synedra in Lemmermann 1900a, identifying the new section ('sectio') Belanastrum. (b) Branching diagram representing the classification of Synedra in Gemeinhardt (1926).

FIGURE 6 in Why is Synedra berolinensis so hard to classify? More on monotypic taxa

FIGURE 6. Second part of one section of the consensus tree from the analysis undertaken herein, split into two: a and b. Figure 6a joins to Figure 6b via the branch that terminates with the Greek letter beta (β). Figure 6a has nodes 6–10, Figure 6b has nodes 11–16. Note position of Synedra berolinensis as basal to all species from node 9.