DOCSLIB.ORG

Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Tuesday, September 12, 2006 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants—Proposed Critical Habitat Designations; Proposed Rule VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:24 Sep 11, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\12SEP2.SGM 12SEP2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 53756 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR notice of review, as it will help us in throughout all or a significant portion of monitoring changes in the status of its range, and a threatened species is Fish and Wildlife Service candidate species and in management any species which is likely to become for conserving them. We also request an endangered species within the 50 CFR Part 17 information on additional species that foreseeable future throughout all or a we should consider including as significant portion of its range. Through Endangered and Threatened Wildlife candidates as we prepare future updates the Federal rulemaking process, we add and Plants; Review of Native Species of this notice. species that meet these definitions to That Are Candidates or Proposed for This document also includes our the List of Endangered and Threatened Listing as Endangered or Threatened; findings on resubmitted petitions and Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11 or the List of Annual Notice of Findings on describes our progress in revising the Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50 Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Lists of Endangered and Threatened CFR 17.12. As part of this program, we Description of Progress on Listing Wildlife and Plants during the period maintain a list of species that we regard Actions May 2, 2005, through August 23, 2006. as candidates for listing. A candidate species is one for which we have on file AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, DATES: We will accept comments on the Interior. Candidate Notice of Review at any time. sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a ADDRESSES: ACTION: Notice of review. Submit your comments proposal to list as endangered or regarding a particular species to the threatened, but for which preparation SUMMARY: In this Candidate Notice of Regional Director of the Region Review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and and publication of a proposal is identified in SUPPLEMENTARY precluded by higher-priority listing Wildlife Service (Service), present an INFORMATION as having the lead updated list of plant and animal species actions. responsibility for that species. You may We maintain this list of candidates for native to the United States that we submit comments of a more general a variety of reasons: To notify the public regard as candidates or have proposed nature to the Chief, Division of that these species are facing threats to for addition to the Lists of Endangered Conservation and Classification, U.S. their survival; to provide advance and Threatened Wildlife and Plants Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. knowledge of potential listings that under the Endangered Species Act of Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA could affect decisions of environmental 1973, as amended. Identification of 22203 (703/358–2171). Written planners and developers; to provide candidate species can assist comments and materials received in information that may stimulate and environmental planning efforts by response to this notice will be available guide conservation efforts that will providing advance notice of potential for public inspection by appointment at remove or reduce threats to these listings, allowing landowners and the Division of Conservation and species and possibly make listing resource managers to alleviate threats Classification (for comments of a general unnecessary; to solicit input from and thereby possibly remove the need to nature only) or at the appropriate interested parties to help us identify list species as endangered or threatened. Regional Office listed in SUPPLEMENTARY those candidate species that may not Even if we subsequently list a candidate INFORMATION. require protection under the Act or species, the early notice provided here Species assessment forms with additional species that may require the could result in more options for species information and references on a Act’s protections; and to solicit management and recovery by prompting particular candidate species’ range, necessary information for setting candidate conservation measures to status, habitat needs, and listing priority priorities for preparing listing proposals. alleviate threats to the species. assignment are available for review at We strongly encourage collaborative The CNOR summarizes the status and the appropriate Regional Office listed conservation efforts for candidate threats that we evaluated in order to below in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION or species and offer technical and financial determine that species qualify as at the Division of Conservation and assistance to facilitate such efforts. For candidates and to assign a listing Classification, Arlington, Virginia (see additional information regarding such priority number to each species, or to address above), or on our Internet Web assistance, please contact the remove species from candidate status. site (http://endangered.fws.gov/ appropriate Regional Office listed in Additional material that we relied on is candidates/index.html). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION or visit our available in the Species Assessment and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Internet Web site, http:// Listing Priority Assignment Forms Endangered Species Coordinator(s) in endangered.fws.gov/candidates/ (species assessment forms, previously the appropriate Regional Office(s) or index.html. called candidate forms) for each Chris Nolin, Chief, Division of Previous Notices of Review candidate species. Conservation and Classification (703– Overall, this CNOR recognizes 7 new 358–2171). The Act directed the Secretary of the candidates, changes the listing priority Smithsonian Institution to prepare a number for 24 candidates, and removes SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: report on endangered and threatened 10 species from candidate status. Candidate Notice of Review plant species, which was published as Combined with other decisions for House Document No. 94–51. We individual species that were published Background published a notice in the Federal separately from this CNOR, the new The Endangered Species Act of 1973, Register on July 1, 1975 (40 FR 27823), number of species that are candidates as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) in which we announced we would for listing is 279. (Act), requires that we identify species review more than 3,000 native plant We request additional status of wildlife and plants that are species named in the Smithsonian’s information that may be available for endangered or threatened, based on the report and other species added by the the 279 candidate species identified in best available scientific and commercial 1975 notice for possible addition to the this CNOR. We will consider this information. As defined in section 3 of List of Endangered and Threatened information in preparing listing the Act, an endangered species is any Plants, referring to them as species documents and future revisions to the species which is in danger of extinction considered to be candidate endangered VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:24 Sep 11, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12SEP2.SGM 12SEP2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules 53757 or threatened species. We published a This revised notice supersedes all species for which we published separate new comprehensive notice of review for previous animal, plant, and combined findings that listing is not warranted, native plants on December 15, 1980 (45 notices of review. plus the 10 species that we have FR 82479), which took into account the determined do not warrant preparation Summary of This CNOR earlier Smithsonian report and other of a rule to propose listing and therefore accumulated information. On November Since publication of the 2004 CNOR have removed from candidate status in 28, 1983 (48 FR 53640), our on May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870), we this CNOR. supplemental plant notice of review reviewed the available information on New Candidates announced changes in the status of candidate species to ensure that a various species. We published complete proposed listing is justified for each Below we present brief summaries of updates of the plant notice on species and reevaluated the relative seven new candidates that we are September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526); listing priority number assigned to each recognizing in this CNOR, including one February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184); species. We also evaluated the need to species of mammal, one bird, two snails, September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144); and, emergency-list any of these species, two insects, and one plant. Complete as part of combined animal and plant particularly species with high priorities information, including references, can notices, on February 28, 1996 (61 FR (i.e. species with listing priority be found in the species assessment 7596); September 19, 1997 (62 FR numbers of 1, 2, or 3). This review and forms. You may obtain a copy of these 49398); October 25, 1999 (64 FR 57534); reevaluation ensures that we focus forms from the Regional Office having October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808); June conservation efforts on those species at the lead for the species, or
Recommended publications
  • Terrestrial Impact Structures Provide the Only Ground Truth Against Which Computational and Experimental Results Can Be Com­ Pared

    Terrestrial Impact Structures Provide the Only Ground Truth Against Which Computational and Experimental Results Can Be Com­ Pared

    Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 1987. 15:245-70 Copyright([;; /987 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved TERRESTRIAL IMI!ACT STRUCTURES ··- Richard A. F. Grieve Geophysics Division, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario KIA OY3, Canada INTRODUCTION Impact structures are the dominant landform on planets that have retained portions of their earliest crust. The present surface of the Earth, however, has comparatively few recognized impact structures. This is due to its relative youthfulness and the dynamic nature of the terrestrial geosphere, both of which serve to obscure and remove the impact record. Although not generally viewed as an important terrestrial (as opposed to planetary) geologic process, the role of impact in Earth evolution is now receiving mounting consideration. For example, large-scale impact events may hav~~ been responsible for such phenomena as the formation of the Earth's moon and certain mass extinctions in the biologic record. The importance of the terrestrial impact record is greater than the relatively small number of known structures would indicate. Impact is a highly transient, high-energy event. It is inherently difficult to study through experimentation because of the problem of scale. In addition, sophisticated finite-element code calculations of impact cratering are gen­ erally limited to relatively early-time phenomena as a result of high com­ putational costs. Terrestrial impact structures provide the only ground truth against which computational and experimental results can be com­ pared. These structures provide information on aspects of the third dimen­ sion, the pre- and postimpact distribution of target lithologies, and the nature of the lithologic and mineralogic changes produced by the passage of a shock wave.
  • Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (2012)

    Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (2012)

    FGDC-STD-018-2012 Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard Marine and Coastal Spatial Data Subcommittee Federal Geographic Data Committee June, 2012 Federal Geographic Data Committee FGDC-STD-018-2012 Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard, June 2012 ______________________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS PAGE 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Need ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Scope ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.4 Application ............................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Relationship to Previous FGDC Standards .............................................................. 4 1.6 Development Procedures ......................................................................................... 5 1.7 Guiding Principles ................................................................................................... 7 1.7.1 Build a Scientifically Sound Ecological Classification .................................... 7 1.7.2 Meet the Needs of a Wide Range of Users ......................................................
  • The Minor Planet Bulletin

    The Minor Planet Bulletin

    THE MINOR PLANET BULLETIN OF THE MINOR PLANETS SECTION OF THE BULLETIN ASSOCIATION OF LUNAR AND PLANETARY OBSERVERS VOLUME 36, NUMBER 3, A.D. 2009 JULY-SEPTEMBER 77. PHOTOMETRIC MEASUREMENTS OF 343 OSTARA Our data can be obtained from http://www.uwec.edu/physics/ AND OTHER ASTEROIDS AT HOBBS OBSERVATORY asteroid/. Lyle Ford, George Stecher, Kayla Lorenzen, and Cole Cook Acknowledgements Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire We thank the Theodore Dunham Fund for Astrophysics, the Eau Claire, WI 54702-4004 National Science Foundation (award number 0519006), the [email protected] University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, and the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire (Received: 2009 Feb 11) Blugold Fellow and McNair programs for financial support. References We observed 343 Ostara on 2008 October 4 and obtained R and V standard magnitudes. The period was Binzel, R.P. (1987). “A Photoelectric Survey of 130 Asteroids”, found to be significantly greater than the previously Icarus 72, 135-208. reported value of 6.42 hours. Measurements of 2660 Wasserman and (17010) 1999 CQ72 made on 2008 Stecher, G.J., Ford, L.A., and Elbert, J.D. (1999). “Equipping a March 25 are also reported. 0.6 Meter Alt-Azimuth Telescope for Photometry”, IAPPP Comm, 76, 68-74. We made R band and V band photometric measurements of 343 Warner, B.D. (2006). A Practical Guide to Lightcurve Photometry Ostara on 2008 October 4 using the 0.6 m “Air Force” Telescope and Analysis. Springer, New York, NY. located at Hobbs Observatory (MPC code 750) near Fall Creek, Wisconsin.
  • Warfare in a Fragile World: Military Impact on the Human Environment

    Warfare in a Fragile World: Military Impact on the Human Environment

    Recent Slprt•• books World Armaments and Disarmament: SIPRI Yearbook 1979 World Armaments and Disarmament: SIPRI Yearbooks 1968-1979, Cumulative Index Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Weapon Proliferation Other related •• 8lprt books Ecological Consequences of the Second Ihdochina War Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Environment Publish~d on behalf of SIPRI by Taylor & Francis Ltd 10-14 Macklin Street London WC2B 5NF Distributed in the USA by Crane, Russak & Company Inc 3 East 44th Street New York NY 10017 USA and in Scandinavia by Almqvist & WikseH International PO Box 62 S-101 20 Stockholm Sweden For a complete list of SIPRI publications write to SIPRI Sveavagen 166 , S-113 46 Stockholm Sweden Stoekholol International Peace Research Institute Warfare in a Fragile World Military Impact onthe Human Environment Stockholm International Peace Research Institute SIPRI is an independent institute for research into problems of peace and conflict, especially those of disarmament and arms regulation. It was established in 1966 to commemorate Sweden's 150 years of unbroken peace. The Institute is financed by the Swedish Parliament. The staff, the Governing Board and the Scientific Council are international. As a consultative body, the Scientific Council is not responsible for the views expressed in the publications of the Institute. Governing Board Dr Rolf Bjornerstedt, Chairman (Sweden) Professor Robert Neild, Vice-Chairman (United Kingdom) Mr Tim Greve (Norway) Academician Ivan M£ilek (Czechoslovakia) Professor Leo Mates (Yugoslavia) Professor
  • Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998

    Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998

    GILA TOPMINNOW, Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis, REVISED RECOVERY PLAN (Original Approval: March 15, 1984) Prepared by David A. Weedman Arizona Game and Fish Department Phoenix, Arizona for Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico December 1998 Approved: Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998 DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions required to recover and protect the species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepares the plans, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State and Federal Agencies, and others. Objectives are attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Time and costs provided for individual tasks are estimates only, and not to be taken as actual or budgeted expenditures. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor official positions or approval of any persons or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the Service. They represent the official position of the Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. ii Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Original preparation of the revised Gila topminnow Recovery Plan (1994) was done by Francisco J. Abarca 1, Brian E. Bagley, Dean A. Hendrickson 1 and Jeffrey R. Simms 1. That document was modified to this current version and the work conducted by those individuals is greatly appreciated and now acknowledged.
  • Vertical and Horizontal Trophic Networks in the Aroid-Infesting Insect Community of Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve, Mexico

    Vertical and Horizontal Trophic Networks in the Aroid-Infesting Insect Community of Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve, Mexico

    insects Article Vertical and Horizontal Trophic Networks in the Aroid-Infesting Insect Community of Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve, Mexico Guadalupe Amancio 1 , Armando Aguirre-Jaimes 1, Vicente Hernández-Ortiz 1,* , Roger Guevara 2 and Mauricio Quesada 3,4 1 Red de Interacciones Multitróficas, Instituto de Ecología A.C., Xalapa, Veracruz 91073, Mexico 2 Red de Biologia Evolutiva, Instituto de Ecología A.C., Xalapa, Veracruz 91073, Mexico 3 Laboratorio Nacional de Análisis y Síntesis Ecológica, Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores Unidad Morelia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia 58190 Michoacán, Mexico 4 Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia 58190 Michoacán, Mexico * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 20 June 2019; Accepted: 9 August 2019; Published: 15 August 2019 Abstract: Insect-aroid interaction studies have focused largely on pollination systems; however, few report trophic interactions with other herbivores. This study features the endophagous insect community in reproductive aroid structures of a tropical rainforest of Mexico, and the shifting that occurs along an altitudinal gradient and among different hosts. In three sites of the Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve in Mexico, we surveyed eight aroid species over a yearly cycle. The insects found were reared in the laboratory, quantified and identified. Data were analyzed through species interaction networks. We recorded 34 endophagous species from 21 families belonging to four insect orders. The community was highly specialized at both network and species levels. Along the altitudinal gradient, there was a reduction in richness and a high turnover of species, while the assemblage among hosts was also highly specific, with different dominant species.
  • March 21–25, 2016

    March 21–25, 2016

    FORTY-SEVENTH LUNAR AND PLANETARY SCIENCE CONFERENCE PROGRAM OF TECHNICAL SESSIONS MARCH 21–25, 2016 The Woodlands Waterway Marriott Hotel and Convention Center The Woodlands, Texas INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT Universities Space Research Association Lunar and Planetary Institute National Aeronautics and Space Administration CONFERENCE CO-CHAIRS Stephen Mackwell, Lunar and Planetary Institute Eileen Stansbery, NASA Johnson Space Center PROGRAM COMMITTEE CHAIRS David Draper, NASA Johnson Space Center Walter Kiefer, Lunar and Planetary Institute PROGRAM COMMITTEE P. Doug Archer, NASA Johnson Space Center Nicolas LeCorvec, Lunar and Planetary Institute Katherine Bermingham, University of Maryland Yo Matsubara, Smithsonian Institute Janice Bishop, SETI and NASA Ames Research Center Francis McCubbin, NASA Johnson Space Center Jeremy Boyce, University of California, Los Angeles Andrew Needham, Carnegie Institution of Washington Lisa Danielson, NASA Johnson Space Center Lan-Anh Nguyen, NASA Johnson Space Center Deepak Dhingra, University of Idaho Paul Niles, NASA Johnson Space Center Stephen Elardo, Carnegie Institution of Washington Dorothy Oehler, NASA Johnson Space Center Marc Fries, NASA Johnson Space Center D. Alex Patthoff, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Cyrena Goodrich, Lunar and Planetary Institute Elizabeth Rampe, Aerodyne Industries, Jacobs JETS at John Gruener, NASA Johnson Space Center NASA Johnson Space Center Justin Hagerty, U.S. Geological Survey Carol Raymond, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Lindsay Hays, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Paul Schenk,
  • Diptera: Drosophilidae)

    Diptera: Drosophilidae)

    Zootaxa 1069: 1–32 (2005) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ ZOOTAXA 1069 Copyright © 2005 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) Molecular systematics and geographical distribution of the Drosophila longicornis species complex (Diptera: Drosophilidae) DEODORO C. S. G. OLIVEIRA1, 2, PATRICK M. O’GRADY1, 3, WILLIAM J. ETGES4, WILLIAM B. HEED5 & ROB DeSALLE1 1Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, USA; email: [email protected] 2Department of Biology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA; email: [email protected] 3Department of Biology, University of Vermont, VT, USA; email: [email protected] 4Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA; email: [email protected] 5Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; email: [email protected] Abstract Here we examine the phylogenetic relationships of eleven species previously hypothesized to be members of the Drosophila longicornis complex (repleta group, mulleri subgroup) using combined analyses of four mitochondrial genes. This complex, as currently redefined, is composed of the longicornis cluster (D. longicornis, D. pachuca, D. propachuca, and D. mainlandi), the ritae cluster (D. desertorum, D. mathisi, and D. ritae), and several miscellaneous species (D. hamatofila, D. hexastigma, D. spenceri, and an undescribed species “from Sonora”). A maximum likelihood inference also includes the huckinsi cluster (D. huckinsi and D. huichole) as the most distant members in the longicornis complex, a condition not recovered using maximum parsimony. We were unable to diagnose species in the triad of sibling species D. longicornis, D. pachuca, and D. propachuca using rapidly evolving mitochondrial DNA data, and we discuss possible species concept conflict for this triad.
  • Icebreaker: a Lunar South Pole Exploring Robot Cmu-Ri-Tr-97-22

    Icebreaker: a Lunar South Pole Exploring Robot Cmu-Ri-Tr-97-22

    ICEBREAKER: A LUNAR SOUTH POLE EXPLORING ROBOT CMU-RI-TR-97-22 Matthew C. Deans Alex D. Foessel Gregory A. Fries Diana LaBelle N. Keith Lay Stewart Moorehead Ben Shamah Kimberly J. Shillcutt Professor: Dr. William Whittaker The Robotics Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh PA 15213 Spring 1996-97 Executive Summary Icebreaker: A Lunar South Pole Exploring Robot Due to the low angles of sunlight at the lunar poles, craters and other depressions in the polar regions can contain areas which are in permanent darkness and are at cryogenic temperatures. Many scientists have theorized that these cold traps could contain large quantities of frozen volatiles such as water and carbon dioxide which have been deposited over billions of years by comets, meteors and solar wind. Recent bistatic radar data from the Clementine mission has yielded results consistent with water ice at the South Pole of the Moon however Earth based observations from the Arecibo Radar Observatory indicate that ice may not exist. Due to the controversy surrounding orbital and Earth based observations, the only way to definitively answer the question of whether ice exists on the Lunar South Pole is in situ analysis. The discovery of water ice and other volatiles on the Moon has many important benefits. First, this would provide a source of rocket fuel which could be used to power rockets to Earth, Mars or beyond, avoiding the high cost of Earth based launches. Secondly, water and carbon dioxide along with nitrogen from ammonia form the essential elements for life and could be used to help support human colonies on the Moon.
  • Refuse Containers As a Source of Flies in Honolulu and Nearby Communities

    Refuse Containers As a Source of Flies in Honolulu and Nearby Communities

    Vol. XVII, No. 3, August, 1961 477 Refuse Containers as a Source of Flies in Honolulu and Nearby Communities Donald P. Wilton DIVISION OF SANITATION HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH HONOLULU, HAWAII {Submitted for publication December, I960) The garbage can has long been recognized as an important site of domestic fly production. Quarterman et al. (1949) found garbage cans second only to the city dump as a source of flies in Savannah, Georgia. They reported fly breeding in or under 60 per cent of the containers examined. Fifty per cent of the infested media detected by Schoof et al. (1954) in fly breeding surveys conducted in Charleston, West Virginia were garbage. A similar situation was found by Siverly and Schoof (1955) in Phoenix, Arizona. Kilpatrick and Bogue (1956) demonstrated fly emergence from ground surfaces under and near garbage cans at Mission and Pharr, Texas. As an illustration of the significance of garbage as a breeding medium for domestic flies, it was stated by Siverly and Schoof (1955) that as many as 70,000 flies have been produced by one cubic foot of this material. Campbell and Black (i960) reporting on an investigation of prepupal migration of fly larvae from refuse containers in Concord, California recommended twice-a- week refuse collection during hot weather. They suggested that this would remove refuse before any significant migration (and hence, any significant fly production) could occur. Often, however, routine refuse collection fails to remove all the material in the can. As pointed out by Quarterman et al. (1949), a sludge-like deposit which is not dislodged when the container is upended frequently builds up in the bottoms of neglected cans.
  • Trapping Drosophila Repleta (Diptera: Drosophilidae) Using Color and Volatiles B

    Trapping Drosophila Repleta (Diptera: Drosophilidae) Using Color and Volatiles B

    Trapping Drosophila repleta (Diptera: Drosophilidae) using color and volatiles B. A. Hottel1,*, J. L. Spencer1 and S. T. Ratcliffe3 Abstract Color and volatile stimulus preferences of Drosophila repleta (Patterson) Diptera: Drosophilidae), a nuisance pest of swine and poultry facilities, were tested using sticky card and bottle traps. Attractions to red, yellow, blue, orange, green, purple, black, grey and a white-on-black contrast treatment were tested in the laboratory. Drosophila repleta preferred red over yellow and white but not over blue. Other than showing preferences over the white con- trol, D. repleta was not observed to have preferences between other colors and shade combinations. Pinot Noir red wine, apple cider vinegar, and wet swine feed were used in volatile preference field trials. Red wine was more attractiveD. to repleta than the other volatiles tested, but there were no dif- ferences in response to combinations of a red wine volatile lure and various colors. Odor was found to play the primary role in attracting D. repleta. Key Words: Drosophila repleta; color preference; volatile preference; trapping Resumen Se evaluaron las preferencias de estímulo de volátiles y color de Drosophila repleta (Patterson) (Diptera: Drosophilidae), una plaga molesta en las instalaciones porcinas y avícolas, utilzando trampas de tarjetas pegajosas y de botella. Su atracción a los tratamientos de color rojo, amarillo, azul, anaranjado, verde, morado, negro, gris y un contraste de blanco sobre negro fue probado en el laboratorio. Drosophila repleta preferio el rojo mas que el amarillo y el blanco, pero no sobre el azul. Aparte de mostrar una preferencia por el control de color blanco, no se observó que D.
  • Diptera) Diversity in a Patch of Costa Rican Cloud Forest: Why Inventory Is a Vital Science

    Diptera) Diversity in a Patch of Costa Rican Cloud Forest: Why Inventory Is a Vital Science

    Zootaxa 4402 (1): 053–090 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2018 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4402.1.3 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:C2FAF702-664B-4E21-B4AE-404F85210A12 Remarkable fly (Diptera) diversity in a patch of Costa Rican cloud forest: Why inventory is a vital science ART BORKENT1, BRIAN V. BROWN2, PETER H. ADLER3, DALTON DE SOUZA AMORIM4, KEVIN BARBER5, DANIEL BICKEL6, STEPHANIE BOUCHER7, SCOTT E. BROOKS8, JOHN BURGER9, Z.L. BURINGTON10, RENATO S. CAPELLARI11, DANIEL N.R. COSTA12, JEFFREY M. CUMMING8, GREG CURLER13, CARL W. DICK14, J.H. EPLER15, ERIC FISHER16, STEPHEN D. GAIMARI17, JON GELHAUS18, DAVID A. GRIMALDI19, JOHN HASH20, MARTIN HAUSER17, HEIKKI HIPPA21, SERGIO IBÁÑEZ- BERNAL22, MATHIAS JASCHHOF23, ELENA P. KAMENEVA24, PETER H. KERR17, VALERY KORNEYEV24, CHESLAVO A. KORYTKOWSKI†, GIAR-ANN KUNG2, GUNNAR MIKALSEN KVIFTE25, OWEN LONSDALE26, STEPHEN A. MARSHALL27, WAYNE N. MATHIS28, VERNER MICHELSEN29, STEFAN NAGLIS30, ALLEN L. NORRBOM31, STEVEN PAIERO27, THOMAS PAPE32, ALESSANDRE PEREIRA- COLAVITE33, MARC POLLET34, SABRINA ROCHEFORT7, ALESSANDRA RUNG17, JUSTIN B. RUNYON35, JADE SAVAGE36, VERA C. SILVA37, BRADLEY J. SINCLAIR38, JEFFREY H. SKEVINGTON8, JOHN O. STIREMAN III10, JOHN SWANN39, PEKKA VILKAMAA40, TERRY WHEELER††, TERRY WHITWORTH41, MARIA WONG2, D. MONTY WOOD8, NORMAN WOODLEY42, TIFFANY YAU27, THOMAS J. ZAVORTINK43 & MANUEL A. ZUMBADO44 †—deceased. Formerly with the Universidad de Panama ††—deceased. Formerly at McGill University, Canada 1. Research Associate, Royal British Columbia Museum and the American Museum of Natural History, 691-8th Ave. SE, Salmon Arm, BC, V1E 2C2, Canada. Email: [email protected] 2.