DOCSLIB.ORG

2011 Box Score

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2011 Box Score PENNSYLVANIA’S WILD SPECIES—THE 2011 BOX SCORE SPECIES OR SUBSPECIES OF IMMEDIATE CONCERN TOTAL SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES REPRODUCING CURRENTLY IN PABS- PABS- DOWNLISTED PRESUMED PENNSYLVANIA RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED SINCE 1990 DUE EXTIRPATED EXTINCT THE WILD IN PENNSYLVANIA NON-BREEDING GROUP OF ORGANISMS RESPONSIBILITY ENDANGERED IN THREATENED IN TO INCREASE FROM (GLOBALLY) MIGRANTS ‡ PENNSYLVANIA* PENNSYLVANIA* IN POPULATION PENNSYLVANIA NATIVE NONNATIVE TOTAL† SPECIES PLANTS GL: 24 GL: 4 GL: 10 Vascular plants (Tracheophyta) 0 2 2,075 931 3,006 — needs Revised May 2010—B. Isaac, S. Grund & T. Block PA: 300 PA: 115 PA: 97 study Mosses (Bryophyta) needs needs 0 PA: 3 0 443 0 443 — needs Revised Jan. 2011—J. Lendemer study study study needs needs needs Liverworts (Marchantiophyta) 0 unknown 0 ~150 0 ~150 — Revised Sep. 2007—J. Lendemer study study study needs needs needs Hornworts (Anthocerotophyta) 0 unknown 0 unknown 0 unknown — study study study needs needs needs Stoneworts, pondweeds (Charophyta) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study study needs needs needs Green algae (Chlorophyta) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study study ANIMALS I—VERTEBRATES (Chordata) GL: 1 GL: 2 Birds (Aves) PA: 3 2 2 183 5 188 116 9 Revised June 2010—M. Brittingham PA: 14 PA: 5 GL: 1 GL: 2 Mammals (Mammalia) 1 PA: 9 0 63 3 65 0 4 Revised June 2010—M. Gannon PA: 3 PA: 1 Turtles (Testudines) GL: 1 PA: 1 0 PA: 1 0 13 2 15 0 3 Revised Aug. 2010—T. Maret GL: 1 Snakes, lizards (Squamata) 0 0 0 0 26 0 26 0 4 Revised Aug. 2010—T. Maret PA: 2 Amphibians (Amphibia) PA: 6 PA: 1 0 PA: 1 0 38 0 38 0 3 Revised Aug. 2010—T. Maret GL: 5 GL: 2 GL: 2 Bony fishes (Actinopterygii) 6 1 158 18 176 26 11 Revised June 2010—R. Criswell PA: 22 PA: 6 PA: 14 Jawless fishes or lampreys (Cyclostomata) PA: 1 PA: 1 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 2 Revised June 2010—R. Criswell * Endangered and threatened species are the sum of two categories: GL: globally imperiled or rare + PA: imperiled in Pennsylvania because they are disjunct from or at the edge of the species’ main range. Globally imperiled/rare taxa are those with Natural Heritage Network ranks G1, G2, G3, GH, T1, T2, T3 or TH (including –Q & excluding G3G4 or T3T4 and higher). State conservation status is determined by the PABS technical ommittees for vascular plants and vertebrate animals. Status of other organisms is derived from their Natural Heritage Network ranks: endangered—S1, S1?, S1S2 or SH; threatened—S1S3, S2 or S2S3; extirpated—SX. † Totals labeled as estimates are from Rawlins & Bier, 1998 (see endnotes). ‡ Pennsylvania responsibility species (includes subspecies and varieties) are those for which Pennsylvania plays an important role in sustaining their security range-wide, by hosting core populations or a significant proportion (~10% or more) of the total population. This version updated: 18 March 2011 1 Corrections: send to [email protected] SPECIES OR SUBSPECIES OF IMMEDIATE CONCERN TOTAL SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES REPRODUCING CURRENTLY IN PABS- PABS- DOWNLISTED PRESUMED PENNSYLVANIA RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED SINCE 1990 DUE EXTIRPATED EXTINCT THE WILD IN PENNSYLVANIA NON-BREEDING GROUP OF ORGANISMS RESPONSIBILITY ENDANGERED IN THREATENED IN TO INCREASE FROM (GLOBALLY) MIGRANTS ‡ PENNSYLVANIA* PENNSYLVANIA* IN POPULATION PENNSYLVANIA NATIVE NONNATIVE TOTAL† SPECIES ANIMALS II—ARTHROPODS (Arthropoda) ARTHROPODS 1—INSECTS & CLOSE RELATIVES (Hexapoda) GL: 4 GL: 1 GL: 1 Butterflies, skippers (Lepidoptera, in part) 0 0 122 2 124 20 2 Revised July 2010—B. Leppo PA: 7 PA: 38 PA: 5 GL: 29 GL: 1 GL: 4 estimated Moths (Lepidoptera, in part) 0 0 unknown unknown unknown 3 Adapted from Rawlins, 2007 (see endnotes); to be revised—B. Leppo PA: 48 PA: 19 PA: 2 >1,000 GL: 7 GL: 1 GL: 2 Dragonflies, damselflies (Odonata) 0 0 177 0 177 unknown 1 Adapted from Rawlins, 2007 (see endnotes); to be revised—B. Leppo PA: 36 PA: 21 PA: 3 GL: 1 GL: 6 Stoneflies (Plecoptera) 0 PA: 1 0 141 0 141 — 1 Revised Aug. 2010—J. Earle PA: 2 PA: 3 needs needs estimated needs Bristletails (Archaeognatha) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 2–10 study needs needs estimated needs Cockroaches (Blattaria) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 2–10 study GL: 5 estimated needs Beetles (Coleoptera) PA: 9 0 PA: 2 unknown unknown unknown — Adapted from Rawlins, 2007 (see endnotes) PA: 1 >1,000 study needs needs estimated needs Springtails (Collembola) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 11–100 study needs needs estimated needs Earwigs (Dermaptera) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 2–10 study needs needs estimated needs Two-pronged bristletails (Diplura) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 2–10 study needs estimated needs True flies, gnats, crane flies (Diptera) PA: 1 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — Adapted from Rawlins, 2007 (see endnotes) study >1,000 study needs needs Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) GL: 6 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown >230 — Adapted from Rawlins, 2007 (see endnotes) study study True bugs, water-striders, cicadas, leaf- needs needs estimated needs 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — hoppers, aphids, scale insects (Hemiptera) study study >1,000 study needs needs estimated needs Wasps, bees, ants, sawflies (Hymenoptera) 0 GL: 1 unknown unknown unknown — Adapted from Rawlins, 2007 (see endnotes) study study >1,000 study needs needs estimated needs Termites (Isoptera) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 2–10 study needs needs estimated needs Mantids (Mantodea) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 2–10 study This version updated: 18 March 2011 2 Corrections: send to [email protected] SPECIES OR SUBSPECIES OF IMMEDIATE CONCERN TOTAL SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES REPRODUCING CURRENTLY IN PABS- PABS- DOWNLISTED PRESUMED PENNSYLVANIA RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED SINCE 1990 DUE EXTIRPATED EXTINCT THE WILD IN PENNSYLVANIA NON-BREEDING GROUP OF ORGANISMS RESPONSIBILITY ENDANGERED IN THREATENED IN TO INCREASE FROM (GLOBALLY) MIGRANTS ‡ PENNSYLVANIA* PENNSYLVANIA* IN POPULATION PENNSYLVANIA NATIVE NONNATIVE TOTAL† SPECIES needs estimated needs Scorpionflies, hangingflies (Mecoptera) PA: 1 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — Adapted from Rawlins, 2007 (see endnotes) study 2–10 study Dobsonflies, fishflies, alderflies needs needs estimated needs 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — (Megaloptera) study study 2–10 study needs needs estimated needs Lacewings, ant-lions (Neuroptera) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 11–100 study Grasshoppers, crickets, katydids needs needs estimated needs 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — (Orthoptera) study study 11–100 study needs needs estimated needs Walking-sticks (Phasmatodea) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 2–10 study needs needs estimated needs Chewing lice, sucking lice (Phthiraptera) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 11–100 study needs needs estimated needs Coneheads (Protura) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 2–10 study needs needs estimated needs Booklice, barklice (Psocoptera) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 11–100 study needs needs estimated needs Fleas (Siphonaptera) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 2–10 study needs needs estimated needs Twisted-wing insects (Strepsiptera) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 2–10 study needs needs estimated needs Thrips (Thysanoptera) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 11–100 study needs needs estimated needs Silverfish, firebrats (Thysanura) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 2–10 study needs needs Caddisflies (Trichoptera) GL: 6 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown >312 — Adapted from Rawlins, 2007 (see endnotes) study study Angel insects (Zoraptera) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 — 0 From Rawlins & Bier, 1998 (see endnotes) ARTHROPODS 2—MYRIAPODS (Myriapoda) needs needs estimated needs Centipedes (Chilopoda) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 11–100 study needs needs estimated needs Millipedes (Diplopoda) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 11–100 study This version updated: 18 March 2011 3 Corrections: send to [email protected] SPECIES OR SUBSPECIES OF IMMEDIATE CONCERN TOTAL SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES REPRODUCING CURRENTLY IN PABS- PABS- DOWNLISTED PRESUMED PENNSYLVANIA RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED SINCE 1990 DUE EXTIRPATED EXTINCT THE WILD IN PENNSYLVANIA NON-BREEDING GROUP OF ORGANISMS RESPONSIBILITY ENDANGERED IN THREATENED IN TO INCREASE FROM (GLOBALLY) MIGRANTS ‡ PENNSYLVANIA* PENNSYLVANIA* IN POPULATION PENNSYLVANIA NATIVE NONNATIVE TOTAL† SPECIES needs needs estimated needs Pauropods (Pauropoda) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 2–10 study needs needs estimated needs Symphylans (Symphyla) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 2–10 study ARTHROPODS 3—ARACHNIDS (Arachnida) needs needs estimated needs Mites, ticks (Acari) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 101–1,000 study needs needs estimated estimated needs Spiders (Araneae) 0 unknown unknown unknown — study study 100–1,000 101–1,000 study needs needs needs Daddy-longlegs (Opiliones) 0 unknown 0 ~22 0 ~22 — From Hribar, 1989 (see endnotes) study study study needs needs estimated needs Pseudoscorpions (Pseudoscorpiones) 0 unknown unknown unknown unknown — study study 2–10 study Scorpions (Scorpiones) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 — 0 From Rawlins & Bier, 1998 (see endnotes) ARTHROPODS 4—CRUSTACEANS (Crustacea) Crayfishes (Decapoda, in part) PA: 2 PA: 3 0 0 0 14 3 17 — 1 Adapted from Rawlins, 2007; Nuttall, undated (see endnotes) needs needs needs
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Venomous Snakes in Pennsylvania the First Question Most People Ask When They See a Snake Is “Is That Snake Poisonous?” Technically, No Snake Is Poisonous
    Venomous Snakes in Pennsylvania The first question most people ask when they see a snake is “Is that snake poisonous?” Technically, no snake is poisonous. A plant or animal that is poisonous is toxic when eaten or absorbed through the skin. A snake’s venom is injected, so snakes are classified as venomous or nonvenomous. In Pennsylvania, we have only three species of venomous snakes. They all belong to the pit viper Nostril family. A snake that is a pit viper has a deep pit on each side of its head that it uses to detect the warmth of nearby prey. This helps the snake locate food, especially when hunting in the darkness of night. These Pit pits can be seen between the eyes and nostrils. In Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Snakes all of our venomous Checklist snakes have slit-like A complete list of Pennsylvania’s pupils that are 21 species of snakes. similar to a cat’s eye. Venomous Nonvenomous Copperhead (venomous) Nonvenomous snakes Eastern Garter Snake have round pupils, like a human eye. Eastern Hognose Snake Eastern Massasauga (venomous) Venomous If you find a shedded snake Eastern Milk Snake skin, look at the scales on the Eastern Rat Snake underside. If they are in a single Eastern Ribbon Snake Eastern Smooth Earth Snake row all the way to the tip of its Eastern Worm Snake tail, it came from a venomous snake. Kirtland’s Snake If the scales split into a double row Mountain Earth Snake at the tail, the shedded skin is from a Northern Black Racer Nonvenomous nonvenomous snake.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter XXV —Class Oligochaeta
    Chapter XXV —Class Oligochaeta (Aquatic Worms)- Phylum Annelida Oligochaetes are common in most freshwater habitats, but they are often ignored by freshwater biologists because they are thought to be extraordinarily difficult to identify. The extensive taxo- nomic work done since 1960 by Brinkhurst and others, however, has enabled routine identifica- tion of most of our freshwater oligochaetes from simple whole mounts. Some aquatic worms closely resemble terrestrial earthworms while others can be much narrower or thread-like. Many aquatic worms can tolerate low dissolved oxygen and may be found in large numbers in organi- cally polluted habitats. Aquatic worms can be distinguished by: (Peckarsky et al., 1990) • Body colour may be red, tan, brown or black. • Cylindrical, thin (some are very thin), segmented body may be upto 5 inches. • May have short bristles or hairs (setae) that help with movement (usually not visible). • Moves by stretching and pulling its body along in a worm-like fashion. Four families in the orders Tubificida and Lumbriculida are common in freshwater in northeastern North America: the Tubificidae, Naididae, Lumbriculidae, and Enchytraeidae. In addition, fresh- water biologists sometimes encounter lumbricine oligochaetes (order Lumbricina; the familiar earthworms), haplotaxid oligochaetes (order Haplotaxida; rare inhabitants of groundwater), Aeolosoma (class Aphanoneura; small worms once classified with the oligochaetes), and Manayunkia speciosa (class Polychaeta) in waters of northeastern North America. (Peckarsky et al., 1990). The two families, Naididae and Tubificidae form 80 to 100% of the annelid communi- ties in the benthos of most streams and lakes at all trophic levels. They range in size from 0.1 cm in Naididae to 3 or 4 cm in relaxed length in Lumbricidae, the family that contains the earth- worms.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Herpetology of Erie County, Pennsylvania: a Bibliography
    The Herpetology of Erie County, Pennsylvania: A Bibliography Revised 2 nd Edition Brian S. Gray and Mark Lethaby Special Publication of the Natural History Museum at the Tom Ridge Environmental Center, Number 1 2 Special Publication of the Natural History Museum at the Tom Ridge Environmental Center The Herpetology of Erie County, Pennsylvania: A Bibliography Revised 2 nd Edition Compiled by Brian S. Gray [email protected] and Mark Lethaby Natural History Museum at the Tom Ridge Environmental Center, 301 Peninsula Dr., Suite 3, Erie, PA 16505 [email protected] Number 1 Erie, Pennsylvania 2017 Cover image: Smooth Greensnake, Opheodrys vernalis from Erie County, Pennsylvania. 3 Introduction Since the first edition of The herpetology of Erie County, Pennsylvania: a bibliography (Gray and Lethaby 2012), numerous articles and books have been published that are pertinent to the literature of the region’s amphibians and reptiles. The purpose of this revision is to provide a comprehensive and updated list of publications for use by researchers interested in Erie County’s herpetofauna. We have made every effort to include all major works on the herpetology of Erie County. Included are the works of Atkinson (1901) and Surface (1906; 1908; 1913) which are among the earliest to note amphibians and or reptiles specifically from sites in Erie County, Pennsylvania. The earliest publication to utilize an Erie County specimen, however, may have been that of LeSueur (1817) in his description of Graptemys geographica (Lindeman 2009). While the bibliography is quite extensive, we did not attempt to list everything, such as articles in local newspapers, and unpublished reports, although some of the more significant of these are included.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic and Phenetic Systematics of The
    195 PHYLOGENETICAND PHENETICSYSTEMATICS OF THE OPISTHOP0ROUSOLIGOCHAETA (ANNELIDA: CLITELLATA) B.G.M. Janieson Departnent of Zoology University of Queensland Brisbane, Australia 4067 Received September20, L977 ABSTMCT: The nethods of Hennig for deducing phylogeny have been adapted for computer and a phylogran has been constructed together with a stereo- phylogran utilizing principle coordinates, for alL farnilies of opisthopor- ous oligochaetes, that is, the Oligochaeta with the exception of the Lunbriculida and Tubificina. A phenogran based on the sane attributes conpares unfavourably with the phyLogralnsin establishing an acceptable classification., Hennigrs principle that sister-groups be given equal rank has not been followed for every group to avoid elevation of the more plesionorph, basal cLades to inacceptabl.y high ranks, the 0ligochaeta being retained as a Subclass of the class Clitellata. Three orders are recognized: the LumbricuLida and Tubificida, which were not conputed and the affinities of which require further investigation, and the Haplotaxida, computed. The Order Haplotaxida corresponds preciseLy with the Suborder Opisthopora of Michaelsen or the Sectio Diplotesticulata of Yanaguchi. Four suborders of the Haplotaxida are recognized, the Haplotaxina, Alluroidina, Monil.igastrina and Lunbricina. The Haplotaxina and Monili- gastrina retain each a single superfanily and fanily. The Alluroidina contains the superfamiJ.y All"uroidoidea with the fanilies Alluroididae and Syngenodrilidae. The Lurnbricina consists of five superfaniLies.
    [Show full text]
  • Earthworms (Annelida: Oligochaeta) of the Columbia River Basin Assessment Area
    United States Department of Agriculture Earthworms (Annelida: Forest Service Pacific Northwest Oligochaeta) of the Research Station United States Columbia River Basin Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Assessment Area Management General Technical Sam James Report PNW-GTR-491 June 2000 Author Sam Jamesis an Associate Professor, Department of Life Sciences, Maharishi University of Management, Fairfield, IA 52557-1056. Earthworms (Annelida: Oligochaeta) of the Columbia River Basin Assessment Area Sam James Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment Thomas M. Quigley, Editor U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Portland, Oregon General Technical Report PNW-GTR-491 June 2000 Preface The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project was initiated by the USDA Forest Service and the USDI Bureau of Land Management to respond to several critical issues including, but not limited to, forest and rangeland health, anadromous fish concerns, terrestrial species viability concerns, and the recent decline in traditional commodity flows. The charter given to the project was to develop a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based strategy for managing the lands of the interior Columbia River basin administered by the USDA Forest Service and the USDI Bureau of Land Management. The Science Integration Team was organized to develop a framework for ecosystem management, an assessment of the socioeconomic biophysical systems in the basin, and an evalua- tion of alternative management strategies. This paper is one in a series of papers developed as back- ground material for the framework, assessment, or evaluation of alternatives. It provides more detail than was possible to disclose directly in the primary documents.
    [Show full text]
  • Herpetofauna and Aquatic Macro-Invertebrate Use of the Kino Environmental Restoration Project (KERP)
    Herpetofauna and Aquatic Macro-invertebrate Use of the Kino Environmental Restoration Project (KERP) Tucson, Pima County, Arizona Prepared for Pima County Regional Flood Control District Prepared by EPG, Inc. JANUARY 2007 - Plma County Regional FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT MEMORANDUM Water Resources Regional Flood Control District DATE: January 5,2007 TO: Distribution FROM: Julia Fonseca SUBJECT: Kino Ecosystem Restoration Project Report The Ed Pastor Environmental Restoration ProjectiKino Ecosystem Restoration Project (KERP) is becoming an extraordinary urban wildlife resource. As such, the Pima County Regional Flood Control District (PCRFCD) contracted with the Environmental Planning Group (EPG) to gather observations of reptiles, amphibians, and aquatic insects at KERP. Water quality was also examined. The purpose of the work was to provide baseline data on current wildlife use of the KERP site, and to assess water quality for post-project aquatic wildlife conditions. I additionally requested sampling of macroinvertebrates at Agua Caliente Park and Sweetwater Wetlands in hopes that the differences in aquatic wildlife among the three sites might provide insights into the different habitats offered by KERF'. The results One of the most important wildlife benefits that KERP provides is aquatic habitat without predatory bullfrogs and non- native fish. Most other constructed ponds and wetlands in Tucson, such as the Sweetwater Wetlands and Agua Caliente pond, are fuIl of non-native predators which devastate native fish, amphibians and aquatic reptiles. The KERP Wetlands may provide an opportunity for reestablishing declining native herpetofauna. Provided that non- native fish, bullfrogs or crayfish are not introduced, KERP appears to provide adequate habitat for Sonoran Mud Turtles (Kinosternon sonoriense), Lowland Leopard Frogs (Rana yavapaiensis), and Mexican Gartersnakes (Tharnnophis eques) and Southwestern Woodhouse Toad (Bufo woodhousii australis).
    [Show full text]
  • Arhynchobdellida (Annelida: Oligochaeta: Hirudinida): Phylogenetic Relationships and Evolution
    MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 30 (2004) 213–225 www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev Arhynchobdellida (Annelida: Oligochaeta: Hirudinida): phylogenetic relationships and evolution Elizabeth Bordaa,b,* and Mark E. Siddallb a Department of Biology, Graduate School and University Center, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA b Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, USA Received 15 July 2003; revised 29 August 2003 Abstract A remarkable diversity of life history strategies, geographic distributions, and morphological characters provide a rich substrate for investigating the evolutionary relationships of arhynchobdellid leeches. The phylogenetic relationships, using parsimony anal- ysis, of the order Arhynchobdellida were investigated using nuclear 18S and 28S rDNA, mitochondrial 12S rDNA, and cytochrome c oxidase subunit I sequence data, as well as 24 morphological characters. Thirty-nine arhynchobdellid species were selected to represent the seven currently recognized families. Sixteen rhynchobdellid leeches from the families Glossiphoniidae and Piscicolidae were included as outgroup taxa. Analysis of all available data resolved a single most-parsimonious tree. The cladogram conflicted with most of the traditional classification schemes of the Arhynchobdellida. Monophyly of the Erpobdelliformes and Hirudini- formes was supported, whereas the families Haemadipsidae, Haemopidae, and Hirudinidae, as well as the genera Hirudo or Ali- olimnatis, were found not to be monophyletic. The results provide insight on the phylogenetic positions for the taxonomically problematic families Americobdellidae and Cylicobdellidae, the genera Semiscolex, Patagoniobdella, and Mesobdella, as well as genera traditionally classified under Hirudinidae. The evolution of dietary and habitat preferences is examined. Ó 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015-2025 Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan
    2 0 1 5 – 2 0 2 5 Species Assessments Appendix 1.1A – Birds A Comprehensive Status Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Avifauna for Application to the State Wildlife Action Plan Update 2015 (Jason Hill, PhD) Assessment of eBird data for the importance of Pennsylvania as a bird migratory corridor (Andy Wilson, PhD) Appendix 1.1B – Mammals A Comprehensive Status Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Mammals, Utilizing NatureServe Ranking Methodology and Rank Calculator Version 3.1 for Application to the State Wildlife Action Plan Update 2015 (Charlie Eichelberger and Joe Wisgo) Appendix 1.1C – Reptiles and Amphibians A Revision of the State Conservation Ranks of Pennsylvania’s Herpetofauna Appendix 1.1D – Fishes A Revision of the State Conservation Ranks of Pennsylvania’s Fishes Appendix 1.1E – Invertebrates Invertebrate Assessment for the 2015 Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan Revision 2015-2025 Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan Appendix 1.1A - Birds A Comprehensive Status Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Avifauna for Application to the State Wildlife Action Plan Update 2015 Jason M. Hill, PhD. Table of Contents Assessment ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Data Sources ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Species Selection ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tropical Marine Invertebrates CAS BI 569 Phylum ANNELIDA by J
    Tropical Marine Invertebrates CAS BI 569 Phylum ANNELIDA by J. R. Finnerty Phylum ANNELIDA Porifera Ctenophora Cnidaria Deuterostomia Ecdysozoa Lophotrochozoa Chordata Arthropoda Annelida Hemichordata Onychophora Mollusca Echinodermata Nematoda Platyhelminthes Acoelomorpha Silicispongiae Calcispongia PROTOSTOMIA “BILATERIA” (=TRIPLOBLASTICA) Bilateral symmetry (?) Mesoderm (triploblasty) Phylum ANNELIDA Porifera Ctenophora Cnidaria Deuterostomia Ecdysozoa Lophotrochozoa Chordata Arthropoda Annelida Hemichordata Onychophora Mollusca Echinodermata Nematoda Platyhelminthes Acoelomorpha Silicispongiae Calcispongia PROTOSTOMIA “COELOMATA” True coelom Coelomata gut cavity endoderm mesoderm coelom ectoderm [note: dorso-ventral inversion] Phylum ANNELIDA Porifera Ctenophora Cnidaria Deuterostomia Ecdysozoa Lophotrochozoa Chordata Arthropoda Annelida Hemichordata Onychophora Mollusca Echinodermata Nematoda Platyhelminthes Acoelomorpha Silicispongiae Calcispongia PROTOSTOMIA PROTOSTOMIA “first mouth” blastopore contributes to mouth ventral nerve cord The Blastopore ! Forms during gastrulation ectoderm blastocoel blastocoel endoderm gut blastoderm BLASTULA blastopore The Gut “internal, epithelium-lined cavity for the digestion and absorption of food sponges lack a gut simplest gut = blind sac (Cnidaria) blastopore gives rise to dual- function mouth/anus through-guts evolve later Protostome = blastopore contributes to the mouth Deuterostome = blastopore becomes the anus; mouth is a second opening Protostomy blastopore mouth anus Deuterostomy blastopore
    [Show full text]
  • Master Wildlife Inventory List
    Wildlife Inventory List The wildlife inventory list was created from existing data, on site surveys, and/or the availability of suitable habitat. The following species could occur in the Project Area at some time during the year: Common Name Scientific Name Bird Species Bitterns, Herons, & Allies Ardeidae D, E American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus A, E, F Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias E, F Green Heron Butorides virescens D Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis Blackbirds Icteridae B, E, F Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula B, E, F Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus B, E, F Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater B, E, F Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula B, E, F Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna B, E, F Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Caracaras & Falcons Falconidae B, E, F, G American Kestrel Falco sparverius B Merlin Falco columbarius D Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Chickadees & Titmice Paridae B, E, F, G Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus E, F, G Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor Creepers Certhiidae B, E, F Brown Creeper Certhia americana Cuckoos, Roadrunners, & Anis Cuculidae D, E, F Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus E, F Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Finches Fringillidae B, E, F, G American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis B, E, F Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina G Common Redpoll Acanthis flammea B, E, F Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus E, F, G House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus B, E Pine Siskin Spinus pinus Page 1 Eight Point Wind Energy Center E, F, G Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus B, E Red Crossbill
    [Show full text]
  • Giant Gippsland Earthworm Surveys at Three Sites Within the Lang Lang
    Giant Gippsland Earthworm survey at a site of a proposed rezoning, Jumbunna Rd, Korumburra February 2012 PREPAREDPREPARED FOR: FOR: REPORT AUTHOR: PREPARED FOR: Company Name Goes Here Dr. Beverley Van Praagh Company Name Goes Here Second Line of Text Here REPORT AUTHOR: Second Line of Text Here REPORT AUTHOR: BeveridgeThird Line Williams of Text & CoHere Pty Ltd Dr. Beverley Van Praagh 52A ThirdBair Street Line of Text Here Dr. Beverley Van Praagh PO Box 161 Leongatha Vic 3953 INVERT-ECO 1 Giant Gippsland Earthworm survey at Jumbunna Rd, Korumburra REPORT - Giant Gippsland Earthworm survey of site of a proposed rezoning, Jumbunna Rd, Korumburra Report by Beverley Van Praagh INVERT-ECO ABN 96 817 328 909 25 Jacaranda Place Craigieburn, Victoria 3064 Tel/Fax: 03 9305 5154 Mobile: 0402 572 443 On Behalf Of Beveridge Williams & Co Pty Ltd 52A Bair Street PO Box 161 Leongatha Vic 3953 Final Version February 2012 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author thanks the following people for their contribution to the project, Neil Breeden (Beveridge Williams) for project and site information Mr Winterhalter and Mr Cellante (property owners) for site access Matt Killin for assistance in the field Cover Photo: Megascolides australis and subject land© INVERT-ECO Abbreviations DSE: Department of Sustainability and Environment EPBC Act: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 FFG Act: Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 Copyright ©INVERT-ECO This document is subject to copyright and may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned. Disclaimer Although due diligence was used by INVERT-ECO in the preparation of this report, INVERT-ECO takes no liability for any damages or loss incurred as a result of reliance placed upon this report and its contents.
    [Show full text]