DOCSLIB.ORG

Stanislav Knor Školitel

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

UNIVERZITA KARLOVA V PRAZE PŘÍRODOV ĚDECKÁ FAKULTA KATEDRA ZOOLOGIE Interakce rostlin a hmyzu ve fosilním záznamu Bakalá řská práce Stanislav Knor Školitel: RNDr. Jakub Prokop, Ph.D. Praha 2008 Tímto prohlašuji, že jsem uvedenou práci vypracoval samostatn ě, s využitím uvedené citované literatury. V Praze dne 12. srpna 2008 Stanislav Knor 1 Abstrakt V sou časné dob ě je rozmanitost života na Zemi dána p ředevším druhovým bohatstvím hmyzu, cévnatých rostlin a jejich vzájemnými vztahy. Jejich po čátek spadá do doby p řed více než 400 milión ů let, kdy vznikly první suchozemské ekosystémy. Fosilní nálezy umož ňují geochronologické a taxonomické za řazení jednotlivých druh ů a jejich vývojových stádií. Přestože n ěkteré fosilní doklady jsou vzácné, existuje jich dostate čné množství k utvo ření relevantních záv ěrů. Studované fosilní nálezy související s koevolucí rostlin a hmyzu je možné roz členit následujícím zp ůsobem: poškození rostlinných tkání, koprolity, obsah trávící trubice, typy ústního ústrojí hmyzu a rozmnožovací orgány rostlin. Z t ěchto skupin pak mají pravd ěpodobn ě nejv ětší význam stopy poškození rostlinných tkání spole čně s morfologií hmyzího ústního ústrojí vytvá řející spojené funk čně potravní skupiny. Cílem bakalá řské práce je p ředstavení jednotlivých vývojových etap hmyzího ústního ústrojí, demonstrace n ěkterých p říklad ů herbivorních asociací hmyzu a rostlin, a to se zřetelem k jejich fylogenetickému postavení a stratigrafickému kontextu. Klí čová slova: Hmyz, cévnaté rostliny, fosilní asociace, herbivorie, typy ústní ústrojí, mina, hálka, poškození rostlin, koprolity, obsah trávící trubice Abstract Life biodiversity on the Earth is mainly represented by enormous richness of the vascular plants and insect species and their associations. These interactions date back more than 400 million years when the first terrestrial ecosystems appeared. Fossils enable geochronology dating and taxonomical attribution of various species and their ontogeny stages in evolution. In spite of considerable scarcity, many fossils allow to make reliable conclusions. Following types of evidence dealing with co-evolution of plant and insects are obviously distinguished: plant damages, coprolites, gut contents, insect mouthpart types and plant reproductive structures. Among them, the plant damage and corresponding functional feeding groups are of the greatest importance, although the knowledge of the mouthpart types and their evolution has also high predicative value. Aim of this thesis is review of the evolution of insect mouthpart types, showing some examples of mostly herbivore insects - vascular plants interactions including pollination and emphasis on the evolutionary aspects and their geochronology distribution. Key words: Insects, vascular plants, fossil association, herbivory, mouthpart types, mine, gall, plant damage, coprolites, gut content 2 Obsah Abstrakt 2 1. Úvod 4 2. Jednotlivé typy asociací a jejich doklady 5 2.1. Typy ústního ústrojí (Mouthpart classes) 5 2.1.1. Vývojová fáze I (spodní devon) 6 2.1.2. Vývojová fáze II (svrchní devon – svrchní karbon) 6 2.1.3. Vývojová fáze III (spodní perm – spodní trias) 7 2.1.4. Vývojová fáze IV (svrchní trias – spodní jura) 8 2.1.5. Vývojová fáze V (svrchní jura – eocén) 9 2.2. Potravn ě funk ční skupiny (Functional feeding groups) 9 2.2.1. Vn ější žír listoví (External foliage feeding) 9 2.2.2. Vnit řní žír tkání (Feeding on internal tissues) 13 2.2.2.1. Tvorba vpichu a následné sání (Piercing and sucking) 13 2.2.2.2. Vrtání (Boring) 13 2.2.2.3. Minující žír (Mining) 14 2.2.2.4. Tvorba hálek (Galling) 17 2.2.2.5. Žír semen (Seed predation) 20 2.2.3. Povrchové sání (Surface fluid feeding) 20 2.3. Koprolity (Coprolites) 22 2.4. Obsah trávící trubice (Gut content) 23 2.5 Ovipozice (Oviposition) 23 2.6. Polinace (Pollination) 24 3. Záv ěr 26 4. Pod ěkování 26 5. Literatura 27 6. P říloha 36 3 1. Úvod V sou časnosti je druhová a ekologická rozmanitost života na Zemi dána p ředevším vysokým po čtem druh ů cévnatých rostlin, hmyzu i ostatních členovc ů, a jejich vzájemnými vztahy. Studium t ěchto asociací je významným aspektem soudobého ekologického výzkumu, avšak soub ěžn ě nebyla v ěnována p řim ěř ená pozornost jejich vývoji v geologické minulosti (Labandeira, 2005). Tento nesoulad je zap řičin ěn p ředevším tím, že paleobiologické výzkumy se zam ěř ují hlavn ě na popis, systematiku a fylogenetické vztahy studovaných druh ů výše uvedených skupin, a jenom v mnohem menší mí ře se soust ředí na jejich paleoekologii. Teprve v posledních letech dochází v této problematice k zásadn ějšímu obratu a k tvorb ě řady studií, které je možno rozd ělit následujícím zp ůsobem: 1. Studium zabývající se jedním, vzácn ěji více druhy specifických asociací mezi hmyzem a hostitelskými rostlinami v rámci fosilního záznamu (Zhou a Zhang, 1989; Waggoner a Poteet, 1996). 2. Výzkum vždy jedné ze specifických, tzv. funk čně potravních skupin (functional feeding groups) a jejích ichnofosilií, jakými jsou nap říklad poz ůstatky min, hálek, vrtání nebo vn ějšího okusu na kompresních či permineralizovaných fosiliích, vyskytující se na širokém spektru rostlinných hostitel ů (Crane a Jarzembowski, 1980; Lang a kol., 1995). 3. Spíše vzácn ější typ studia, kde jeden druh nebo rod hostitelské rostliny vykazuje více typ ů asociací s r ůznými hmyzími herbivory. P říkladem m ůže být rod Psilophyton (DAWSON) HUEBER ET BANKS, z časného devonu (Trant a Gensel, 1985), pop ř. druh Psaronius chasei MORGAN, z konce svrchního karbonu (Labandeira, 1998a; Labandeira a Phillips, 1996). 4. Studie asociací cévnatých rostlin a hmyzu p říslušné lokality, zam ěř ené na jejich celkové kvalitativní i kvantitativní zhodnocení (Strauss, 1977; Scott a kol., 1985; Stephenson a Scott, 1992; Ash, 1997 resp. Labandeira a kol., 2002; Wilf a Labandeira, 1999; Wilf a kol., 2005; Beck a Labandeira, 1998). Na základ ě t ěchto studií z nejr ůzn ějších lokalit je možné vytvo řit v globálním m ěř ítku rámcový obraz paleoekologických vztah ů rostlin a hmyzu (pop ř. ostatních členovc ů) v období od nejsvrchn ějšího siluru do konce pleistocénu. Cílem této rešerše je, vzhledem k ší ři dané problematiky a omezenému rozsahu této práce, podat jen rámcový p řehled výsledk ů dosavadního výzkumu, a nastínit jeho možný vývoj a aplikace v budoucnosti. 4 2. Jednotlivé typy asociací a jejich doklady Jen nepatrnou část z popisovaných interakcí mezi rostlinami a hmyzem je možno ur čit na základ ě p římé asociace fosilního hmyzu s hostitelskou rostlinou in situ . Drtivá v ětšina výše zmín ěných asociací byla stanovena na základ ě nep římých d ůkaz ů. V zásad ě m ůžeme rozlišovat tyto doklady, a to koprolity, fosilizovaný obsah trávící trubice, poškození rostlinných tkání a morfologii fosilizovaných rostlin a hmyzu (Labandeira, 2002). U rostlin je to zejména utvá ření orgán ů spojených s reprodukcí (Friis, 1985; Crepet a Nixon, 1996) a možná i n ěkterých vegetativních struktur (Scott a Taylor, 1983; Niklas, 1986; Farrell a kol., 1991). V p řípad ě hmyzu se jedná p ředevším o utvá ření jednotlivých komponent ústního ústrojí a tvaru hlavy (Labandeira a Beal, 1990, Labandeira 1997) a v menší mí ře i kladélka (Shear a Kukalová-Peck, 1990). D ůležité jsou i povrchové struktury spojené s polina čním syndromem, jako jsou femorální korbikuly, z řetelná hrudní vestitura a t ělní kartá čky (Faegri a van der Pijl, 1980; Proctor a kol., 1996). V souvislosti s klasifikací jednotlivých typ ů asociací rozlišuje Labandeira (1997, 2002) t ři kategorie ekomorfologické disparity: (i) typy ústního ústrojí (mouthpart classes), (ii) funk čně potravní skupiny (functional feeding groups) a (iii ) potravní gildy (dietary guilds). Zjednodušen ě řečeno, první kategorie popisuje aparát, kterým hmyz přijímá potravu; druhá pak zp ůsob, jakým to činí; a t řetí, jakou potravu hmyz konzumuje. Pro pochopení vývoje vzájemných interakcí mezi rostlinami a hmyzem v geologické minulosti jsou d ůležité především první dv ě jmenované kategorie. 2.1. Typy ústního ústrojí (Mouthpart classes) Přestože k uchování tak delikátních a nepatrných struktur, jakými bývá hmyzí ústní ústrojí dochází i za výjime čně p říznivých okolností jen vzácn ě, existuje v sou časné dob ě, zejména z druhohorních uloženin (Grimaldi, 1990; Rayner a kol., 1991; Whalley a Jarzembowski, 1985), dostate čné množství dob ře zachovaných fosílií, které mimo jiné dokazují, že v ětšina sou časných typ ů ústního ústrojí má sv ůj p ůvod práv ě v druhohorách a objas ňují mnohé o evoluci, potravní strategii a mechanismech p říjmu potravy mnoha hmyzích skupin, recentních i vyhynulých. Labandeira (1997) rozlišuje celkem 34 typ ů ústního ústrojí (viz p říloha – obr. 1), p řičemž asi polovina je spjata s příjmem rostlinné potravy, k nim je pak nutno p řičíst ješt ě dva typy, též spojené s rostlinnou potravou a časov ě omezené na éru paleozoika. Podle Labandeiry 5 (1997) op ět asi polovina ústních typ ů vznikala a zanikala opakovan ě v pr ůběhu geologické minulosti. Typ ústního ústrojí vykazuje st ředn ě silnou až silnou vazbu na typ potravy. Zajímavé je, že zatímco druhová diverzita hmyzu má trvale vzestupnou tendenci, disparita ústního ústrojí se stabilizovala již n ěkdy v pr ůběhu st ředního mesozoika (Labandeira, 1997). To by vypovídalo o určitém typu ekologické saturace spíše než o plynulé expanzi potravních zdroj ů. Tento záv ěr potvrzují nezávisle na sob ě i údaje týkající se funk čně potravních skupin a potravních gild (Labandeira 2002). Pro evoluci ústního ústrojí je typický také opakovaný vznik haustelátních a obdobných struktur pro p říjem tekuté potravy u r ůzných skupin hmyzu, nap říklad u ploštic, motýl ů, dvouk řídlých a blanok řídlých, pokaždé modifikací jiných strukturálních komponent p ůvodního primitivního mandibulátního ústního ústrojí (Chaudonneret, 1990; Jervis a Vilhelmsen, 2000). Labandeira (1997) rozlišuje p ět vývojových fází v pr ůběhu geologické minulosti. První z nich spadá do spodního devonu, další do svrchního karbonu, t řetí do spodního permu, poslední dv ě pak do interval ů svrchní trias až spodní jura a svrchní jura až spodní k řída.
Recommended publications
  • Deformation to Users

    Deformation to Users

    DEFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfihn master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. IDgher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell InArmadon Compai^ 300 Noith Zeeb Road, Ann Aibor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Conservation of Biodiversity: Guilds, Microhabitat Use and Dispersal of Canopy Arthropods in the Ancient Sitka Spruce Forests of the Carmanah Valley, Vancouver Island, British Columbia. by Neville N.
  • Invertebrates and Nutrient Cycling in Coniferous Forest Ecosystems: Spatial Heterogeneity and Conditionality 255 T.M

    Invertebrates and Nutrient Cycling in Coniferous Forest Ecosystems: Spatial Heterogeneity and Conditionality 255 T.M

    INVERTEBRATES AS WEBMASTERS IN ECOSYSTEMS This is an edited volume honouring the contributions of Professor D.A. (Dac) Crossley, Jr to the field of ecosystem science. Invertebrates as Webmasters in Ecosystems Edited by D.C. Coleman and P.F. Hendrix Institute of Ecology University of Georgia Athens, USA CABI Publishing CABI Publishing is a division of CAB International CABI Publishing CABI Publishing CAB International 10 E 40th Street, Wallingford Suite 3203 Oxon OX10 8DE New York, NY 10016 UK USA Tel: +44 (0)1491 832111 Tel: +1 212 481 7018 Fax: +44 (0)1491 833508 Fax: +1 212 686 7993 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] © CAB International 2000. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be repro- duced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owners. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library, London, UK Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Invertebrates as webmasters in ecosystems / edited by D.C. Coleman and P.F. Hendrix. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0–85199–394–X (alk. paper) 1. Invertebrates––Ecology. I. Coleman, David C., 1938– . II. Hendrix, Paul F. QL364.4.I58 2000 592.17––dc21 99–41246 CIP ISBN 0 85199 394 X Typeset in 10/12pt Photina by Columns Design Ltd, Reading Printed and bound in the UK by Biddles Ltd, Guildford and King’s Lynn. Contents Contributors vii Preface ix Part I. Webmaster Functions in Ecosystems 1 1 Food Web Functioning and Ecosystem Processes: Problems and Perceptions of Scaling 3 J.M.
  • Fossils – Adriano Kury’S Harvestman Overviews and the Third Edition of the Manual of Acarology for Mites

    Fossils – Adriano Kury’S Harvestman Overviews and the Third Edition of the Manual of Acarology for Mites

    1 A summary list of fossil spiders and their relatives compiled by Jason A. Dunlop (Berlin), David Penney (Manchester) & Denise Jekel (Berlin) with additional contributions from Lyall I. Anderson, Simon J. Braddy, James C. Lamsdell, Paul A. Selden & O. Erik Tetlie Suggested citation: Dunlop, J. A., Penney, D. & Jekel, D. 2011. A summary list of fossil spiders and their relatives. In Platnick, N. I. (ed.) The world spider catalog, version 11.5 American Museum of Natural History, online at http://research.amnh.org/entomology/spiders/catalog/index.html Last udated: 10.12.2010 INTRODUCTION Fossil spiders have not been fully cataloged since Bonnet’s Bibliographia Araneorum and are not included in the current Catalog. Since Bonnet’s time there has been considerable progress in our understanding of the fossil record of spiders – and other arachnids – and numerous new taxa have been described. Spiders remain the single largest fossil group, but our aim here is to offer a summary list of all fossil Chelicerata in their current systematic position; as a first step towards the eventual goal of combining fossil and Recent data within a single arachnological resource. To integrate our data as smoothly as possible with standards used for living spiders, our list for Araneae follows the names and sequence of families adopted in the Platnick Catalog. For this reason some of the family groups proposed in Wunderlich’s (2004, 2008) monographs of amber and copal spiders are not reflected here, and we encourage the reader to consult these studies for details and alternative opinions. Extinct families have been inserted in the position which we hope best reflects their probable affinities.
  • Fine Structure of Receptor Organs in Oribatid Mites (Acari)

    Fine Structure of Receptor Organs in Oribatid Mites (Acari)

    ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Biosystematics and Ecology Jahr/Year: 1998 Band/Volume: 14 Autor(en)/Author(s): Alberti Gerd Artikel/Article: Fine structure of receptor organs in oribatid mites (Acari). In: EBERMANN E. (ed.), Arthropod Biology: Contributions to Morphology, Ecology and Systematics. 27-77 Ebermann, E. (Ed) 1998:©Akademie Arthropod d. Wissenschaften Biology: Wien; Contributions download unter towww.biologiezentrum.at Morphology, Ecology and Systematics. - Biosystematics and Ecology Series 14: 27-77. Fine structure of receptor organs in oribatid mites (Acari) G. A l b e r t i Abstract: Receptor organs of oribatid mites represent important characters in taxonomy. However, knowledge about their detailed morphology and function in the living animal is only scarce. A putative sensory role of several integumental structures has been discussed over years but was only recently clarified. In the following the present state of knowledge on sensory structures of oribatid mites is reviewed. Setiform sensilla are the most obvious sensory structures in Oribatida. According to a clas- sification developed mainly by Grandjean the following types are known: simple setae, trichobothria, eupathidia, famuli and solenidia. InEupelops sp. the simple notogastral setae are innervated by two dendrites terminating with tubulär bodies indicative of mechanore- ceptive cells. A similar innervation was seen in trichobothria ofAcrogalumna longipluma. The trichobothria are provided with a setal basis of a very high complexity not known from other arthropods. The setal shafts of these two types of sensilla are solid and without pores. They thus represent so called no pore sensilla (np-sensilla).
  • Acari: Oribatida)

    Acari: Oribatida)

    Zootaxa 3833 (1): 001–132 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Monograph ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2014 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3833.1.1 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:0570DAAB-FC52-4384-B036-CAFFC34D63AF ZOOTAXA 3833 Catalogue and historical overview of juvenile instars of oribatid mites (Acari: Oribatida) ROY A. NORTON1 & SERGEY G. ERMILOV2 1State University of New York, College of Environmental Science & Forestry, Syracuse, New York, USA; e-mail: [email protected] 2Tyumen State University, Tyumen, Russia; e-mail: [email protected] Magnolia Press Auckland, New Zealand Accepted by E. Sidorchuk: 9 Jun. 2014; published: 8 Jul. 2014 ROY A. NORTON & SERGEY G. ERMILOV Catalogue and historical overview of juvenile instars of oribatid mites (Acari: Oribatida) (Zootaxa 3833) 132 pp.; 30 cm. 8 Jul. 2014 ISBN 978-1-77557-445-3 (paperback) ISBN 978-1-77557-446-0 (Online edition) FIRST PUBLISHED IN 2014 BY Magnolia Press P.O. Box 41-383 Auckland 1346 New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ © 2014 Magnolia Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, transmitted or disseminated, in any form, or by any means, without prior written permission from the publisher, to whom all requests to reproduce copyright material should be directed in writing. This authorization does not extend to any other kind of copying, by any means, in any form, and for any purpose other than private research use. ISSN 1175-5326 (Print edition) ISSN 1175-5334 (Online edition) 2 · Zootaxa 3833 (1) © 2014 Magnolia Press NORTON & ERMILOV Table of contents Abstract .
  • Fossils – Adriano Kury’S Harvestman Overviews and the Third Edition of the Manual of Acarology for Mites

    Fossils – Adriano Kury’S Harvestman Overviews and the Third Edition of the Manual of Acarology for Mites

    1 A summary list of fossil spiders and their relatives compiled by Jason A. Dunlop (Berlin), David Penney (Manchester) & Denise Jekel (Berlin) with additional contributions from Lyall I. Anderson, Simon J. Braddy, James C. Lamsdell, Paul A. Selden & O. Erik Tetlie Suggested citation: Dunlop, J. A., Penney, D. & Jekel, D. 2012. A summary list of fossil spiders and their relatives. In Platnick, N. I. (ed.) The world spider catalog, version 13.0 American Museum of Natural History, online at http://research.amnh.org/entomology/spiders/catalog/index.html Last updated: 20.06.2012 INTRODUCTION Fossil spiders have not been fully cataloged since Bonnet’s Bibliographia Araneorum and are not included in the current Catalog. Since Bonnet’s time there has been considerable progress in our understanding of the fossil record of spiders – and other arachnids – and numerous new taxa have been described. For an overview see Dunlop & Penney (2012). Spiders remain the single largest fossil group, but our aim here is to offer a summary list of all fossil Chelicerata in their current systematic position; as a first step towards the eventual goal of combining fossil and Recent data within a single arachnological resource. To integrate our data as smoothly as possible with standards used for living spiders, our list for Araneae follows the names and sequence of families adopted in the Platnick Catalog. For this reason some of the family groups proposed in Wunderlich’s (2004, 2008) monographs of amber and copal spiders are not reflected here, and we encourage the reader to consult these studies for details and alternative opinions.
  • Nonnative Plant Shifts Functional Groups of Arthropods Following Drought

    Nonnative Plant Shifts Functional Groups of Arthropods Following Drought

    Nonnative plant shifts functional groups of arthropods following drought Authors: Adam B. Mitchell & Andrea R. Litt The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1072-y in Biological Invasions. Mitchell, Adam B. , and Andrea R. Litt. "Nonnative plant shifts functional groups of arthropods following drought." Biological Invasions 18, no. 5 (May 2016): 1351-1361. DOI: 10.1007/ s10530-016-1072-y. Made available through Montana State University’s ScholarWorks scholarworks.montana.edu Nonnative plant shifts functional groups of arthropods following drought Adam B. Mitchell . Andrea R. Litt Abstract Nonnative plants alter the composition of native plant communities, with concomitant effects on arthropods. However, plant invasions may not be the only disturbance affecting native communities, and multiple disturbances can have compounding effects. We assessed the effects of invasion and drought on plant and arthropod communities by comparing grasslands dominated by nonnative Old World blue-stem grasses (OWBs, Dichanthium annulatum) to grasslands dominated by native plants during a period of decreasing drought severity (2011–2013). Native plant communities had more species of plants and arthropods (/ m2) than areas dominated by OWBs during extreme drought, but richness was comparable as drought severity decreased. Abundance of arthropods was greater in native plant communities than in OWB communities during extreme drought, but OWB communities had more arthropods during moderate and non-drought conditions. We observed a shift in the arthropod community from one dominated by detriti-vores to one dominated by herbivores following plant invasion; the magnitude of this shift increased as drought severity decreased. Both plant communities were dominated by nonnative arthropods.
  • A Summary List of Fossil Spiders and Their Relatives Compiled By

    A Summary List of Fossil Spiders and Their Relatives Compiled By

    A summary list of fossil spiders and their relatives compiled by Jason A. Dunlop (Berlin), David Penney (Manchester) & Denise Jekel (Berlin) with additional contributions from Lyall I. Anderson, Simon J. Braddy, James C. Lamsdell, Paul A. Selden & O. Erik Tetlie 1 A summary list of fossil spiders and their relatives compiled by Jason A. Dunlop (Berlin), David Penney (Manchester) & Denise Jekel (Berlin) with additional contributions from Lyall I. Anderson, Christian Bartel, Simon J. Braddy, James C. Lamsdell, Paul A. Selden & O. Erik Tetlie Suggested citation: Dunlop, J. A., Penney, D. & Jekel, D. 2017. A summary list of fossil spiders and their relatives. In World Spider Catalog. Natural History Museum Bern, online at http://wsc.nmbe.ch, version 18.0, accessed on {date of access}. Last updated: 04.01.2017 INTRODUCTION Fossil spiders have not been fully cataloged since Bonnet’s Bibliographia Araneorum and are not included in the current World Spider Catalog. Since Bonnet’s time there has been considerable progress in our understanding of the fossil record of spiders – and other arachnids – and numerous new taxa have been described. For an overview see Dunlop & Penney (2012). Spiders remain the single largest fossil group, but our aim here is to offer a summary list of all fossil Chelicerata in their current systematic position; as a first step towards the eventual goal of combining fossil and Recent data within a single arachnological resource. To integrate our data as smoothly as possible with standards used for living spiders, our list for Araneae follows the names and sequence of families adopted in the previous Platnick Catalog.

  • Review of Sexual Dimorphism in Brachypyline Oribatid Mites V.M

    Review of sexual dimorphism in brachypyline oribatid mites V.M. Behan-Pelletier To cite this version: V.M. Behan-Pelletier. Review of sexual dimorphism in brachypyline oribatid mites. Acarologia, Acarologia, 2015, 55 (2), pp.127-146. 10.1051/acarologia/20152163. hal-01548357 HAL Id: hal-01548357 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01548357 Submitted on 27 Jun 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivatives| 4.0 International License ACAROLOGIA A quarterly journal of acarology, since 1959 Publishing on all aspects of the Acari All information: http://www1.montpellier.inra.fr/CBGP/acarologia/ [email protected] Acarologia is proudly non-profit, with no page charges and free open access Please help us maintain this system by encouraging your institutes to subscribe to the print version of the journal and by sending us your high quality research on the Acari. Subscriptions: Year 2017 (Volume 57): 380 € http://www1.montpellier.inra.fr/CBGP/acarologia/subscribe.php
  • Oribatida Volume 8 (2) 2008 Staatliches Museum Für Naturkunde Görlitz

    Oribatida Volume 8 (2) 2008 Staatliches Museum Für Naturkunde Görlitz

    ISSN 1618-8977 Oribatida Volume 8 (2) 2008 Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Görlitz ACARI Bibliographia Acarologica Editor-in-chief: Dr Axel Christian authorised by the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Görlitz Enquiries should be directed to: ACARI Dr Axel Christian Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Görlitz PF 300 154, 02806 Görlitz, Germany ‘ACARI’ may be orderd through: Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Görlitz – Bibliothek PF 300 154, 02806 Görlitz, Germany Published by the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Görlitz All rights reserved Cover design by: E. Mättig Printed by MAXROI Graphics GmbH, Görlitz, Germany ACARI Bibliographia Acarologica 8 (2): 1-24, 2008 ISSN 1618-8977 Oribatida No. 39 Kerstin Franke Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Görlitz Under the title "Oribatida", the publications on oribatid mites are listed every year as far as they have come to our knowledge. Please help us to keep the literature database as complete as possible by sending us reprints or copies of all your papers on oribatid mites, or, if this is not possible, complete references so that we can include them in the list. Proposals for improvement and criticism are very welcome. Please inform us, if we have failed to list all your publications in the Bibliographia. The database about oribatid mites presently contains 9514 papers and 5240 taxa. Every scientist who sends keywords for investigations can receive a list of literature or taxa. The literature from 1995 to 2004 is searchable on the Internet. The issues 1 to 7 of ACARI can be downloaded free of charge. http://www.naturkundemuseum- goerlitz.de/acarologie/ We are presently endeavouring to extend the reference collections on mites and interested in obtaining determined mite material.
  • Fossils – Adriano Kury’S Harvestman Overviews and the Third Edition of the Manual of Acarology for Mites

    Fossils – Adriano Kury’S Harvestman Overviews and the Third Edition of the Manual of Acarology for Mites

    1 A summary list of fossil spiders and their relatives compiled by Jason A. Dunlop (Berlin), David Penney (Manchester) & Denise Jekel (Berlin) with additional contributions from Lyall I. Anderson, Simon J. Braddy, James C. Lamsdell, Paul A. Selden & O. Erik Tetlie Suggested citation: Dunlop, J. A., Penney, D. & Jekel, D. 2010. A summary list of fossil spiders and their relatives. In Platnick, N. I. (ed.) The world spider catalog, version 11.0 American Museum of Natural History, online at http://research.amnh.org/entomology/spiders/catalog/index.html Last udated: 11.06.2010 INTRODUCTION Fossil spiders have not been fully cataloged since Bonnet’s Bibliographia Araneorum and are not included in the current Catalog. Since Bonnet’s time there has been considerable progress in our understanding of the fossil record of spiders – and other arachnids – and numerous new taxa have been described. Spiders remain the single largest fossil group, but our aim here is to offer a summary list of all fossil Chelicerata in their current systematic position; as a first step towards the eventual goal of combining fossil and Recent data within a single arachnological resource. To integrate our data as smoothly as possible with standards used for living spiders, our list for Araneae follows the names and sequence of families adopted in the Platnick Catalog. For this reason some of the family groups proposed in Wunderlich’s (2004, 2008) monographs of amber and copal spiders are not reflected here, and we encourage the reader to consult these studies for details and alternative opinions. Extinct families have been inserted in the position which we hope best reflects their probable affinities.
  • A Summary List of Fossil Spiders and Their Relatives Compiled By

    A Summary List of Fossil Spiders and Their Relatives Compiled By

    A summary list of fossil spiders and their relatives compiled by Jason A. Dunlop (Berlin), David Penney (Manchester) & Denise Jekel (Berlin) with additional contributions from Lyall I. Anderson, Simon J. Braddy, James C. Lamsdell, Paul A. Selden & O. Erik Tetlie 1 A summary list of fossil spiders and their relatives compiled by Jason A. Dunlop (Berlin), David Penney (Manchester) & Denise Jekel (Berlin) with additional contributions from Lyall I. Anderson, Simon J. Braddy, James C. Lamsdell, Paul A. Selden & O. Erik Tetlie Suggested citation: Dunlop, J. A., Penney, D. & Jekel, D. 2014. A summary list of fossil spiders and their relatives. In World Spider Catalog (2014). World Spider Catalog. Natural History Museum Bern, online at http://wsc.nmbe.ch, accessed on {date of access} Last updated: 24.06.2014 INTRODUCTION Fossil spiders have not been fully cataloged since Bonnet’s Bibliographia Araneorum and are not included in the current Catalog. Since Bonnet’s time there has been considerable progress in our understanding of the fossil record of spiders – and other arachnids – and numerous new taxa have been described. For an overview see Dunlop & Penney (2012). Spiders remain the single largest fossil group, but our aim here is to offer a summary list of all fossil Chelicerata in their current systematic position; as a first step towards the eventual goal of combining fossil and Recent data within a single arachnological resource. To integrate our data as smoothly as possible with standards used for living spiders, our list for Araneae follows the names and sequence of families adopted in the Platnick Catalog. For this reason some of the family groups proposed in Wunderlich’s (2004, 2008, 2012) monographs of amber and copal spiders are not reflected here, and we encourage the reader to consult these studies for details and alternative opinions.