Nis elements br v4

All measurements were made using a live measurement module within NIS Elements BR v4.5. Measurements were taken as listed below, but only proportional (HW/HL, PW/PL, EW/EL, PW/HW) and forebody measurements are stated directly in descriptions. Total body length is generally difficult to standardize for Staphylinidae and was not measured due to the contractile nature of the abdomen.
HL Head Length, at middle, from the anterior margin of frons to the nuchal ridge.
HW Head Width, the greatest width, including the eyes.
PL Pronotum Length, at middle.
PW Pronotum Width, greatest width.
EL Elytral Length, greatest length taken from level of the anterior most large, lateral macroseta to apex of elytra. EL approximates the length of the elytra not covered by the pronotum and therefore contributing to the forebody length.
EW Elytral Width, greatest width.
ForebodyHL + PL + EL.

All measurements were made using a live measurement module within NIS Elements BR v. 4.5. Measurements were taken as listed below, but only proportional (HW/HL, PW/PL, EW/EL, PW/HW) and forebody measurements were stated directly in descriptions. Total body length is generally difficult to standardize for Staphylinidae and was not measured due to the contractile nature of the abdomen.
HL Head Length, at middle, from the anterior margin of frons to the nuchal ridge;
HW Head Width, the greatest width, including the eyes;
PL Pronotum Length, at middle;
PW Pronotum Width, greatest width;
EL Elytral Length, greatest length taken from level of the anterior most large, lateral macroseta to apex of elytra. EL approximates the length of the elytra not covered by the pronotum and therefore contributing to the forebody length;
EW Elytral Width, greatest width;
ESut Elytral Suture, apex of the scutellum to the apex of the elytra
ForebodyHL + PL + EL.

All specimens were examined using a Nikon 745T stereomicroscope. To allow for the routine dissection of the terminal abdominal segments (including the aedeagus), distilled water was applied directly to the tip of the abdomen using a fine paintbrush. As a precaution against DNA degradation, specimens examined in the present study were never subjected to high ambient humidity relaxing chambers or entirely submersed in water. This was in direct contrast to the specimens dissected for Brunke and Solodovnikov (2014) , which may be less suitable for future amplification of DNA. Genitalia were cleared in a 10% potassium hydroxide solution and then washed with distilled water, then with 70% alcohol and finally placed in glycerin for observation. Genitalia were placed in glycerin filled vials for long-term storage, which were pinned with their respective specimen.
Line illustrations were performed in Adobe Illustrator CS6 based on photographs. Photomontage was accomplished using a motorized Nikon SMZ25 microscope and NIS Elements BR v4.5. Photos were processed in Adobe Photoshop CS6. Distribution maps were created using QGIS 2.18 as in Brunke and Solodovnikov (2014) .