DOCSLIB.ORG

The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, Vol.23, Part 6

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Volume 23, Part 6 30th December 1966 pp. 257-308, T.P.-XII THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Contents Page Translations of the Code 257 Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 257 Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 257 {continued inside back wrapper) LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.I. 1966 Price Two Pounds Ten Shillings (All rights reserved) Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Acting President: Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) Secretary: Dr. G. Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7) (31 May 1960) Assistant Secretary: Dr. W. E, China (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7) (21 May 1962) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Professor Enrico Tortonese (Museo di Storia Naturale "G. Doria", Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Professor Per Brinck (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Universite de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur-museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.m., Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. Obruchev (Palaeontological Institute, Academy ofSciences, Moscow 5-71, U.S.S.R.) (5 November 1958) Professor Tohru Uchida (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March 1959) Professor Dr. Raphael Alvarado (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) (31 May 1960) Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960 (Secretary) Dr. E. G. Munroe (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) (9 June 1961) {Councillor) Dr. W. E. China (British Museum {Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) {Assistant Secretary) Professor E. Binder {Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962) Professor Dr. Afranio do Amaral {Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) (28 August 1963) Professor Harold E. Vokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) (Acting President) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. J. Forest (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. Carl L. Hubbs (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Otto ICraus (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (28 August 1963) Dr. W. D. L. Ride (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 23, Part 6 (pp. 257-308, T.P.-XII) 30th December 1966 Translations of the Code The International Code on Zoological Nomenclature is now available in the following translations: Bulgarian 1962; Czech 1962; German 1962; Japanese 1965; Mexican 1962; Polish 1963; Russian 1966; Spanish 1962. NOTICES (a) Date of Commencement of Voting.—In normal circumstances the Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclatwe six months after the publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on the application in the present part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the Com¬ mission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. (b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers.—The possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following application published in the present part of the Bulletin: Designation of a neotype for Opopsitta marshalli Iredale, 1946 (Aves). Z.N.(S.) 1773. c/o British Museum (Natural History), w. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary London, S.W.7, England International Commission on November 1966 Zoological Nomenclature Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE COMMISSION REGARDING THE CLARIFICATION OF CODE ARTICLE 23b Article 23b has been a most controversial one right from its first proposal by Commissioners E. Mayr and L. B. Holthuis during the XVth International Congress of Zoology held in London in August 1958. The original wording of the Article was such that it was not clearly understood by most zoologists and was interpreted in different ways, causing thereby much confusion and starting many (often unnecessary) controversies. The Editorial Committee of the Code after long discussions decided that any attempt to improve the wording might be construed as changing the meaning of the Article, which even to the Committee was not quite clear in its details. In order to avoid any reproach of tampering with the meaning of the Article, the Committee decided to place it in the Code in the wording of the original proposal of 1958. 2. The Secretariat of the Commission, not being able to give a satisfactory interpretation of the Article either, deferred handling of cases involving this Article until after the XVIth International Congress of Zoology held in Washington in 1963, in the hope that during that Congress a solution for this situation would be found. 3. Prior to the XVIth International Congress of Zoology, four criticisms of Article 23b and requests for its amendment were received from President J. Chester Bradley, Prof. Hobart M. Smith, Commissioner L. B. Holthuis, and Dr. M. W. R. de V. Graham. These criticisms were published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 345-352 on 29 December 1962 as Case 3 for discussion at the forthcoming Congress. Proposals requesting deletion of the Article from the Code were made by Dr. J. R. Vockeroth and the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of America (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 79-80). The case was placed on the Agenda of Commission meetings at the Washington Congress and was debated at length. 4. In an endeavour to avoid amendments to the Code, Dr. K. H. L. Key proposed, during the Washington meeting, that the Commission should issue an interpretive Declaration on Article 23b, taking into account the following points: (1) The expression " unused as a senior synonym " implies that a junior synonym was in existence throughout the period concerned (otherwise the senior name could not be designated a " synonym "), although the state of synonymy need not (and ordinarily would not) have been recognized as such. (2) Use in the " primary zoological literature " should be taken to mean application of the name in question to a particular taxon in a zoological publica¬ tion. It does not include the citation of the name in synonymy, or mere listing of the name in any abstracting publication, index, catalogue, check-list, or nomenclator. (3) The expression " for more than fifty years " should be read to mean " for more than fifty years during which the junior synonym had been used on ten or more occasions in the primary literature for the taxon concerned". Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 6. December 1966. Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 259 (4) The word " discovers " must be rigidly construed: i.e. it implies that the name discovered after 1960 had remained unused during the whole of the 50- year period immediately preceding its " discovery ". (5) Use of a nomen oblitum in the primary literature in violation of Article 23b does not qualify as use for the purpose of the Article. (6) Article 23b(i) clearly gives the Commission the authority (without invoking the plenary powers) to suppress a nomen oblitum for the purposes of the Law of Priority, the Law of Homonymy, or both, or alternatively to validate it. However, it should not be read as imposing an obligation on the Commission to place a rejected nomen oblitum on the appropriate Official Index. Dr. Key's motion was rejected by 11 votes to 10. 5. Dr. Lemche moved that the Secretariat be charged to test Article 23b as explained by Dr. Key and refer back to the Commission as to how that Article should be amended and modified by a Declaration. This proposal was accepted by the Commission by 14 votes to 7. A motion for the deletion of Article 23b was defeated by 11 votes to 10. 6. After the Congress the Secretariat was instructed by President Alden H. Miller to draft an interpretive Declaration on the lines of Dr. Key's six points. This interpretation was drawn up by the Assistant Secretary in consultation with Prof. Ernst Mayr and was finally submitted to the Commission on Voting Paper (O.M.)(65)l, issued on 26 March 1965 under the One-Month Rule.
Recommended publications
  • 1 Appendix 3. Thousand Islands National Park Taxonomy Report

    1 Appendix 3. Thousand Islands National Park Taxonomy Report

    Appendix 3. Thousand Islands National Park Taxonomy Report Class Order Family Genus Species Arachnida Araneae Agelenidae Agelenopsis Agelenopsis potteri Agelenopsis utahana Anyphaenidae Anyphaena Anyphaena celer Hibana Hibana gracilis Araneidae Araneus Araneus bicentenarius Larinioides Larinioides cornutus Larinioides patagiatus Clubionidae Clubiona Clubiona abboti Clubiona bishopi Clubiona canadensis Clubiona kastoni Clubiona obesa Clubiona pygmaea Elaver Elaver excepta Corinnidae Castianeira Castianeira cingulata Phrurolithus Phrurolithus festivus Dictynidae Emblyna Emblyna cruciata Emblyna sublata Eutichuridae Strotarchus Strotarchus piscatorius Gnaphosidae Herpyllus Herpyllus ecclesiasticus Zelotes Zelotes hentzi Linyphiidae Ceraticelus Ceraticelus atriceps 1 Collinsia Collinsia plumosa Erigone Erigone atra Hypselistes Hypselistes florens Microlinyphia Microlinyphia mandibulata Neriene Neriene radiata Soulgas Soulgas corticarius Spirembolus Lycosidae Pardosa Pardosa milvina Pardosa moesta Piratula Piratula canadensis Mimetidae Mimetus Mimetus notius Philodromidae Philodromus Philodromus peninsulanus Philodromus rufus vibrans Philodromus validus Philodromus vulgaris Thanatus Thanatus striatus Phrurolithidae Phrurotimpus Phrurotimpus borealis Pisauridae Dolomedes Dolomedes tenebrosus Dolomedes triton Pisaurina Pisaurina mira Salticidae Eris Eris militaris Hentzia Hentzia mitrata Naphrys Naphrys pulex Pelegrina Pelegrina proterva Tetragnathidae Tetragnatha 2 Tetragnatha caudata Tetragnatha shoshone Tetragnatha straminea Tetragnatha viridis
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5

    Lepidoptera of North America 5

    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
  • Moths of North Carolina - Early Draft 1

    Moths of North Carolina - Early Draft 1

    Noctuidae Achatia distincta Distinct Quaker Moth 20 n=12 • • High Mt. • • • • N 10 • •• u • • • m • • • • b • 0 • • e • • • r 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 • 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 NC counties: 27 • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • o 20 • f n=39 • = Sighting or Collection Low Mt. High counts of: in NC since 2001 F • = Not seen since 2001 l 10 30 - Ashe - 2000-05-02 • i 8 - Macon - 2001-04-21 g Status Rank h 6 - Ashe - 2000-05-02 0 NC US NC Global t 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 D Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec a 20 20 t n=35 n=7 e Pd CP s 10 10 0 0 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Three periods to each month: 1-10 / 11-20 / 21-31 FAMILY: Noctuidae SUBFAMILY: Noctuinae TRIBE: Orthosiini TAXONOMIC_COMMENTS: A monotypic genus found across most of eastern North America and throughout North Carolina.
  • Check List of Identified Lepidoptera Collected at Mud Lake State Nature Preserve, Williams County, Ohio

    Check List of Identified Lepidoptera Collected at Mud Lake State Nature Preserve, Williams County, Ohio

    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 34 Number 2 - Fall/Winter 2001 Number 2 - Fall/ Article 3 Winter 2001 October 2001 Check List of Identified Lepidoptera Collected at Mud Lake State Nature Preserve, Williams County, Ohio Roy W. Rings Ohio State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Rings, Roy W. 2001. "Check List of Identified Lepidoptera Collected at Mud Lake State Nature Preserve, Williams County, Ohio," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 34 (2) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol34/iss2/3 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Rings: Check List of Identified Lepidoptera Collected at Mud Lake State 2001 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST 9 CHECK LIST OF IDENTIFIED LEPIDOPTERA COLLECTED AT MUD LAKE STATE NATURE PRESERVE, WILLIAMS COUNTY, OHIO Roy W, Rings 1 ABSTRACT A total of696 species ofLepidoptera is reported from the Mud Lake State Nature Preserve, Williams County, Ohio. This preserve is only a few miles from both the Indiana and Michigan state borders. The great biodiversity of moths is reflected in the bog, fen, shrub swamp, and marsh communities bor­ dering the lake. A check list of species summarizes identified collections for 1988,1992,1995 and 1996 and includes the Hodges et al (1983) species num­ bers, the scientific name, and the numbers collected by different collecting methods.
  • A New Species of Morrisonia (Noctuidae) from Southeastern North America

    A New Species of Morrisonia (Noctuidae) from Southeastern North America

    VOLUME 63, NUMBER 1 21 Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 63(1), 2009, 21–26 A NEW SPECIES OF MORRISONIA (NOCTUIDAE) FROM SOUTHEASTERN NORTH AMERICA J. BOLLING SULLIVAN 200 Craven St., Beaufort, North Carolina 28516; e-mail: [email protected] AND JAMES K. ADAMS Department of Biology, Dalton State College, Dalton, Georgia 30720; e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT. We describe Morrisonia triangula, (Noctuidae: Hadeninae: Orthosini) from material collected from Virginia to Texas. Illus- trations of adults and their genitalia are provided. The generic placement is discussed. Additional key words: Achatia, Egira, Himella, Orthosia For at least 40 years collectors in the southeastern Tom Neal, Gainesville, FL; Brian Scholtens, United States have been aware of an undescribed Charleston, SC; Jeff Slotten, Gainesville, FL; and J. species of hadenine provisionally placed in the genus Bolling Sullivan. Morrisonia by Jack Franclemont. Apparently, Genitalia were prepared by digestion in 10% Franclemont never collected the species but was aware potassium hydroxide, dissected in water, and of it from material sent to him for identification by photographed with a Nikon Coolpix 995 camera Charles Kimball prior to the latter’s publication of the attached to a Nikon SMZ800 microscope. Additional Lepidoptera of Florida in 1965. Kimball (1965) photographs were provided by Donald Lafontaine (see mentions 5 specimens collected in Escambia Co., Lafontaine 1998). Recently collected specimens were Florida, 4 in April of 1961 and one in May of 1962. sent to Paul Hebert at the University of Guelph for Additional material, much of which is in the U. S. barcode CO1 analyses (Ratnasingham & Hebert, 2007).
  • Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a Cooperative Approach

    Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a Cooperative Approach

    Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a cooperative approach Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Volume II of IV Chapters 1-8 and Appendixes A-E United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Newtown Square, PA NA–MB–01–12 August 2012 Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a cooperative approach Type of Statement: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Area covered by statement: The 50 United States and District of Columbia Lead agency: Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Responsible official: James R. Hubbard, Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry Sidney R. Yates Federal Building 201 14th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20250 For more information: Noel F. Schneeberger, Forest Health Program Leader Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry 11 Campus Boulevard, Suite 200 Newtown Square, PA 19073 610–557–4121 [email protected] Joint lead agency: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Responsible official: Rebecca A. Bech, Deputy Administrator for Plant Protection and Quarantine 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 302-E Washington, DC 20250 For more information: Julie S. Spaulding, Gypsy Moth Program Coordinator Emergency and Domestic Programs 4700 River Road, Unit 137 Riverdale, MD 20737 301–851–2184 [email protected] Abstract: The USDA Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service are proposing an addition to the gypsy moth management program that was described in the 1995 Environmental Impact Statement—Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: a cooperative approach—and chosen in the 1996 Record of Decision.
  • 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?

    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.
  • Plum Island Biodiversity Inventory

    Plum Island Biodiversity Inventory

    Plum Island Biodiversity Inventory New York Natural Heritage Program Plum Island Biodiversity Inventory Established in 1985, the New York Natural Heritage NY Natural Heritage also houses iMapInvasives, an Program (NYNHP) is a program of the State University of online tool for invasive species reporting and data New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry management. (SUNY ESF). Our mission is to facilitate conservation of NY Natural Heritage has developed two notable rare animals, rare plants, and significant ecosystems. We online resources: Conservation Guides include the accomplish this mission by combining thorough field biology, identification, habitat, and management of many inventories, scientific analyses, expert interpretation, and the of New York’s rare species and natural community most comprehensive database on New York's distinctive types; and NY Nature Explorer lists species and biodiversity to deliver the highest quality information for communities in a specified area of interest. natural resource planning, protection, and management. The program is an active participant in the The Program is funded by grants and contracts from NatureServe Network – an international network of government agencies whose missions involve natural biodiversity data centers overseen by a Washington D.C. resource management, private organizations involved in based non-profit organization. There are currently land protection and stewardship, and both government and Natural Heritage Programs or Conservation Data private organizations interested in advancing the Centers in all 50 states and several interstate regions. conservation of biodiversity. There are also 10 programs in Canada, and many NY Natural Heritage is housed within NYS DEC’s participating organizations across 12 Latin and South Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources.
  • A Survey of Macrolepidopterous Moths

    A Survey of Macrolepidopterous Moths

    Banisteria, Number 19, 2002 © 2002 by the Virginia Natural History Society Second Update to the Survey of Macrolepidopteran Moths Near Vontay, Hanover County, Virginia J. Christopher Ludwig Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage 217 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 INTRODUCTION Noted as absent from the site’s original collections (Ludwig, 2000), two Eurasian moth species have now This paper provides a second update to the list of been recorded at the study site. A single Noctua macrolepidopteran moth (= “macro-moth” or “macro”) pronuba L. was found on 29 May 2000 (Ludwig, species collected at a site on the Virginia Piedmont, 2001), reinforcing its status as a widespread, recent 2 km W of Vontay in western Hanover County. introduction to Virginia (Roble et al., 1999). A male A description of the study site, methodology, and gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar L., was found on 3 July original species list were given in Ludwig (2000) and 2001, presumably representing the first of many to the first update was provided in Ludwig (2001). The inhabit the site as the line of infestation moves south new collections extend the study to five years (30 and east from the northwestern Virginia Piedmont. October 1996 to 30 October 2001) and increase the number of collection nights to >470. The species list from this study, along with others being gathered Table 1. Summary of macro-moths encountered during throughout Virginia by the Virginia Department of this study by family given in order of Hodges et al. Conservation and Recreation’s Division of Natural (1983).
  • Insects and Mites Associated with Ontario Forests: Classification, Common Names, Main Hosts and Importance

    Insects and Mites Associated with Ontario Forests: Classification, Common Names, Main Hosts and Importance

    cfs-scf.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca Insects and mites associated with Ontario forests: Classification, common names, main hosts and importance. Nystrom, K.L.; Ochoa, I. M. 2006. Information Report GLC-X-7 Natural Resources Canada Canadian Forest Service Great Lakes Forestry Centre Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Nystrom, K.L. Insects and mites associated with Ontario forests : classification, common names, main hosts, and importance / K.L. Nystrom and I.M. Ochoa. (Information report, 0832-7122 ; GLC-X-7) Includes abstract in French. Includes index. Previously published 1994. Includes bibliographical references: p. 77 ISBN 0-662-43153-7 ISSN 2562-0738 (online) Cat. no.: Fo123-2/7-2006E 1. Forest insects--Ontario. 2. Plant mites--Ontario. 3. Forest insects--Nomenclature. 4. Plant mites--Nomenclature. I. Ochoa, I.M. II. Great Lakes Forestry Centre III. Title. IV. Series: Information report (Great Lakes Forestry Centre) ; GLC-X-7 SB764 C3 N97 2006 634.9'6709713 C2006-980111-8 Nystrom, K.L. and Ochoa, I.M. 2006. Insects and mites associated with Ontario forests: classification, common names, main hosts, and importance. Nat. Res. Can., Can. For. Ser., Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Inf. Rep. GLC-X-7. 98p. ABSTRACT This report was prepared to facilitate the use of scientific and common names of insects and mites dealt with by the forestry community of Ontario and includes most of the species recorded by the Forest Health Unit over the past 60 years. Insects and mites are arranged alphabetically by genus and species. Information provided for each entry includes order, family name, common name, host plant or insect type and a rating of current importance.
  • The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System Project

    The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System Project

    Final Technical Report Award: DE-FG02-06ER64232 Recipient: The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System Project title: Impact of elevated CO2 and O3 on insect-mediated ecosystem processes in a northern deciduous forest Project PI: Richard L. Lindroth Date: Nov. 20, 2011 Project dates: July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2009, with no-cost extension through December 2010 Distribution limitation notices None Executive summary Rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and O3 are altering the structure and function of forest ecosystems. Herbivorous insects are the major consumers in temperate deciduous forests, with the capacity to dramatically alter tree growth (via outbreaks), forest community composition and ecosystem dynamics (e.g., nutrient cycling). Until recently, however, experimental quantification of the impacts of CO2 and O3 on canopy herbivore communities and rates of defoliation and nutrient flux has not been addressed. This research, conducted at the Aspen FACE (Free Air CO2 Enrichment) facility in northern Wisconsin, U.S.A., evaluated the independent and interactive effects of CO2 and O3 on 1) the abundance and diversity of forest canopy insect communities, and 2) rates of insect herbivory and transfer of material (leaf greenfall and insect frass) from the canopy to the forest floor. Results of studies of individual insects revealed that elevated CO2 and O3 influence the performance of individual species of damaging insect pests, but the magnitude of impact is influenced by both insect species and their host tree species. Censuses of canopy insects showed that some species were positively affected, some negatively affected, and some not affected by elevated CO2 and O3.
  • Insect Biodiversity on Prairies Lacking Fire Management

    Insect Biodiversity on Prairies Lacking Fire Management

    1 Insect Biodiversity on Prairies Lacking Fire Management with focus on Lepidoptera (Moths and Butterflies) Kyle Johnson Honorary Fellow, University of Wisconsin-Madison 445 Russell Labs, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI, 53706 [email protected] 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................................3 Introduction and Study Overview..............................................................................................................3 Study Sites..................................................................................................................................................4 Methods....................................................................................................................................................10 Results.......................................................................................................................................................14 Discussion..................................................................................................................................................47 Future Studies............................................................................................................................................48 References.................................................................................................................................................48 3 Acknowledgements This project was financially supported