DOCSLIB.ORG

Gefährdung Durch Zooanthroponosen Bei Der Haltung Von Heimtieren Und Maßnahmen Der Prophylaxe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gefährdung Durch Zooanthroponosen Bei Der Haltung Von Heimtieren Und Maßnahmen Der Prophylaxe Gefährdung durch Zooanthroponosen bei der Haltung von Heimtieren und Maßnahmen der Prophylaxe von Sabine Kinder Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung Doktorwürde der Tierärztlichen Fakultät der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Gefährdung durch Zooanthroponosen bei der Haltung von Heimtieren und Maßnahmen der Prophylaxe von Sabine Kinder aus St. Wendel München 2017 Aus dem Veterinärwissenschaftlichen Department der Tierärztlichen Fakultät der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Lehrstuhl für Tierschutz, Verhaltenskunde, Tierhygiene und Tierhaltung Arbeit angefertigt unter der Leitung von: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. Michael Erhard Mitbetreuung durch: Prof. Dr. habil. Gerd Schlenker (im Ruhestand) ehemals Institut für Tier- und Umwelhygiene, Fachbereich Veterinärmedizin der Freien Universität Berlin Gedruckt mit Genehmigung der Tierärztlichen Fakultät der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Dekan: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Joachim Braun Berichterstatter: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. Michael H. Erhard Korreferent: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ralf S. Müller Tag der Promotion 11. Februar 2017 Meiner Mutter Meinem Sohn Inhaltsverzeichnis 1. Einleitung ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Rechtliche Bestimmungen ............................................................................................................... 4 3. Bedeutung und Wesen von Zoonosen bei Heimtieren ................................................................... 7 3.1. Motive für das Halten von Heimtieren .................................................................................... 7 3.2. Bedeutung der Zoonosen ........................................................................................................ 9 3.3. Epidemiologische Aspekte ..................................................................................................... 12 4. Risikogruppen ................................................................................................................................ 18 5. Zoonotische Erkrankungen ............................................................................................................ 20 5.1. Erkrankungen durch Bakterien .............................................................................................. 20 5.1.1. Bordetella bronchiseptica ............................................................................................. 20 5.1.2. Bartonella henselae ....................................................................................................... 21 5.1.3. Borrelia burgdorferi ....................................................................................................... 22 5.1.4. Brucella canis ................................................................................................................. 23 5.1.5. Campylobacter spp. ....................................................................................................... 24 5.1.6. Capnocytophaga canimorsus, Capnocytopharga cynodegmi ....................................... 25 5.1.7. Chlamydophila psittaci .................................................................................................. 26 5.1.8. Clostridium difficile ........................................................................................................ 27 5.1.9. Coxiella burnetii ............................................................................................................. 27 5.1.10. Ehrlichia canis ................................................................................................................ 28 5.1.11. Erysipelothrix rusiopathiae ............................................................................................ 29 5.1.12. Escherichia coli .............................................................................................................. 29 5.1.13. Francisella tularensis ..................................................................................................... 31 5.1.14. Helicobacter spp. ........................................................................................................... 31 5.1.15. Leptospira spp. .............................................................................................................. 32 5.1.16. Mycobacterium spp. ...................................................................................................... 33 5.1.17. Pasteurella multocida .................................................................................................... 34 5.1.18. Rickettsia ....................................................................................................................... 35 5.1.19. Salmonella enteritidis .................................................................................................... 36 5.1.20. Staphylococcus aureus .................................................................................................. 37 5.1.21. Streptobacillus moniliformis, Spirillium minus .............................................................. 38 5.1.22. Streptococcus ................................................................................................................ 39 5.1.23. Yersinia enterocolitica und Yersinia pseudotuberculosis .............................................. 40 5.2. Erkrankungen durch Viren ..................................................................................................... 42 5.2.1. Bornaviren ..................................................................................................................... 42 5.2.2. Flaviviren ....................................................................................................................... 42 5.2.3. Influenza Viren .............................................................................................................. 44 5.2.4. Lymphozytäres Choriomeningitis Virus ......................................................................... 45 5.2.5. Lyssavirus ....................................................................................................................... 46 5.2.6. Poxviren ......................................................................................................................... 47 5.2.7. West Nil Virus ................................................................................................................ 48 5.3. Erkrankungen durch Pilze ...................................................................................................... 49 5.3.1. Aspergillus niger, A. flavus, nidulans, terreus ............................................................... 49 5.3.2. Blastomycosis dermatidis, Histoplasma capsulatum, Coccidioides immitis ................. 50 5.3.3. Cryptococcus neoformans ............................................................................................. 50 5.3.4. Malassezia pachydermatis ............................................................................................ 51 5.3.5. Microsporum canis ........................................................................................................ 51 5.3.6. Phaeohyphomycosis, Hyalohyphomycosis .................................................................... 52 5.3.7. Sporothrix spp. .............................................................................................................. 53 5.3.8. Trichophyton spp., Epidermophytum spp. .................................................................... 53 5.3.9. Arthroderma benhamiae ............................................................................................... 54 5.4. Erkrankungen durch Parasiten .............................................................................................. 55 5.4.1. Protozoen ...................................................................................................................... 57 5.4.1.1. Entamoeba histolytica ........................................................................................... 57 5.4.1.2. Cryptosporidia spp................................................................................................. 57 5.4.1.3. Giardia spp. ............................................................................................................ 58 5.4.1.4. Toxoplasma spp. .................................................................................................... 59 5.4.1.5. Neospora ............................................................................................................... 60 5.4.1.6. Leishmania ............................................................................................................. 60 5.4.1.7. Pneumocystis ......................................................................................................... 61 5.4.2. Helminthen .................................................................................................................... 62 5.4.2.1. Nematoden ............................................................................................................ 62 5.4.2.2. Zestoden ................................................................................................................ 65 5.4.3. Arthropoden .................................................................................................................. 67 5.4.3.1. Milben ...................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Diptera, Drosophilidae) in an Atlantic Forest Fragment Near Sandbanks in the Santa Catarina Coast Bruna M
    08 A SIMPÓSIO DE ECOLOGIA,GENÉTICA IX E EVOLUÇÃO DE DROSOPHILA 08 A 11 de novembro, Brasília – DF, Brasil Resumos Abstracts IX SEGED Coordenação: Vice-coordenação: Rosana Tidon (UnB) Nilda Maria Diniz (UnB) Comitê Científico: Comissão Organizadora e Antonio Bernardo de Carvalho Executora (UFRJ) Bruna Lisboa de Oliveira Blanche C. Bitner-Mathè (UFRJ) Bárbara F.D.Leão Claudia Rohde (UFPE) Dariane Isabel Schneider Juliana Cordeiro (UFPEL) Francisco Roque Lilian Madi-Ravazzi (UNESP) Henrique Valadão Marlúcia Bonifácio Martins (MPEG) Hilton de Jesus dos Santos Igor de Oliveira Santos Comitê de avaliação dos Jonathan Mendes de Almeida trabalhos: Leandro Carvalho Francisco Roque (IFB) Lucas Las-Casas Martin Alejandro Montes (UFRP) Natalia Barbi Chaves Victor Hugo Valiati (UNISINOS) Pedro Henrique S. F. Gomes Gustavo Campos da Silva Kuhn Pedro Henrique S. Lopes (UFMG) Pedro Paulo de Queirós Souza Rogério Pincela Mateus Renata Alves da Mata (UNICENTRO) Waira Saravia Machida Lizandra Jaqueline Robe (UFSM) Norma Machado da Silva (UFSC) Gabriel Wallau (FIOCRUZ) IX SEGED Introdução O Simpósio de Ecologia, Genética e Evolução de Drosophila (SEGED) é um evento bianual que reúne drosofilistas do Brasil e do exterior desde 1999, e conta sempre com uma grande participação de estudantes. Em decorrência do constante diálogo entre os diversos laboratórios, os encontros têm sido muito produtivos para a discussão de problemas e consolidação de colaborações. Tendo em vista que as moscas do gênero Drosophila são excelentes modelos para estudos em diversas áreas (provavelmente os organismos eucariotos mais investigados pela Ciência), essas parcerias podem contribuir também para o desenvolvimento de áreas aplicadas, como a Biologia da Conservação e o controle biológico da dengue.
    [Show full text]
  • Convergent Evolution of Y Chromosome Gene Content in Flies
    ARTICLE DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-00653-x OPEN Convergent evolution of Y chromosome gene content in flies Shivani Mahajan1 & Doris Bachtrog1 Sex-chromosomes have formed repeatedly across Diptera from ordinary autosomes, and X-chromosomes mostly conserve their ancestral genes. Y-chromosomes are characterized by abundant gene-loss and an accumulation of repetitive DNA, yet the nature of the gene repertoire of fly Y-chromosomes is largely unknown. Here we trace gene-content evolution of Y-chromosomes across 22 Diptera species, using a subtraction pipeline that infers Y genes from male and female genome, and transcriptome data. Few genes remain on old Y-chromosomes, but the number of inferred Y-genes varies substantially between species. Young Y-chromosomes still show clear evidence of their autosomal origins, but most genes on old Y-chromosomes are not simply remnants of genes originally present on the proto-sex-chromosome that escaped degeneration, but instead were recruited secondarily from autosomes. Despite almost no overlap in Y-linked gene content in different species with independently formed sex-chromosomes, we find that Y-linked genes have evolved convergent gene functions associated with testis expression. Thus, male-specific selection appears as a dominant force shaping gene-content evolution of Y-chromosomes across fly species. 1 Department of Integrative Biology, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720, USA. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to D.B. (email: [email protected]) NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | 8: 785 | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-00653-x | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 1 ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-00653-x and Y chromosomes are involved in sex determination in Dipteran flies have multiple independent originations of Xmany species1.
    [Show full text]
  • Diptera – Brachycera
    Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e4187 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.3.e4187 Data Paper Fauna Europaea: Diptera – Brachycera Thomas Pape‡§, Paul Beuk , Adrian Charles Pont|, Anatole I. Shatalkin¶, Andrey L. Ozerov¶, Andrzej J. Woźnica#, Bernhard Merz¤, Cezary Bystrowski«», Chris Raper , Christer Bergström˄, Christian Kehlmaier˅, David K. Clements¦, David Greathead†,ˀ, Elena Petrovna Kamenevaˁ, Emilia Nartshuk₵, Frederik T. Petersenℓ, Gisela Weber ₰, Gerhard Bächli₱, Fritz Geller-Grimm₳, Guy Van de Weyer₴, Hans-Peter Tschorsnig₣, Herman de Jong₮, Jan-Willem van Zuijlen₦, Jaromír Vaňhara₭, Jindřich Roháček₲, Joachim Ziegler‽, József Majer ₩, Karel Hůrka†,₸, Kevin Holston ‡‡, Knut Rognes§§, Lita Greve-Jensen||, Lorenzo Munari¶¶, Marc de Meyer##, Marc Pollet ¤¤, Martin C. D. Speight««, Martin John Ebejer»», Michel Martinez˄˄, Miguel Carles-Tolrá˅˅, Mihály Földvári¦¦, Milan Chvála ₸, Miroslav Bartákˀˀ, Neal L. Evenhuisˁˁ, Peter J. Chandler₵₵, Pierfilippo Cerrettiℓℓ, Rudolf Meier ₰₰, Rudolf Rozkosny₭, Sabine Prescher₰, Stephen D. Gaimari₱₱, Tadeusz Zatwarnicki₳₳, Theo Zeegers₴₴, Torsten Dikow₣₣, Valery A. Korneyevˁ, Vera Andreevna Richter†,₵, Verner Michelsen‡, Vitali N. Tanasijtshuk₵, Wayne N. Mathis₣₣, Zdravko Hubenov₮₮, Yde de Jong ₦₦,₭₭ ‡ Natural History Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark § Natural History Museum Maastricht / Diptera.info, Maastricht, Netherlands | Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Oxford, United Kingdom ¶ Zoological Museum, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia # Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Wrocław,
    [Show full text]
  • Fauna Europaea: Diptera – Brachycera Thomas Pape, Paul Beuk, Adrian Charles Pont, Anatole I
    Fauna Europaea: Diptera – Brachycera Thomas Pape, Paul Beuk, Adrian Charles Pont, Anatole I. Shatalkin, Andrey L. Ozerov, Andrzej J. Woźnica, Bernhard Merz, Cezary Bystrowski, Chris Raper, Christer Bergström, et al. To cite this version: Thomas Pape, Paul Beuk, Adrian Charles Pont, Anatole I. Shatalkin, Andrey L. Ozerov, et al.. Fauna Europaea: Diptera – Brachycera: Fauna Europaea: Diptera – Brachycera. Biodiversity Data Journal, Pensoft, 2015, 3, pp.e4187. 10.3897/BDJ.3.e4187. hal-01512243 HAL Id: hal-01512243 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01512243 Submitted on 21 Apr 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e4187 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.3.e4187 Data Paper Fauna Europaea: Diptera – Brachycera Thomas Pape‡§, Paul Beuk , Adrian Charles Pont|, Anatole I. Shatalkin¶, Andrey L. Ozerov¶, Andrzej J. Woźnica#, Bernhard Merz¤, Cezary Bystrowski«», Chris Raper , Christer Bergström˄, Christian Kehlmaier˅, David K. Clements¦, David Greathead†,ˀ, Elena Petrovna Kamenevaˁ, Emilia Nartshuk₵, Frederik T. Petersenℓ, Gisela Weber ₰, Gerhard Bächli₱, Fritz Geller-Grimm₳, Guy Van de Weyer₴, Hans-Peter Tschorsnig₣, Herman de Jong₮, Jan-Willem van Zuijlen₦, Jaromír Vaňhara₭, Jindřich Roháček₲, Joachim Ziegler‽, József Majer ₩, Karel Hůrka†,₸, Kevin Holston ‡‡, Knut Rognes§§, Lita Greve-Jensen||, Lorenzo Munari¶¶, Marc de Meyer##, Marc Pollet ¤¤, Martin C.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT BAYLESS, KEITH MOHR. Phylogenomic Studies of Evolutionary Radiations of Diptera
    ABSTRACT BAYLESS, KEITH MOHR. Phylogenomic Studies of Evolutionary Radiations of Diptera. (Under the direction of Dr. Brian M. Wiegmann.) Efforts to understand the evolutionary history of flies have been obstructed by the lack of resolution in major radiations. Diptera is a highly diverse branch on the tree of life, but this diversity accrued at an uneven pace. Some of radiations that contributed disproportionately to species diversity occurred contemporaneously, and understanding the relationships of these taxa can illuminate broad scale patterns. Relationships between some subordinate groups of taxa are notoriously difficult to untangle, and genomic data will address these problems at a new scale. This project will focus on two major radiations in Diptera: Tabanus horse flies and relatives, and acalyptrate Schizophora. Tabanus includes over one thousand species. Synthesis focused research on the group is stymied by its species richness, worldwide distribution, inconsistent diagnosis, and scale of undescribed diversity. Furthermore, the genus may be non-monophyletic with respect to more than 10 other lineages of horse flies. A groundwork phylogenetic study of worldwide Tabanus is needed to understand the evolution of this lineage and to make comprehensive taxonomic projects manageable. Data to address this question was collected from two different sources. A dataset including five genes was sequenced from ninety-four species in the Tabanus group, including nearly all genera of Tabanini and at least one species from every biogeographic region. Then a new data source from a next generation sequencing approach, Anchored Hybrid Enrichment exome capture, was used to accumulate a dataset including hundreds of genes for a subset of the taxa.
    [Show full text]
  • 9Th International Congress of Dipterology
    9th International Congress of Dipterology Abstracts Volume 25–30 November 2018 Windhoek Namibia Organising Committee: Ashley H. Kirk-Spriggs (Chair) Burgert Muller Mary Kirk-Spriggs Gillian Maggs-Kölling Kenneth Uiseb Seth Eiseb Michael Osae Sunday Ekesi Candice-Lee Lyons Edited by: Ashley H. Kirk-Spriggs Burgert Muller 9th International Congress of Dipterology 25–30 November 2018 Windhoek, Namibia Abstract Volume Edited by: Ashley H. Kirk-Spriggs & Burgert S. Muller Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism Organising Committee Ashley H. Kirk-Spriggs (Chair) Burgert Muller Mary Kirk-Spriggs Gillian Maggs-Kölling Kenneth Uiseb Seth Eiseb Michael Osae Sunday Ekesi Candice-Lee Lyons Published by the International Congresses of Dipterology, © 2018. Printed by John Meinert Printers, Windhoek, Namibia. ISBN: 978-1-86847-181-2 Suggested citation: Adams, Z.J. & Pont, A.C. 2018. In celebration of Roger Ward Crosskey (1930–2017) – a life well spent. In: Kirk-Spriggs, A.H. & Muller, B.S., eds, Abstracts volume. 9th International Congress of Dipterology, 25–30 November 2018, Windhoek, Namibia. International Congresses of Dipterology, Windhoek, p. 2. [Abstract]. Front cover image: Tray of micro-pinned flies from the Democratic Republic of Congo (photograph © K. Panne coucke). Cover design: Craig Barlow (previously National Museum, Bloemfontein). Disclaimer: Following recommendations of the various nomenclatorial codes, this volume is not issued for the purposes of the public and scientific record, or for the purposes of taxonomic nomenclature, and as such, is not published in the meaning of the various codes. Thus, any nomenclatural act contained herein (e.g., new combinations, new names, etc.), does not enter biological nomenclature or pre-empt publication in another work.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the RESTRUCTURING of ARTHROPOD TROPHIC RELATIONSHIPS in RESPONSE to PLANT INVASION by Adam B. Mitchell a Dissertation Submitt
    THE RESTRUCTURING OF ARTHROPOD TROPHIC RELATIONSHIPS IN RESPONSE TO PLANT INVASION by Adam B. Mitchell 1 A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Entomology and Wildlife Ecology Winter 2019 © Adam B. Mitchell All Rights Reserved THE RESTRUCTURING OF ARTHROPOD TROPHIC RELATIONSHIPS IN RESPONSE TO PLANT INVASION by Adam B. Mitchell Approved: ______________________________________________________ Jacob L. Bowman, Ph.D. Chair of the Department of Entomology and Wildlife Ecology Approved: ______________________________________________________ Mark W. Rieger, Ph.D. Dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Approved: ______________________________________________________ Douglas J. Doren, Ph.D. Interim Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: ______________________________________________________ Douglas W. Tallamy, Ph.D. Professor in charge of dissertation I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: ______________________________________________________ Charles R. Bartlett, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: ______________________________________________________ Jeffery J. Buler, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Diptera: Drosophilidae)
    The first Canadian record of the zoophilic fruit fly P. variegata JESO Volume 150, 2019 FIRST CANADIAN RECORD OF THE ZOOPHILIC FRUIT FLY PHORTICA VARIEGATA (FALLÉN) (DIPTERA: DROSOPHILIDAE) M. MILLER1*, S. A. HILL2, B. J. SINCLAIR3 University of Guelph, 50 Stone Rd E, Guelph, ON, Canada, N1G 2W1 email, [email protected] Scientific Note J. ent. Soc. Ont. 150: 31–36 The large cosmopolitan family Drosophilidae (Diptera) (vinegar flies) contains over 4,000 species and is very well-known for its extensive use in biological research. The family is divided into two subfamilies, Drosophilinae (43 genera) and Steganinae (28 genera), in addition to two genera incertae sedis within Drosophilidae (Brake and Bächli 2008). Within the subfamily Steganinae, nine genera have been recorded in the Nearctic Region, five of which are found in Canada (Brake and Bächli 2008). Feeding habits of the Steganinae are highly diverse, with the ecology of many genera much less known than those in Drosophilinae, which typically feed on plant materials or fungi (Baechli et al. 2004). Phortica Schiner in the subfamily Steganinae is composed of over 97 species found largely in the Oriental and Palearctic regions (Brake and Bächli 2008; Cheng et al. 2008). Prior to 2014, four species of Phortica had been reported in the Nearctic Region: P. albavictoria (Patterson & Mainland) from Mexico, P. huachucae (Wheeler) from Arizona, P. picta (Coquillett) from Mexico to Nevada, and P. polychaeta (Wheeler) from northern Mexico and the southwestern United States. All four species are native to the Nearctic Region (Brake and Bächli 2008; D. Grimaldi, American Museum of Natural History, pers.
    [Show full text]
  • Polyphyly of the Zaprionus Genus Group (Diptera: Drosophilidae)
    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 55 (2010) 335–339 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev Short Communication Polyphyly of the Zaprionus genus group (Diptera: Drosophilidae) Amir Yassin a,*, Jean-Luc Da Lage a, Jean R. David a, Masanori Kondo b, Lilian Madi-Ravazzi c, Stéphane R. Prigent d, Masanori J. Toda e a Laboratoire Evolution, Génomes et Spéciation (LEGS), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Av. de la Terrasse, 91198 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France b Biosystematics Laboratory, Kyushu University, 810-8560 Fukuoka, Japan c Departamento de Biologia, UNESP (Universidade Estadual Paulista), 15054-000 São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil d Research Center for Biodiversity, Academia Sinica, 11529 Taipei, Taiwan e Institute of Low Temperature Science, Hokkaido University, 060-0819 Sapporo, Japan a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: The Zaprionus genus group comprises three drosophilid genera (Zaprionus, Phorticella and Samoaia) that Received 10 July 2009 are thought to be related to the Drosophila immigrans species group. We revised the phylogenetic rela- Revised 8 September 2009 tionships among the three genera and their placement within the subfamily Drosophilinae using one Accepted 9 September 2009 mitochondrial (COII) and one nuclear (Amyrel) gene. The Bayesian tree inferred from concatenated amino Available online 15 September 2009 acid sequences of the two genes strongly suggests the polyphyly of the Zaprionus genus group and of each of the genera Zaprionus and Phorticella. Paraphyly of the D. immigrans species group was also shown here; Keywords: the quadrilineata subgroup formed the sister clade to the genus Samoaia.
    [Show full text]
  • (Diptera: Drosophilidae) from the Neotropical Region
    786 November - December 2009 SYSTEMATICS, MORPHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY Rhinoleucophenga joaquina sp. nov. (Diptera: Drosophilidae) from the Neotropical Region HERMES J SCHMITZ1, MARCO S GOTTSCHALK2, VERA L S VALENTE1,2 1Programa de Pós-Graduação em Genética e Biologia Molecular; 2Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Animal, Lab. Drosophila. Univ. Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, C. postal 15053, Av. Bento Gonçalves 9500, Bloco B, Prédio 43323, sala 210, Agronomia, 91501-970, Porto Alegre, RS [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Edited by Marcelo Duarte – MZ/USP Neotropical Entomology 38(6):786-790 (2009) Rhinoleucophenga joaquina sp. nov. (Diptera: Drosophilidae) da Região Neotropical RESUMO - O gênero Rhinoleucophenga Hendel compreende 18 espécies nominais e possui distribuição Neotropical e Neártica. Uma nova espécie foi encontrada em coleta realizada em Florianópolis, SC, e é descrita como Rhinoleucophenga joaquina sp. nov. Os espécimes encontrados emergiram de fl ores de Dyckia encholirioides (Bromeliaceae) coletadas em região de restinga sobre dunas. Este é o primeiro registro da utilização de fl ores como sítio de oviposição para Rhinoleucophenga. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Taxonomia, nova espécie, Steganinae, Insecta, Brasil ABSTRACT - The genus Rhinoleucophenga Hendel comprises 18 nominal species and has a Neotropical and Nearctic distribution. A new species was found in a collection in Florianópolis, SC, Brazil, and is described as Rhinoleucophenga joaquina sp. nov. The specimens found were reared from fl owers of Dyckia encholirioides (Bromeliaceae), collected in a region of restinga on the dunes. The use of fl owers as breeding site for Rhinoleucophenga has never been reported before. KEY WORDS: Taxonomy, new species, Steganinae, Insecta, Brazil Rhinoleucophenga Hendel is a genus with Neotropical Material and Methods and Nearctic distribution and currently comprises 18 nominal species.
    [Show full text]
  • The New World Genus Rhinoleucophenga (Diptera: Drosophilidae): New Species and Notes on Occurrence Records
    Zootaxa 3955 (3): 349–370 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2015 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3955.3.4 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:59AECF61-9E25-46BF-955D-36DA93CC6AF9 The New World genus Rhinoleucophenga (Diptera: Drosophilidae): new species and notes on occurrence records JEAN LUCAS POPPE1, 4,6, HERMES JOSÉ SCHMITZ2,5 & VERA LÚCIA DA SILVA VALENTE1, 3, 4,5 1Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Animal, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Caixa Postal 15.053, 91501-970, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil. E-mail: [email protected] 2Universidade Federal da Integração Latino-Americana (UNILA). Av. Tancredo Neves, 6731, Bloco 4. Caixa Postal 2044, 85867-970, Foz do Iguaçu, PR, Brasil. E-mail: [email protected] 3Programa de Pós-Graduação em Genética e Biologia Molecular, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Bra- sil 4Departamento de Genética, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). Caixa Postal 15.053, 91501-970, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil 5Both authors contributed equally to the supervision of the present study 6Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The genus Rhinoleucophenga Hendel comprises 26 nominal species with New World distribution. In the present study, two new species are described from samples in the Pampa and Caatinga biomes in Brazil, R. punctuloides sp. nov. and R. trivisualis sp. nov., respectively. Rhinoleucophenga punctuloides sp. nov. is a sibling species of R. punctulata Duda. Fur- thermore, two females of R.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Population Constitution of Drosophila in South East Asia and Oceania : II
    Distribution and Population Constitution of Drosophila in South East Asia and Oceania : II. Drosophilidae in the Title Suburbs of Kuala Lumpur, West Malaysia (With 105 Text-figures and 1 Table) Author(s) TAKADA, Haruo; MOMMA, Eizi Citation 北海道大學理學部紀要, 20(1), 9-48 Issue Date 1975-10 Doc URL http://hdl.handle.net/2115/27592 Type bulletin (article) File Information 20(1)_P9-48.pdf Instructions for use Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers : HUSCAP Distribution and Population Constitution of Drosophila in South East Asia and Oceania II. Drosophilidae in the Suburbs of Kuala Lumpur, West Malaysia1) By Haruo Takada2) and Eizi Momma Zoological Institute, Hokkaido University (With 105 Text-figures and 1 Table) Many specimens of drosophilid flies were collected by net sweeping and exporsing fermenting banana baits from one of tropical rain forests Ulu Gombak, near Kuala Lumpur, West Malaysia, from July 1 to 4, and from December 16 to 18, 1972. They represent 56 species belonging to the Drosophilidae with 12 genera, excepting the Zygothrica and the Scaptodrosophila which are still examined, and one species of the allied family, Diastatidae. Most of them are new to West Malaysia including 29 new species and one unknown speices as shown in Table 1. All of the descriptions are based on a study of dry specimens (pin flies) and alcoholized specimens. All type specimens are deposited at the Biological Laboratory, Sapporo University. The authors wish to express their sincere thanks to Professor A. Retnasaba­ pathy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya; Dr. W.H. Cheong and Dr. K. Inder Singh, Institute for Medical Research, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, for giving many facilities and advices for the present study.
    [Show full text]