Costa-Paiva Et Al. 2017)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Lesson 4 Plant and Animal Classification and Identification
LESSON 4 PLANT AND ANIMAL CLASSIFICATION AND IDENTIFICATION Aim Become familiar with the basic ways in which plants and animals can be classified and identified CLASSIFICATION OF ORGANISMS Living organisms that are relevant to the ecotourism tour guide are generally divided into two main groups of things: ANIMALS........and..........PLANTS The boundaries between these two groups are not always clear, and there is an increasing tendency to recognise as many as five or six kingdoms. However, for our purposes we will stick with the two kingdoms. Each of these main groups is divided up into a number of smaller groups called 'PHYLA' (or Phylum). Each phylum has certain broad characteristics which distinguish it from other groups of plants or animals. For example, all flowering plants are in the phyla 'Anthophyta' (if a plant has a flower it is a member of the phyla 'Anthophyta'). All animals which have a backbone are members of the phyla 'Vertebrate' (i.e. Vertebrates). Getting to know these major groups of plants and animals is the first step in learning the characteristics of, and learning to identify living things. You should try to gain an understanding of the order of the phyla - from the simplest to the most complex - in both the animal and plant kingdoms. Gaining this type of perspective will provide you with a framework which you can slot plants or animals into when trying to identify them in nature. Understanding the phyla is only the first step, however. Phyla are further divided into groups called 'classes'. Classes are divided and divided again and so on. -
Systema Naturae∗
Systema Naturae∗ c Alexey B. Shipunov v. 5.802 (June 29, 2008) 7 Regnum Monera [ Bacillus ] /Bacteria Subregnum Bacteria [ 6:8Bacillus ]1 Superphylum Posibacteria [ 6:2Bacillus ] stat.m. Phylum 1. Firmicutes [ 6Bacillus ]2 Classis 1(1). Thermotogae [ 5Thermotoga ] i.s. 2(2). Mollicutes [ 5Mycoplasma ] 3(3). Clostridia [ 5Clostridium ]3 4(4). Bacilli [ 5Bacillus ] 5(5). Symbiobacteres [ 5Symbiobacterium ] Phylum 2. Actinobacteria [ 6Actynomyces ] Classis 1(6). Actinobacteres [ 5Actinomyces ] Phylum 3. Hadobacteria [ 6Deinococcus ] sed.m. Classis 1(7). Hadobacteres [ 5Deinococcus ]4 Superphylum Negibacteria [ 6:2Rhodospirillum ] stat.m. Phylum 4. Chlorobacteria [ 6Chloroflexus ]5 Classis 1(8). Ktedonobacteres [ 5Ktedonobacter ] sed.m. 2(9). Thermomicrobia [ 5Thermomicrobium ] 3(10). Chloroflexi [ 5Chloroflexus ] ∗Only recent taxa. Viruses are not included. Abbreviations and signs: sed.m. (sedis mutabilis); stat.m. (status mutabilis): s., aut i. (superior, aut interior); i.s. (incertae sedis); sed.p. (sedis possibilis); s.str. (sensu stricto); s.l. (sensu lato); incl. (inclusum); excl. (exclusum); \quotes" for environmental groups; * (asterisk) for paraphyletic taxa; / (slash) at margins for major clades (\domains"). 1Incl. \Nanobacteria" i.s. et dubitativa, \OP11 group" i.s. 2Incl. \TM7" i.s., \OP9", \OP10". 3Incl. Dictyoglomi sed.m., Fusobacteria, Thermolithobacteria. 4= Deinococcus{Thermus. 5Incl. Thermobaculum i.s. 1 4(11). Dehalococcoidetes [ 5Dehalococcoides ] 5(12). Anaerolineae [ 5Anaerolinea ]6 Phylum 5. Cyanobacteria [ 6Nostoc ] Classis 1(13). Gloeobacteres [ 5Gloeobacter ] 2(14). Chroobacteres [ 5Chroococcus ]7 3(15). Hormogoneae [ 5Nostoc ] Phylum 6. Bacteroidobacteria [ 6Bacteroides ]8 Classis 1(16). Fibrobacteres [ 5Fibrobacter ] 2(17). Chlorobi [ 5Chlorobium ] 3(18). Salinibacteres [ 5Salinibacter ] 4(19). Bacteroidetes [ 5Bacteroides ]9 Phylum 7. Spirobacteria [ 6Spirochaeta ] Classis 1(20). Spirochaetes [ 5Spirochaeta ] s.l.10 Phylum 8. Planctobacteria [ 6Planctomyces ]11 Classis 1(21). -
Benthic Invertebrate Community Monitoring and Indicator Development for Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary
July 15, 2013 Final Report Project SR12-002: Benthic Invertebrate Community Monitoring and Indicator Development for Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary Gary L. Taghon, Rutgers University, Project Manager [email protected] Judith P. Grassle, Rutgers University, Co-Manager [email protected] Charlotte M. Fuller, Rutgers University, Co-Manager [email protected] Rosemarie F. Petrecca, Rutgers University, Co-Manager and Quality Assurance Officer [email protected] Patricia Ramey, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum, Frankfurt Germany, Co-Manager [email protected] Thomas Belton, NJDEP Project Manager and NJDEP Research Coordinator [email protected] Marc Ferko, NJDEP Quality Assurance Officer [email protected] Bob Schuster, NJDEP Bureau of Marine Water Monitoring [email protected] Introduction The Barnegat Bay ecosystem is potentially under stress from human impacts, which have increased over the past several decades. Benthic macroinvertebrates are commonly included in studies to monitor the effects of human and natural stresses on marine and estuarine ecosystems. There are several reasons for this. Macroinvertebrates (here defined as animals retained on a 0.5-mm mesh sieve) are abundant in most coastal and estuarine sediments, typically on the order of 103 to 104 per meter squared. Benthic communities are typically composed of many taxa from different phyla, and quantitative measures of community diversity (e.g., Rosenberg et al. 2004) and the relative abundance of animals with different feeding behaviors (e.g., Weisberg et al. 1997, Pelletier et al. 2010), can be used to evaluate ecosystem health. Because most benthic invertebrates are sedentary as adults, they function as integrators, over periods of months to years, of the properties of their environment. -
Platyhelminthes, Nemertea, and "Aschelminthes" - A
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE FUNDAMENTALS AND SYSTEMATICS – Vol. III - Platyhelminthes, Nemertea, and "Aschelminthes" - A. Schmidt-Rhaesa PLATYHELMINTHES, NEMERTEA, AND “ASCHELMINTHES” A. Schmidt-Rhaesa University of Bielefeld, Germany Keywords: Platyhelminthes, Nemertea, Gnathifera, Gnathostomulida, Micrognathozoa, Rotifera, Acanthocephala, Cycliophora, Nemathelminthes, Gastrotricha, Nematoda, Nematomorpha, Priapulida, Kinorhyncha, Loricifera Contents 1. Introduction 2. General Morphology 3. Platyhelminthes, the Flatworms 4. Nemertea (Nemertini), the Ribbon Worms 5. “Aschelminthes” 5.1. Gnathifera 5.1.1. Gnathostomulida 5.1.2. Micrognathozoa (Limnognathia maerski) 5.1.3. Rotifera 5.1.4. Acanthocephala 5.1.5. Cycliophora (Symbion pandora) 5.2. Nemathelminthes 5.2.1. Gastrotricha 5.2.2. Nematoda, the Roundworms 5.2.3. Nematomorpha, the Horsehair Worms 5.2.4. Priapulida 5.2.5. Kinorhyncha 5.2.6. Loricifera Acknowledgements Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary UNESCO – EOLSS This chapter provides information on several basal bilaterian groups: flatworms, nemerteans, Gnathifera,SAMPLE and Nemathelminthes. CHAPTERS These include species-rich taxa such as Nematoda and Platyhelminthes, and as taxa with few or even only one species, such as Micrognathozoa (Limnognathia maerski) and Cycliophora (Symbion pandora). All Acanthocephala and subgroups of Platyhelminthes and Nematoda, are parasites that often exhibit complex life cycles. Most of the taxa described are marine, but some have also invaded freshwater or the terrestrial environment. “Aschelminthes” are not a natural group, instead, two taxa have been recognized that were earlier summarized under this name. Gnathifera include taxa with a conspicuous jaw apparatus such as Gnathostomulida, Micrognathozoa, and Rotifera. Although they do not possess a jaw apparatus, Acanthocephala also belong to Gnathifera due to their epidermal structure. ©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS) BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE FUNDAMENTALS AND SYSTEMATICS – Vol. -
Systematics , Zoogeography , Andecologyofthepriapu
SYSTEMATICS, ZOOGEOGRAPHY, AND ECOLOGY OF THE PRIAPULIDA by J. VAN DER LAND (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) With 89 text-figures and five plates CONTENTS Ι Introduction 4 1.1 Plan 4 1.2 Material and methods 5 1.3 Acknowledgements 6 2 Systematics 8 2.1 Historical introduction 8 2.2 Phylum Priapulida 9 2.2.1 Diagnosis 10 2.2.2 Classification 10 2.2.3 Definition of terms 12 2.2.4 Basic adaptive features 13 2.2.5 General features 13 2.2.6 Systematic notes 2 5 2.3 Key to the taxa 20 2.4 Survey of the taxa 29 Priapulidae 2 9 Priapulopsis 30 Priapulus 51 Acanthopriapulus 60 Halicryptus 02 Tubiluchidae 7° Tubiluchus 73 3 Zoogeography and ecology 84 3.1 Distribution 84 3.1.1 Faunistics 90 3.1.2 Expeditions 93 3.2 Ecology 96 3.2.1 Substratum 96 3.2.2 Depth 97 3.2.3 Temperature 97 3.24 Salinity 98 3.2.5 Oxygen 98 3.2.6 Food 99 3.2.7 Predators 100 3.2.8 Communities 102 3.3 Theoretical zoogeography 102 3.3.1 Bipolarity 102 3.3.2 Relict distribution 103 3.3.3 Concluding remarks 104 References 105 4 ZOOLOGISCHE VERHANDELINGEN 112 (1970) 1 INTRODUCTION The phylum Priapulida is only a very small group of marine worms but, since these animals apparently represent the last remnants of a once un- doubtedly much more important animal type, they are certainly of great scientific interest. Therefore, it is to be regretted that a comprehensive review of our present knowledge of the group does not exist, which does not only cause the faulty way in which the Priapulida are treated usually in textbooks and works on phylogeny, but also hampers further studies. -
New Zealand's Genetic Diversity
1.13 NEW ZEALAND’S GENETIC DIVERSITY NEW ZEALAND’S GENETIC DIVERSITY Dennis P. Gordon National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Private Bag 14901, Kilbirnie, Wellington 6022, New Zealand ABSTRACT: The known genetic diversity represented by the New Zealand biota is reviewed and summarised, largely based on a recently published New Zealand inventory of biodiversity. All kingdoms and eukaryote phyla are covered, updated to refl ect the latest phylogenetic view of Eukaryota. The total known biota comprises a nominal 57 406 species (c. 48 640 described). Subtraction of the 4889 naturalised-alien species gives a biota of 52 517 native species. A minimum (the status of a number of the unnamed species is uncertain) of 27 380 (52%) of these species are endemic (cf. 26% for Fungi, 38% for all marine species, 46% for marine Animalia, 68% for all Animalia, 78% for vascular plants and 91% for terrestrial Animalia). In passing, examples are given both of the roles of the major taxa in providing ecosystem services and of the use of genetic resources in the New Zealand economy. Key words: Animalia, Chromista, freshwater, Fungi, genetic diversity, marine, New Zealand, Prokaryota, Protozoa, terrestrial. INTRODUCTION Article 10b of the CBD calls for signatories to ‘Adopt The original brief for this chapter was to review New Zealand’s measures relating to the use of biological resources [i.e. genetic genetic resources. The OECD defi nition of genetic resources resources] to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on biological is ‘genetic material of plants, animals or micro-organisms of diversity [e.g. genetic diversity]’ (my parentheses). -
Number of Living Species in Australia and the World
Numbers of Living Species in Australia and the World 2nd edition Arthur D. Chapman Australian Biodiversity Information Services australia’s nature Toowoomba, Australia there is more still to be discovered… Report for the Australian Biological Resources Study Canberra, Australia September 2009 CONTENTS Foreword 1 Insecta (insects) 23 Plants 43 Viruses 59 Arachnida Magnoliophyta (flowering plants) 43 Protoctista (mainly Introduction 2 (spiders, scorpions, etc) 26 Gymnosperms (Coniferophyta, Protozoa—others included Executive Summary 6 Pycnogonida (sea spiders) 28 Cycadophyta, Gnetophyta under fungi, algae, Myriapoda and Ginkgophyta) 45 Chromista, etc) 60 Detailed discussion by Group 12 (millipedes, centipedes) 29 Ferns and Allies 46 Chordates 13 Acknowledgements 63 Crustacea (crabs, lobsters, etc) 31 Bryophyta Mammalia (mammals) 13 Onychophora (velvet worms) 32 (mosses, liverworts, hornworts) 47 References 66 Aves (birds) 14 Hexapoda (proturans, springtails) 33 Plant Algae (including green Reptilia (reptiles) 15 Mollusca (molluscs, shellfish) 34 algae, red algae, glaucophytes) 49 Amphibia (frogs, etc) 16 Annelida (segmented worms) 35 Fungi 51 Pisces (fishes including Nematoda Fungi (excluding taxa Chondrichthyes and (nematodes, roundworms) 36 treated under Chromista Osteichthyes) 17 and Protoctista) 51 Acanthocephala Agnatha (hagfish, (thorny-headed worms) 37 Lichen-forming fungi 53 lampreys, slime eels) 18 Platyhelminthes (flat worms) 38 Others 54 Cephalochordata (lancelets) 19 Cnidaria (jellyfish, Prokaryota (Bacteria Tunicata or Urochordata sea anenomes, corals) 39 [Monera] of previous report) 54 (sea squirts, doliolids, salps) 20 Porifera (sponges) 40 Cyanophyta (Cyanobacteria) 55 Invertebrates 21 Other Invertebrates 41 Chromista (including some Hemichordata (hemichordates) 21 species previously included Echinodermata (starfish, under either algae or fungi) 56 sea cucumbers, etc) 22 FOREWORD In Australia and around the world, biodiversity is under huge Harnessing core science and knowledge bases, like and growing pressure. -
Download the Abstract Book
1 Exploring the male-induced female reproduction of Schistosoma mansoni in a novel medium Jipeng Wang1, Rui Chen1, James Collins1 1) UT Southwestern Medical Center. Schistosomiasis is a neglected tropical disease caused by schistosome parasites that infect over 200 million people. The prodigious egg output of these parasites is the sole driver of pathology due to infection. Female schistosomes rely on continuous pairing with male worms to fuel the maturation of their reproductive organs, yet our understanding of their sexual reproduction is limited because egg production is not sustained for more than a few days in vitro. Here, we explore the process of male-stimulated female maturation in our newly developed ABC169 medium and demonstrate that physical contact with a male worm, and not insemination, is sufficient to induce female development and the production of viable parthenogenetic haploid embryos. By performing an RNAi screen for genes whose expression was enriched in the female reproductive organs, we identify a single nuclear hormone receptor that is required for differentiation and maturation of germ line stem cells in female gonad. Furthermore, we screen genes in non-reproductive tissues that maybe involved in mediating cell signaling during the male-female interplay and identify a transcription factor gli1 whose knockdown prevents male worms from inducing the female sexual maturation while having no effect on male:female pairing. Using RNA-seq, we characterize the gene expression changes of male worms after gli1 knockdown as well as the female transcriptomic changes after pairing with gli1-knockdown males. We are currently exploring the downstream genes of this transcription factor that may mediate the male stimulus associated with pairing. -
Multi-Gene Analyses of the Phylogenetic Relationships Among the Mollusca, Annelida, and Arthropoda Donald J
Zoological Studies 47(3): 338-351 (2008) Multi-Gene Analyses of the Phylogenetic Relationships among the Mollusca, Annelida, and Arthropoda Donald J. Colgan1,*, Patricia A. Hutchings2, and Emma Beacham1 1Evolutionary Biology Unit, The Australian Museum, 6 College St. Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia 2Marine Invertebrates, The Australian Museum, 6 College St., Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia (Accepted October 29, 2007) Donald J. Colgan, Patricia A. Hutchings, and Emma Beacham (2008) Multi-gene analyses of the phylogenetic relationships among the Mollusca, Annelida, and Arthropoda. Zoological Studies 47(3): 338-351. The current understanding of metazoan relationships is largely based on analyses of 18S ribosomal RNA ('18S rRNA'). In this paper, DNA sequence data from 2 segments of 28S rRNA, cytochrome c oxidase subunit I, histone H3, and U2 small nuclear (sn)RNA were compiled and used to test phylogenetic relationships among the Mollusca, Annelida, and Arthropoda. The 18S rRNA data were included in the compilations for comparison. The analyses were especially directed at testing the implication of the Eutrochozoan hypothesis that the Annelida and Mollusca are more closely related than are the Annelida and Arthropoda and at determining whether, in contrast to analyses using only 18S rRNA, the addition of data from other genes would reveal these phyla to be monophyletic. New data and available sequences were compiled for up to 49 molluscs, 33 annelids, 22 arthropods, and 27 taxa from 15 other metazoan phyla. The Porifera, Ctenophora, and Cnidaria were used as the outgroup. The Annelida, Mollusca, Entoprocta, Phoronida, Nemertea, Brachiopoda, and Sipuncula (i.e., all studied Lophotrochozoa except for the Bryozoa) formed a monophyletic clade with maximum likelihood bootstrap support of 81% and a Bayesian posterior probability of 0.66 when all data were analyzed. -
Metabarcoding in the Abyss: Uncovering Deep-Sea Biodiversity Through Environmental
Metabarcoding in the abyss : uncovering deep-sea biodiversity through environmental DNA Miriam Isabelle Brandt To cite this version: Miriam Isabelle Brandt. Metabarcoding in the abyss : uncovering deep-sea biodiversity through environmental DNA. Agricultural sciences. Université Montpellier, 2020. English. NNT : 2020MONTG033. tel-03197842 HAL Id: tel-03197842 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-03197842 Submitted on 14 Apr 2021 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. THÈSE POUR OBTENIR LE GRADE DE DOCTEUR DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE M ONTPELLIER En Sciences de l'Évolution et de la Biodiversité École doctorale GAIA Unité mixte de recherche MARBEC Pourquoi Pas les Abysses ? L’ADN environnemental pour l’étude de la biodiversité des grands fonds marins Metabarcoding in the abyss: uncovering deep - sea biodiversity through environmental DNA Présentée par Miriam Isabelle BRANDT Le 10 juillet 2020 Sous la direction de Sophie ARNAUD-HAOND et Daniela ZEPPILLI Devant le jury composé de Sofie DERYCKE, Senior researcher/Professeur rang A, ILVO, Belgique Rapporteur -
Cryptic Speciation Among Meiofaunal Flatworms Henry J
Winthrop University Digital Commons @ Winthrop University Graduate Theses The Graduate School 8-2018 Cryptic Speciation Among Meiofaunal Flatworms Henry J. Horacek Winthrop University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.winthrop.edu/graduatetheses Part of the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Horacek, Henry J., "Cryptic Speciation Among Meiofaunal Flatworms" (2018). Graduate Theses. 94. https://digitalcommons.winthrop.edu/graduatetheses/94 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at Digital Commons @ Winthrop University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Winthrop University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CRYPTIC SPECIATION AMONG MEIOFAUNAL FLATWORMS A thesis Presented to the Faculty Of the College of Arts and Sciences In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Of Master of Science In Biology Winthrop University August, 2018 By Henry Joseph Horacek August 2018 To the Dean of the Graduate School: We are submitting a thesis written by Henry Joseph Horacek entitled Cryptic Speciation among Meiofaunal Flatworms. We recommend acceptance in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Biology __________________________ Dr. Julian Smith, Thesis Advisor __________________________ Dr. Cynthia Tant, Committee Member _________________________ Dr. Dwight Dimaculangan, Committee Member ___________________________ Dr. Adrienne McCormick, Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences __________________________ Jack E. DeRochi, Dean, Graduate School Table of Contents List of Figures p. iii List of Tables p. iv Abstract p. 1 Acknowledgements p. 2 Introduction p. 3 Materials and Methods p. 18 Results p. 28 Discussion p. -
Free-Living Benthic Marine Invertebrates in Chile
FREE-LIVING BENTHIC MARINE INVERTEBRATES INRevista CHILE Chilena de Historia Natural51 81: 51-67, 2008 Free-living benthic marine invertebrates in Chile Invertebrados bentónicos marinos de vida libre en Chile MATTHEW R. LEE1, JUAN CARLOS CASTILLA1*, MIRIAM FERNÁNDEZ1, MARCELA CLARKE2, CATHERINE GONZÁLEZ1, CONSUELO HERMOSILLA1,3, LUIS PRADO1, NICOLAS ROZBACZYLO1 & CLAUDIO VALDOVINOS4 1 Center for Advanced Studies in Ecology and Biodiversity (FONDAP) and Estación Costera de Investigaciones Marinas, Departamento de Ecología, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile 2 Facultad de Recursos del Mar, Universidad de Antofagasta, Antofagasta, Chile 3 Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas, CSIC, Vigo, España 4 Center of Environmental Sciences EULA-Chile, University of Concepcion, Concepción, Chile; Patagonian Ecosystems Research Center (CIEP), Coyhaique, Chile; *e-mail for correspondence: [email protected] ABSTRACT A comprehensive literature review was conducted to determine the species richness of all the possible taxa of free-living benthic marine invertebrates in Chile. In addition, the extent of endemism to the Pacific Islands and deep-sea, the number of non-indigenous species, and the contribution that the Chilean benthic marine invertebrate fauna makes to the world benthic marine invertebrate fauna was examined. A total of 4,553 species were found. The most speciose taxa were the Crustacea, Mollusca and Polychaeta. Species richness data was not available for a number of taxa, despite evidence that these taxa are present in the Chilean benthos. The Chilean marine invertebrate benthic fauna constitutes 2.47 % of the world marine invertebrate benthic fauna. There are 599 species endemic to the Pacific Islands and 205 in the deep-sea.