Sara Patrício Canhoto
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Checklist of Serranid and Epinephelid Fishes (Perciformes: Serranidae & Epinephelidae) of India
Journal of the Ocean Science Foundation 2021, Volume 38 Checklist of serranid and epinephelid fishes (Perciformes: Serranidae & Epinephelidae) of India AKHILESH, K.V. 1, RAJAN, P.T. 2, VINEESH, N. 3, IDREESBABU, K.K. 4, BINEESH, K.K. 5, MUKTHA, M. 6, ANULEKSHMI, C. 1, MANJEBRAYAKATH, H. 7, GLADSTON, Y. 8 & NASHAD M. 9 1 ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Mumbai Regional Station, Maharashtra, India. Corresponding author: [email protected]; Email: [email protected] 2 Andaman & Nicobar Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Port Blair, India. Email: [email protected] 3 Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal, India. Email: [email protected] 4 Department of Science and Technology, U.T. of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti, India. Email: [email protected] 5 Southern Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. Email: [email protected] 6 ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Visakhapatnam Regional Centre, Andhra Pradesh, India. Email: [email protected] 7 Centre for Marine Living Resources and Ecology, Kochi, Kerala, India. Email: [email protected] 8 ICAR-Central Island Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India. Email: [email protected] 9 Fishery Survey of India, Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 744101, India. Email: [email protected] Abstract We provide an updated checklist of fishes of the families Serranidae and Epinephelidae reported or listed from India, along with photographs. A total of 120 fishes in this group are listed as occurring in India based on published literature, of which 25 require further confirmation and validation. We confirm here the presence of at least 95 species in 22 genera occurring in Indian marine waters. -
Geology of Saipan Mariana Islands Part 4
Geology of Saipan Mariana Islands Part 4. Submarine Topography and Shoal- Water Ecology GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 280-K Geology of Saipan Mariana Islands Part 4. Submarine Topography and Shoal- Water Ecology By PRESTON E. CLOUD, Jr. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 280-K Description and interpretation of the submarine topography and of the sediments^ biotas^ and morphology of the reef complex adjacent to a geologically diverse tropical island UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1959 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. S EATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 280 Geology of Saipan, Mariana Islands Part 1. General Geology A. General Geology By PRESTON E. CLOUD, Jr., ROBERT GEORGE SCHMIDT, and HAROLD W. BURKE Part 2. Petrology and Soils B. Petrology of the Volcanic Rocks By ROBERT GEORGE SCHMIDT C. Petrography of the Limestones By J. HARLAN JOHNSON D. Soils By RALPH J. McCRACKEN Part 3. Paleontology E. Calcareous Algae By J. HARLAN JOHNSON F. Difcoaster and Some Related Microfossils By M. N. BRAMLETTE G. Eocene Radiolaria By WILLIAM RIEDEL H. Smaller Foraminifera By RUTH TODD I. Larger Foraminifera By W. STORRS COLE J. Echinoids By C. WYTHE COOKE Part 4. Submarine Topography and Shoal-Water Ecology K. Submarine Topography and Shoal-Water Ecology By PRESTON E. CLOUD, Jr. CONTENTS Page Page Abstract_________________________________________ 361 Shoal-water and shoreline ecology and sediments—Con. Introduction. ______________________________________ 362 Habitat descriptions—Con. Purpose and scope of the work_____________________ 362 Organic reefs and reef benches______________ 383 Field methods and acknowledgments-_______________ 362 Minor reef structures______________________ 384 Systematic identifications and other research aid____ 363 Biotope X. -
Fishes Collected During the 2017 Marinegeo Assessment of Kāne
Journal of the Marine Fishes collected during the 2017 MarineGEO Biological Association of the ā ‘ ‘ ‘ United Kingdom assessment of K ne ohe Bay, O ahu, Hawai i 1 1 1,2 cambridge.org/mbi Lynne R. Parenti , Diane E. Pitassy , Zeehan Jaafar , Kirill Vinnikov3,4,5 , Niamh E. Redmond6 and Kathleen S. Cole1,3 1Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, PO Box 37012, MRC 159, Washington, DC 20013-7012, USA; 2Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Original Article Singapore 117543, 14 Science Drive 4, Singapore; 3School of Life Sciences, University of Hawai‘iatMānoa, 2538 McCarthy Mall, Edmondson Hall 216, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA; 4Laboratory of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology of Cite this article: Parenti LR, Pitassy DE, Jaafar Aquatic Organisms, Far Eastern Federal University, 8 Sukhanova St., Vladivostok 690091, Russia; 5Laboratory of Z, Vinnikov K, Redmond NE, Cole KS (2020). 6 Fishes collected during the 2017 MarineGEO Genetics, National Scientific Center of Marine Biology, Vladivostok 690041, Russia and National Museum of assessment of Kāne‘ohe Bay, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Natural History, Smithsonian Institution DNA Barcode Network, Smithsonian Institution, PO Box 37012, MRC 183, Journal of the Marine Biological Association of Washington, DC 20013-7012, USA the United Kingdom 100,607–637. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0025315420000417 Abstract Received: 6 January 2020 We report the results of a survey of the fishes of Kāne‘ohe Bay, O‘ahu, conducted in 2017 as Revised: 23 March 2020 part of the Smithsonian Institution MarineGEO Hawaii bioassessment. We recorded 109 spe- Accepted: 30 April 2020 cies in 43 families. -
Annotated Checklist of the Fish Species (Pisces) of La Réunion, Including a Red List of Threatened and Declining Species
Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde A, Neue Serie 2: 1–168; Stuttgart, 30.IV.2009. 1 Annotated checklist of the fish species (Pisces) of La Réunion, including a Red List of threatened and declining species RONALD FR ICKE , THIE rr Y MULOCHAU , PA tr ICK DU R VILLE , PASCALE CHABANE T , Emm ANUEL TESSIE R & YVES LE T OU R NEU R Abstract An annotated checklist of the fish species of La Réunion (southwestern Indian Ocean) comprises a total of 984 species in 164 families (including 16 species which are not native). 65 species (plus 16 introduced) occur in fresh- water, with the Gobiidae as the largest freshwater fish family. 165 species (plus 16 introduced) live in transitional waters. In marine habitats, 965 species (plus two introduced) are found, with the Labridae, Serranidae and Gobiidae being the largest families; 56.7 % of these species live in shallow coral reefs, 33.7 % inside the fringing reef, 28.0 % in shallow rocky reefs, 16.8 % on sand bottoms, 14.0 % in deep reefs, 11.9 % on the reef flat, and 11.1 % in estuaries. 63 species are first records for Réunion. Zoogeographically, 65 % of the fish fauna have a widespread Indo-Pacific distribution, while only 2.6 % are Mascarene endemics, and 0.7 % Réunion endemics. The classification of the following species is changed in the present paper: Anguilla labiata (Peters, 1852) [pre- viously A. bengalensis labiata]; Microphis millepunctatus (Kaup, 1856) [previously M. brachyurus millepunctatus]; Epinephelus oceanicus (Lacepède, 1802) [previously E. fasciatus (non Forsskål in Niebuhr, 1775)]; Ostorhinchus fasciatus (White, 1790) [previously Apogon fasciatus]; Mulloidichthys auriflamma (Forsskål in Niebuhr, 1775) [previously Mulloidichthys vanicolensis (non Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1831)]; Stegastes luteobrun- neus (Smith, 1960) [previously S. -
ZANCLIDAE Zanclus Cornutus Linnaeus, 1758
click for previous page Perciformes: Acanthuroidei: Zanclidae 3651 ZANCLIDAE Moorish idol by J.E. Randall A single species in this family. Zanclus cornutus Linnaeus, 1758 Frequent synonyms / misidentifications: Zanclus canescens (Linnaeus, 1758) / None. FAO names: En - Moorish idol. Diagnostic characters: Body very deep, its depth 1 to 1.4 times in standard length, and very compressed; adults with a sharp bony projection in front of each eye (larger in males); snout narrow and strongly protruding; no spines or enlarged setae poste- riorly on side of body. Mouth small; teeth slender, slightly incurved, and uniserial. First gill arch with 1 gill raker on upper limb, 10 rakers on lower limb. Dorsal fin with VI or VII (usually VII) spines and 39 to 43 soft rays; third dorsal-fin spine extremely long and fila- mentous, usually longer than standard length; anal fin with III spines and 32 to 36 soft rays; caudal fin emarginate; pectoral-fin rays 18 or 19; pelvic fins with I spine and 5 soft rays. Scales very small, each with a vertical row of erect ctenii which curve posteriorly, giving the skin a texture of fine sandpaper. Colour: white anteri- orly, yellow posteriorly, with 2 broad black bars, the first nearly enclosing eye in its anterior part and broadening ventrally to include chest, pelvic fins, and half of abdomen; second black bar on posterior half of body, edged posteriorly with white and black lines, and extending into both dorsal and anal fins; a black-edged orange saddle-like marking on snout; chin black; caudal fin largely black; dorsal fin white except for intrusion of upper part of second black bar and a yellow zone posterior to it. -
Introduced Marine Species in Pago Pago Harbor, Fagatele Bay and the National Park Coast, American Samoa
INTRODUCED MARINE SPECIES IN PAGO PAGO HARBOR, FAGATELE BAY AND THE NATIONAL PARK COAST, AMERICAN SAMOA December 2003 COVER Typical views of benthic organisms from sampling areas (clockwise from upper left): Fouling organisms on debris at Pago Pago Harbor Dry Dock; Acropora hyacinthus tables in Fagetele Bay; Porites rus colonies in Fagasa Bay; Mixed branching and tabular Acropora in Vatia Bay INTRODUCED MARINE SPECIES IN PAGO PAGO HARBOR, FAGATELE BAY AND THE NATIONAL PARK COAST, AMERICAN SAMOA Final report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fagetele Bay Marine Sanctuary, National Park of American Samoa and American Samoa Department of Marine and Natural Resources. S. L. Coles P. R. Reath P. A. Skelton V. Bonito R. C. DeFelice L. Basch Bishop Museum Pacific Biological Survey Bishop Museum Technical Report No 26 Honolulu Hawai‘i December 2003 Published by Bishop Museum Press 1525 Bernice Street Honolulu, Hawai‘i Copyright © 2003 Bishop Museum All Rights Reserved Printed in the United States of America ISSN 1085-455X Contribution No. 2003-007 to the Pacific Biological Survey EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The biological communities at ten sites around the Island of Tutuila, American Samoa were surveyed in October 2002 by a team of four investigators. Diving observations and collections of benthic observations using scuba and snorkel were made at six stations in Pago Pago Harbor, two stations in Fagatele Bay, and one station each in Vatia Bay and Fagasa Bay. The purpose of this survey was to determine the full complement of organisms greater than 0.5 mm in size, including benthic algae, macroinvertebrates and fishes, occurring at each site, and to evaluate the presence and potential impact of nonindigenous (introduced) marine species. -
Les Genres Et Sous-Genres De Chaetodontidés Étudiés Par Une Méthode D'analyse Numérique
Bull. Mus. natn. Hist, nat., Paris, 4e sér., 6, 1984, section A, n° 2 : 453-485. Les genres et sous-genres de Chaetodontidés étudiés par une méthode d'analyse numérique par André MAUGÉ et Roland BAUCHOT Résumé. — L'analyse en composantes principales des cent quinze espèces de Chaetodontidae à l'aide de trente variables (neuf valeurs méristiques, treize proportions de diverses parties du corps et huit caractères morphologiques) a permis de préciser, à partir de divers dendrogrammes, les affinités de ces espèces entre elles et de proposer une nouvelle répartition des Chaetodontidae en vingt genres, dont quatre nouveaux, et vingt et un sous-genres, dont six nouveaux. Abstract. — Principal component analysis of the 115 species of Chaetodontids using 30 varia- bles (9 meristic data, 13 proportions of different body parts and 8 morphological characters) allowed us to define, from the study of different dendrograms, the affinities of the species and to propose a new classification of the Chaetodontids in 20 genera (4 of which are new) and 21 sub-genera (6 of which are new). A. MAUGÉ, Laboratoire d'Ichtyologie générale et appliquée, Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 43, rue Cuvier, 75231 Paris cedex 05. R. BAUCHOT, Laboratoire d'Anatomie comparée, Université Paris VII, 2, place Jussieu, 75221 Paris cedex 05. La famille des chétodons (Chaetodontidae) a toujours formé un puzzle, dont tous les auteurs qui ont eu à en connaître depuis BLEEKER se sont efforcés de classer les éléments et d'harmoniser les sous-classements. Certains ont tenté cet effort pour une aire géogra- phique restreinte, fonction des limites des faunes envisagées. -
Chumbe Island Management Plan 2017-2027
CHUMBE ISLAND rd 3 Ten Year Management Plan 2017 - 2027 This document is the third ten-year management plan for Chumbe Island Coral Park in Zanzibar, Tanzania. The two previous management plans covered the periods of 1995 to 2005, and 2006 to 2016 respectively. 2027 Goal The Chumbe Island Coral Reef Sanctuary and Closed Forest Reserve are effectively and sustainably managed in order to maximize their contribution to biodiversity conservation, serve as a model for effective ecotourism and MPA management, and provide a platform to promote wider environmental awareness for sustainable development and ecological stewardship in Zanzibar. Produced with support from: Sustainable Solutions International Consulting (SSIC) 2 Published by: Chumbe Island Coral Park (CHICOP) Citation: CHICOP (2017) 3rd Ten Year Management Plan for Chumbe Island Coral Park. Photos & images: Citations provided throughout document where required. All images permissible for use through creative commons or associated licensing, and/or direct owner consent. Cover photo: © CHICOP Design & layout: Sustainable Solutions International Consulting Available from: CHICOP, Zanzibar, Tanzania. E: [email protected] T: +255 (0) 242 231 040 3rd Ten Year Management Plan 2017 – 2027 Chumbe Island Coral Park 3 Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. 6 Figures .................................................................................................................................................... -
Draft Acanthurus Achilles
Draft Acanthurus achilles - Shaw, 1803 ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - ACTINOPTERYGII - PERCIFORMES - ACANTHURIDAE - Acanthurus - achilles Common Names: Achilles Tang (English), Akilles' Kirurgfisk (Danish), Bir (Marshallese), Chirurgien à Tache Rouge (French), Chiurgien d'Achille (French), Cirujano (Spanish; Castilian), Cirujano Encendido (Spanish; Castilian), Indangan (Filipino; Pilipino), Kolala (Niuean), Kolama (Samoan), Meha (Tahitian), Navajón de Aguiles (Spanish; Castilian), Pāku'iku'i (Hawaiian), Red-spotted Surgeonfish (English), Redspot Surgeonfish (English), Redtail Surgeonfish (English) Synonyms: Acanthurus Shaw, 1803; Hepatus (Shaw, 1803); Teuthis (Shaw, 1803); Taxonomic Note: This species is a member of the Acanthurus achilles species complex known for their propensity to hybridize (Randall and Frische 2000). The four species in this complex (A. achilles Shaw, A. japonicus Schmidt, A. leucosternon Bennett, and A. nigricans Linnaeus) are thought to hybridize when their distributional ranges overlap (Craig 2008). Red List Status LC - Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1) Red List Assessment Assessment Information Reviewed? Date of Review: Status: Reasons for Rejection: Improvements Needed: true 2011-02-11 Passed - - Assessor(s): Choat, J.H., Russell, B., Stockwell, B., Rocha, L.A., Myers, R., Clements, K.D., McIlwain, J., Abesamis, R. & Nanola, C. Reviewers: Davidson, L., Edgar, G. & Kulbicki, M. Contributor(s): (Not specified) Facilitators/Compilers: (Not specified) Assessment Rationale Acanthurus achilles is widespread and abundant throughout its range. It is found in isolated oceanic islands and is caught only incidentally for food in parts of its distribution. It is a major component of the aquarium trade and is a popular food fish in West Hawaii. There is evidence of declines from collection and concern for the sustained abundance of this species. -
TUVALU MARINE LIFE PROJECT Phase 1: Literature Review
TUVALU MARINE LIFE PROJECT Phase 1: Literature review Project funded by: Tuvalu Marine Biodiversity – Literature Review Table of content TABLE OF CONTENT 1. CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES 4 1.1. Context of the survey 4 1.1.1. Introduction 4 1.1.2. Tuvalu’s national adaptation programme of action (NAPA) 4 1.1.3. Tuvalu national biodiversity strategies and action plan (NBSAP) 5 1.2. Objectives 6 1.2.1. General objectives 6 1.2.2. Specific objectives 7 2. METHODOLOGY 8 2.1. Gathering of existing data 8 2.1.1. Contacts 8 2.1.2. Data gathering 8 2.1.3. Documents referencing 16 2.2. Data analysis 16 2.2.1. Data verification and classification 16 2.2.2. Identification of gaps 17 2.3. Planning for Phase 2 18 2.3.1. Decision on which survey to conduct to fill gaps in the knowledge 18 2.3.2. Work plan on methodologies for the collection of missing data and associated costs 18 3. RESULTS 20 3.1. Existing information on Tuvalu marine biodiversity 20 3.1.1. Reports and documents 20 3.1.2. Data on marine species 24 3.2. Knowledge gaps 41 4. WORK PLAN FOR THE COLLECTION OF FIELD DATA 44 4.1. Meetings in Tuvalu 44 4.2. Recommendations on field surveys to be conducted 46 4.3. Proposed methodologies 48 4.3.1. Option 1: fish species richness assessment 48 4.3.2. Option 2: valuable fish stock assessment 49 4.3.3. Option 3: fish species richness and valuable fish stock assessment 52 4.3.4. -
Bourmaud, 2003
Museum d’Histoire Naturelle INVENTAIRE DE LA BIODIVERSITE MARINE RECIFALE A LA REUNION Chloé BOURMAUD Octobre 2003 Maître d’ouvrage : Association Parc Marin de la Réunion Maître d’œuvre : Laboratoire d’Ecologie Marine, ECOMAR Financement : Conseil Régional 1 SOMMAIRE Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………3 PHASE I : DIAGNOSTIC ....................................................................................................... 5 I. Méthodologie ...................................................................................................................... 6 1. Scientifiques impliqués dans l’étude.............................................................................. 6 1.1. EXPERTS LOCAUX RENCONTRES................................................................... 6 1.2. EXPERTS HORS DEPARTEMENT CONTACTES ............................................. 6 2. Harmonisation des données............................................................................................ 6 2.1. LES SITES ET SECTEURS DU RECIF ................................................................ 7 2.2. LES UNITES GEOMORPHOLOGIQUES DU RECIF ......................................... 8 2.3. LE DEGRE DE VALIDITE DES ESPECES ......................................................... 8 2.4. LE NIVEAU D’ABONDANCE ............................................................................. 9 2.5. LES GROUPES TAXONOMIQUES ................................................................... 10 3. Conception d'un modèle de base de données .............................................................. -
SPECIAL PUBLICATION No
The J. L. B. SMITH INSTITUTE OF ICHTHYOLOGY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 14 COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF THE FISHES OF SOUTHERN AFRICA PART I MARINE FISHES by Margaret M. Smith RHODES UNIVERSITY GRAHAMSTOWN, SOUTH AFRICA April 1975 COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF THE FISHES OF SOUTHERN AFRICA PART I MARINE FISHES by Margaret M. Smith INTRODUCTION In earlier times along South Africa’s 3 000 km coastline were numerous isolated communities. Interested in angling and pursuing commercial fishing on a small scale, the inhabitants gave names to the fishes that they caught. First, in 1652, came the Dutch Settlers who gave names of well-known European fishes to those that they found at the Cape. Names like STEENBRAS, KABELJOU, SNOEK, etc., are derived from these. Malay slaves and freemen from the East brought their names with them, and many were manufactured or adapted as the need arose. The Afrikaans names for the Cape fishes are relatively uniform. Only as the distance increases from the Cape — e.g. at Knysna, Plettenberg Bay and Port Elizabeth, do they exhibit alteration. The English names started in the Eastern Province and there are different names for the same fish at towns or holiday resorts sometimes not 50 km apart. It is therefore not unusual to find one English name in use at the Cape, another at Knysna, and another at Port Elizabeth differing from that at East London. The Transkeians use yet another name, and finally Natal has a name quite different from all the rest. The indigenous peoples of South Africa contributed practically no names to the fishes, as only the early Strandlopers were fish eaters and we know nothing of their language.