LUCANIDAE, TROGIDAE, GEOTRUPIDAE, SCARABAEIDAE) by E
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Phylogenetic Relationships of Iberian Dung Beetles Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae): Insights on the Evolution of Nesting Behavior
J Mol Evol +2002) 55:116±126 DOI: 10.1007/s00239-002-2314-4 Phylogenetic Relationships of Iberian Dung Beetles Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae): Insights on the Evolution of Nesting Behavior Soraya Villalba,Jorge M. Lobo,Fermõ  n Martõ n-Piera,* Rafael Zardoya Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC, Jose Gutie rrez Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain Received: 22 October 2001 / Accepted: 25 January 2002 Abstract. A phylogeny of the main lineages of dung Introduction beetles +Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) from the Iberian Peninsula was based on partial nucleotide sequences The Scarabaeinae +dung beetles) are a worldwide- +about 1221 bp) of the mitochondrial cytochrome distributed, highly successful subfamily of Coleoptera oxidase I and II genes of 33 taxa. Our phylogenetic with nearly 5000 species grouped in 234 genera analyses con®rmed the validity and composition of +Hanski and Cambefort 1991). Ever since Linnaeus' most of the recognized tribes within the subfamily. Systema Naturae, dung beetles have received wide Interestingly, the Onitini showed an evolutionary rate attention from entomologists because of their singu- signi®cantly higher than that of the other tribes. The lar adaptations in exploiting vertebrate dung pads molecular phylogeny supports a sister-group rela- +e.g., Fabre 1897, 1899; Heymons and von Lengerken tionship of the tribes Onitini and Oniticellini + On- 1922; Burmeister 1930; Heymons 1930; Prasse 1957; thophagini. A close relationship of Scarabaeini, Rommel, 1961; Balthasar 1963; Halter and Matth- Gymnopleurini, and Sisyphini is also suggested but ews 1966; Halter and Edmonds 1982). Scarabaeids lacks bootstrap support. Surprisingly, the Coprini, are one of the best-studied groups of beetles in terms which had always been related to the Oniticellini and of taxonomy +Janssens 1949; Balthasar 1963; Iablo- Onthophagini, were placed closer to the Scarabaeini, kov-Khnzorian 1977; Zunino 1984; Browne and Gymnopleurini, and Sisyphini. -
ANTC Environmental Assessment
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-B010-2013-0024-EA Telecommunication Facilities at Kingston, Dyer, and Hickison Summit July 2013 Applicant: Arizona Nevada Tower Corporation 6220 McLeod Drive Ste. 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 Battle Mountain District Bureau of Land Management 50 Bastian Road Battle Mountain, Nevada 89820 Table of Contents Page Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Background 1 1.3 Identifying Information 2 1.4 Location of Proposed Action 2 1.5 Preparing Office 2 1.6 Case File Numbers 2 1.7 Applicant 2 1.8 Proposed Action Summary 3 1.9 Conformance 3 1.10 Purpose & Need 3 1.11 Scoping, Public Involvement & Issues 4 Chapter 2 Proposed Action & Alternatives 11 2.1 Proposed Action 11 2.1.1 Best Management Practices 13 2.2 No Action Alternative 13 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 14 Chapter 3 Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 15 3.1 Project Site Descriptions 15 3.2 Issues 16 3.2.1 Air Quality 18 3.2.1.1 Affected Environment 18 3.2.1.2 Environmental Consequences 18 3.2.2 Cultural/Historical Resources 18 3.2.2.1 Affected Environment 18 3.2.2.2 Environmental Consequences 18 3.2.3 Noxious Weeds/Invasive Non-native Plants 19 3.2.3.1 Affected Environment 19 3.2.3.2 Environmental Consequences 20 3.2.4 Native American Religious Concerns 20 3.2.4.1 Affected Environment 20 3.2.4.2 Environmental Consequences 20 3.2.5 Migratory Birds 21 3.2.5.1 Affected Environment 21 3.2.5.2 Environmental Consequences 22 3.2.6 Solid/Hazardous -
Book of Abstracts
Daugavpils University Institute of Systematic Biology 5TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE “RESEARCH AND CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IN BALTIC REGION” Daugavpils, 22 – 24 April, 2009 BOOK OF ABSTRACTS Daugavpils University Academic Press “Saule” Daugavpils 2009 5TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE “RESEARCH AND CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IN BALTIC REGION” , Book of Abstracts, Daugavpils, 22 – 24 April, 2009 INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE: Dr., Prof. Arvīds Barševskis, Institute of Systematic Biology, Daugavpils University, Daugavpils, Latvia – chairman of the Conference; Dr., Assoc. prof. Inese Kokina, Institute of Systematic Biology, Daugavpils University, Daugavpils, Latvia – vice-chairman of the Conference Dr., Assoc prof.. Linas Balčiauskas, Institute of Ecology, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania; Dr., Assoc prof. Guntis Brumelis, Faculty of Biology, University of Latvia, Rīga, Latvia; Dr. Ivars Druvietis, Faculty of Biology, University of Latvia, Rīga, Latvia; Dr. Pēteris Evarts – Bunders, Institute of Systematic Biology, Daugavpils University, Daugavpils, Latvia; Dr. Dace Grauda , University of Latvia, Rīga, Latvia; PhD Stanislaw Huruk, Świętokrzyska Academy & Świętokrzyski National Park, Kielce, Poland; Dr. Muza Kirjušina, Institute of Systematic Biology, Daugavpils University, Daugavpils, Latvia; Dr. hab., Prof. Māris Kļaviņš, Faculty of Geographical and Earth Sciences, University of Latvia, full member of Latvian Academy of Science, Rīga, Latvia; PhD Tatjana Krama - Institute of Systematic Biology, Daugavpils University, Daugavpils, Latvia; Dr. Indriķis Krams - Institute of Systematic Biology, Daugavpils University, Daugavpils, Latvia; Dr. habil., Prof. Māris Laiviņš, University of Latvia, Rīga, Latvia; Dr. hab., Prof. Sławomir Mazur, Warsaw Agricultural University (SGGW), Warsaw, Poland; Dr., Prof. Algimantas Paulauskas, Vytautas Magnus Kaunas University, Kaunas, Lithuania; Dr. Lyubomir Penev, Pensoft, Bulgaria; Dr. hab., Prof. Isaak Rashal, University of Latvia, Rīga, Latvia; Dr. hab., Prof. -
An Annotated Checklist of Wisconsin Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera)
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Center for Systematic Entomology, Gainesville, Insecta Mundi Florida March 2002 An annotated checklist of Wisconsin Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera) Nadine A. Kriska University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI Daniel K. Young University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/insectamundi Part of the Entomology Commons Kriska, Nadine A. and Young, Daniel K., "An annotated checklist of Wisconsin Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera)" (2002). Insecta Mundi. 537. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/insectamundi/537 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Systematic Entomology, Gainesville, Florida at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Insecta Mundi by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. INSECTA MUNDI, Vol. 16, No. 1-3, March-September, 2002 3 1 An annotated checklist of Wisconsin Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera) Nadine L. Kriska and Daniel K. Young Department of Entomology 445 Russell Labs University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, WI 53706 Abstract. A survey of Wisconsin Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera) conducted from literature searches, collection inventories, and three years of field work (1997-1999), yielded 177 species representing nine families, two of which, Ochodaeidae and Ceratocanthidae, represent new state family records. Fifty-six species (32% of the Wisconsin fauna) represent new state species records, having not previously been recorded from the state. Literature and collection distributional records suggest the potential for at least 33 additional species to occur in Wisconsin. Introduction however, most of Wisconsin's scarabaeoid species diversity, life histories, and distributions were vir- The superfamily Scarabaeoidea is a large, di- tually unknown. -
The Beetle Fauna of Dominica, Lesser Antilles (Insecta: Coleoptera): Diversity and Distribution
INSECTA MUNDI, Vol. 20, No. 3-4, September-December, 2006 165 The beetle fauna of Dominica, Lesser Antilles (Insecta: Coleoptera): Diversity and distribution Stewart B. Peck Department of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada stewart_peck@carleton. ca Abstract. The beetle fauna of the island of Dominica is summarized. It is presently known to contain 269 genera, and 361 species (in 42 families), of which 347 are named at a species level. Of these, 62 species are endemic to the island. The other naturally occurring species number 262, and another 23 species are of such wide distribution that they have probably been accidentally introduced and distributed, at least in part, by human activities. Undoubtedly, the actual numbers of species on Dominica are many times higher than now reported. This highlights the poor level of knowledge of the beetles of Dominica and the Lesser Antilles in general. Of the species known to occur elsewhere, the largest numbers are shared with neighboring Guadeloupe (201), and then with South America (126), Puerto Rico (113), Cuba (107), and Mexico-Central America (108). The Antillean island chain probably represents the main avenue of natural overwater dispersal via intermediate stepping-stone islands. The distributional patterns of the species shared with Dominica and elsewhere in the Caribbean suggest stages in a dynamic taxon cycle of species origin, range expansion, distribution contraction, and re-speciation. Introduction windward (eastern) side (with an average of 250 mm of rain annually). Rainfall is heavy and varies season- The islands of the West Indies are increasingly ally, with the dry season from mid-January to mid- recognized as a hotspot for species biodiversity June and the rainy season from mid-June to mid- (Myers et al. -
The Evolution and Genomic Basis of Beetle Diversity
The evolution and genomic basis of beetle diversity Duane D. McKennaa,b,1,2, Seunggwan Shina,b,2, Dirk Ahrensc, Michael Balked, Cristian Beza-Bezaa,b, Dave J. Clarkea,b, Alexander Donathe, Hermes E. Escalonae,f,g, Frank Friedrichh, Harald Letschi, Shanlin Liuj, David Maddisonk, Christoph Mayere, Bernhard Misofe, Peyton J. Murina, Oliver Niehuisg, Ralph S. Petersc, Lars Podsiadlowskie, l m l,n o f l Hans Pohl , Erin D. Scully , Evgeny V. Yan , Xin Zhou , Adam Slipinski , and Rolf G. Beutel aDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152; bCenter for Biodiversity Research, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152; cCenter for Taxonomy and Evolutionary Research, Arthropoda Department, Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, 53113 Bonn, Germany; dBavarian State Collection of Zoology, Bavarian Natural History Collections, 81247 Munich, Germany; eCenter for Molecular Biodiversity Research, Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig, 53113 Bonn, Germany; fAustralian National Insect Collection, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia; gDepartment of Evolutionary Biology and Ecology, Institute for Biology I (Zoology), University of Freiburg, 79104 Freiburg, Germany; hInstitute of Zoology, University of Hamburg, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany; iDepartment of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Wien, Wien 1030, Austria; jChina National GeneBank, BGI-Shenzhen, 518083 Guangdong, People’s Republic of China; kDepartment of Integrative Biology, Oregon State -
Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations
Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations Revised Report and Documentation Prepared for: Department of Defense U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: January 2004 Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations: Revised Report and Documentation CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................................................................iii 2.0 Introduction – Project Description................................................................. 1 3.0 Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 NatureServe Data................................................................................................ 3 3.2 DOD Installations............................................................................................... 5 3.3 Species at Risk .................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Results................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Nationwide Assessment of Species at Risk on DOD Installations..................... 8 4.2 Assessment of Species at Risk by Military Service.......................................... 13 4.3 Assessment of Species at Risk on Installations ................................................ 15 5.0 Conclusion and Management Recommendations.................................... 22 6.0 Future Directions............................................................................................. -
Insect Remains from Various Sites in Southwark: Draft for Consultation
Insect remains from various sites in Southwark: Draft for consultation H. K. Kenward Environmental Archaeology Unit, University of York, York YO1 5DD. [NB: This report was reformatted from a Runoff file on 18th March 2008. The only changes have been to preserve internal consistency and to correct typographical errors. HK. The original was an archive report deposited in the former Environmental Archaeology Unit, York, and the Ancient Monuments Laboratory, and allocated post hoc as Reports from the Environmental Archaeology Unit, York 90/10.] Introduction This report is an account of insect remains from a large number of samples from several sites in Southwark. The material was provided in processed form. The majority of the assemblages were dry in plastic tubes, and the remainder in IMS in glass vials. In some cases, material in both forms was available for a sample. Almost all the groups of insects were, by comparison with the material normally used for interpretation, very small, often only one to a few fragments. In a few cases some twenty or so individuals of beetles and bugs were represented by the remains; the largest group was perhaps twice this size, still less than half the number of individuals generally taken as a reasonable working minimum for interpretation of a mixed assemblage (Kenward 1978). The dry material appeared to be biassed in favour of large taxa, and presented considerable difficulty in handling because of the effect of static attraction between fossils and the plastic vials. Many fossils were damaged while attempting to remove them, and others sprang away as a result of static repulsion as soon as they were taken from the tubes. -
A Review of Phylogenetic Hypotheses Regarding Aphodiinae (Coleoptera; Scarabaeidae)
STATE OF KNOWLEDGE OF DUNG BEETLE PHYLOGENY - a review of phylogenetic hypotheses regarding Aphodiinae (Coleoptera; Scarabaeidae) Mattias Forshage 2002 Examensarbete i biologi 20 p, Ht 2002 Department of Systematic Zoology, Evolutionary Biology Center, Uppsala University Supervisor Fredrik Ronquist Abstract: As a preparation for proper phylogenetic analysis of groups within the coprophagous clade of Scarabaeidae, an overview is presented of all the proposed suprageneric taxa in Aphodiinae. The current knowledge of the affiliations of each group is discussed based on available information on their morphology, biology, biogeography and paleontology, as well as their classification history. With this as a background an attempt is made to estimate the validity of each taxon from a cladistic perspective, suggest possibilities and point out the most important questions for further research in clarifying the phylogeny of the group. The introductory part A) is not a scientific paper but an introduction into the subject intended for the seminar along with a polemic against a fraction of the presently most active workers in the field: Dellacasa, Bordat and Dellacasa. The main part B) is the discussion of all proposed suprageneric taxa in the subfamily from a cladistic viewpoint. The current classification is found to be quite messy and unfortunately a large part of the many recent attempts to revise higher-level classification within the group do not seem to be improvements from a phylogenetic viewpoint. Most recently proposed tribes (as well as -
The Status and Distribution of the Scarab Beetles Rhysothorax Rufa and Onthophagus Nuchicornis on Welsh Dunes In
The status and distribution of the scarab beetles Rhysothorax rufa and Onthophagus nuchicornis on Welsh dunes in 2017 Ceri Watkins & Darren Mann NRW Evidence Report No. 263 D8 NRW Evidence Report No. 263 About Natural Resources Wales Natural Resources Wales is the organisation responsible for the work carried out by the three former organisations, the Countryside Council for Wales, Environment Agency Wales and Forestry Commission Wales. It is also responsible for some functions previously undertaken by Welsh Government. Our purpose is to ensure that the natural resources of Wales are sustainably maintained, used and enhanced, now and in the future. We work for the communities of Wales to protect people and their homes as much as possible from environmental incidents like flooding and pollution. We provide opportunities for people to learn, use and benefit from Wales' natural resources. We work to support Wales' economy by enabling the sustainable use of natural resources to support jobs and enterprise. We help businesses and developers to understand and consider environmental limits when they make important decisions. We work to maintain and improve the quality of the environment for everyone and we work towards making the environment and our natural resources more resilient to climate change and other pressures. Evidence at Natural Resources Wales Natural Resources Wales is an evidence based organisation. We seek to ensure that our strategy, decisions, operations and advice to Welsh Government and others are underpinned by sound and quality-assured evidence. We recognise that it is critically important to have a good understanding of our changing environment. We will realise this vision by: • Maintaining and developing the technical specialist skills of our staff; • Securing our data and information; • Having a well resourced proactive programme of evidence work; • Continuing to review and add to our evidence to ensure it is fit for the challenges facing us; and • Communicating our evidence in an open and transparent way. -
Dartington Report on Beetles 2015
Report on beetles (Coleoptera) collected from the Dartington Hall Estate, 2015 by Dr Martin Luff 1. Introduction and Methods The majority of beetle recording in 2015 was concentrated on three sites and habitats: 1. Further sampling of moss on the Deer Park wall (SX794635), as mentioned in my 2014 report. This was done on two dates in March by MLL and again in October, aided by Messrs Tony Allen and Clive Turner, both experienced coleopterists. 2. Beetles associated with the decomposing body of a dead deer. The recently (accidentally) killed deer was acquired on 12th May by Mike Newby who pegged it out under wire netting in the small wood adjacent to 'Flushing Meadow', here referred to as 'Flushing Copse' (SX802625). The body was lifted regularly and beaten over a collecting tray, initially every week, then fortnightly and then monthly until early October. In addition, two pitfall traps were installed just beside the corpse, with a small amount of preservative in each. These were emptied each time the site was visited. 3. Water beetles sampled on 28th October, together with Tony Allen and Clive Turner, from the ponds and wheel-rut puddles on Berryman's Marsh (SX799615). Other work again included the contents of the nest boxes from Dartington Hills and Berrymans Marsh at the end of October, thanks to Mike Newby and his volunteer helpers. 2. Results In all, 203 beetle species were recorded in 2015, of which 85 (41.8%) were additions to the Dartington list. This increase over the 32% new in 2014 (Luff, 2015) results partly from sampling habitats (carrion, fresh-water) not previously examined. -
Coleoptera: Introduction and Key to Families
Royal Entomological Society HANDBOOKS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF BRITISH INSECTS To purchase current handbooks and to download out-of-print parts visit: http://www.royensoc.co.uk/publications/index.htm This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. Copyright © Royal Entomological Society 2012 ROYAL ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON Vol. IV. Part 1. HANDBOOKS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF BRITISH INSECTS COLEOPTERA INTRODUCTION AND KEYS TO FAMILIES By R. A. CROWSON LONDON Published by the Society and Sold at its Rooms 41, Queen's Gate, S.W. 7 31st December, 1956 Price-res. c~ . HANDBOOKS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF BRITISH INSECTS The aim of this series of publications is to provide illustrated keys to the whole of the British Insects (in so far as this is possible), in ten volumes, as follows : I. Part 1. General Introduction. Part 9. Ephemeroptera. , 2. Thysanura. 10. Odonata. , 3. Protura. , 11. Thysanoptera. 4. Collembola. , 12. Neuroptera. , 5. Dermaptera and , 13. Mecoptera. Orthoptera. , 14. Trichoptera. , 6. Plecoptera. , 15. Strepsiptera. , 7. Psocoptera. , 16. Siphonaptera. , 8. Anoplura. 11. Hemiptera. Ill. Lepidoptera. IV. and V. Coleoptera. VI. Hymenoptera : Symphyta and Aculeata. VII. Hymenoptera: Ichneumonoidea. VIII. Hymenoptera : Cynipoidea, Chalcidoidea, and Serphoidea. IX. Diptera: Nematocera and Brachycera. X. Diptera: Cyclorrhapha. Volumes 11 to X will be divided into parts of convenient size, but it is not possible to specify in advance the taxonomic content of each part. Conciseness and cheapness are main objectives in this new series, and each part will be the work of a specialist, or of a group of specialists.