DOCSLIB.ORG

Development of a Finite Element Model of an Ant Neck Joint For

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Development of a Finite Element Model of an Ant Neck Joint For Development of a Finite Element Model of an Ant Neck Joint for Simulation of Tensile Loading THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University by Vienny N. Nguyen Mechanical Engineering Graduate Program The Ohio State University 2012 Thesis Committee: Dr. Blaine Lilly, Advisor Dr. Carlos Castro Dr. Joseph Raczkowski Copyright by Vienny N. Nguyen 2012 ii ABSTRACT Insects have been optimized for form and function over millions of years. Ants in particular can lift and carry extraordinarily heavy loads in relation to their own body weight (up to 1000X their own weight). We hypothesize that the ant’s ability to carry extremely large loads relative to its body mass is the result of a highly integrated system comprised of composite materials, internal muscle mechanisms, and material microstructure. The work completed for this thesis focuses on studying the neck joint, which bears the full mechanical load, of Formica exsectoides. Through mechanical testing, the load-displacement behavior was recorded and used as a reference for a computational model of the neck joint. SEM and microCT imaging was used to supplement and create a 3-dimensional finite element model. The results from the mechanical tests and finite element model reveal that the load-displacement behavior is dependent on the direction of the applied load, and that the typical rupture location occurs at the material transition between the neck membrane and stiffer exoskeleton on the head. This project serves as a gateway to better understanding the design of the neck joint; future work may include the characterization of the neck membrane material, a kinematic analysis of the joint including muscle and ligament contributions, and a comparison of the functional morphology between multiple species. iii This work is dedicated to my family and friends. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank the National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship Program for their support and investment in not only my research, but also the research of my peers that will contribute to our future. This work was also supported in part by The Ohio State University Institute of Materials Research and an allocation of computing time from the Ohio Supercomputer Center. I thank Dr. Richard Hart for use of the MicroCT Laboratory in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at The Ohio State University; SimpleWare for providing the necessary software for 3-D modeling; and Dr. Joe Raczkowski and Dr. John Wenzel for sharing their myrmecological expertise with the project. I owe a great deal to Dr. Blaine Lilly for his patience and willingness to support projects that are outside of the box, and to Dr. Carlos Castro for adopting me into the Nanoengineering and Biodesign Lab. For those who have helped me get to where I am today, there is not enough I can do or say to thank you for your support: Dr. Kinzel, Dr. Staab, Dr. Harper, Joe West and the rest of the mechanical engineering faculty and staff for giving me a hard time; the Robonaut Team at JSC for the privilege of learning how to apply my lessons from an amazing group of engineers; Dr. Freuler and the FEH family for setting the bar high; the Office of Minority of Affairs for making Ohio State possible; Dan McCarthy, Neil Gardner, and Dave Torick for introducing me to engineering just in time; all of my teachers in primary and secondary school for their dedication in dealing with students like me; my friends who supported me through the years and were there to remind me to have fun; my mom for being a constant worry wart; and my dad for letting me climb to the top of the jungle gym and for (usually) trusting that I would always get the job done. I also thank my husband, my partner in crime, and my rock. Thank you for loving, challenging, and believing in me. I finally thank God for all that He has given me. v VITA December 26, 1986………………………………………...Born – Columbus, Ohio, USA 2010……………………………B.S. Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University 2010-2011………………………………….University Fellow, The Ohio State University 2011-2012………………………………………..NSF Fellow, The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS V.N. Nguyen, B.W. Lilly, and C.E. Castro, “Reverse Engineering the Structure and Function of the Allegheny Mound Ant Neck (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Formica exsectoides),” in ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Houston, TX, 2012. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Mechanical Engineering vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ v VITA ................................................................................................................................ vi TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xiv Chapter 1. Introduction ..................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Background ..................................................................................... 4 2.1 Taxonomy .............................................................................................. 4 2.2 Anatomy ................................................................................................ 6 2.2.1 External Anatomy ........................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Internal Anatomy............................................................................. 7 2.3 Terminology .......................................................................................... 8 Chapter 3. Literature Review ............................................................................ 9 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 9 3.2 Exoskeleton Material Properties ............................................................ 9 3.3 Additional Functions of Insect Exoskeleton ........................................ 14 3.3.1 The Folded Cuticle of a Dragonfly Neck ...................................... 14 3.3.2 The Microsculpture of Fly Cuticle Armor .................................... 16 3.4 Summary of Literature Review ........................................................... 22 vii Chapter 4. Experimentation ............................................................................ 23 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 23 4.2 Instrument Design................................................................................ 24 4.3 Methods ............................................................................................... 26 4.3.1 Specimen Collection and Maintenance ......................................... 26 4.3.2 Experimental Protocol ................................................................... 27 4.4 Experimental Results ........................................................................... 31 4.5 Summary of Experimentation .............................................................. 34 Chapter 5. Imaging and Modeling .................................................................. 36 5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 36 5.2 MicroCT Methods ............................................................................... 36 5.3 SEM Methods and Images ................................................................... 40 5.4 Conversion of MicroCT Data to a 3-Dimensional Mesh .................... 43 5.5 Finite Element Model .......................................................................... 50 5.5.1 Model Data, Boundary Conditions, Loading, and Parameters ...... 50 5.5.2 Material Verification ..................................................................... 51 5.5.3 Model Results ................................................................................ 53 5.6 Summary of Imaging and Modeling .................................................... 56 Chapter 6. Discussion and Conclusion ........................................................... 58 6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 58 6.2 MicroCT and SEM imaging ................................................................ 58 6.3 Experimental and Finite Element Results Comparison ....................... 59 6.4 Summary and Conclusions .................................................................. 63 viii Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 66 Appendix A: Glossary....................................................................................................... 71 Appendix B: Circuit Diagrams ......................................................................................... 73 Appendix C: Arduino Source Code .................................................................................. 74 Appendix D: Mechanical Testing Protocol......................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Pimplinae) from Ecuador, French Guiana, and Peru, with an Identification Key to the World Species
    ZooKeys 935: 57–92 (2020) A peer-reviewed open-access journal doi: 10.3897/zookeys.935.50492 RESEARCH ARTICLE https://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Seven new species of spider-attacking Hymenoepimecis Viereck (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Pimplinae) from Ecuador, French Guiana, and Peru, with an identification key to the world species Diego Galvão de Pádua1, Ilari Eerikki Sääksjärvi2, Ricardo Ferreira Monteiro3, Marcio Luiz de Oliveira1 1 Programa de Pós-Graduação em Entomologia, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia, Av. André Araújo, 2936, Petrópolis, 69067-375, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil 2 Biodiversity Unit, Zoological Museum, University of Turku, FIN-20014, Turku, Finland 3 Laboratório de Ecologia de Insetos, Depto. de Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Carlos Chagas Filho, 373, Cidade Universitária, Ilha do Fundão, 21941-971, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Corresponding author: Diego Galvão de Pádua ([email protected]) Academic editor: B. Santos | Received 27 January 2020 | Accepted 20 March 2020 | Published 21 May 2020 http://zoobank.org/3540FBBB-2B87-4908-A2EF-017E67FE5604 Citation: Pádua DG, Sääksjärvi IE, Monteiro RF, Oliveira ML (2020) Seven new species of spider-attacking Hymenoepimecis Viereck (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Pimplinae) from Ecuador, French Guiana, and Peru, with an identification key to the world species. ZooKeys 935: 57–92.https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.935.50492 Abstract Seven new species of Hymenoepimecis Viereck are described from Peruvian Andes and Amazonia, French Guiana and Ecuador: H. andina Pádua & Sääksjärvi, sp. nov., H. castilloi Pádua & Sääksjärvi, sp. nov., H. dolichocarinata Pádua & Sääksjärvi, sp. nov., H. ecuatoriana Pádua & Sääksjärvi, sp. nov., H. longilobus Pádua & Sääksjärvi, sp.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 14 1. Specialization of Regions of the Body for Specific
    Chapter 14 1. Specialization of regions of the body for specific functions, as seen in arthropods, is called A) tagmatization. B) metamerism. C) truncation. D) differentiation. E) cephalization. 2. Members of class __________ are among the most numerous crustaceans, and are both marine and freshwater in distribution. A) Cirripedia B) Copepoda C) Branchiopoda D) Malacostraca E) Isopoda 3. Which type of crustacean do many zoologists believe to have the greatest number of individuals of any type of animal on the planet? A) isopods B) fairy shrimp C) brine shrimp D) copepods E) barnacles 4. Which of the following phyla of animals are not ecdysozoan? A) Arthropoda B) Nematoda C) Gastrotricha D) Nematomorpha E) Kinorhyncha 5. Which of the following is not a synapomorphy that unites the members of the ecdysozoan clade? A) the blastopore develops into the anus B) loss of epidermal cilia C) possession of a cuticle D) shedding of cuticle through ecdysis E) all of the above are synapomorphies shared by ecdysozoans Page 1 6. The __________ is the outer layer of the arthropod exoskeleton, and it is composed of a waterproofing waxy lipoprotein. A) lipocuticle B) mesocuticle C) epicuticle D) endocuticle E) sclerocuticle 7. The tough, leathery polysaccharide in the arthropod procuticle is A) lipoprotein. B) calcium carbonate. C) scleroprotein. D) chitin. E) glycogen. 8. The arthropod skeleton hardens by __________, which is a formation of chemical bonds between protein chains. A) carbonization B) tagmatization C) calcification D) chitinization E) sclerotization 9. Sensory receptors called __________ occur in the arthropod exoskeleton in the form of pegs, bristles, and lenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description
    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Interests Related to the Cambridge-MIT Institute
    Nanoscale Structural Design Principles of Biocomposite Exoskeletons As a Guide for New Energy-Absorbing Materials Technologies Team 1 : Energy Absorbing Materials : Multiscale Design and Evaluation of Nanostructured Materials for Ballistic and Blast Protection MIT Institute for Soldier Technologies (ISN) Christine Ortiz, Assistant Professor Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Materials Science and Engineering WWW : http://web.mit.edu/cortiz/www/ August 2002 I. Background : Structural Design Principles and Energy Absorbing Mechanisms From millions of years of evolution, nature has ingeniously figured out innumerate structural design principles to produce multifunctional, and in many cases stimulus-responsive, materials with superior mechanical properties[1-6]. Examples of these include exoskeletons of many invertebrate animals such as mollusks, arthropods (e.g. crustaceans such as crabs, insects), cnidaria (e.g. corals), and structural components of mammals such as turtle shell, rhinocerous horn, bovine hoof horn, deer antlers, elephant tusks, and teeth. Most tough biological materials are complex, hierarchical, multilayered nanocomposites that undergo a wide variety of different energy-absorbing toughening mechanisms at many length scales. Some of these mechanisms in both biological and synthetic composite materials [7-10] are shown in Figure 1 and include; 1) rupture of "sacrificial" weaker bonds in the macromolecular component (e.g. Mollusk shell nacre), 2) extension, pull-out, and/or ligament formation of a macromolecular component bridging an interface (e.g. Mollusk shell nacre), 3) void formation (e.g. via cavitation of rubber particles in a thermoset composite or stress whitening in semicrystalline polymers) leading to bulk plastic deformation, crack blunting, pinning and branching, 4) localized plastic deformation ahead of a crack tip (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny of the Polysphincta Group of Genera (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae; Pimplinae): a Taxonomic Revision of Spider Ectoparasitoids
    Systematic Entomology (2006), 31, 529–564 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3113.2006.00334.x Phylogeny of the Polysphincta group of genera (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae; Pimplinae): a taxonomic revision of spider ectoparasitoids IAN D. GAULD1 and JACQUES DUBOIS2 1Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, London, U.K. and 2UMR 5202-CNRS, De´partement Syste´matique et Evolution, Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France Abstract. A cladistic analysis of the Polysphincta genus-group (¼ the ‘Polysphinctini’ of authors), a clade of koinobiont ectoparasitoids of spiders, was undertaken using ninety-six characters for seventy-seven taxa (sixty-five ingroup and twelve outgroup). The genus-group is monophyletic, nested within the Ephialtini as (Iseropus (Gregopimpla (Tromatobia ((Zaglyptus þ Clistopyga) þ (Polysphincta genus- group))))). Within the Polysphincta genus-group, the clade (Piogaster þ Inbioia)is sister-lineage to all other genera. The cosmopolitan genus Zabrachypus is nonmono- phyletic, and has been subdivided into a monophyletic Nearctic/Western Palaearctic Zabrachypus s.str. and an Eastern Palaearctic Brachyzapus gen.n., comprising B. nik- koensis (Uchida) comb.n., B. tenuiabdominalis (Uchida) comb.n. and B. unicarinatus (Uchida & Momoi) comb.n. An Afrotropical species placed in Zabrachypus, Z. curvi- cauda (Seyrig), belongs to Schizopyga comb.n. The monophyly of the cosmopolitan genus Dreisbachia is equivocal, and we consider that species assigned to it are best placed in an expanded Schizopyga (syn.n.). The monobasic Afrotropical genus Afrosphincta is also a synonym of Schizopyga (syn.n.). The newly delimited Schizopyga is the sister- lineage of Brachyzapus, and these two genera form the sister-lineage of Zabrachypus s.str. as the monophyletic clade (Zabrachypus þ (Schizopyga þ Brachyzapus)).
    [Show full text]
  • A Hoverfly Guide to the Bayer Research Farm in Great Chishill
    A hoverfly guide to the Bayer Research Farm in Great Chishill 1 Orchard Farm, Great Chishill • Nesting and visiting birds ayer Crop Science’s farm in • Butterflies and moths Encouraging Hoverflies Great Chishill covers some 20 • Bees Bhectares on a gently undulating • Successful fledging of barn owl 1. Food Sources Hoverflies do not have suitable clay plateau to the south west of chicks (as an indicator of small Growing just about any wildflowers will mouthparts to feed from pea-flowers Cambridge, on the Hertfordshire mammal populations) attract at least some hoverflies and a such as clover, lucerne or sainfoin border. It is a working farm set up variety of species selected to flower that favour bees but will feed from to help the company research and Hoverflies continuously throughout the spring mints, both cornmint and watermint understand better, new crop protection Hoverflies are a group of Diptera (flies) and summer would be preferable. and other Labiates such as thyme, products and new seed varieties. As comprising the family Syrphidae with Traditional wildflower meadows are marjoram and so on. Some Crucifers its name implies, the farm used to be many being fairly large and colourful. often good places to look for hoverflies, are good such as the spring flowering an orchard and indeed, there remains Some of them, such as the Marmalade and there are several plants which cuckoo flower and hedge mustard; some apple and pear trees on the Hoverfly are generally common and are favoured. Common bramble is a later on water cress, oil seed rape and site used for testing of novel crop numerous enough to have a common magnet for various hoverflies and other other mustards are good.
    [Show full text]
  • Hoverflies: the Garden Mimics
    Article Hoverflies: the garden mimics. Edmunds, Malcolm Available at http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/1620/ Edmunds, Malcolm (2008) Hoverflies: the garden mimics. Biologist, 55 (4). pp. 202-207. ISSN 0006-3347 It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. For more information about UCLan’s research in this area go to http://www.uclan.ac.uk/researchgroups/ and search for <name of research Group>. For information about Research generally at UCLan please go to http://www.uclan.ac.uk/research/ All outputs in CLoK are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including Copyright law. Copyright, IPR and Moral Rights for the works on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the policies page. CLoK Central Lancashire online Knowledge www.clok.uclan.ac.uk Hoverflies: the garden mimics Mimicry offers protection from predators by convincing them that their target is not a juicy morsel after all. it happens in our backgardens too and the hoverfly is an expert at it. Malcolm overflies are probably the best the mimic for the model and do not attack Edmunds known members of tbe insect or- it (Edmunds, 1974). Mimicry is far more Hder Diptera after houseflies, blue widespread in the tropics than in temperate bottles and mosquitoes, but unlike these lands, but we have some of the most superb insects they are almost universally liked examples of mimicry in Britain, among the by the general public. They are popular hoverflies.
    [Show full text]
  • Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) for Arkansas with a Synopsis of Previous Records
    Midsouth Entomologist 4: 29–38 ISSN: 1936-6019 www.midsouthentomologist.org.msstate.edu Research Article New Records of Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) for Arkansas with a Synopsis of Previous Records Joe. A. MacGown1, 3, JoVonn G. Hill1, and Michael Skvarla2 1Mississippi Entomological Museum, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Mississippi State University, MS 39762 2Department of Entomology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72207 3Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 7-I-2011 Accepted: 7-IV-2011 Abstract: Ten new state records of Formicidae are reported for Arkansas including Camponotus obliquus Smith, Polyergus breviceps Emery, Proceratium crassicorne Emery, Pyramica metazytes Bolton, P. missouriensis (Smith), P. pulchella (Emery), P. talpa (Weber), Stenamma impar Forel, Temnothorax ambiguus (Emery), and T. texanus (Wheeler). A synopsis of previous records of ant species occurring in Arkansas is provided. Keywords: Ants, new state records, Arkansas, southeastern United States Introduction Ecologically and physiographically, Arkansas is quite diverse with seven level III ecoregions and 32 level IV ecoregions (Woods, 2004). Topographically, the state is divided into two major regions on either side of the fall line, which runs northeast to southwest. The northwestern part of the state includes the Interior Highlands, which is further divided into the Ozark Plateau, the Arkansas River Valley, and the Ouachita Mountains. The southern and eastern portions of the state are located in the Gulf Coastal Plain, which is divided into the West Gulf Coastal Plain in the south, the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain in the east, and Crowley’s Ridge, a narrow upland region that bisects the Mississippi Alluvial Plain from north to south (Foti, 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • See Under CAMPONOTUS. Naefi. Formica (Coptoformica) Naefi Kutter, 1957: 4, Figs
    nacerda Norton, 1868; see under CAMPONOTUS. naefi. Formica (Coptoformica) naefi Kutter, 1957: 4, figs. 1-6 (w.q.m.) SWITZERLAND. Status as species: Bernard, 1967: 325 (redescription); Kutter, 1968a: 61; Kutter, 1977c: 285; Agosti & Collingwood, 1987b: 285 (in key); Bolton, 1995b: 199; Petrov, 2006: 111 (in key) (error). Junior synonym of foreli: Seifert, 2000a: 543; Radchenko, 2016: 312. nahua. Formica microgyna subsp. rasilis var. nahua Wheeler, W.M. 1913f: 562 (w.q.m.) MEXICO (Hidalgo); unavailable (infrasubspecific) name. As unavailable (infrasubspecific) name: Wheeler, W.M. 1917a: 542; Emery, 1925b: 256. Declared as unavailable (infrasubspecific) name: Bolton, 1995b: 199. nana. Formica nana Latreille, 1802c: 263 (w.) FRENCH GUIANA, SURINAME. Unidentifiable to genus; incertae sedis in Formica: Bolton, 1995b: 199. [Note: Latreille, 1802c: 263, Mayr, 1863: 418, Dalla Torre, 1893: 206, and Kempf, 1972a: 260, give pusilla as a senior synonym of nana Latreille, but both are unidentifiable.] nana Jerdon, 1851; see under TAPINOMA. nana Smith, F. 1858; see under CAMPONOTUS. nastata, misspelling, see under hastata. nasuta Nylander, 1856; see under PROFORMICA. natalensis Smith, F. 1858; see under CAMPONOTUS. nemoralis. Formica nemoralis Dlussky, 1964: 1037, figs. 2(3, 8), 3 (9) (w.m.) RUSSIA. Status as species: Dlussky & Pisarski, 1971: 197 (redescription); Arnol'di & Dlussky, 1978: 552 (in key). Junior synonym of forsslundi: Dlussky, 1967a: 105; Collingwood, 1971: 167; Bolton, 1995b: 199. Junior synonym of exsecta: Seifert, 2000a: 526; Radchenko, 2016: 309. neocinerea. Formica cinerea var. neocinerea Wheeler, W.M. 1913f: 399 (in key) (w.q.m.) U.S.A. (Illinois). [Formica cinerea var. neocinerea Wheeler, W.M. 1910g: 571. Nomen nudum.] As unavailable (infrasubspecific) name: Wheeler, W.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Animals and Plants Described As New from Colorado in 1912, 1913, and 1914
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU Co Bee Lab 6-1-1915 Animals and Plants Described as New from Colorado in 1912, 1913, and 1914 T. D. A. Cockerell University of Colorodo Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/bee_lab_co Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Cockerell, T. D. A., "Animals and Plants Described as New from Colorado in 1912, 1913, and 1914" (1915). Co. Paper 547. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/bee_lab_co/547 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Bee Lab at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Co by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Reprinted from University of Colorado Studies, Vol. XI, No. 4, Boulder, Colo., June 1915 ANIMALS AND PLANTS DESCRIBED AS NEW FROM COLORADO IN 1912., 1913, AND 1914 BY T. D. A. COCKERELL The present list of new forms described from Colorado is in continu­ ation of that given in the University of Colorado Studi es, Vol. IX, May, 1912, pp. 75-89 . Every species described as new, the descrip­ tion based wholly or in part on Colorado specimens, is included. For the year 1914, it has seemed best to include everything in the volumes of periodicals bearing that date, although some of the last numbers were not actually issued until early in 1915. The abbreviations are the same as those of the former list; t. 1.= type locality, while extinct species are marked t. The size of the list is surprising, and shows the richness of Colorado in new materials, as well as the activity of workers.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological History and Phylogeny of Chelicerata
    Arthropod Structure & Development 39 (2010) 124–142 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Arthropod Structure & Development journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/asd Review Article Geological history and phylogeny of Chelicerata Jason A. Dunlop* Museum fu¨r Naturkunde, Leibniz Institute for Research on Evolution and Biodiversity at the Humboldt University Berlin, Invalidenstraße 43, D-10115 Berlin, Germany article info abstract Article history: Chelicerata probably appeared during the Cambrian period. Their precise origins remain unclear, but may Received 1 December 2009 lie among the so-called great appendage arthropods. By the late Cambrian there is evidence for both Accepted 13 January 2010 Pycnogonida and Euchelicerata. Relationships between the principal euchelicerate lineages are unre- solved, but Xiphosura, Eurypterida and Chasmataspidida (the last two extinct), are all known as body Keywords: fossils from the Ordovician. The fourth group, Arachnida, was found monophyletic in most recent studies. Arachnida Arachnids are known unequivocally from the Silurian (a putative Ordovician mite remains controversial), Fossil record and the balance of evidence favours a common, terrestrial ancestor. Recent work recognises four prin- Phylogeny Evolutionary tree cipal arachnid clades: Stethostomata, Haplocnemata, Acaromorpha and Pantetrapulmonata, of which the pantetrapulmonates (spiders and their relatives) are probably the most robust grouping. Stethostomata includes Scorpiones (Silurian–Recent) and Opiliones (Devonian–Recent), while
    [Show full text]
  • Diptera, Sy Ae)
    Ce nt re fo r Eco logy & Hydrology N AT U RA L ENVIRO N M EN T RESEA RC H CO U N C IL Provisional atlas of British hover les (Diptera, Sy ae) _ Stuart G Ball & Roger K A Morris _ J O I N T NATURE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE NERC Co pyright 2000 Printed in 2000 by CRL Digital Limited ISBN I 870393 54 6 The Centre for Eco logy an d Hydrolo gy (CEI-0 is one of the Centres an d Surveys of the Natu ral Environme nt Research Council (NERC). Established in 1994, CEH is a multi-disciplinary , environmental research organisation w ith som e 600 staff an d w ell-equipp ed labo ratories and field facilities at n ine sites throughout the United Kingdom . Up u ntil Ap ril 2000, CEM co m prise d of fou r comp o nent NERC Institutes - the Institute of Hydrology (IH), the Institute of Freshw ater Eco logy (WE), the Institute of Terrestrial Eco logy (ITE), and the Institute of Virology an d Environmental Micro b iology (IVEM). From the beginning of Ap dl 2000, CEH has operated as a single institute, and the ind ividual Institute nam es have ceased to be used . CEH's mission is to "advance th e science of ecology, env ironme ntal microbiology and hyd rology th rough h igh q uality and inte rnat ionall) recognised research lead ing to better understanding and quantifia ttion of the p hysical, chem ical and b iolo gical p rocesses relating to land an d freshwater an d living organisms within the se environments".
    [Show full text]