DOCSLIB.ORG

Turismo Comunitario Realizado Por La Cooperativa De Pescadores De Isla Guadalupe, México

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Turismo Comunitario Realizado Por La Cooperativa De Pescadores De Isla Guadalupe, México Sociedad Cooperativa de Producción Pesquera de Participación Estatal Abuloneros y Langosteros S. C. L. Abril de 2016 Turismo comunitario realizado por la cooperativa de pescadores de Isla Guadalupe, México. Manifestación de Impacto Ambiental, modalidad particular. Sector turístico Sociedad Cooperativa de Producción Pesquera de Participación Estatal Abuloneros y Langosteros S. C. L. Turismo comunitario realizado por la cooperativa de pescadores de Isla Guadalupe, México Sociedad Cooperativa de Producción Pesquera de Participación Estatal Abuloneros y Langosteros S. C. L. Turismo comunitario realizado por la cooperativa de pescadores de Isla Guadalupe, México. Manifestación de Impacto Ambiental, modalidad particular. Sector turístico El objetivo de este proyecto es el de desarrollar una serie de productos turísticos que permitan el desarrollo de actividades económicas alternativas a la pesca para los miembros de la Sociedad Cooperativa de Producción Pesquera de Participación Estatal Abuloneros y Langosteros S. C. L. y sus familias. Este proyecto se desarrollará en varias etapas, siendo la primera de ellas el Proyecto Comunitario para Prestación de Servicios Turísticos de Buceo en Jaula con Tiburón Blanco, mismo que es sometido a evaluación en materia de impacto ambiental mediante el presente documento. Las siguientes etapas serán sometidas a evaluación en su momento. Turismo comunitario realizado por la cooperativa de pescadores de Isla Guadalupe, México Sociedad Cooperativa de Producción Pesquera de Participación Estatal Abuloneros y Langosteros S. C. L. Contenido Responsiva ante la autoridad ambiental ....................................................................... 1 I. Datos generales del proyecto, del promovente y del responsable del estudio de impacto ambiental ........................................................................................... 2 I.1. Proyecto .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 I.1.1. Nombre del proyecto ................................................................................................................................................. 3 I.1.2. Ubicación del proyecto .............................................................................................................................................. 3 I.1.3. Tiempo y vida útil del proyecto ............................................................................................................................ 5 I.1.4. Presentación de la documentación legal: ......................................................................................................... 5 I.2. Promovente ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2.1. Nombre o razón social ............................................................................................................................................. 7 I.2.2. Registro Federal de Contribuyentes del promovente ................................................................................. 7 I.2.3. Nombre y cargo del representante legal: ......................................................................................................... 7 I.2.4. Dirección del representante legal para recibir u oír notificaciones ...................................................... 8 I.3. Responsable de la elaboración del estudio de impacto ambiental ....................................................................... 8 I.3.1. Nombre o Razón Social ............................................................................................................................................ 8 I.3.2. Registro Federal de Contribuyentes o CURP................................................................................................... 8 I.3.3. Nombre del responsable técnico del estudio ................................................................................................. 8 I.3.4. Dirección del responsable técnico del estudio .............................................................................................. 8 II. Descripción del proyecto ........................................................................................... 9 II.1. Información general del proyecto ......................................................................................................................................... 9 II.1.1. Naturaleza del proyecto......................................................................................................................................... 10 II.1.2. Selección del sitio ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 II.1.3. Ubicación física del proyecto y planos de localización ........................................................................... 11 II.1.4. Inversión requerida................................................................................................................................................... 13 II.1.5. Dimensiones del proyecto .................................................................................................................................... 15 2 Turismo comunitario realizado por la cooperativa de pescadores de Isla Guadalupe, México Sociedad Cooperativa de Producción Pesquera de Participación Estatal Abuloneros y Langosteros S. C. L. II.1.6. Uso actual de suelo y/o cuerpos de agua en el sitio del proyecto y en sus colindancias .... 16 II.1.7. Urbanización del área y descripción de servicios requeridos .............................................................. 17 II.2. Características particulares del proyecto .......................................................................................................................... 18 II.2.1. Programa general de trabajo .............................................................................................................................. 21 II.2.2. Preparación del sitio ................................................................................................................................................ 22 II.2.3. Descripción de obras y actividades provisionales del proyecto ......................................................... 22 II.2.4. Etapa de construcción ............................................................................................................................................ 23 II.2.5. Etapa de operación y mantenimiento ............................................................................................................. 27 II.2.6. Descripción de obras asociadas al proyecto ................................................................................................ 30 II.2.7. Etapa de abandono del sitio ............................................................................................................................... 30 II.2.8. Utilización de explosivos. ...................................................................................................................................... 30 II.2.9. Generación, manejo y disposición de residuos sólidos, líquidos y emisiones a la atmósfera. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 II.2.10. Infraestructura adecuada para el manejo y disposición adecuada de los residuos................ 31 III. Vinculación con los ordenamientos jurídicos aplicables en materia ambiental y, en su caso, con la regulación del uso de suelo ............................. 32 IV. Descripción del sistema ambiental y señalamiento de la problemática ambiental detectada en el área de influencia del proyecto ................................ 77 IV.1. Delimitación del área de estudio. ...................................................................................................................................... 77 IV.2. Caracterización y análisis del sistema ambiental. ....................................................................................................... 77 IV.2.1. Aspectos abióticos ................................................................................................................................................................. 78 IV.2.2. Aspectos bióticos ................................................................................................................................................................... 88 Flora marina ............................................................................................................................................................................. 89 Fauna Marina ........................................................................................................................................................................... 94 Especies de fauna en riesgo, de acuerdo con la NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010..................................... 100 IV.2.3. Paisaje ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 101 Visibilidad ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tampa Bay Benthic Monitoring Program: Status of Middle Tampa Bay: 1993-1998
    Tampa Bay Benthic Monitoring Program: Status of Middle Tampa Bay: 1993-1998 Stephen A. Grabe Environmental Supervisor David J. Karlen Environmental Scientist II Christina M. Holden Environmental Scientist I Barbara Goetting Environmental Specialist I Thomas Dix Environmental Scientist II MARCH 2003 1 Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County Richard Garrity, Ph.D. Executive Director Gerold Morrison, Ph.D. Director, Environmental Resources Management Division 2 INTRODUCTION The Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County (EPCHC) has been collecting samples in Middle Tampa Bay 1993 as part of the bay-wide benthic monitoring program developed to (Tampa Bay National Estuary Program 1996). The original objectives of this program were to discern the ―health‖—or ―status‖-- of the bay’s sediments by developing a Benthic Index for Tampa Bay as well as evaluating sediment quality by means of Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines (SQAGs). The Tampa Bay Estuary Program provided partial support for this monitoring. This report summarizes data collected during 1993-1998 from the Middle Tampa Bay segment of Tampa Bay. 3 METHODS Field Collection and Laboratory Procedures: A total of 127 stations (20 to 24 per year) were sampled during late summer/early fall ―Index Period‖ 1993-1998 (Appendix A). Sample locations were randomly selected from computer- generated coordinates. Benthic samples were collected using a Young grab sampler following the field protocols outlined in Courtney et al. (1993). Laboratory procedures followed the protocols set forth in Courtney et al. (1995). Data Analysis: Species richness, Shannon-Wiener diversity, and Evenness were calculated using PISCES Conservation Ltd.’s (2001) ―Species Diversity and Richness II‖ software.
    [Show full text]
  • Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections
    SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIOXS. 227 AEEANGEMENT FAMILIES OF MOLLUSKS. PREPARED FOR THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION BY THEODORE GILL, M. D., Ph.D. WASHINGTON: PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, FEBRUARY, 1871. ^^1 I ADVERTISEMENT. The following list has been prepared by Dr. Theodore Gill, at the request of the Smithsonian Institution, for the purpose of facilitating the arrangement and classification of the Mollusks and Shells of the National Museum ; and as frequent applica- tions for such a list have been received by the Institution, it has been thought advisable to publish it for more extended use. JOSEPH HENRY, Secretary S. I. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, January, 1871 ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION, FEBRUARY 28, 1870. (iii ) CONTENTS. VI PAGE Order 17. Monomyaria . 21 " 18. Rudista , 22 Sub-Branch Molluscoidea . 23 Class Tunicata , 23 Order 19. Saccobranchia . 23 " 20. Dactjlobranchia , 24 " 21. Taeniobranchia , 24 " 22. Larvalia , 24 Class Braehiopoda . 25 Order 23. Arthropomata , 25 " . 24. Lyopomata , 26 Class Polyzoa .... 27 Order 25. Phylactolsemata . 27 " 26. Gymnolseraata . 27 " 27. Rhabdopleurse 30 III. List op Authors referred to 31 IV. Index 45 OTRODUCTIO^. OBJECTS. The want of a complete and consistent list of the principal subdivisions of the mollusks having been experienced for some time, and such a list being at length imperatively needed for the arrangement of the collections of the Smithsonian Institution, the present arrangement has been compiled for that purpose. It must be considered simply as a provisional list, embracing the results of the most recent and approved researches into the systematic relations and anatomy of those animals, but from which innova- tions and peculiar views, affecting materially the classification, have been excluded.
    [Show full text]
  • Ciencia En Familia: El Uso De Las Especies Del Género Gibberula Swainson, 1840 (Gastropoda: Cystiscidae), Como Recurso Docente En La Isla De Sal, Cabo Verde
    Avicennia 26: 55-62, 2020 Avicennia © 2020 Avicennia y autores Revista de Biodiversidad Tropical ISNN 1134 - 1785 (www.avicennia.es) Ciencia en Familia: El uso de las especies del género Gibberula Swainson, 1840 (Gastropoda: Cystiscidae), como recurso docente en la isla de Sal, Cabo Verde. Jesús Ortea1, Leopoldo Moro2 & José Espinosa3 1 Departamento BOS, Universidad de Oviedo, Asturias, España 2 Servicio de Biodiversidad, Gobierno de Canarias, S/Cruz de Tenerife, islas Canarias, España. 3 Instituto de Ciencias del Mar, Calle Loma # 14, entre 35 y 37, Plaza de la Revolución, La Habana, Cuba. Resumen: Utilizando animales vivos de distintas especies del género Gibberula, unas ya conocidas y otras no, se explica a los escolares caboverdianos de la isla de Sal la riqueza de su biodiversidad marina y se les invita a participar en la descripción de Abstractuna nueva :especie Using live proponiendo animals of sudifferent epíteto species específico. of the Gibberula genus, some known and others not, Cape Verdean school- children from the island of Sal are explained about the richness of their marine biodiversity and are invited to participate in the description Mollusca, of a new Cystiscidae, species proposing Gibberula its, new specific species, epithet Sal .Island, Cabo Verde Archipelago, teaching activity.. Key Words: Acercar la ciencia que practicamos a la sociedad que destos que sean, es la docencia en estado puro, abierta y nos recibe, es una de las actividades que ponemos en desinteresada, de la que pueden o no surgir vocaciones práctica en la mayoría de las expediciones en terceros en el futuro y de la que siempre quedara un buen recuer- países en las que participamos, lo hicimos durante las do para los participantes.
    [Show full text]
  • Chec List Marine and Coastal Biodiversity of Oaxaca, Mexico
    Check List 9(2): 329–390, 2013 © 2013 Check List and Authors Chec List ISSN 1809-127X (available at www.checklist.org.br) Journal of species lists and distribution ǡ PECIES * S ǤǦ ǡÀ ÀǦǡ Ǧ ǡ OF ×±×Ǧ±ǡ ÀǦǡ Ǧ ǡ ISTS María Torres-Huerta, Alberto Montoya-Márquez and Norma A. Barrientos-Luján L ǡ ǡǡǡǤͶ͹ǡ͹ͲͻͲʹǡǡ ǡ ȗ ǤǦǣ[email protected] ćĘęėĆĈęǣ ϐ Ǣ ǡǡ ϐǤǡ ǤǣͳȌ ǢʹȌ Ǥͳͻͺ ǯϐ ʹǡͳͷ͹ ǡͳͷ ȋǡȌǤǡϐ ǡ Ǥǡϐ Ǣ ǡʹͶʹȋͳͳǤʹΨȌ ǡ groups (annelids, crustaceans and mollusks) represent about 44.0% (949 species) of all species recorded, while the ͹͸ʹ ȋ͵ͷǤ͵ΨȌǤǡ not yet been recorded on the Oaxaca coast, including some platyhelminthes, rotifers, nematodes, oligochaetes, sipunculids, echiurans, tardigrades, pycnogonids, some crustaceans, brachiopods, chaetognaths, ascidians and cephalochordates. The ϐϐǢ Ǥ ēęėĔĉĚĈęĎĔē Madrigal and Andreu-Sánchez 2010; Jarquín-González The state of Oaxaca in southern Mexico (Figure 1) is and García-Madrigal 2010), mollusks (Rodríguez-Palacios known to harbor the highest continental faunistic and et al. 1988; Holguín-Quiñones and González-Pedraza ϐ ȋ Ǧ± et al. 1989; de León-Herrera 2000; Ramírez-González and ʹͲͲͶȌǤ Ǧ Barrientos-Luján 2007; Zamorano et al. 2008, 2010; Ríos- ǡ Jara et al. 2009; Reyes-Gómez et al. 2010), echinoderms (Benítez-Villalobos 2001; Zamorano et al. 2006; Benítez- ϐ Villalobos et alǤʹͲͲͺȌǡϐȋͳͻ͹ͻǢǦ Ǥ ǡ 1982; Tapia-García et alǤ ͳͻͻͷǢ ͳͻͻͺǢ Ǧ ϐ (cf. García-Mendoza et al. 2004). ǡ ǡ studies among taxonomic groups are not homogeneous: longer than others. Some of the main taxonomic groups ȋ ÀʹͲͲʹǢǦʹͲͲ͵ǢǦet al.
    [Show full text]
  • Documents Félix A
    Click Here & Upgrade Expanded Features PDF Unlimited Pages CompleteDocuments Félix A. Grana Raffucci. Junio, 2007. NOMENCLATURA DE LOS ORGANISMOS ACUÁTICOS Y MARINOS DE PUERTO RICO E ISLAS VÍRGENES. Volumen 4: Moluscos de Puerto Rico e Islas Vírgenes. Parte 3. Clase Gastropoda Órden Caenogastropoda Familias Eulimidae a Conidae Click Here & Upgrade Expanded Features PDF Unlimited Pages CompleteDocuments CLAVE DE COMENTARIOS: M= organismo reportado de ambientes marinos E= organismo reportado de ambientes estuarinos D= organismo reportado de ambientes dulceacuícolas int= organismo reportado de ambientes intermareales T= organismo reportado de ambientes terrestres L= organismo pelágico B= organismo bentónico P= organismo parasítico en alguna etapa de su vida F= organismo de valor pesquero Q= organismo de interés para el acuarismo A= organismo de interés para artesanías u orfebrería I= especie exótica introducida p=organismo reportado específicamente en Puerto Rico u= organismo reportado específicamente en las Islas Vírgenes de Estados Unidos b= organismo reportado específicamente en las Islas Vírgenes Británicas números= profundidades, en metros, en las que se ha reportado la especie Click Here & Upgrade Expanded Features PDF Unlimited Pages CompleteDocuments INDICE DE FAMILIAS EN ESTE VOLUMEN Aclididae Aclis Buccinidae Antillophos Bailya Belomitra Colubraria Engina Engoniophos Manaria Monostiolum Muricantharus Parviphos Pisania Pollia Cerithiopsidae Cerithiopsis Horologica Retilaskeya Seila Cancellariidae Agatrix Cancellaria Trigonostoma
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Tropical Marine Micromolluscs: an Overwhelming Bias
    diversity Review Australian Tropical Marine Micromolluscs: An Overwhelming Bias Peter U. Middelfart 1, Lisa A. Kirkendale 1,2,* and Nerida G. Wilson 1,3 1 Department of Aquatic Zoology, Western Australian Museum, Locked Bag 49, Welshpool DC, WA 6986, Australia; [email protected] (P.U.M.); [email protected] (N.G.W.) 2 School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia 3 School of Animal Biology, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +61-08-9212-3747 Academic Editor: Michael Wink Received: 26 April 2016; Accepted: 26 July 2016; Published: 2 August 2016 Abstract: Assessing the marine biodiversity of the tropics can be overwhelming, especially for the Mollusca, one of the largest marine phyla in the sea. With a diversity that can exceed macrofaunal richness in many groups, the micro/meiofaunal component is one of most overlooked biotas in surveys due to the time-consuming nature of collecting, sorting, and identifying this assemblage. We review trends in micromollusc research highlighting the Australian perspective that reveals a dwindling taxonomic effort through time and discuss pervasive obstacles of relevance to the taxonomy of micromolluscs globally. Since a high during the 1970s, followed by a smaller peak in 2000, in 2010 we observe a low in micromolluscan collection activity in Australia not seen since the 1930s. Although challenging, considered planning at each step of the species identification pathway can reduce barriers to micromolluscan research (e.g., role of types, dedicated sampling, integration of microscopy and genetic methods).
    [Show full text]
  • 44-Sep-2016.Pdf
    Page 2 Vol. 44, No. 3 In 1972, a group of shell collectors saw the need for a national organization devoted to the interests of shell collec- tors; to the beauty of shells, to their scientific aspects, and to the collecting and preservation of mollusks. This was the start of COA. Our member- AMERICAN CONCHOLOGIST, the official publication of the Conchol- ship includes novices, advanced collectors, scientists, and shell dealers ogists of America, Inc., and issued as part of membership dues, is published from around the world. In 1995, COA adopted a conservation resolution: quarterly in March, June, September, and December, printed by JOHNSON Whereas there are an estimated 100,000 species of living mollusks, many PRESS OF AMERICA, INC. (JPA), 800 N. Court St., P.O. Box 592, Pontiac, IL 61764. All correspondence should go to the Editor. ISSN 1072-2440. of great economic, ecological, and cultural importance to humans and Articles in AMERICAN CONCHOLOGIST may be reproduced with whereas habitat destruction and commercial fisheries have had serious ef- proper credit. We solicit comments, letters, and articles of interest to shell fects on mollusk populations worldwide, and whereas modern conchology collectors, subject to editing. Opinions expressed in “signed” articles are continues the tradition of amateur naturalists exploring and documenting those of the authors, and are not necessarily the opinions of Conchologists the natural world, be it resolved that the Conchologists of America endors- of America. All correspondence pertaining to articles published herein es responsible scientific collecting as a means of monitoring the status of or generated by reproduction of said articles should be directed to the Edi- mollusk species and populations and promoting informed decision making tor.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Mollusks of Bahía Málaga, Colombia (Tropical Eastern Pacific)
    10TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE Check List the journal of biodiversity data LISTS OF SPECIES Check List 11(1): 1497, January 2015 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15560/11.1.1497 ISSN 1809-127X © 2015 Check List and Authors Marine mollusks of Bahía Málaga, Colombia (Tropical Eastern Pacific) Luz Ángela López de Mesa1* and Jaime R. Cantera2 1 Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Biology, 6300 Ocean Dr. CS 239 annex, Corpus Christi, TX, USA 2 Universidad del Valle, Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Exactas, Calle 13 # 100-00, Cali, Colombia * Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: A checklist of mollusks reported in Bahía Málaga hence high biodiversity. Its littoral zone, with an area of 136 (Valle del Cauca, Colombia) was developed through recent km2, is composed of different ecosystems, such as rocky and samplings in the zone (2004–2012), together with bibliograph- sandy shores, muddy flats, and mangrove forests (Cantera ic and museums’ collections reviews. Species’ distributions 1991). in Bahía Málaga were established through 18 different sub- Rocky shores in Bahía Málaga may consist of cliffs and/or regions, which included the inner, middle and outer zones of boulders. The range in the size and texture of the particles the bay. A revision of the western American distribution for present in the rocky shores allow for a variety of microhabi- the species was also carried out. A total of 426 species were tats, making it a very diverse ecosystem (INVEMAR et al. found, of which 44 were new reports for the Colombian Pacific 2007). Sandy beaches consist of very fine particles that may coast.
    [Show full text]
  • From the Tuamotu Archipelago
    A. Wakefield & T. McCleery NOVAPEX 6(1-2): 19-30, 10 mars 2005 Three new species of Cystiscus Stimpson, 1865 (Gastropoda: Cystiscidae) from the Tuamotu Archipelago Andrew WAKEFIELD 14 Forest Side, Buckhurst Hill, Essex, IG9 SSL, U.K. Tony McCLEERY The Moat House, Fort Road, St Peter Port, Guemsey, GYl IZU, CL KEYWORDS. Cystiscidae, Cystiscus, Tuamotu Archipelago, new species. ABSTRACT. Three new species oî Cystiscus (Stimpson, 1865) are described from upper reef substrates of the Tuamotu's. Thèse are Cystiscus carinifer n. sp., C mosaica n. sp. and C nebulosa n. sp., and their study is based upon the material and data accumulated during two private expéditions to the région undertaken by the second author in 2001 and 2003. Information on the variability of the animal and radula of each species within their respective populations, and discussion of microhabitats and other field observations are provided. Thèse are the first records of the group Chthe/Cystiscus from this part of French Polynesia. and the likelihood of the existence of more species in the région is considered to be high since it is generally accepted that the diversity of the group is underestimated in most locations. It is considered that similarities in pattems of animal chromatism, shel! morphology, and radular morphometry show potential for enabling similar species within the group Crithe/Cystiscus to be associated together into subgroups. However, the overall taxonomic reorganisation and subdivision of the gênera Crithe and Cystiscus at this time is considered to be prématuré and too problematic given the current poor understanding of the extent of their global diversity and variability.
    [Show full text]
  • Shells of Mollusca Collected from the Seas of Turkey
    TurkJZool 27(2003)101-140 ©TÜB‹TAK ResearchArticle ShellsofMolluscaCollectedfromtheSeasofTurkey MuzafferDEM‹R Alt›ntepe,HüsniyeCaddesi,ÇeflmeSokak,2/9,Küçükyal›,Maltepe,‹stanbul-TURKEY Received:03.05.2002 Abstract: AlargenumberofmolluscanshellswerecollectedfromtheseasofTurkey(theMediterraneanSea,theAegeanSea,the SeaofMarmaraandtheBlackSea)andexaminedtodeterminetheirspeciesandtopointoutthespeciesfoundineachsea.The examinationrevealedatotalof610shellspeciesandmanyvarietiesbelongingtovariousclasses,subclasses,familiesandsub fami- liesofmollusca.ThelistofthesetaxonomicgroupsispresentedinthefirstcolumnofTable1.Thespeciesandvarietiesfou ndin eachseaareindicatedwithaplussignintheothercolumnsofthetableassignedtotheseas.Theplussignsinparenthesesi nthe BlackSeacolumnofthetableindicatethespeciesfoundinthepre-Bosphorusregionandasaspecialcasediscussedinrespect of whethertheybelongtothatseaornot. KeyWords: Shell,mollusca,sea,Turkey. TürkiyeDenizlerindenToplanm›flYumuflakçaKavk›lar› Özet: Türkiyedenizleri(Akdeniz,EgeDenizi,MarmaraDeniziveKaradeniz)’ndentoplanm›flçokmiktardayumuflakçakavk›lar›,tür- lerinitayinetmekvedenizlerinherbirindebulunmuflolantürleribelirlemekiçinincelendiler.‹nceleme,yumuflakçalar›nde¤ifl ik s›n›flar›na,alts›n›flar›na,familyalar›navealtfamilyalar›naaitolmaküzere,toplam610türvebirçokvaryeteortayaç›kard› .Butak- sonomikgruplar›nlistesiTablo1’inilksütunundasunuldu.Denizlerinherbirindebulunmuflolantürlervevaryeteler,Tablo’nundeni- zlereözgüötekisütunlar›nda,birerart›iflaretiilebelirtildiler.Tablo’nunKaradenizsütununda,paranteziçindeolanart›i
    [Show full text]
  • Tony Mccleery the Moat House, St Peter Port, Guernsey, GY1 1ZU, CI
    T. MCCLEERY & A. WAK.EFIELD NOVAPEX 8 (1): 1-10, 10 mars 2007 A review of the enigmatic genus Canalispira Jousseaume, 1875 (Gastropoda : Cystiscidae) with the description of three new species from the western Atlantic Tony McCLEERY The Moat House, St Peter Port, Guernsey, GY1 1ZU, CI. [email protected] Andrew WAKEFIELD 14 Forest Side, Buckhurst Hill, Essex, IG9 5SL, U.K. [email protected] KEYWORDS. Canalispira, Cystiscidae, Mangroves, western Atlantic, Honduras, Belize. ABSTRACT. A literature review of the genus, and an inventory of currently recognised species of the genus Canalispira Jousseaume, 1875 is presented. Photographs of the animal of Canalispira and its radula confirm its correct placement in the Cystiscidae, and morphologie comparisons are made between western Atlantic and other Worldwide species. Three new species of Canalispira are described: C. phantasia n. sp. and C. ornata n. sp. from northern Honduras, and C. fluctuata n. sp. from Belize and northern Honduras. Osvaldoginella Espinosa & Ortéa, 1997 is considered as a new synonym. INTRODUCTION Marginella and assigned them to appropriate gênera. However, even he failed to correctly place several Historié review of the genus Canalispira species in Canalispira. Laseron (1957) named thirty new gênera, including Baroginella, which was later The confusion in the literature regarding the considered by Coovert (1995) to be a junior synonym taxonomic status of the genus Canalispira has, since of Canalispira. its inception by Jousseaume (1875), been extensive The graduai accumulation of data on radula and and prolonged. This has been caused mainly by the animal characters allowed Coan (1965) to attempt a lack of récent références in the popular conchological new classification, proposing three major divisions in média, the misnaming of spécimens in muséum the family Marginellidae: the subfamilies collections, and the gênerai paucity of other spécimens Marginellinae Fleming, 1828, Cystiscinae Stimpson, available for study.
    [Show full text]
  • Gibberula Prayensis-01.Docx
    “Erato” prayensis DE ROCHEBRUNE 1881 cannot be interpreted as an Erato By DIRK FEHSE , Berlin. I specifically asked with submit of my paper that our Marginellen-specialist ROLAND HOFFMANN as member of the editorial staff to check my article. There was no respond till the publication. Therefore, I assumed his fully agreement. ROLAND wrote in his first sentence that I described Erato africana FEHSE 2016 as replacement for “ Erato ” prayensis . Already with its description it was always only supposed that prayensis is an Erato . Therefore, I did not replace prayensis . ROLAND reduced in his introducing words the quite accurate drawing of ROCHEBRUNE as ‘imprecise’. Why it should be ‘imprecise’? Perhaps it does not fit the commonly interpretation? ROLAND wrote in the next sentence, “… I admit that the drawing of ROCHEBRUNE shows only less accordance with the reality …” I confirmed in my paper that the drawing is accurate in every detail. How can the missing accordance be explained? Is it not the evidence that ROCHEBRUNE and following authors misinterpreted the taxon? Seemingly everyone rely that ROCHEBRUNE made everything correct. It appears not improbable that ROCHEBRUNE examined an Erato together with a Gibberula of same color. Was the drawing prepared by memory as ROLAND explained? Both opinions are only pure speculations and they do not help to solve the problem. ROLAND continues that the description fits exactly to Erato . I reproduced the original description and it is not one-to-one. The only passage that could be interpreted in favor of Erato is, “… labro reflexo, minutissime multi dentato …” Both features could also be found in Columbellidae, Marginellidae, Cystiscidae, juvenile Trivia , etc.
    [Show full text]