1,721,038 research outputs found

    FIGURE 2 in Molecular and morphological evaluation of the aphid genus Hyalopterus Koch (Insecta: Hemiptera: Aphididae), with a description of a new species

    No full text
    FIGURE 2. Phylogeny of the genus Hyalopterus constructed from 1322 concatenated base-pairs (plus two informative gaps) from all four genes. The data was partitioned by gene, using the models of evolution given in Table 2, in the program MrBAYES. Node support for each clade is given as a posterior probability value. See Table 1 for detailed sample information.Published as part of Lozier, Jeffrey D., Foottit, Robert G., Miller, Gary L., Mills, Nicholas J. & Roderick, George K., 2008, Molecular and morphological evaluation of the aphid genus Hyalopterus Koch (Insecta: Hemiptera: Aphididae), with a description of a new species, pp. 1-19 in Zootaxa 1688 on page 7, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18057

    FIGURE 1. Locus specific phylogenies for COI, 12S in Molecular and morphological evaluation of the aphid genus Hyalopterus Koch (Insecta: Hemiptera: Aphididae), with a description of a new species

    No full text
    FIGURE 1. Locus specific phylogenies for COI, 12S, EF-1α, and Buchnera 16S. All trees are from analyses performed with MRBAYES, with node support given as posterior probabilities. Collection data for each specimen are provided in Table 1 and models of sequence evolution used for each gene are provided in Table 2.Published as part of Lozier, Jeffrey D., Foottit, Robert G., Miller, Gary L., Mills, Nicholas J. & Roderick, George K., 2008, Molecular and morphological evaluation of the aphid genus Hyalopterus Koch (Insecta: Hemiptera: Aphididae), with a description of a new species, pp. 1-19 in Zootaxa 1688 on page 6, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18057

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore