Figs. 29–31 in Phylogeny of three species groups of Rhinocricus Karsch, 1881 based on morphological characters (Diplopoda, Spirobolida, Rhinocricidae)
Figs. 29–31 in Phylogeny of three species groups of Rhinocricus Karsch, 1881 based on morphological characters (Diplopoda, Spirobolida, Rhinocricidae)
Published as part of Rodrigues, Patrícia Elesbão Silva, Campos, Luiz Alexandre, Ott, Ricardo & Rodrigues, Everton Nei Lopes, 2020, Phylogeny of three species groups of Rhinocricus Karsch, 1881 based on morphological characters (Diplopoda, Spirobolida, Rhinocricidae), pp. 141-153 in Organisms Diversity & Evolution (New York, N.Y.) 20 (1) on page 148, DOI: 10.1007/s13127-019-00421-3, http://zenodo.org/record/13180849
Figs. 29–31 Posterior body rings, lateral view, showing the length of the epiproct. 29 Prolonged in a small process, not surpassing paraproct, Rhinocricus sooretama. 30 Prolonged into a large process, surpassing paraproct, Argentocricus. sp. 31 Lacking process, R. funebris. e, epiproct; p, paraproct; h, hypoproct. Scale bar = 2 mm
Biodiversity, Taxonomy
Biodiversity, Taxonomy
selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources.This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).0 popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.Average influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).Average impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.Average
Citations provided by BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!