Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2018View details →

Figs 274‒288. 274–279 ‒ male sternite 8 in Comparative genitalic morphology in ten genera of thread-legged bugs of the tribe Metapterini, and its phylogenetic importance (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Reduviidae)

Figs 274‒288. 274–279 ‒ male sternite 8 (S8): 274–276 ‒ ventral view, 277‒279 ‒ lateral view; 280‒288 ‒ pygophore: 280‒282 ‒ dorsal view, 283‒285 ‒ lateral view, 286‒288 ‒ ventral view. 274, 277, 280, 283, 286 ‒ Bergemesa brachmanni (Berg, 1884); 275, 278, 281, 284, 287 ‒ Gardena faustina McAtee & Malloch, 1925; 276, 279, 282, 285, 288 ‒ Tagalis seminigra Champion, 1899. Scale bar: 0.5 mm

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2018View details →

Figs 79‒88 in Comparative genitalic morphology in ten genera of thread-legged bugs of the tribe Metapterini, and its phylogenetic importance (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Reduviidae)

Figs 79‒88. Pygophore in lateral view. 79–81 – Ghinallelia Wygodzinsky, 1966; 82–83 – Liaghinella Wygodzinsky, 1966; 84 – Onychomesa Wygodzinsky, 1966; 85–86 – Pseudometapterus Wygodzinsky, 1966; 87–88 – Schidium Bergroth, 1916. Scale bar: 0.5 mm. Abbreviations: mpp – medial posterior process of pygophore; pa – paramere; vpp – ventral protruding of the pygophore.

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2018View details →

Figs 122‒131 in Comparative genitalic morphology in ten genera of thread-legged bugs of the tribe Metapterini, and its phylogenetic importance (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Reduviidae)

Figs 122‒131. Phallus in dorsal view. 122–124 – Ghinallelia Wygodzinsky, 1966; 125–126 – Liaghinella Wygodzinsky, 1966; 127 – Onychomesa Wygodzinsky, 1966; 128–129 – Pseudometapterus Wygodzinsky, 1966; 130–131 – Schidium Bergroth, 1916. Scale bar: 0.5 mm. Abbreviations: dps – dorsal phallothecal sclerite; duc – ductifer.

opencc-zeroJul 2019View details →

FIG. 1 in Beyond shells: first detailed morphological description of the mangrove-associated gastropod Haminoea cf. fusca (A. Adams, 1850) (Cephalaspidea, Haminoeidae), with a COI phylogenetic analysis

FIG. 1. — Bayesian phylogenetic tree based on partial sequences of the COI gene. Figures on nodes are posterior probabilities, scale bar refer to branch lengths. Coloured squares refer to species that are Indo West Pacific in origin, whereas grey squares to Atlantic and eastern Pacific species. PP, 1. The specimen here used from the Philippines is depicted in Gosliner et al. 2015: 30, lower right.

opencc-by-4.0Jan 2010View details →

Figure 1 in Phylogenetic analysis of the myrmecophilous Cremastocheilus Knoch (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Cetoniinae), based on external adult morphology

Figure 1. Strict consensus of 24 equally parsimonious trees (153 steps, CI = 0.46, RI = 0.80) of Cremastocheilus. Dark bars indicate monophyletic groups that correspond with Alpert's (1994) subgenera and respective species groups. Jackknife values are shown above branches, with support <50 not shown. Bremer support values are shown in bold below branches. Black dot indicates the genus Cremastocheilus.

opencc-by-4.0Jan 2016View details →

Fig. 1. Morphological characters used for the phylogenetic analysis and key. A–C. Terminal maxillary palpomere. D–E. Eyes. F–H. Pronotum. I–J. Leg. K–L in Taxonomic revision of the Lycocerus hanatanii species group (Coleoptera, Cantharidae), with the description of new species from Taiwan

Fig. 1. Morphological characters used for the phylogenetic analysis and key. A–C. Terminal maxillary palpomere. D–E. Eyes. F–H. Pronotum. I–J. Leg. K–L. Inner margin of dorsal plate of aedeagus.

opencc-zeroJun 2020View details →

FIG. 7 in Description of a new species of Cynodictis Bravard & Pomel, 1850 (Carnivora, Mammalia) from the Quercy Phosphorites with comments on the use of skull morphology for phylogenetics

FIG. 7. — Cranium of Cynodictis lacustris Gervais, 1852 (MNHN.F.Qu1903-20) in dorsal view (A), lateral view (B) and ventral view (C). Abbreviations: bo, basioccipital; bs, basisphenoid; ce, carnassial embrasure pit; csm, crista supramastoideus; eo, exoccipital; fm, foramen magnum; fr, frontal; M1, upper first molar; mp, mastoid process; mx, maxillary; nc, nuchal crest; oc, occipital condyle; pa, parietal; pal, palatine; pop, postorbital process of frontal; pp, paroccipital process; pr, promontorium of petrosal; ps, presphenoid; pt, pterygoid; ptp, posttympanic process of squamosal; rt, foramen for ramus temporalis; sc, sagittal crest; tc, temporal crest. Scale bar: 10 mm.

opencc-zeroJun 2020View details →

FIG. 2 in Description of a new species of Cynodictis Bravard & Pomel, 1850 (Carnivora, Mammalia) from the Quercy Phosphorites with comments on the use of skull morphology for phylogenetics

FIG. 2. — Cranium of Cynodictis peignei n. sp. (snout – MNHN.F.Qu9007; neurocranium – MNHN.F.Qu9008) in dorsal view (A), lateral view (B) and ventral view (C). Abbreviations: bo, basioccipital; bs, basisphenoid; C, upper canine; ce, carnassial embrasure pit; csm, crista supramastoideus; eo, exoccipital; fm, foramen magnum; fr, frontal; gf, glenoid fossa; I3, upper third incisor; inf, incisive foramen; iof, infraorbital foramen; ju, jugal; lac, lacrimal; lacf, lacrimal foramen; mp, mastoid process; mpfr, maxillary process of frontal; mx, maxillary; mxt, maxillary tuberosity; na, nasal; nc, nuchal crest; np, nasal process of nasal; oc, occipital condyle; P1, upper first premolar; P2, upper second premolar; P3, upper third premolar; P4, upper ultimate premolar; pa, parietal; pal, palatine; pdp, posterodorsal process of premaxillary; pgp, postglenoid process; pmx, premaxillary; pop, postorbital process of frontal; pp, paroccipital process; pr, promontorium of petrosal; ptp, posttympanic process of squamosal; rt, foramen for ramus temporalis; sc, sagittal crest; sq, squamosal; zpmx, zygomatic process of maxillary; zpsq, zygomatic process of squamosal. Scale bar: 10 mm.

Fig. 55. One ofthreetreesfromtotalevidenceanalysiswith POYof 92-taxondatasetusing 2 in Phylogenetic relationships of family groups in Pentatomoidea based on morphology and DNA sequences (Insecta: Heteroptera)

Fig. 55. One ofthreetreesfromtotalevidenceanalysiswith POYof 92-taxondatasetusing 2: 2 indel ⁄ transition–transversioncostratio, whichhad the lowest MRI value. Bremer support values are shown.

Fig. 53 in Phylogenetic relationships of family groups in Pentatomoidea based on morphology and DNA sequences (Insecta: Heteroptera)

Fig. 53. One of six trees from total evidence analysis with POY of 92-taxon data set using 1: 1 indel ⁄ transition–transversion cost ratio. (d) Non-homoplasious; (s) homoplasious.

Figs 45–48. 45. Oneoftwotreesderivedfromanalysisofcombinedmoleculardatawith 1 in Phylogenetic relationships of family groups in Pentatomoidea based on morphology and DNA sequences (Insecta: Heteroptera)

Figs 45–48. 45. Oneoftwotreesderivedfromanalysisofcombinedmoleculardatawith 1: 1 indel ⁄ transition–transversioncostratio. 46. Singletree derivedfromanalysisofcombinedmoleculardatawith 2: 2 indel ⁄ transition–transversioncostratio. 47. Singletreederivedfromanalysisof ~500 bp of 16S rRNAdatausing 1: 1 indel ⁄ transition–transversioncost ratio. 48. Singletreederivedfromanalysis of ~1800 bpof 18S rRNAusing 1: 1 indel ⁄ transition–transversioncostratio.

Fig. 43 in Phylogenetic relationships of family groups in Pentatomoidea based on morphology and DNA sequences (Insecta: Heteroptera)

Fig. 43. Strict consensus of three trees derived from successive weighting of the results shown in Fig. 42. (d) Non-homoplasious; (s) homoplasious.

Figs 16–24. 16 in Phylogenetic relationships of family groups in Pentatomoidea based on morphology and DNA sequences (Insecta: Heteroptera)

Figs 16–24. 16. Saileriola sandakanensis (Saileriolidae). Coxae of middle and hind legs more distant from each other. 17a. Cydnus aterrimus (Cydnidae): hind tibiae, posterior view; 17b. Dallasiellus dilatipes (Cydnidae): fore tibiae, anterior view. 18. Ruckesona vitrella (Saileriolidae). Abdominal trichobothria. 19. Serbana borneensis (Phloeidae). Abdominal trichobothria. 20. Atarsocoris sp. (Cydnidae). Abdominal trichobothria. 21. Edessa sp. (Pentatomidae). Abdominal spiracles well removed from lateral margins of sternum. 22. Phloea subquadrata (Phloeidae). Male abdominal segment VIII with spiracles. 23. Tessaratoma papillosa (Tessaratomidae). Spiracles on second segment totally exposed and far removed from lateral margins of sternum. 24. Ruckesona vitrella (Saileriolidae), female. Sternite VII split on the midline.

opencc-zeroDec 2020View details →

dryad40/100

Anatomical partitioning has little influence in topologies from Bayesian phylogenetic analyses of morphological data

<p>Morphological data is a fundamental source of evidence to reconstruct the Tree of Life, and Bayesian phylogenetic methods are increasingly being used for this task, along with, or instead of, traditional parsimony approaches. Bayesian phylogenetic analyses require the use of proper evolutionary models and their performance have been intensively studied in the past few years, with significant improvements to our knowledge regarding their performance. Notwithstanding, it was only recently that partitioned models for morphology received attention in studies of empirical data, but a systematic evaluation of its performances using simulations was never performed. Here we evaluate the influence of partitioned models defined by anatomical criterion in the precision and accuracy of consensus tree topologies, evaluating the possible negative effects of under and overpartitioning. For that, we analysed datasets simulated using parameters and properties of two empirical datasets, using Bayesian phylogenetic analyses in MrBayes. Additionally, we reanalysed 32 empirical datasets for diverse groups of vertebrates, applying unpartitioned and partitioned models. We found that in general, partitioning by anatomy has little to no influences in the performance of Bayesian phylogenetic methods in respect to the metrics studied here, with analyses under alternative partitioning schemes presenting very similar tree precision and accuracy. We discuss the possible reasons for the disagreement between the results obtained here and previous studies for empirical morphological data, and with empirical and simulation studies of molecular data, discussing the adequacy of anatomical partitioning relative to alternative methods to partition morphological datasets and how morphological and molecular partitioning are related.</p>

Fig. 25 in Revision of the morphology, phylogenetic relationships, behaviour and diversity of the Iberian and Italian ant-like Tachydromia Meigen, 1803 (Diptera: Hybotidae)

Fig. 25. Habitat of Tachydromia ebejeri Gonçalves, Grootaert & Andrade sp. nov. in a forest of Quercus pyrenaica Willd. in Portugal, Arganil, Benfeita (Mata da Margaraça), a region under submediterranean influence.

Fig. 24 in Revision of the morphology, phylogenetic relationships, behaviour and diversity of the Iberian and Italian ant-like Tachydromia Meigen, 1803 (Diptera: Hybotidae)

Fig. 24. Forest of Fagus sylvatica L. in the Apennine Mountains, where Tachydromia apterygon Plant & Deeming, 2006 can be found.

Fig. 21 in Revision of the morphology, phylogenetic relationships, behaviour and diversity of the Iberian and Italian ant-like Tachydromia Meigen, 1803 (Diptera: Hybotidae)

Fig. 21. Drawings of the tip of stenopterous wings and images obtained by scanning electron microscope (SEM) of the micropterous wings. Males are pictured in the left column, females in the right. A, C. T. pandellei (Séguy, 1941). B–C. T. pieltaini (Gil Collado, 1936). D–E. T. semiaptera (Gil Collado, 1923). F–G. T. stenoptera Gonçalves, Grootaert & Andrade sp. nov. Scale bars: A–D, F = 50 µm; E, G = 10 µm.

Fig. 19 in Revision of the morphology, phylogenetic relationships, behaviour and diversity of the Iberian and Italian ant-like Tachydromia Meigen, 1803 (Diptera: Hybotidae)

Fig. 19. Images obtained by scanning electron microscopy of the spur-like structures present on the apical portion of the male mid tibia. A. T. lusitanica (Grootaert, Shamshev & Andrade, 2009). B. T. pandellei (Séguy, 1941). C. T. pieltaini (Gil Collado, 1936). D. T. ebejeri Gonçalves, Grootaert & Andrade sp. nov. E–F. T. semiaptera (Gil Collado, 1923). G. T. stenoptera Gonçalves, Grootaert & Andrade sp. nov. H. T. cantabrica Gonçalves, Grootaert & Andrade sp. nov. I. T. nigrohirta Gonçalves, Grootaert & Andrade sp. nov. J. T. apterygon Plant & Deeming, 2006. Scale bars: 10 µm.

Fig. 17 in Revision of the morphology, phylogenetic relationships, behaviour and diversity of the Iberian and Italian ant-like Tachydromia Meigen, 1803 (Diptera: Hybotidae)

Fig. 17. Mounted specimens of the Iberian ant-like Tachydromia Meigen, 1803. Males are pictured in the left column, females in the right. A–B. T. lusitanica (Grootaert, Shamshev & Andrade, 2009). C–D. T. nigrohirta Gonçalves, Grootaert & Andrade sp. nov. E–F. T. ebejeri Gonçalves, Grootaert & Andrade sp. nov. G–H. T. stenoptera Gonçalves, Grootaert & Andrade sp. nov. Scale bars: 1 mm.