DOCSLIB.ORG

GLKN Vegetation Protocol 1.0.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GLKN Vegetation Protocol 1.0.Pdf National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Vegetation Monitoring Protocol Great Lakes Inventory & Monitoring Network Natural Resource Report NPS/GLKN/NRR—2008/056 ON THE COVER Black oak savanna at Miller Woods, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore Photograph by: Sam Smyrk Vegetation Monitoring Protocol Great Lakes Inventory & Monitoring Network Natural Resource Report NPS/GLKN/NRR—2008/056 Suzanne Sanders, Sarah E. Johnson, and Donald M. Waller National Park Service Great Lakes Network Office 2800 Lake Shore Dr. East Ashland, Wisconsin 54806 September 2008 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. Examples of the diverse array of reports published in this series include vital signs monitoring plans; monitoring protocols; "how to" resource management papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; annual reports of resource programs or divisions of the Natural Resource Program Center; resource action plans; fact sheets; and regularly-published newsletters. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations and data in this report are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Printed copies of reports in these series may be produced in a limited quantity and they are only available as long as the supply lasts. This report is also available from the Natural Resource Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM) on the Internet or by sending a request to the address on the back cover. Please cite this publication as: Sanders, S., S. E. Johnson, and D. M. Waller. 2008. Vegetation monitoring protocol: Great Lakes Inventory & Monitoring Network. Natural Resource Report NPS/GLKN/NRR—2008/056. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. NPS D-080, September 2008 ii Acknowledgements This protocol could not have been completed without the input of numerous individuals both within and outside of the Park Service. We are grateful to Chip Scott and Andrew Lister of the U.S. Forest Service’s Northern Monitoring Program. They have assisted with multiple aspects of plot selection. We are also grateful to Tony Olsen of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for assistance with algorithms for site selection. We wish to thank Mark Hart for his contributions on data handling in Section IV and to Sarah Pratt and Rebecca Key for their assistance with database development and PDA and GPS preparation. We thank several individuals associated with the University of Wisconsin-Madison, including Erika Mudrak, Dave Rogers, Rachel Collins, and Dan Olson, for contributing in various ways to this protocol. Finally, we would like to thank all who have spent time reviewing the various sections of this protocol. These people include Erik Beever, Mark Fulton, Joe O’Brien, Scott Weyenberg, Wendy Cass, Lee Frelich, and Christopher Woodall. The comments raised by these reviewers have, undoubtedly, raised the quality of the protocol. iii Contents Page Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................iii Figures........................................................................................................................................... vii Tables ..........................................................................................................................................viii Background and Objectives ............................................................................................................ 1 Rationale for Monitoring Vegetation Communities ........................................................... 1 Network Parks and Ecosystems.......................................................................................... 1 Current Threats to Vegetation in NPS Units....................................................................... 3 Overview of Vegetation Monitoring at the Great Lakes Network Parks............................ 4 Measurable Objectives........................................................................................................ 6 Overall Sampling Design................................................................................................................ 9 Rationale for Selecting this Sampling Design over Others ................................................ 9 Sampling Frame, Plot Design, and Metrics ........................................................................ 9 Sampling Frequency, Replication, and Timing ................................................................ 16 Recommended Number of Sampling Sites and Frequency .............................................. 17 Sample Method Selection and Level of Change That Can be Detected........................... 18 Field Methods ............................................................................................................................... 21 Field Season Preparations and Equipment Setup.............................................................. 21 Sequence of Events During Field Season ......................................................................... 21 Details of Taking Measurements ...................................................................................... 22 Post-Collection Processing of Samples ............................................................................ 22 End-of-Season Procedures................................................................................................ 22 Data Handling, Analysis, and Reporting ...................................................................................... 25 Metadata Procedures......................................................................................................... 25 Overview of Database Design .......................................................................................... 25 Data Entry, Verification and Editing ................................................................................ 26 Recommendations for Routine Data Summaries and Analyses to Detect Change........... 27 Recommended reporting schedule and format ................................................................. 27 Recommended Methods for Long-Term Trend Analysis................................................. 28 Data Archival Procedures ................................................................................................. 28 Personnel Requirements and Training.......................................................................................... 29 Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................................ 29 Crew Qualifications.......................................................................................................... 30 Training............................................................................................................................. 31 v Operational Requirements ............................................................................................................ 33 Annual Workload and Field Schedule .............................................................................. 33 Facility and Equipment Needs.......................................................................................... 33 Startup Costs and Budget Considerations......................................................................... 34 Procedures for Revising the Protocol ............................................................................... 34 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 37 vi Figures Page Figure 1. Nine National Park units of the Great Lakes Inventory & Monitoring Network............ 1 Figure 2a. FIA Phase 2/3 plot layout ............................................................................................ 12 Figure 2b. Standard FIA Phase 2/3 subplot diagram .................................................................... 13 Figure 3. GLKN subplot, modified from the standard FIA Phase 2/3 subplot............................. 14 Figure 4. Scale diagram of the hybrid plot .................................................................................. 15 vii Tables Page Table 1. Sampling frame for each of the nine GLKN parks......................................................... 11 Table
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Methods and Work Profile
    REVIEW OF THE KNOWN AND POTENTIAL BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS OF PHYTOPHTHORA AND THE LIKELY IMPACT ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES JANUARY 2011 Simon Conyers Kate Somerwill Carmel Ramwell John Hughes Ruth Laybourn Naomi Jones Food and Environment Research Agency Sand Hutton, York, YO41 1LZ 2 CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 8 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 13 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 13 1.2 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 15 2. Review of the potential impacts on species of higher trophic groups .................... 16 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 16 2.2 Methods ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.3 Results ............................................................................................................................... 17 2.4 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 44 3. Review of the potential impacts on ecosystem services .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the United States 2000
    United States Department Forest Insect and Of Agriculture Forest Service Disease Conditions Forest Health Protection in the United States March 2002 2000 Healthy Forests Make A World of Difference United States Department Of Agriculture Forest Insect and Forest Service Disease Conditions Forest Health Protection in the United States March 2002 2000 PREFACE This is the 50th annual report prepared by the U.S. • seed orchard insects and diseases; Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA • nursery insects and diseases; and Forest Service) of the insect and disease conditions of • abiotic damage. the Nation's forests. This report responds to direction in the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, as These categories are listed in the table of contents; amended, to conduct surveys and report annually on there is no index. insect and disease conditions of major national significance. Insect and disease conditions of local The information in this report is provided by the Forest importance are reported in regional and State reports. Health Protection Program of the USDA Forest Service. This program serves all Federal lands, The report describes the extent and nature of insect- including the National Forest System and the lands and disease-caused damage of national significance in administered by the Departments of Defense and 2000. As in the past, selected insect and disease Interior. Service is also provided to tribal lands. The conditions are highlighted in the front section of the program provides assistance to private landowners report. Maps are provided for some pests showing through the State foresters. A key part of the program affected counties in the East and affected areas in the is detecting and reporting insect and disease epidemics West.
    [Show full text]
  • Pear Sawfly Caliroa Cerasi Order Hymenoptera, Family Tenthredinidae; Common Sawflies Introduced Pest
    Pests of Trees and Shrubs Pear sawfly Caliroa cerasi Order Hymenoptera, Family Tenthredinidae; common sawflies Introduced pest Host plants: Cherry, cotoneaster, hawthorn, mountain- ash, pear and plum Description: Adult sawflies are 5–8 mm long, black and yellow, and stout bodied. Larvae are slimy, slug-like, and shiny olive-green to blackish in color. They are 12 mm long when full grown. Life history: Adults emerge early in June and lay single eggs on leaf undersides. Larvae appear in June, feed for about a month, then drop to the soil to pupate. A second generation can begin in early August. Overwintering: Prepupae in the soil. Damage symptoms: Larvae feed on upper leaf surfaces, Scorched leaves caused by pear sawfly larva defoliation leaving only the leaf veins. Heavy defoliation gives the damage. (189) tree a scorched appearance, and leaves may drop prema- Photo: Jeff Hahn turely. Severe defoliation can adversely affect tree health. Monitoring: Look for black, slug-like larvae feeding on the upper surface of leaves in June and again in August, and look for their damage on the leaves. Physical control: Small populations of larvae can be removed by hand and destroyed. Chemical control: Horticultural oils and insecticidal soaps are very effective against larvae. Biological control: No reports of natural enemies Plant mortality risk: Low Biorational pesticides: azadirachtin, horticultural oil, insecticidal soap, pyrethrins, spinosad Conventional pesticides: acephate, bifenthrin, carbaryl, Leaf damage caused by pear sawfly larvae. (188) chlorpyrifos (nursery only), cyfluthrin, deltamethrin, Photo: Whitney Cranshaw fluvalinate, imidacloprid, lambda-cyhalothrin, malathion, permethrin Leaf damage caused by young, pear sawfly larvae.
    [Show full text]
  • Pear Sawfly (Caliroa Cerasi) Vincent P
    Published by Utah State University Extension and Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Laboratory ENT-150-11 Revised September 2011 Pear Sawfly (Caliroa cerasi) Vincent P. Jones, Extension Specialist and Ryan S. Davis, Arthropod Diagnostician DID YOU KNOW? • Pear sawfly hosts include pear, cherry, hawthorn, plum, buttonbrush, Juneberry, mountain ash, coto- neaster, and quince. a • There are 2 generations of pear sawfly each year; second generation larvae cause the majority of the damage. • Damage from pear sawfly feeding rarely warrants control. • If control is needed, hand removal or spraying with a strong stream of water can be effective. • Low toxicity chemical controls include insecticidal soap and products containing spinosad A&B. Fig. 2. Young pear sawfly larvae covered in dark, gelati- INTRODUCTION nous secretion.1 The pear sawfly, which is actually a wasp, is a common pest on pear, cherry, and hawthorn in Utah. GENERAL BIOLOGY The slug-like appearance of the larval stage has prompt- Pear Sawfly ed this insect to also be referred to as the pear or cherry slug in various parts of the country. Although cherry and Scientific Name: Caliroa cerasi. pear are the preferred hosts, the pear sawfly will also Range: North Atlantic states to California; Canada, Eu- attack plum, buttonbrush, Juneberry, mountain ash, rope. cotoneaster and quince. On fruit trees which are treated Hosts: Cherry and pear are primary hosts; secondary hosts for other pests, the pear sawfly is rarely a problem, but in include plum, buttonbrush, Juneberry, mountain ash, untreated situations the entire tree may be defoliated. cotoneaster, and quince. Identification of Adult:The adults have four wings, are black-and-yellow and slightly larger than a common house fly (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Insects That Feed on Trees and Shrubs
    INSECTS THAT FEED ON COLORADO TREES AND SHRUBS1 Whitney Cranshaw David Leatherman Boris Kondratieff Bulletin 506A TABLE OF CONTENTS DEFOLIATORS .................................................... 8 Leaf Feeding Caterpillars .............................................. 8 Cecropia Moth ................................................ 8 Polyphemus Moth ............................................. 9 Nevada Buck Moth ............................................. 9 Pandora Moth ............................................... 10 Io Moth .................................................... 10 Fall Webworm ............................................... 11 Tiger Moth ................................................. 12 American Dagger Moth ......................................... 13 Redhumped Caterpillar ......................................... 13 Achemon Sphinx ............................................. 14 Table 1. Common sphinx moths of Colorado .......................... 14 Douglas-fir Tussock Moth ....................................... 15 1. Whitney Cranshaw, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension etnomologist and associate professor, entomology; David Leatherman, entomologist, Colorado State Forest Service; Boris Kondratieff, associate professor, entomology. 8/93. ©Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. 1994. For more information, contact your county Cooperative Extension office. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
    [Show full text]
  • ARTHROPODA Subphylum Hexapoda Protura, Springtails, Diplura, and Insects
    NINE Phylum ARTHROPODA SUBPHYLUM HEXAPODA Protura, springtails, Diplura, and insects ROD P. MACFARLANE, PETER A. MADDISON, IAN G. ANDREW, JOCELYN A. BERRY, PETER M. JOHNS, ROBERT J. B. HOARE, MARIE-CLAUDE LARIVIÈRE, PENELOPE GREENSLADE, ROSA C. HENDERSON, COURTenaY N. SMITHERS, RicarDO L. PALMA, JOHN B. WARD, ROBERT L. C. PILGRIM, DaVID R. TOWNS, IAN McLELLAN, DAVID A. J. TEULON, TERRY R. HITCHINGS, VICTOR F. EASTOP, NICHOLAS A. MARTIN, MURRAY J. FLETCHER, MARLON A. W. STUFKENS, PAMELA J. DALE, Daniel BURCKHARDT, THOMAS R. BUCKLEY, STEVEN A. TREWICK defining feature of the Hexapoda, as the name suggests, is six legs. Also, the body comprises a head, thorax, and abdomen. The number A of abdominal segments varies, however; there are only six in the Collembola (springtails), 9–12 in the Protura, and 10 in the Diplura, whereas in all other hexapods there are strictly 11. Insects are now regarded as comprising only those hexapods with 11 abdominal segments. Whereas crustaceans are the dominant group of arthropods in the sea, hexapods prevail on land, in numbers and biomass. Altogether, the Hexapoda constitutes the most diverse group of animals – the estimated number of described species worldwide is just over 900,000, with the beetles (order Coleoptera) comprising more than a third of these. Today, the Hexapoda is considered to contain four classes – the Insecta, and the Protura, Collembola, and Diplura. The latter three classes were formerly allied with the insect orders Archaeognatha (jumping bristletails) and Thysanura (silverfish) as the insect subclass Apterygota (‘wingless’). The Apterygota is now regarded as an artificial assemblage (Bitsch & Bitsch 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Taxonomic Groups of Insects, Mites and Spiders
    List Supplemental Information Content Taxonomic Groups of Insects, Mites and Spiders Pests of trees and shrubs Class Arachnida, Spiders and mites elm bark beetle, smaller European Scolytus multistriatus Order Acari, Mites and ticks elm bark beetle, native Hylurgopinus rufipes pine bark engraver, Ips pini Family Eriophyidae, Leaf vagrant, gall, erinea, rust, or pine shoot beetle, Tomicus piniperda eriophyid mites ash flower gall mite, Aceria fraxiniflora Order Hemiptera, True bugs, aphids, and scales elm eriophyid mite, Aceria parulmi Family Adelgidae, Pine and spruce aphids eriophyid mites, several species Cooley spruce gall adelgid, Adelges cooleyi hemlock rust mite, Nalepella tsugifoliae Eastern spruce gall adelgid, Adelges abietis maple spindlegall mite, Vasates aceriscrumena hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelges tsugae maple velvet erineum gall, several species pine bark adelgid, Pineus strobi Family Tarsonemidae, Cyclamen and tarsonemid mites Family Aphididae, Aphids cyclamen mite, Phytonemus pallidus balsam twig aphid, Mindarus abietinus Family Tetranychidae, Freeranging, spider mites, honeysuckle witches’ broom aphid, tetranychid mites Hyadaphis tataricae boxwood spider mite, Eurytetranychus buxi white pine aphid, Cinara strobi clover mite, Bryobia praetiosa woolly alder aphid, Paraprociphilus tessellatus European red mite, Panonychus ulmi woolly apple aphid, Eriosoma lanigerum honeylocust spider mite, Eotetranychus multidigituli Family Cercopidae, Froghoppers or spittlebugs spruce spider mite, Oligonychus ununguis spittlebugs, several
    [Show full text]
  • The Pear-Slug
    Volume 11 Article 1 Number 130 The pear-slug August 2017 The pear-slug R. L. Webster Iowa State College Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/bulletin Part of the Agriculture Commons, and the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Webster, R. L. (2017) "The pear-slug," Bulletin: Vol. 11 : No. 130 , Article 1. Available at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/bulletin/vol11/iss130/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Extension and Experiment Station Publications at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bulletin by an authorized editor of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Webster: The pear-slug Bulletin No. 130 March, 1912 THE PEAR-SLUG Caliroa cerasi Linn. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION IOWA STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND THE MECHANIC ARTS Entomological Section Ames, Iowa Published by Iowa State University Digital Repository, 1911 1 Bulletin, Vol. 11 [1911], No. 130, Art. 1 SUMMARY. 1. The pear-slug, or cherry-slug, is a dark, almost black, slimy slug, about 2-5 of an inch long when full grown, which feeds on cherry, pear and plum leaves. 2. These slugs feed on the upper sides of the leaves, eating out all the tissue except the veins and the lower surface. The injured leaves become dry and brown and fall from the trees, which are sometimes left entirely bare of foliage in midsummer. 3. Trees are often killed as a result of repeated defoliation. A short crop of fruit follows a severe attack by this insect, on ac­ count of the weakened condition of the tree.
    [Show full text]
  • BYGL May 26, 2011
    Home BYGL 2011 Text Only Contacts Search Site Map ENLT Presentations Lead Editor: Curtis Young Contributing Authors: Pam Bennett, Joe Boggs, Cindy Meyer, Jim Chatfield, Erik Draper Dave Dyke, Gary Gao, Tim Malinich, Bridget Meiring, Amy Stone and Curtis Young Buckeye Yard and Garden onLine provides timely information about Ohio growing conditions, pest, disease, and cultural problems. Updated weekly between April and October, this information is useful for those who are managing a commercial nursery, garden center, or landscape business or someone who just wants to keep their yard looking good all summer. BYGL May 26, 2011 Thursday, 26 May 2011 17:11 This is the 8th 2011 edition of the Buckeye Yard and Garden Line (BYGL). BYGL is developed from a Tuesday morning conference call of Extension Educators, Specialists, and other contributors in Ohio. In This Issue: 1. PLANTS OF THE WEEK: Annual (Calibrachoa); Perennial (Peony); Woody (Kentucky Coffeetree); Vegetable (Bell Pepper); and Weed (Buckhorn Plantain). 2. HORT SHORTS: Growing Degree Days (GDD) and Squaw Root. 3. BUG BYTES: Watch for Bagworm Egg Hatch; Annual Maple Leaf-Drop Commences (Maple Petiole Borer); Scarlet Oak Sawfly; Woolly Beech Aphids not so Woolly; and Hydrangea Leaf-Tier Moth. 4. DISEASE DIGEST: Anthracnose Anxiety and Brown Rot of Peaches and Nectarines. 5. TURF TIPS: Nostoc Balls and Lawn Litter. 6. INDUSTRY INSIGHTS: Calico Scale; European Elm Scale; and EABU Announces Recorded Version of Thousand Canker Disease on Walnut Webinar. 7. WEATHERWATCH. 8. COMING ATTRACTIONS: Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Awareness Week; Slow Ash Mortality (SLAM) Webinar; and School Integrated Pest Management Seminars Scheduled.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT on APPLES – Fruit Pathway and Alert List
    EU project number 613678 Strategies to develop effective, innovative and practical approaches to protect major European fruit crops from pests and pathogens Work package 1. Pathways of introduction of fruit pests and pathogens Deliverable 1.3. PART 5 - REPORT on APPLES – Fruit pathway and Alert List Partners involved: EPPO (Grousset F, Petter F, Suffert M) and JKI (Steffen K, Wilstermann A, Schrader G). This document should be cited as ‘Wistermann A, Steffen K, Grousset F, Petter F, Schrader G, Suffert M (2016) DROPSA Deliverable 1.3 Report for Apples – Fruit pathway and Alert List’. An Excel file containing supporting information is available at https://upload.eppo.int/download/107o25ccc1b2c DROPSA is funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration (grant agreement no. 613678). www.dropsaproject.eu [email protected] DROPSA DELIVERABLE REPORT on Apples – Fruit pathway and Alert List 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Background on apple .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Data on production and trade of apple fruit ................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Pathway ‘apple fruit’ .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Native and Non-Native Plants on Urban Insect Communities: Are Native Plants Better Than Non-Natives?
    Impacts of Native and Non-native plants on Urban Insect Communities: Are Native Plants Better than Non-natives? by Carl Scott Clem A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama December 12, 2015 Key Words: native plants, non-native plants, caterpillars, natural enemies, associational interactions, congeneric plants Copyright 2015 by Carl Scott Clem Approved by David Held, Chair, Associate Professor: Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Charles Ray, Research Fellow: Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Debbie Folkerts, Assistant Professor: Department of Biological Sciences Robert Boyd, Professor: Department of Biological Sciences Abstract With continued suburban expansion in the southeastern United States, it is increasingly important to understand urbanization and its impacts on sustainability and natural ecosystems. Expansion of suburbia is often coupled with replacement of native plants by alien ornamental plants such as crepe myrtle, Bradford pear, and Japanese maple. Two projects were conducted for this thesis. The purpose of the first project (Chapter 2) was to conduct an analysis of existing larval Lepidoptera and Symphyta hostplant records in the southeastern United States, comparing their species richness on common native and alien woody plants. We found that, in most cases, native plants support more species of eruciform larvae compared to aliens. Alien congener plant species (those in the same genus as native species) supported more species of larvae than alien, non-congeners. Most of the larvae that feed on alien plants are generalist species. However, most of the specialist species feeding on alien plants use congeners of native plants, providing evidence of a spillover, or false spillover, effect.
    [Show full text]
  • Official Lists and Indexes of Names in Zoology
    Official Lists and Indexes of Names in Zoology Names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes in Opinions and Directions published in Volumes 43 (1986) to 63 (2006) of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature This section lists in alphabetic order every family-group, generic and specific name placed on the Official Lists and Indexes; specific names are given in their original binomen. Names on the Official Lists are in bold type and those on the Official Indexes in non-bold type.The Direction or Opinion number under which each name was placed on the Official List or Index is given at the end of that entry. aalensis, Loligo, Schübler in Zieten, 1832, Die Versteinerungen Württembergs, Expeditum des Werkes ‘Unsere Zeit’, part 5, p. 34 (specific name of the type species of Loligosepia Quenstedt, 1839) (Cephalopoda, Coleoidea). Op. 1914 abbreviatus, Carabus, Fabricius, 1779, Reise nach Norwegen mit Bemerkungen aus der Naturhistorie und Oekonomie, p. 263, ruled under the plenary power not to be given priority over Lesteva angusticollis Mannerheim, 1830 whenever they are considered to be synonyms (Coleoptera). Op. 2086 abbreviatus, Carabus, Fabricius, 1779, Reise nach Norwegen mit Bemerkungen aus der Naturhistorie und Oekonomie, p. 263, ruled under the plenary power not to be given priority over Lesteva angusticollis Mannerheim, 1830 whenever they are considered to be synonyms (Coleoptera). Op. 2086 aberrans, Philonthus, Cameron, 1932, The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Coleoptera. Staphylinidae, vol. 3, p. 111, ruled under the plenary power to be not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of P. aberrans Sharp, 1876 (Coleoptera).
    [Show full text]