DOCSLIB.ORG

Redacted for Privacy John D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF James R. LaBor for the degree of Master of Science in Entomology presented on March 18, 1002. Title: _Habitat Associations of Riparian Beetles (Coleoptera) at Big Beaver Creek Research Natural Area, North Cascades National Park, Washington. Redacted for Privacy John D. Lattin Abstract approved: Redacted for Privacy " Jeffrey C. Miller Beetle diversity and habitat associations of five prevalent riparian plant communities were examined along the lower reaches of Big Beaver Creek Research Natural Area, North Cascades National Park, Washington. These communities were defined by dominant tree species, and included Alder Swamps, Cedar-Hemlock Forests, Douglas-fir Forests, Gravel Bars, and Willow-Sedge Swamps. Monthly samples were taken with pitfall traps from 10 randomly selected patches per habitat during the snow-free periods (mid-June through mid-October) of 1995 and 1996. A total of 8,179 non-necrophagous beetles was collected, comprising 4 families and 290 species. Four families Staphylinidae (43%), Carabidae (31%), Elateridae (12%), and Anthicidae (6%) accounted for 92% of all individuals. Four families encompassed 65% of all species Staphylinidae (31%), Carabidae (19%), Elateridae (8%),arid Leiodidae (7%) A few species accounted for the majority of individuals. Almost 51% of individuals were found among just 20 species. The five most abundant species in each habitat accounted for 33% (Alder Swamps) to 71% (Gravel Bars) of individuals. Beetle abundance and species composition differed among habitats. Abundance ranged from 1,530 (Cedar- Hemlock Forests) to 2,071 (Alder Swamps) . Abundance per trap per month varied from 16 (Willow-sedge Swamps) to 27 (Alder Swamps) . Species richness was lowest in Douglas- fir Forests (76) and highest in Alder Swamps (119) Simpson's 1-D index ranged from 0.74 (Douglas-fir Forests) to 0.96 (Alder Swamps). Species were categorized as detritivores, fungivores, herbivores, omnivores, predators, and unknowns. Individuals and species of predators and fungivores were generally numerically dominant. Herbivores and omnivores contributed few species and individuals. Gravel Bars virtually lacked fungivores and were the only corrirriunity with many (more than 30%) detrivorous individuals. Two patterns of seasonal abundance were evident. Abundance was highest in June in the two open habitats, Gravel Bars and Willow-Sedge Swamps, thereafter sharply and continuously declining into October. Abundance peaked during September in the forested habitats. Baseline data was acquired about the North Cascades National Park beetle faunas, furthering Park goals to perpetuate habitat and community assemblage integrity. In a larger context, this information has also enriched the understanding of the arthropod faunas of the Pacific Northwest. ©Copyright by James R. LaBonte March 18, 2002 All Rights Reserved Habitat Associations of Riparian Beetles (Coleoptera) at Big Beaver Creek Research Natural Area, North Cascades National Park, Washington. James R. LaBonte A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Presented March 18, 2002 Commencement June, 2002 Master of Science thesis of James R. LaBonte presented on March 18. 2002 APPROVED: Redacted for Privacy CØ,Major Professor, representing Entomology Redacted for Privacy r professor, representing Entomology Redacted for Privacy Ch gy Redacted for Privacy Dean o/Gduate School I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State university libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any reader upon request. Redacted for Privacy s R. LaBonte, Author ACKNOWLED1ENTS I owe a great debt to my graduate committee members, especially John D. Lattin and Jeffrey C. Miller. I could not have accomplished this arduous task without their freely given advice, encouragement, time, and effort. Dr. Lattin also generously enabled me to acquire financial support arid resources. Furthermore, he ensured I had ready access to the Oregon State Arthropod Collection to aid my identification efforts. This study could not have been accomplished without the extraordinary efforts of the North Cascades National Park personnel. Reed GiLesne' s great appreciation of the value of arthropod knowledge for the Park and subsequent support made the Big Beaver Creek Riparian Arthropod Survey possible. Sherry Bottoms, Brenda Cunningham, Ron Holmes, and Kathleen McEvoy labored long and hard to place and maintain the pitfall traps. They also collected, processed, mounted, and labeled the thousands of beetle specimens I identified. I could not have completed this task without their unstinting labor, dedication, skills, and enthusiasm. Ron Holmes also provided much of the information for the study area descriptions, refreshed my memory on the study protocols, and supplied the graphics relating to Big Beaver Creek Research Natural Area. Dr. Gregory J. Brenner was not only responsible for much of the study' s design, but provided analytical advice and personal encouragement. above and beyond the call of duty. The Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission provided the funding for the first year of this study. The National Park Service provided personnel and other resources in support of both years of the study, as well as providing funding for the second year of the survey. Oregon State University and the Entomology Department funded my graduate research assistantship through the course of the study and subsequent identification work, as well as providing office space and equipment. As is true of anyone engaged in research requiring insect identification, my debt to insect taxonomists and systematists, living and deceased, is incaluable. Lastly, I wish to thank my friends, colleagues, and co-workers who have encouraged, nudged, prodded, and done all else necessary to keep my nose to this grindstone. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................ 1 Section 1: Insects as subjects for biodiversity and ecological studies ................. 1 Section 2: Insects and riparian habitats .......... 3 Section 3: Beetles as subjects for investigating terrestrial riparian habitats .......... 6 Section 4: The rationale for a study of the beetles and other insects of the North Cascades National Park, WA ............. 9 Section 5: Objectives ............................ 10 CHAPTER 2: METHODS .................................... 12 Section1: Characteristics of the study site .....12 Section2: Sampling design and protocols .........18 Section3: Beetle identification and biological data..................................26 Section4: Analysis ..............................29 CHAPTER 3: RESULTS .................................... 32 Section1: Sampling effort .......................32 Section2: Patterns of individuals ...............32 Section3: Species diversity patterns ............52 Section4: Family diversity patterns .............60 Section5: Species-specific patterns.............76 Section6: Trophic patterns ......................81 CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION ................................. 85 Section 1: Sampling protocols .................... 85 Section 2: Family and species profiles ........... 97 Section 3: Spatial and temporal beetle abundance and diversity .............. 152 Section 4: Applications and future studies......177 LITERATURE CITED ...................................... 188 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Location of Big Beaver Creek Research Natural Area in North Cascades National Park, Washington ........................................ 13 2. Oblique aerial view of Big Beaver Creek R.N.A. looking West, up the watershed, from above Ross Lake, North Cascades National Park, Washington ........................................ 15 3. Plant association types of Big Beaver Creek R.N.A., North Cascades National Park, map from Vanbianchi and Wagstaff 1988 ................................. 19 4. Beetle pitfall trap locations, Big Beaver Creek R.N.A., North Cascades National Park, Washington........................................ 24 5. Trap days per habitat ............................. 33 6. Individual beetles per habitat .................... 50 7. Phenology of beetle individuals ................... 51 8. Per cent beetle individuals per month per habitat........................................... 53 9. Beetle species richness per habitat ............... 55 10. Values of the Shannon-Weiner Index per habitat. .56 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Figure Paae 11. Values of Simpson' s l-D Index per habitat ......... 58 12. Values of the J'Eveness Index per habitat ........ 59 13. Beetle family richness per habitat ................ 63 14. Overall relative abundance of beetle families ..... 65 15. Beetle family phenology patterns, both years ...... 66 16. Relative family abundance per habitat, both years............................................. 67 17. Beetle family relative abundance per habitat, 1995 .............................................. 69 18. Beetle family relative abundance per habitat, 1996 .............................................. 70 19. Overall relative species richness of beetle families .......................................... 71 20. Overall relative family species richness per habitat........................................... 73 21. Beetle family relative species richness per habitat, 1995 .....................................74 22. Beetle family relative species richness per habitat, 1996.....................................75
Recommended publications
  • What's New in Biological Control of Weeds?

    What's New in Biological Control of Weeds?

    WHAT’S NEW IN BBiologicaliological ControlControl ofof WWeeds?eeds? IIssuessue 7700 NNovov 1144 Buddleia leaf weevil Scion What’s Inside? FIELD HORSETAIL PROJECT FORGES AHEAD 2 SUMMER ACTIVITIES 7 PROMISING PATHOGEN FOR CRUEL CLIMBER 4 WHICH INSECTS POSE THE GREATEST PAMPAS PROVES TO BE A DIFFICULT TARGET 5 RISKS TO OUR INDIGENOUS PLANTS? 8 HOW MANY REPLICATES ARE ENOUGH? 6 Field Horsetail Project Forges Ahead Last year, the Lower Rangitikei Horsetail Control Group do), but also vegetatively via stolons and tubers. In some areas successfully applied to the Sustainable Farming Fund for a fi eld horsetail has been unwittingly spread around in gravel grant to investigate biological control options for fi eld horsetail extracted from infested areas. Now designated an unwanted (Equisetum arvense). Field horsetail is an ancient fern-like organism, it is illegal to knowingly grow or transport the plant vascular plant that is a signifi cant weed in New Zealand as well within New Zealand. Two other closely-related species have as other Southern Hemisphere countries including Madagascar, also found their way here – E. hyemale (rough horsetail) and South Africa, South America, and Australia. It made its way E. fluviatile. Rough horsetail has not shown the invasive to New Zealand in the early 1900s from Eurasia (possibly as a tendencies seen by fi eld horsetail and E. fl uviatile has been passenger with iris root stock from Japan). Like many of New successfully eradicated. Zealand’s weeds, it is toxic and unpalatable to stock, reducing pasture quality. The stems contain silica, which is not digestible, Field horsetail prefers the wetter regions of New Zealand and but more serious is the condition of ‘equisetosis’, which is is now widespread in Whanganui, Rangitikei, Taranaki, parts of brought on by grazing the plant, leading to acute thiamine Wellington and the West Coast of the South Island.
  • Barcoding Chrysomelidae: a Resource for Taxonomy and Biodiversity Conservation in the Mediterranean Region

    Barcoding Chrysomelidae: a Resource for Taxonomy and Biodiversity Conservation in the Mediterranean Region

    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 597:Barcoding 27–38 (2016) Chrysomelidae: a resource for taxonomy and biodiversity conservation... 27 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.597.7241 RESEARCH ARTICLE http://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Barcoding Chrysomelidae: a resource for taxonomy and biodiversity conservation in the Mediterranean Region Giulia Magoga1,*, Davide Sassi2, Mauro Daccordi3, Carlo Leonardi4, Mostafa Mirzaei5, Renato Regalin6, Giuseppe Lozzia7, Matteo Montagna7,* 1 Via Ronche di Sopra 21, 31046 Oderzo, Italy 2 Centro di Entomologia Alpina–Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy 3 Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, lungadige Porta Vittoria 9, 37129 Verona, Italy 4 Museo di Storia Naturale di Milano, Corso Venezia 55, 20121 Milano, Italy 5 Department of Plant Protection, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources–University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran 6 Dipartimento di Scienze per gli Alimenti, la Nutrizione e l’Ambiente–Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy 7 Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali–Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy Corresponding authors: Matteo Montagna ([email protected]) Academic editor: J. Santiago-Blay | Received 20 November 2015 | Accepted 30 January 2016 | Published 9 June 2016 http://zoobank.org/4D7CCA18-26C4-47B0-9239-42C5F75E5F42 Citation: Magoga G, Sassi D, Daccordi M, Leonardi C, Mirzaei M, Regalin R, Lozzia G, Montagna M (2016) Barcoding Chrysomelidae: a resource for taxonomy and biodiversity conservation in the Mediterranean Region. In: Jolivet P, Santiago-Blay J, Schmitt M (Eds) Research on Chrysomelidae 6. ZooKeys 597: 27–38. doi: 10.3897/ zookeys.597.7241 Abstract The Mediterranean Region is one of the world’s biodiversity hot-spots, which is also characterized by high level of endemism.
  • Arthropods of Elm Fork Preserve

    Arthropods of Elm Fork Preserve

    Arthropods of Elm Fork Preserve Arthropods are characterized by having jointed limbs and exoskeletons. They include a diverse assortment of creatures: Insects, spiders, crustaceans (crayfish, crabs, pill bugs), centipedes and millipedes among others. Column Headings Scientific Name: The phenomenal diversity of arthropods, creates numerous difficulties in the determination of species. Positive identification is often achieved only by specialists using obscure monographs to ‘key out’ a species by examining microscopic differences in anatomy. For our purposes in this survey of the fauna, classification at a lower level of resolution still yields valuable information. For instance, knowing that ant lions belong to the Family, Myrmeleontidae, allows us to quickly look them up on the Internet and be confident we are not being fooled by a common name that may also apply to some other, unrelated something. With the Family name firmly in hand, we may explore the natural history of ant lions without needing to know exactly which species we are viewing. In some instances identification is only readily available at an even higher ranking such as Class. Millipedes are in the Class Diplopoda. There are many Orders (O) of millipedes and they are not easily differentiated so this entry is best left at the rank of Class. A great deal of taxonomic reorganization has been occurring lately with advances in DNA analysis pointing out underlying connections and differences that were previously unrealized. For this reason, all other rankings aside from Family, Genus and Species have been omitted from the interior of the tables since many of these ranks are in a state of flux.
  • The Biodiversity of Flying Coleoptera Associated With

    The Biodiversity of Flying Coleoptera Associated With

    THE BIODIVERSITY OF FLYING COLEOPTERA ASSOCIATED WITH INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT OF THE DOUGLAS-FIR BEETLE (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopkins) IN INTERIOR DOUGLAS-FIR (Pseudotsuga menziesii Franco). By Susanna Lynn Carson B. Sc., The University of Victoria, 1994 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Zoology) We accept this thesis as conforming To t(p^-feguired standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 2002 © Susanna Lynn Carson, 2002 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. 1 further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) Abstract Increasing forest management resulting from bark beetle attack in British Columbia's forests has created a need to assess the impact of single species management on local insect biodiversity. In the Fort St James Forest District, in central British Columbia, Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii Franco) (Fd) grows at the northern limit of its North American range. At the district level the species is rare (representing 1% of timber stands), and in the early 1990's growing populations of the Douglas-fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsuage Hopkins) threatened the loss of all mature Douglas-fir habitat in the district.
  • SPIXIANA ©Zoologische Staatssammlung München;Download

    SPIXIANA ©Zoologische Staatssammlung München;Download

    ©Zoologische Staatssammlung München;download: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/; www.biologiezentrum.at SPIXIANA ©Zoologische Staatssammlung München;download: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/; www.biologiezentrum.at at leaping (haitikos in Greek) for locomotion and escape; thus, the original valid name of the type genus Altica Müller, 1764 (see Fürth, 1981). Many Flea Beetles are among the most affective jumpers in the animal kingdom, sometimes better than their namesakes the true Fleas (Siphonaptera). However, despite some intensive study of the anatomy and function of the metafemoral spring (Barth, 1954; Ker, 1977) the true function of this jumping mechanism remains a mystery. It probably is some sort of voluntary Catch, in- volving build-up of tension from the large muscles that insert on the metafemoral spring (Fig. 1), and theo a quick release of this energy. Ofcourse some Flea Beetles jump better than others, but basically all have this internal metafemoral spring floating by attachment from large muscles in the relatively enlarged bind femoral capsule (see Fig. 1 ). In fact Flea Beetles can usually be easily separated from other beetles, including chrysomelid subfa- milies, by their greatly swollen bind femora. There are a few genera of Alticinae that have a metafemoral spring and yet do not jump. Actually there are a few genera that are considered to be Alticinae that lack the metafemo- ral spring, e. g. Orthaltica (Scherer, 1974, 1981b - as discussed in this Symposium). Also the tribe Decarthrocerini contains three genera from Africa that Wilcox (1965) con- sidered as Galerucinae, but now thinks to be intermediate between Galerucinae and Alti- cinae; at least one of these genera does have a metafemoral spring (Wilcox, personal communication, and Fürth, unpublished data).
  • Consequences of Linguistic Uncertainty for Insect Management

    Consequences of Linguistic Uncertainty for Insect Management

    WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE Consequences of Linguistic Uncertainty for Insect Management THERESA M. CIRA, KATHY QUICK, AND ROBERT C. VENETTE JA'CRISPY/ISTOCK 258 AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST | WINTER 2019 his is a call to entomologists to consider the un- certainty introduced into our works through the language we use. Albert Einstein remarked, “Every- thing depends on the degree to which words and word-combinations correspond to the world of im- Tpression,” which makes language a “dangerous source of error and deception” (Hawking 2007). Scientists usually research and deliberately choose the language they use to propose new concepts or terminology. Often, however, terms slip into the lexicon through less systematic means. Words may seem to have meanings so obvious that broad understanding of the term may be taken for granted, but individual contexts are diverse, and to assume that a word’s meaning is unchanging across time and space is to overlook the uncertainties of lan- guage. Thus, communication through even the most common entomological vocabulary can fail. Language is a mutable, un- certain, and imperfect way of representing the world. Because language is integral to science and yet inherently imprecise, it is important for scientists to recognize and address uncertain- ty in the language of our works. Uncertainty, as defined by the Society a phenomenon is repeatedly observed and for Risk Analysis (2015), is “not knowing the individuals agree that measurements con- true value of a quantity or the future con- verge, to some degree, on a specific point, sequences of an activity,” or “imperfect or more certainty about the true nature of the incomplete information/knowledge about phenomenon can be asserted.
  • Laboratory Methods for Rearing Soil Beetles (Coleoptera)

    Laboratory Methods for Rearing Soil Beetles (Coleoptera)

    ZOOLOGICA Bolesław Burakowski Laboratory methods for rearing soil beetles (Coleoptera) Polska Akademia Nauk Muzeum i Instytut Zoologii Warszawa 1993 http://rcin.org.pl POLSKA AKADEMIA NAUK MUZEUM I INSTYTUT ZOOLOGII MEMORABILIA ZOOLOGICA 46 Bolesław Burakowski Laboratory methods for rearing soil beetles (Coleopter a) WARSZAWA 1993 http://rcin.org.pl MEMORABILIA ZOOLOGICA, 46, 1993 World-list abbreviation: Memorabilia Zool. EDITORIAL STAFF Editor — in — chief — Bohdan Pisarski Asistant editor — Wojciech Czechowski Secretary — Katarzyna Cholewicka-Wiśniewska Editor of the volume — Wojciech Czechowski Publisher Muzeum i Instytut Zoologii PAN ul. Wilcza 64, 00-679 Warszawa PL ISSN 0076-6372 ISBN 83-85192-12-3 © Copyright by Muzeum i Instytut Zoologii PAN Warszawa 1993 Nakład 1000 egz. Ark. wyd. 5,5. Ark. druk 4 Druk: Zakład Poligraficzno-Wydawniczy „StangraF’ http://rcin.org.pl Bolesław Bu r a k o w sk i Laboratory methods for rearing soil beetles ( Coleoptera) INTRODUCTION Beetles are the most numerous group of insects; nearly 300,000 species have been described up till now, and about 6,000 of these occur in Poland. The morphological variability and different modes of life result from beetle ability to adapt to all kinds of habitats. Terrestrial and soil living forms dominate. Beetles undergo a complete metamorphosis and most species live in soil during at least one of the stages. They include predators, herbivores, parasites and sapro- phagans, playing a fairly significant role in nature and in man’s economy. Our knowledge of beetles, even of the common species, is insufficient. In spite of the fact that the beetle fauna of Central Europe has been studied relatively well, the knowledge accumulated is generally limited to the adults, while the immature stages have not been adequately studied.
  • Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, Version 2018-07-24

    Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, Version 2018-07-24

    Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, version 2018-07-24 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge biology staff July 24, 2018 2 Cover image: map of 16,213 georeferenced occurrence records included in the checklist. Contents Contents 3 Introduction 5 Purpose............................................................ 5 About the list......................................................... 5 Acknowledgments....................................................... 5 Native species 7 Vertebrates .......................................................... 7 Invertebrates ......................................................... 55 Vascular Plants........................................................ 91 Bryophytes ..........................................................164 Other Plants .........................................................171 Chromista...........................................................171 Fungi .............................................................173 Protozoans ..........................................................186 Non-native species 187 Vertebrates ..........................................................187 Invertebrates .........................................................187 Vascular Plants........................................................190 Extirpated species 207 Vertebrates ..........................................................207 Vascular Plants........................................................207 Change log 211 References 213 Index 215 3 Introduction Purpose to avoid implying
  • The Rove Beetles of Leicestershire and Rutland

    The Rove Beetles of Leicestershire and Rutland

    LEICESTERSHIRE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY The Rove Beetles (Staphylinidae) of Leicestershire and Rutland Part 1: Sub-families Paederinae, Pseudopsinae and Staphylininae Derek A. Lott Creophilus maxillosus (Graham Calow) LESOPS 24 (2011) ISSN 0957 – 1019 Correspondence: 5 Welland Road, Barrow upon Soar, LE12 8NA VC55 Staphylinids Part 1 2 Introduction With over 56,000 described species in the world, the Staphylinidae are the largest family in the animal kingdom (Grebennikov & Newton, 2009). Around a quarter of the British beetles are rove beetles, so they represent an important component of biodiversity in Britain. However, because of perceived difficulties in their identification, they have not received the attention that they merit. This paper aims to play a part in redressing that imbalance by listing all reliable records from Leicestershire and Rutland for the different species and analysing which species have declined locally over 100 years of recording rove beetles and which have prospered. The subfamilies treated in this first part include the largest and most conspicuous species in the family. The geographical area covered is the vice county of Leicestershire and Rutland (VC55). Some records from adjacent banks of the River Soar that technically lie in Nottinghamshire are also included. These records can be distinguished by the use of Nottinghamshire parish names. Identification Staphylinidae can be easily recognised among beetles in the field by their short wing cases that leave five or six segments of the abdomen exposed and flexible. In fact they look more like earwigs than other beetles. For identification to species, all the members of the subfamilies in this part will be covered by the forthcoming Royal Entomological Society handbook to Staphylinidae parts 6 and 7 due for publication in 2011.
  • ZOOTAXA 63: 1-37 (2002) ISSN 1175-5326 (Print Edition) ZOOTAXA 63 Copyright © 2002 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (Online Edition)

    ZOOTAXA 63: 1-37 (2002) ISSN 1175-5326 (Print Edition) ZOOTAXA 63 Copyright © 2002 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (Online Edition)

    ZOOTAXA 63: 1-37 (2002) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ ZOOTAXA 63 Copyright © 2002 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) Addenda and corrigenda to ‘A World Catalogue of Families and Genera of Curculionoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera)’ MIGUEL A. ALONSO-ZARAZAGA1 & CHRISTOPHER.H.C. LYAL2 1Depto. de Biodiversidad y Biología Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (CSIC), José Gutiérrez Abascal, 2; E-28006 Madrid, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] 2Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom; e-mail: [email protected] Abstract Omissions from and corrections to Alonso Zarazaga & Lyal (1999) are given. The following 19 valid taxa described before 2000 were absent and are now included: Brarus Kuschel, 1997 in Nem- onychidae, Brachycorynus, Habroxenus, Neoxenus, Sicanthus and Trigonorhinini (all of Valentine, 1999 in Anthribidae), Gobicar Gratshev & Zherikhin, 1999 in Eccoptarthridae, Neoicaris Hoff- mann, 1968 in Erirhinidae, Baezia Alonso-Zarazaga & García, 1999, Ecezius Thompson, 1982, Hirtegrius Colonnelli, 1999, Kyklioacalles Stueben, 1999, Neasphalmus Nakane, 1963, Neomrocz- kowskiella Kania, 1999, Notegrius Colonnelli, 1999, Onyxacalles Stueben, 1999, Oreochorus Zaslavskij & Korotyaev, 1998, Perigasteromimus Colonnelli, 1999, Pseudoglyptobaris Thompson, 1982 and Strophocodes Pelletier, 1999 in Curculionidae. A new replacement name is proposed in Attelabidae: Riedeliops Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal (subgenus of Euops Schoenherr, 1839) nom. nov. for Charops Riedel, 1998 (non Holmgren, 1858). New synonymies are: Basitropini Lacordaire, 1866 (= Eugonini Lacordaire, 1866, syn. nov.) in Anthribidae; Haplorhynchites (Haplorhynchites) Voss, 1924 (= Aphlorhynchites Sawada, 1993, syn. nov., removed from synonymy with Teretrio- rhynchites) in Rhynchitidae; Belorhynchus Berthold, 1827 (= Belopherus Schoenherr, 1833, syn. nov.) and Arrhenodini Lacordaire, 1866 (= Belorhynchini Lacordaire, 1866, syn.
  • Insects of the Idaho National Laboratory: a Compilation and Review

    Insects of the Idaho National Laboratory: a Compilation and Review

    Insects of the Idaho National Laboratory: A Compilation and Review Nancy Hampton Abstract—Large tracts of important sagebrush (Artemisia L.) Major portions of the INL have been burned by wildfires habitat in southeastern Idaho, including thousands of acres at the over the past several years, and restoration and recovery of Idaho National Laboratory (INL), continue to be lost and degraded sagebrush habitat are current topics of investigation (Ander- through wildland fire and other disturbances. The roles of most son and Patrick 2000; Blew 2000). Most restoration projects, insects in sagebrush ecosystems are not well understood, and the including those at the INL, are focused on the reestablish- effects of habitat loss and alteration on their populations and ment of vegetation communities (Anderson and Shumar communities have not been well studied. Although a comprehen- 1989; Williams 1997). Insects also have important roles in sive survey of insects at the INL has not been performed, smaller restored communities (Williams 1997) and show promise as scale studies have been concentrated in sagebrush and associated indicators of restoration success in shrub-steppe (Karr and communities at the site. Here, I compile a taxonomic inventory of Kimberling 2003; Kimberling and others 2001) and other insects identified in these studies. The baseline inventory of more habitats (Jansen 1997; Williams 1997). than 1,240 species, representing 747 genera in 212 families, can be The purpose of this paper is to present a taxonomic list of used to build models of insect diversity in natural and restored insects identified by researchers studying cold desert com- sagebrush habitats. munities at the INL.
  • Sovraccoperta Fauna Inglese Giusta, Page 1 @ Normalize

    Sovraccoperta Fauna Inglese Giusta, Page 1 @ Normalize

    Comitato Scientifico per la Fauna d’Italia CHECKLIST AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE ITALIAN FAUNA FAUNA THE ITALIAN AND DISTRIBUTION OF CHECKLIST 10,000 terrestrial and inland water species and inland water 10,000 terrestrial CHECKLIST AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE ITALIAN FAUNA 10,000 terrestrial and inland water species ISBNISBN 88-89230-09-688-89230- 09- 6 Ministero dell’Ambiente 9 778888988889 230091230091 e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare CH © Copyright 2006 - Comune di Verona ISSN 0392-0097 ISBN 88-89230-09-6 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of the publishers and of the Authors. Direttore Responsabile Alessandra Aspes CHECKLIST AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE ITALIAN FAUNA 10,000 terrestrial and inland water species Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona - 2. Serie Sezione Scienze della Vita 17 - 2006 PROMOTING AGENCIES Italian Ministry for Environment and Territory and Sea, Nature Protection Directorate Civic Museum of Natural History of Verona Scientifi c Committee for the Fauna of Italy Calabria University, Department of Ecology EDITORIAL BOARD Aldo Cosentino Alessandro La Posta Augusto Vigna Taglianti Alessandra Aspes Leonardo Latella SCIENTIFIC BOARD Marco Bologna Pietro Brandmayr Eugenio Dupré Alessandro La Posta Leonardo Latella Alessandro Minelli Sandro Ruffo Fabio Stoch Augusto Vigna Taglianti Marzio Zapparoli EDITORS Sandro Ruffo Fabio Stoch DESIGN Riccardo Ricci LAYOUT Riccardo Ricci Zeno Guarienti EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Elisa Giacometti TRANSLATORS Maria Cristina Bruno (1-72, 239-307) Daniel Whitmore (73-238) VOLUME CITATION: Ruffo S., Stoch F.