Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 6 in Cranial phenotypic variation in Meriones crassus and M. libycus (Rodentia, Gerbillinae), and a morphological divergence in M. crassus from the Iranian Plateau and Mesopotamia (Western Zagros Mountains)

Fig. 6. Scatter plot of PCA results on shape variables of the (A) ventral, (B) dorsal and (C) lateral sides of Meriones crassus Sundevall, 1842 specimens. Legends: ○ = Iranian Plateau, ● = Western Zagros, * = Kuwait, Δ = Arabian, ▲ = Jeddah, □ = Jordan/NW Arabia, ■ = African. Deformation grids (two times magnified) along the first principal components, representing shape differences between configurations corresponding to minimal and maximal scores, are shown to the right of each plot. For the numbering of landmarks, see Fig. 2.

Fig. 4 in Cranial phenotypic variation in Meriones crassus and M. libycus (Rodentia, Gerbillinae), and a morphological divergence in M. crassus from the Iranian Plateau and Mesopotamia (Western Zagros Mountains)

Fig. 4. Scatter plot of the CVA results of the (A) ventral and (B) dorsal shape data of Meriones crassus Sundevall, 1842 (two groups) and M. libycus Lichtenstein, 1823. Legends: ○ = M. crassus (other than Western Zagros), ● = M. crassus of Western Zagros, □ = M. libycus. The grids below show deformation along the arrows, when moving from the M. crassus group mean shape to the Western Zagros group mean shape (A1 and B1), and from the M. libycus mean shape to the mean shape of the Western Zagros (A2 and B2) (shape differences magnified three times for better visualization). For the numbering of landmarks, see Fig. 2.

Fig. 3 in Cranial phenotypic variation in Meriones crassus and M. libycus (Rodentia, Gerbillinae), and a morphological divergence in M. crassus from the Iranian Plateau and Mesopotamia (Western Zagros Mountains)

Fig. 3. Scatter plot of RW1 versus RW2 of the (A) ventral and (B) dorsal cranium of Meriones crassus Sundevall, 1842 and M. libycus Lichtenstein, 1823. Legends: ○ = M. crassus (other than Western Zagros), ● = M. crassus of Western Zagros, □ = M. libycus. Below: thin-plate spline deformation grids visualize shape variation as expressed by the first two RWs axes (grids represent shape difference between configurations corresponding to lowest and highest RW-values). For the numbering of landmarks, see Fig. 2.

Fig. 7 in Cranial phenotypic variation in Meriones crassus and M. libycus (Rodentia, Gerbillinae), and a morphological divergence in M. crassus from the Iranian Plateau and Mesopotamia (Western Zagros Mountains)

Fig. 7. CVA scatter plot (axes 1 and 2) on shape variables of the (A) ventral, (B) dorsal and (C) lateral side of the Meriones crassus groups (Jeddah group not included). Legends: ○ = Iranian plateau, ● = Western Zagros, Δ = Arabian and ■ = African. Grids show deformation (3 x magnified) when following the trajectory within the morphospace along the arrows and between the groups' consensus (from African to Western Zagros – A1, B1 and C1; and from Iranian plateau to Western Zagros – A2, B2 and C2). For the numbering of landmarks, see Fig. 2.

Fig. 1 in Cranial phenotypic variation in Meriones crassus and M. libycus (Rodentia, Gerbillinae), and a morphological divergence in M. crassus from the Iranian Plateau and Mesopotamia (Western Zagros Mountains)

Fig. 1. Map showing the sampling localities of Meriones crassus Sundevall, 1842 (circles) and M. libycus Lichtenstein, 1823 (squares) and groups of sampling localities indicated by ellipses (see more detail about the grouping in Material and Methods). The dark closed symbols are the sampling localities of the type specimens (synonyms of Meriones crassus and M. libycus, see Table 1). The ellipses (from left to right) show the following groups: African, Jeddah, Arabian, Western Zagros and Iranian Plateau.

Figure 8 in A new divergent lineage of Daphnia (Cladocera: Anomopoda) and its morphological and genetical differentiation from Daphnia curvirostris Eylmann, 1887

Figure 8. Daphnia tanakai sp. nov., male from Lake Midori-ga-ike, Japan. A, lateral view. B, caudal spine. C, head. D, E, armature of antero-ventral and posterior portion of valve. F, G, postabdomen and postabdominal claw. H, male antenna I. I, tip of male seta ('flagellum') on antenna I. J, K, limb I and its distal portion. L–O, distal-most endite of limb II.

Figure 7 in A new divergent lineage of Daphnia (Cladocera: Anomopoda) and its morphological and genetical differentiation from Daphnia curvirostris Eylmann, 1887

Figure 7. Daphnia tanakai sp. nov., thoracic limbs of parthenogenetic female from Lake Midori-ga-ike, Japan. A, B, limb I. C, D, anterior seta on its endite 3 and 2. E, limb II. F, G, stiff seta on its inner-distal end. H, gnathobase II. I, J, limb III and its inner-distal portion. K, L, limb IV and its inner-distal portion. M, N, limb V and distal portion of its exopodite.

Figure 6 in A new divergent lineage of Daphnia (Cladocera: Anomopoda) and its morphological and genetical differentiation from Daphnia curvirostris Eylmann, 1887

Figure 6. Daphnia tanakai sp. nov. from Lake Midori-ga-ike, collected on August 30, 2004 by S. Tanaka (A–F, K–O) and Lake Kagami-ike, collected on September 01, 2004 by S. Tanaka (G–J, P–R); both lakes are in Hida Mountain Range, Honshu Island, Japan. A, parthenogenetic female, lateral view. B, head of parthenogenetic female. C, D, armature of postero-ventral and posterior region of valve. E, postabdomen. F–I, postabdominal claws of adults. J, postabdominal claw of juvenile. K, L, antenna I in lateral and distal view. M, N, distal portion of basal segment in posterior and anterior view. O, swimming seta. P, Q, ephippial female and postero-dorsal portion of its carapace. R, ephippium.

Figure 3 in A new divergent lineage of Daphnia (Cladocera: Anomopoda) and its morphological and genetical differentiation from Daphnia curvirostris Eylmann, 1887

Figure 3. Daphnia curvirostris, large parthenogenetic female from Lake Glubokoe, Moscow area, European Russia, collected on August 9, 2004 by AAK. A, lateral view. B, caudal spine. C–E, head. F, G, armature of postero-ventral and posterior region of valve. H, postabdomen. I, J, postabdominal claw. K, L, antenna I in lateral and posterior view.

Figure 5 in A new divergent lineage of Daphnia (Cladocera: Anomopoda) and its morphological and genetical differentiation from Daphnia curvirostris Eylmann, 1887

Figure 5. Daphnia curvirostris from Lake Glubokoe, Moscow area, European Russia, collected on September 9, 2004 by N. N. Smirnov. A, B, ephippial female and its postero-dorsal region. C, fresh ephippium. D, adult male. E, male head. F, G, armature of ventral margin of valve. H, armature of posterior portion of valve. I, J, postabdomen and abdomen. K, antenna I. L, antenna II. M, N, limb I and its distal portion. O, armature of distal portion of largest seta of outer distal lobe. P, innerdistal portion of limb II.

Figure 2 in A new divergent lineage of Daphnia (Cladocera: Anomopoda) and its morphological and genetical differentiation from Daphnia curvirostris Eylmann, 1887

Figure 2. Mapping the characters of chromosome number and postabdominal claw morphology onto the Daphnia ND2 consensus tree (Fig. 1). A, the left cladogram shows the evolution of chromosome number. Black line denotes 2n = 22, white line denotes 2n = 20 and dot line denotes 2n = 24. B, the right cladogram shows the evolution of postabdominal claw morphology. Black line denotes variable phenotype between the longispina-claw and pulex-claw types, white line denotes the longispina- claw type, dot line denotes the pulex-claw type and grey line denotes equivocal.

Figure 4 in A new divergent lineage of Daphnia (Cladocera: Anomopoda) and its morphological and genetical differentiation from Daphnia curvirostris Eylmann, 1887

Figure 4. Daphnia curvirostris, appendages of parthenogenetic female from Lake Glubokoe, European Russia. A, coxal part of antenna II. B, distal portion of basal segment and basal portion of branches. C, distal portion of endopod. D, swimming seta. E, maxilla I. F, limb I: ODL indicates outer distal lobe; IDL indicates inner distal lobe. G–I, limb II, second seta on its inner-distal end, and gnathobase II. J–L, limb III, its inner-distal portion and filtering seta of gnathobase. M, N, limb IV and its inner-distal portion. O, limb V.

Figure 1 in A new divergent lineage of Daphnia (Cladocera: Anomopoda) and its morphological and genetical differentiation from Daphnia curvirostris Eylmann, 1887

Figure 1. ME bootstrap consensus tree of Daphnia ND2 sequences. The numbers on each branch show support values of the branch. Upper numbers indicate ME, and ML bootstrap support values for nucleotide sequences. Middle numbers indicate MP bootstrap support values and Bayesian clade credibility values for nucleotide sequences. Lower numbers indicate MP bootstrap support values and Bayesian clade credibility values for amino acid sequences. Asterisks indicate no support values.

opencc-zeroMar 2024View details →

dryad40/100

Directional epistasis is common in morphological divergence

Epistasis is often portrayed as unimportant in evolution. While random patterns of epistasis may have limited effects on the response to selection, systematic directional epistasis can have substantial effects on evolutionary dynamics. Directional epistasis occurs when allelic substitutions that change a trait also modify the effects of allelic substitutions at other loci in a systematic direction. In this case, trait evolution may induce correlated changes in allelic effects and effective genetic variance (evolvability) that modify further evolution. Although theory thus suggests a potentially important role for directional epistasis in evolution, we still lack empirical evidence about its prevalence and magnitude. Using a new framework to estimate systematic patterns of epistasis from line-crosses experiments, we quantify its effects on 197 size-related traits from diverging natural populations in 24 animal and 17 plant species. We show that directional epistasis is common and tends to become stronger with increasing morphological divergence. In animals, most traits displayed negative directionality toward larger size, suggesting that epistasis constraints reducing evolvability toward larger size may be common. Dominance was also common and did not systematically alter the effects of epistasis.

dryad40/100

Shifting balances in the weighting of sensory modalities are predicted by divergence in brain morphology in incipient species of Heliconius butterflies

Integrating and weighting sensory perception across modalities is crucial to how animals adapt to their environment. Divergence in brain structure is often in sensory processing regions, suggesting that investment reflects ecological needs. Here, we use two parapatric closely related species, Heliconius erato cyrbia and Heliconius himera, to test the hypothesis that divergence in sensory brain regions affects foraging decisions. These butterflies are isolated across an ecological gradient, which is linked to differences in brain morphology, with H. e. cyrbia investing more in visual centres and H. himera investing in olfactory centres. Here, we demonstrate that these two species vary in how they associate visual and olfactory cues with positive food rewards. We found that when individuals were trained on paired olfactory and visual stimuli, then presented with these stimuli in conflict, they showed distinct behavioural responses. Heliconius himera was more likely to favour positive olfactory cues than H. e. cyrbia, which favoured visual cues regardless of the paired stimulus. This suggests that these species have diverged in the emphasis placed on these different sensory domains during foraging, consistent with observed differences in brain morphology. This result strengthens evidence that speciation initiated by local adaptation is partly facilitated by changes in the neural basis of key behavioural functions.

opencc-zeroMar 2022View details →

dryad40/100

Selection drives divergence of eye morphology in sympatric Heliconius butterflies

When populations experience different sensory conditions, natural selection may favor sensory system divergence, affecting peripheral structures and/or downstream neural pathways. We characterized the outer eye morphology of sympatric Heliconius species from different forest types and their first-generation reciprocal hybrids to test for adaptive visual system divergence and hybrid disruption. In Panama, Heliconius cydno occurs in closed forests, whereas Heliconius melpomene resides at the forest edge. Among wild individuals, H. cydno has larger eyes than H. melpomene, and there are heritable, habitat-associated differences in the visual brain structures that exceed neutral divergence expectations. Notably, hybrids have intermediate neural phenotypes, suggesting disruption. To test for similar effects in the visual periphery, we reared both species and their hybrids in common garden conditions. We confirm that H. cydno has larger eyes and provide new evidence that this is driven by selection. Hybrid eye morphology is more H. melpomene-like despite body size being intermediate, contrasting with neural trait intermediacy. Overall, our results suggest that eye morphology differences between H. cydno and H. melpomene are adaptive, and that hybrids may suffer fitness costs due to a mismatch between the peripheral visual structures and previously described neural traits that could affect visual performance.

opencc-zeroMay 2024View details →

opencc-by-4.0Jul 2021View details →

FIGURE 5 in Morphological divergences as drivers of diet segregation between two sympatric species of Serrapinnus (Characidae: Cheirodontinae) in macrophyte stands in a neotropical floodplain lake

FIGURE 5 | Graph of Spearman's correlation coefficient calculated between the morphological traits indicated by CVA and main food items consumed by Serrapinnus notomelas and Serrapinnus sp.1 in a lake in the upper Paraná River floodplain, Brazil. Values of r and p indicate the correlation and statistical significance, respectively. Positive correlations are represented by blue color and negative correlations by red color. ALG – algae; ZOO – zooplankton; DI – Depression index; CI – Compression index; RLPd – Relative lenght of caudal peduncule; RHPd – Relative height of caudal peduncule; RWPd – Relative width of caudal peduncule; RAD – Relative area of dorsal fin; ARC – Aspect ratio of caudal fin; ARA – Aspect ratio of anal fin; ARPt – Aspect ratio of pectoral fin; ARPv – Aspect ratio of pelvic fin; RLHd – Relative length of head; RHHd – Relative height of head; RWHd – Relative width of head; RHM – Relative height of mouth; RWM – Relative width of mouth; EP – Relative position of eye; MT – multicuspid teeth; PT – pentacuspid teeth; ICO – Intestinal coefficient; GRL – Gill raker length.