Find research datasets worth reusing

FIGURES 14–22. 14–15 in Are Monobia and Montezumia Monophyletic? A Cladistic Analysis of Their Species Groups Based on Morphological Data (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae)

FIGURES 14–22. 14–15. Female pronotum in dorsal-oblique view: 14. Mb. apicalipennis; 15. Mt. analis. 16–18. Female mesosoma in lateral view: 16. Mb. apicalipennis; 17. Mt. dimidiata; 18. Mt. nigriceps. 19–22. Female mesosoma in dorsal view: 19. Mb. apicalipennis; 20. Mt. analis; 21. Mt. dimidiata; 22. Mt. nigriceps. Scale bars for 14–15 = 1 mm; 16–18 and 22 = 1 mm; 19–21 = 2 mm.

FIGURES 42–47. Monobia goiana. 42–43 in Are Monobia and Montezumia Monophyletic? A Cladistic Analysis of Their Species Groups Based on Morphological Data (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae)

FIGURES 42–47. Monobia goiana. 42–43. Habitus: 42. Female; 43. Male. 44. Female mesosoma in dorsal view. 45–46. Head in frontal view: 45. Female; 46. Male. 47. Female metasoma in dorsal view. Scale bars for 42–43 = 3 mm; 44, 47 = 1 mm; 45–46 = 2 mm.

FIGURES 33–41. 33–36 in Are Monobia and Montezumia Monophyletic? A Cladistic Analysis of Their Species Groups Based on Morphological Data (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae)

FIGURES 33–41. 33–36. Male paramere and volsella (digitus and cuspis) in lateral inner view: 33. Mb. quadridens; 34. Mt. analis; 35. Mt. azurescens; 36. Mt. brethesi. 37–40. Male aedeagus in lateral view: 37. Mb. quadridens; 38. Mt. analis; 39. Mt. azurescens; 40. Mt. brethesi. 41. Sketchy representation of the digitus of Mb. quadridens and Mt. analis: da = basal dorsal angle of digitus; va = basal ventral angle of digitus. Scale bars for 33–35 = 1 mm; figs. 36–39 = 1 mm; 40 = 0.5 mm.

FIGURES 48–53. 48–50 in Are Monobia and Montezumia Monophyletic? A Cladistic Analysis of Their Species Groups Based on Morphological Data (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae)

FIGURES 48–53. 48–50. Mb. insueta, female: 48. Pronotum and mesoscutum in dorsal view; 49. Terga I–II in dorsal view; 50. Sterna I–VI in ventral view. 51–52. Mb. trifasciata, female: 51. Head and pronotum in dorsal view; 52. Head and mesosoma in lateral view. 53. Mb. goiana, female head and pronotum in dorsal view. Scale bars for 48–49 = 1 mm; 50, 52 = 2 mm; 51, 53 = 1 mm.

FIGURES 5–13. 5–9 in Are Monobia and Montezumia Monophyletic? A Cladistic Analysis of Their Species Groups Based on Morphological Data (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae)

FIGURES 5–13. 5–9. Female head in frontal view: 5. Mb. apicalipennis; 6. Mb. schrottkyi; 7. Mt. analis; 8. Mt. dimidiata; 9. Mt. infernalis. 10–13. Female head in dorsal view: 10. Mb. apicalipennis; 11. Mt. dimidiata; 12. Mb. funebris; 13. Mt. analis. Scale bars for 5–9 = 2 mm; 10–11 = 1 mm; 12–13 = 0.5 mm.

FIGURES 23–32. 23–24 in Are Monobia and Montezumia Monophyletic? A Cladistic Analysis of Their Species Groups Based on Morphological Data (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae)

FIGURES 23–32. 23–24. Female metanotum in posterior view: 23. Mt. azurescens; 24. Mt. nigriceps. 25–26. Female propodeum in posterior view: 25. Mb. angulosa; 26. Mt. azurescens. 27–28. Female lower propodeum in lateral view: 27. Mt. nigriceps; 28. Mt. coeruleorufa. 29–30. Female tergum I in lateral view: 29. Mb. quadridens; 30. Mt. azurescens. 31–32. Female sternum I in ventral view: 31. Mb. schrottkyi; 32. Mt. azurescens. Scale bars for 23 = 0.3 mm; 24 = 0.5 mm; 25–26, 30–31 = 1 mm; 27–28 = 0.5 mm; 29, 32 = 1 mm.

FIGURE 1 in Are Monobia and Montezumia Monophyletic? A Cladistic Analysis of Their Species Groups Based on Morphological Data (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae)

FIGURE 1. Strict consensus cladogram of 35 most parsimonious trees

FIGURE 4 in Are Monobia and Montezumia Monophyletic? A Cladistic Analysis of Their Species Groups Based on Morphological Data (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae)

FIGURE 4. Single cladogram obtained with implied weighting of the characters (k =

FIGURE 3 in Are Monobia and Montezumia Monophyletic? A Cladistic Analysis of Their Species Groups Based on Morphological Data (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae)

FIGURE 3. Single cladogram obtained with implied weighting of the characters (k =

FIGURE 2 in Are Monobia and Montezumia Monophyletic? A Cladistic Analysis of Their Species Groups Based on Morphological Data (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae)

FIGURE 2. Strict consensus cladogram of nine most parsimonious trees using

FIGURE 3 in New species of Pyrrhulina (Ostariophysi: Characiformes: Lebiasinidae) from the Brazilian Shield, with comments on a putative monophyletic group of species in the genus

FIGURE 3. Map of northern portion of South America with the collecting sites and type-locality (open circle) of Pyrrhulina marilynae, new species.

FIGURE 4 in New species of Pyrrhulina (Ostariophysi: Characiformes: Lebiasinidae) from the Brazilian Shield, with comments on a putative monophyletic group of species in the genus

FIGURE 4. Syntypes of Pyrrhulina rachoviana USNM 92970: (a) male, 30.6 mm SL; (b) female,-32.9 mm SL. Both from "Rosario".

FIGURE 2. Pyrrhulina zigzag INHS 56206 in New species of Pyrrhulina (Ostariophysi: Characiformes: Lebiasinidae) from the Brazilian Shield, with comments on a putative monophyletic group of species in the genus

FIGURE 2. Pyrrhulina zigzag INHS 56206: (a) male 30.9 mm SL; and (b) female 26.2 mm SL. Both from Peru, Lotero, Ulipa, near Iquitos, 03°47.613'S, 73°13.726'W.

FIGURE 1 in New species of Pyrrhulina (Ostariophysi: Characiformes: Lebiasinidae) from the Brazilian Shield, with comments on a putative monophyletic group of species in the genus

FIGURE 1. Pyrrhulina marilynae, new species: (a) MCP 47420 holotype, male, 30 mm SL, Mato Grosso, Tapurah, stream crossing MT-338 road, 62 Km to the north of Tapurah, 12°15'29"S 56°38'59"W; and (b) MCP 30231 paratype, female, 27.2 mm SL, Mato Grosso, Tabaporã, stream crossing MT-220, about 170 Km east from Porto dos Gaúchos, rio Teles Pires drainage, 11°36'48.0"S 55°57'4.0"W".

Figures 136–143 in Phylogeny of Neotropical Castniinae (Lepidoptera: Cossoidea: Castniidae): testing the hypothesis of the mimics as a monophyletic group and implications for the arrangement of the genera

Figures 136–143. Female genitalia and associated characters, ventral view: 136, Telchin atymnius (Dalman, 1824); 137, Synpalamides amycus (Cramer [1779]) comb. nov.; 138, Geyeria decussata (Godart, [1824]); 139, Athis superba (Strand, 1913) incertae sedis; 140, Corybantes pylades (Stoll, 1872); 141, Yagra dalmannii (Gray, 1838); 142, Imara satrapes (Kollar, 1839); 143, Synpalamides hegemon (Kollar, 1839) comb. nov. Scale bar: 1 mm.

Figures 81–86 in Phylogeny of Neotropical Castniinae (Lepidoptera: Cossoidea: Castniidae): testing the hypothesis of the mimics as a monophyletic group and implications for the arrangement of the genera

Figures 81–86. Genital capsule and associated characters, lateral view: 81, Yagra dalmannii (Gray, 1838); 82, Imara therapon (Kollar, 1839); 83, Eupalamides cyparissias (Fabricius, 1776); 84, Telchin cacica (Herrich-Schäffer, [1854]) comb. nov.; 85, Athis inca (Walker, 1854); 86, Ircila hecate (Herrich-Schäffer, [1854]). Scale bar: 1 mm.

Figures 117–122 in Phylogeny of Neotropical Castniinae (Lepidoptera: Cossoidea: Castniidae): testing the hypothesis of the mimics as a monophyletic group and implications for the arrangement of the genera

Figures 117–122. Structures of the female genitalia: 117, Prometheus heliconioides (Herrich-Schäffer, [1853]) comb. nov., spiral portion of ductus bursae; 118, Telchin licus (Drury, 1773), spiral portion of ductus bursae, with the covering membrane removed to show the internal ornamentation; 119, Telchin licus (Drury, 1773), detail of one spiral and the microsclerotized plates; 120, Telchin licus (Drury, 1773), detail of the sclerotized plate on the posterior end of the spiral portion of ductus bursae; 121, Imara pallasia (Eschscholtz, 1821), inner surface of the bulla seminalis covered with micropapillae; 122, Yagra fonscolombe (Godart, [1824]), sclerotized plate on the anterior portion of antrum.

Figures 105–110 in Phylogeny of Neotropical Castniinae (Lepidoptera: Cossoidea: Castniidae): testing the hypothesis of the mimics as a monophyletic group and implications for the arrangement of the genera

Figures 105–110. Saccus, juxta, and associated characters. 105–108, saccus, ventral view: 105, Corybantes pylades (Stoll, 1872); 106, Athis inca (Walker, 1854); 107, Athis hechtiae (Dyar, 1910); 108, Telchin syphax (Fabricius, 1775). 109–110, juxta, posterior view: 109, Imara pallasia (Eschscholtz, 1821); 110, Eupalamides cyparissias (Fabricius, 1776). Scale bars: 1 mm.

Figure 52 in Phylogeny of Neotropical Castniinae (Lepidoptera: Cossoidea: Castniidae): testing the hypothesis of the mimics as a monophyletic group and implications for the arrangement of the genera

Figure 52. Diagram with the colour bands used to code the characters of the wing pattern. Scale bar: 1 cm.

Figures 96–104. Gnathos and associated characters. 96–101 in Phylogeny of Neotropical Castniinae (Lepidoptera: Cossoidea: Castniidae): testing the hypothesis of the mimics as a monophyletic group and implications for the arrangement of the genera

Figures 96–104. Gnathos and associated characters. 96–101, lateral view: 96, Imara therapon (Kollar, 1839) comb. nov.; 97, Geyeria galinthias (Hopffer, 1856) comb. nov.; 98, Yagra fonscolombe (Godart, [1824]); 99, Telchin licus (Drury, 1773); 100, Corybantes pylades (Stoll, 1782); 101, Prometheus cochrus (Fabricius, 1787). 102–104, posterior view: 102, Telchin syphax (Fabricius, 1775); 103, Synpalamides phalaris (Fabricius, 1793); 104, Corybantes pylades (Stoll, 1872). Scale bars: 1 mm.