Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 2 in Can Aurelia (Cnidaria, Scyphozoa) species be differentiated by comparing their scyphistomae and ephyrae?

Fig. 2. Body proportions of polpys (shown as percentage). Error Bars show standard deviation. Abbreviations: see Table 2.

Fig. 1 in Can Aurelia (Cnidaria, Scyphozoa) species be differentiated by comparing their scyphistomae and ephyrae?

Fig. 1. Measurements of: A. Scyphistomae. B. Ephyrae. C. Lappets of an ephyra: the marginal lappet can be divided into rhopalial lappet and lappet stem; also visible are the rhopalial and velar canals. D. Rhopalial lappet and gastric canal forms of ephyrae in this study: 1. Rhopalial lappet forms (i.e. left lappet): (a) pointed spoon-like, (b) round spatula-like, (c) lancet-like and (d) bread knife-like; 2. Rhopalial canal forms: (a) forked, sharp points, (b) club-shaped, forked, sharp points and (c) spade-like; 3. Velar canal forms: (a) spade-like and (b) rhombic. Abbreviations: RH = rhopalium; RhC = rhopalial canal; RL = rhopalial lappet; Sta = statolith; UR = umbrella rim; VC = velar canal. Other abbreviations: see Table 2. Modified after Straehler-Pohl & Jarms (2010).

Fig. 4 in Can Aurelia (Cnidaria, Scyphozoa) species be differentiated by comparing their scyphistomae and ephyrae?

Fig. 4. Linear Discriminant Analysis based on the morphology. A. Scyphistomae (17 cultures) of Aurelia congeners. B. Ephyrae (7 of the 17 cultures) of Aurelia congeners. In each case, cultures can be distinguished from one another by different symbols and corresponding numbers (see legend).

Fig. 3 in Can Aurelia (Cnidaria, Scyphozoa) species be differentiated by comparing their scyphistomae and ephyrae?

Fig. 3. Body proportions of ephyrae (shown as percentages). Error bars show standard deviation. Abbreviations: see Table 2.

opencc-zeroDec 2014View details →

dryad40/100

Data from: Discordant patterns of genetic and phenotypic differentiation in five grasshopper species co-distributed across a microreserve network

<p>Conservation plans can be greatly improved when information on the evolutionary and demographic consequences of habitat fragmentation is available for several co-distributed species. Here, we study spatial patterns of phenotypic and genetic variation among five grasshopper species that are co-distributed across a network of microreserves but show remarkable differences in dispersal-related morphology (body size and wing length), degree of habitat specialization and extent of fragmentation of their respective habitats in the study region. In particular, we tested the hypothesis that species with preferences for highly fragmented microhabitats show stronger genetic and phenotypic structure than co-distributed generalist taxa inhabiting a continuous matrix of suitable habitat. We also hypothesized a higher resemblance of spatial patterns of genetic and phenotypic variability among species that have experienced a higher degree of habitat fragmentation due to their more similar responses to the parallel large-scale destruction of their natural habitats. In partial agreement with our first hypothesis, we found that genetic structure, but not phenotypic differentiation, was higher in species linked to highly fragmented habitats. We did not find support for congruent patterns of phenotypic and genetic variability among any studied species, indicating that they show idiosyncratic evolutionary trajectories and distinctive demographic responses to habitat fragmentation across a common landscape. This suggests that conservation practices in networks of protected areas require detailed ecological and evolutionary information on target species in order to focus management efforts on those taxa that are more sensitive to the effects of habitat fragmentation.</p>

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2012View details →

Fig. 2 in Karyotype differentiation and cytotaxonomic considerations in species of Serrasalmidae (Characiformes) from the Amazon basin

Fig. 2. Partial karyotypes of Serrasalmidae species showing Ag-NORs (left side) and 18S rDNA sites (right side): a-b) Serrasalmus elongatus; c-d) Serrasalmus maculatus; e-f) Serrasalmus cf. rhombeus; g-h) Serrasalmus rhombeus; i-j) Pygocentrus nattereri; k-l) Colossoma macropomum. Numbers indicate the corresponding chromosome pairs in the karyotypes of the species.

Figure 8 in Distribution and molecular differentiation of Culex pipiens complex species in the Middle and Eastern Black Sea Regions of Turkey

Figure 8. Unrooted haplotype network for CQ11. Each circle represents a haplotype, and lines above each link indicate mutations.

Figure 7 in Distribution and molecular differentiation of Culex pipiens complex species in the Middle and Eastern Black Sea Regions of Turkey

Figure 7. Phylogenetic tree based on a 151-bp region within the CQ11 microsatellite region of Culex pipiens. The tree was constructed using the maximum likelihood method, and bootstrap values are shown as numbers on the tree.

Figure 5. Unrooted haplotype network. Each circle represents a in Distribution and molecular differentiation of Culex pipiens complex species in the Middle and Eastern Black Sea Regions of Turkey

Figure 5. Unrooted haplotype network. Each circle represents a haplotype, and the lines above each link indicate one mutation. Small black dots indicate intermediate, missing, or unsampled haplotypes.

Figure 4 in Distribution and molecular differentiation of Culex pipiens complex species in the Middle and Eastern Black Sea Regions of Turkey

Figure 4. The phylogenetic tree is based on a 651-bp region of the Ace-2 gene from Culex pipiens. The tree was constructed using the maximum likelihood method, and bootstrap values are shown as numbers on the tree.

Fig. 2 in Ventral And Lateral Spot Patterns Differentiation Between Three Smooth Newt Species (Amphibia: Salamandridae: Lissotriton)

Fig. 2. Color patterns of smooth newt species. Lissotriton schmidtleri: males from Domurcalı (lateral view) and Dursunköy (ventral view), females from Yassıören (lateral view) and Ka- racabey (ventral view), Turkey; L. vulgaris: Gatchina, Russia; L. kosswigi: males from Mollafeneri (lateral view) and Hacılar (ventral view), females from Alibahadır Köyü, Turkey; L. lanzi: males from Ldzaa (lateral view) and Sukhum (ventral view), females from Ldzaa

Fig. 1 in Ventral And Lateral Spot Patterns Differentiation Between Three Smooth Newt Species (Amphibia: Salamandridae: Lissotriton)

Fig. 1. Distribution of Lissotriton vulgaris, L. schmidtleri and L. kosswigi in the Western Palearctic (A) and western Turkey (B). Numbers for localities are given in Table 1

Fig. 4 in Ventral And Lateral Spot Patterns Differentiation Between Three Smooth Newt Species (Amphibia: Salamandridae: Lissotriton)

Fig. 4. Plot of centroids for females (A) and males (B) of Lissotriton kosswigi, L. schmidtleri and L. vulgaris in the space of the first and second canonical discriminant axes

Fig. 3 in Ventral And Lateral Spot Patterns Differentiation Between Three Smooth Newt Species (Amphibia: Salamandridae: Lissotriton)

Fig. 3. Polygons selected on the ventral surface of newts (A) and types of dark spot arrangements located on the border between lateral and ventral surfaces (B), where r is random

Figure 5 in Multiplex-PCR differentiation of two Hyalomma and two Haemaphysalis species (Acari: Ixodidae)

Figure 5. One percent agarose gel electrophoresis stained with Cyber Safe® showing ITS2 fragments amplified using primer pairs Fanas/Ran for Hyalomma anatolicum (amplicon size 749 bp) and Fanas/Ras for Hy. asiaticum (amplicon size 408 bp) (A), COI fragments amplified using primer pairs Fsul/Rpun and Fsul/Rsul for Haemaphysalis punctata (amplicon size 524 bp) and Ha. sulcata (amplicon size 614 bp) (B). (100 bp DNA ladder).

Figure 2 in Multiplex-PCR differentiation of two Hyalomma and two Haemaphysalis species (Acari: Ixodidae)

Figure 2. The ventral morphological aspect of representative male specimens of Haemaphysalis punctata (A) collected from Mazandaran province and Ha. sulcata (B) collected from Lorestan province; white arrows showing position of character spur of coxa IV (size of specimens was not considered).

Figure 1 in Multiplex-PCR differentiation of two Hyalomma and two Haemaphysalis species (Acari: Ixodidae)

Figure 1. The dorsal morphological aspect of representative male specimens of Hyalomma anatolicum (A) and Hy. asiaticum (B) both collected from Lorestan province; white and red arrows showing position of characters cervical grooves and dorsal posterior margin of the basis capituli, respectively (size of specimens was not considered).

Figure 4 in Multiplex-PCR differentiation of two Hyalomma and two Haemaphysalis species (Acari: Ixodidae)

Figure 4. Fourth female coxal spur of Haemaphysalis sulcata (A) and Ha. punctata (B), both collected from Mazandaran province, Iran.

Figure 3 in Multiplex-PCR differentiation of two Hyalomma and two Haemaphysalis species (Acari: Ixodidae)

Figure 3. General schema of representative female dorsal scutum of Hyalomma anatolicum (A) and Hy. asiaticum (B), both collected from Lorestan province (size of specimens was not considered).