taxonID	type	format	identifier	references	title	description	created	creator	contributor	publisher	audience	source	license	rightsHolder	datasetID
177687B2FFDCFFFCFF246CB12D2296C0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5434030/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5434030	Figure 2. Principal co-ordinates analysis applied to a matrix of Roger’s D genetic distances between all individuals of Chelodina expansa. The plot shows a degree of differentiation between coastal Queensland forms (Albert River in the south to Fitzroy–Dawson River in the north, including Fraser Island) (O) and those of the Murray- Darling system (•), but these differences have not moved to fixation at any locus (45 loci).	Figure 2. Principal co-ordinates analysis applied to a matrix of Roger’s D genetic distances between all individuals of Chelodina expansa. The plot shows a degree of differentiation between coastal Queensland forms (Albert River in the south to Fitzroy–Dawson River in the north, including Fraser Island) (O) and those of the Murray- Darling system (•), but these differences have not moved to fixation at any locus (45 loci).	2002-04-30	Georges, Arthur;Adams, Mark;McCORD, William		Zenodo	biologists	Georges, Arthur;Adams, Mark;McCORD, William			
177687B2FFDCFFFCFF246CB12D2296C0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5434032/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5434032	Figure 3. Principal co-ordinates analysis applied to a matrix of Roger’s D genetic distances between all individuals of Chelodina rugosa (Queensland form) (O), C. rugosa (Northern Territory form) (Z), C. siebenrocki (•), Chelodina burrungandjii (O) and an undescribed form from the Kimberley plateau of Western Australia (Ɨ). A hybrid between Chelodina burrungandjii and C. rugosa (Northern Territory form) is included (). Three groups are evident. Chelodina burrungandjii and the undescribed form from the Kimberley plateau are undifferentiated and probably represent a single taxon. Chelodina seibenrocki and the Queensland form of C. rugosa are undifferentiated, and also probably represent a single taxon. The Northern Territory form of C. rugosa represents the third group. These three groups differ each by only one fixed difference.	Figure 3. Principal co-ordinates analysis applied to a matrix of Roger’s D genetic distances between all individuals of Chelodina rugosa (Queensland form) (O), C. rugosa (Northern Territory form) (Z), C. siebenrocki (•), Chelodina burrungandjii (O) and an undescribed form from the Kimberley plateau of Western Australia (Ɨ). A hybrid between Chelodina burrungandjii and C. rugosa (Northern Territory form) is included (). Three groups are evident. Chelodina burrungandjii and the undescribed form from the Kimberley plateau are undifferentiated and probably represent a single taxon. Chelodina seibenrocki and the Queensland form of C. rugosa are undifferentiated, and also probably represent a single taxon. The Northern Territory form of C. rugosa represents the third group. These three groups differ each by only one fixed difference.	2002-04-30	Georges, Arthur;Adams, Mark;McCORD, William		Zenodo	biologists	Georges, Arthur;Adams, Mark;McCORD, William			
177687B2FFDCFFFCFF246CB12D2296C0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/15223895/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15223895	Figure 4. Principal components analysis applied to a matrix of Roger’s D genetic distances between all individuals of Chelodina longicollis (O), C. mccordi (Δ), C. pritchardi (•), C. novaeguineae (New Guinea form) (), C. novaeguineae (Australian form) (O) and C. reimanni (Z). Two individuals which are hybrids between C. longicollis and C. novaeguineae (Australian form) are included (Ɨ). Five groups are evident. Chelodina longicollis, C. mccordi and C. pritchardi are well differentiated. Chelodina novaeguineae (New Guinea form) and C. reimanni are undifferentiated and may represent a single taxon (but see text). The Australian and New Guinea forms of C. novaeguineae are clearly differentiated, but only one difference has moved to fixation.	Figure 4. Principal components analysis applied to a matrix of Roger’s D genetic distances between all individuals of Chelodina longicollis (O), C. mccordi (Δ), C. pritchardi (•), C. novaeguineae (New Guinea form) (), C. novaeguineae (Australian form) (O) and C. reimanni (Z). Two individuals which are hybrids between C. longicollis and C. novaeguineae (Australian form) are included (Ɨ). Five groups are evident. Chelodina longicollis, C. mccordi and C. pritchardi are well differentiated. Chelodina novaeguineae (New Guinea form) and C. reimanni are undifferentiated and may represent a single taxon (but see text). The Australian and New Guinea forms of C. novaeguineae are clearly differentiated, but only one difference has moved to fixation.	2002-04-30	Georges, Arthur;Adams, Mark;McCORD, William		Zenodo	biologists	Georges, Arthur;Adams, Mark;McCORD, William			
177687B2FFDCFFFCFF246CB12D2296C0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5434038/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5434038	Figure 7. The phylogeny most strongly supported by our electrophoretic data. Note that C. reimanni and C. novaeguineae could not be separated electrophoretically, but we retain them as separate on the basis of morphological evidence (Philippen & Grossman, 1990; Rhodin, 1994a). The symbols + show the progressive development of robusticity in both the skull and triturating surfaces.	Figure 7. The phylogeny most strongly supported by our electrophoretic data. Note that C. reimanni and C. novaeguineae could not be separated electrophoretically, but we retain them as separate on the basis of morphological evidence (Philippen & Grossman, 1990; Rhodin, 1994a). The symbols + show the progressive development of robusticity in both the skull and triturating surfaces.	2002-04-30	Georges, Arthur;Adams, Mark;McCORD, William		Zenodo	biologists	Georges, Arthur;Adams, Mark;McCORD, William			
177687B2FFDCFFFCFF246CB12D2296C0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5434034/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5434034	Figure 5. An unrooted neighbour-joining tree showing the phylogenetic relationships among taxa that were diagnosable in our sample. This includes forms whose diagnosis was tentative: that is, involving one fixed difference in allopatry.	Figure 5. An unrooted neighbour-joining tree showing the phylogenetic relationships among taxa that were diagnosable in our sample. This includes forms whose diagnosis was tentative: that is, involving one fixed difference in allopatry.	2002-04-30	Georges, Arthur;Adams, Mark;McCORD, William		Zenodo	biologists	Georges, Arthur;Adams, Mark;McCORD, William			
