DOCSLIB.ORG

Taxonomy, Phylogeny and Host Relationships of the Trichodectidae

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Taxonomy, Phylogeny and Host Relationships of the Trichodectidae TAXONOMY, PHYLOGENY AND HOST RELATIONSHIPS OF THE TRICHODECTIDAE (PHTHIRAPTERA: ISCHITOCERA) by CHRISTOPHER HENRY GOUTTS LYAL, B.Sc. VOLUME 1 October 1983 A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of London and for the Diploma of Imperial College, Department of Pure and Applied Biology, Imperial College, London SN7 and Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London SM7 2 ABSTRACT The external morphology of the Phthiraptera is discussed with particular reference to the Trichodectidae. Structures of the head, thorax and abdomen are examined and homologised, most attention being given to features of potential use in systematic analysis. The homologies of the component parts of the male and female genitalia, hitherto disputed, are established. The characters used by previous workers for systematic placement of the Trichodectidae, Ischnocera, Amblycera, Rhyncophthirina, Anoplura, Phthiraptera and Psocoptera are examined, and a cladistic analysis of these groups performed. The Psocodea and Phthiraptera are found to be holophyletic but the Psocoptera are paraphyletic. The Trichodectidae, Amblycera, Rhyncophthirina and Anoplura are all holophyletic, the Rhynco- phthirina is the sister-group of the Anoplura and the Amblycera the sister-group of all other lice. The Ischnocera is not demonstrably holophyletic, and the exact placement of the Trichodectidae is not determined. A cladistic analysis of the Trichodectidae is performed and the 351 species and subspecies reclassified on the basis of this. Five subfamilies are used to partition the twenty genera employed, ten of the latter being sub-divided into twenty-seven subgenera. One subfamily, three genera and four subgenera are described as new. Three genera are placed in synonymy, eight genera and subgenera are raised from synonymy, and four genera are reduced to subgenera,. The generic placements of 106 species and subspecies are changed. Keys to subfamilies and to genera and subgenera are produced. Relationships of the mammalian hosts of the Trichodectidae are compared to the phylogeny (cladogram) of the family in order to test Fahrenholz* Rule. This Rule, which holds that host and parasite phylogenies match, is found not to be fully applicable to the Trichodectidae, and inferences are drawn for the rest of the Phthiraptera. The ecological and evolutionary aspects of louse-hpst relationships are examined to indicate possible patterns of co-evolution. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I must first thank the Director and Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) for permitting me to carry out this research and submit it for examination under the Public Research Institute Scheme. I would also like to thank Br R. G. Davies of Imperial College and Br L. A. Found and Br G. 3. Vfhite of the British Museum (Natural History) for acting as my supervisors, and for their invaluable advice during the course of the stud;/. I am very grateful to all those who have given advice and read parts of the manuscript, particularly Dr T. Clay, Dr P. S. Cranston, Mr U. R. Dolling, Mr D. Hollis, Mr A. M. Hutson, Dr I. F. Hitching, Dr R. P.- Lane, Dr A. Vi. Gentry and Mrs J. M. Palmer of the British Museum (Natural History), Dr H. B. Boudreaux of Louisiana State University and Dr B. Feming of the University of Alberta. During my visit to the United States the following people were very helpful and hospitable: Dr K. C. Emerson, Dr and Mrs K. C. Kim of Pennsylvania State University, Dr and Mrs R. D. Price of the University of Minnesota, Dr 0. Flint of the United States National Museum, Washington, Dr R. Traub and Miss H. Starcke of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Dr W. A. Drew and Dr D. Peters of Oklahoma State University. I would also like to thank Mrs J. Cranston for typing the thesis and my wife, Mrs J. Lyal, for typing the data matrix. Finally, I must thank my parents and my wife for supporting and encouraging me during the production of this thesis. 4 CONTENTS Page VOLUME 1 ABSTRACT - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 3 CONTENTS - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 I.IST OP FIGURES - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - o LIST OP TABLES - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 17 INTRODUCTION - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 18 1. MATERIALS AND METHODS - -- -- -- -- -- -- 21 1.1. Literature - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 22 1.2. Specimens - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 26 1.2.1. Introduction - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 26 1.2.2. Nature of study material - -- -- -- -- -- 26 1.2.3. Collection and preparation of specimens ------ 27 1.2.3.1. Collecting - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 27 1.2.3.2. Mounting - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 30 1.2.3.3. Observation -------------- - 32 1.3. Systematic analysis and classification ------- 33 1.3.1 • Introduction - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 33 1.3.2. Homology - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 33 1.3.3. Methods of systematic analysis --------- 42 1.3*3*1* Introduction - -- -- -- -- -- -- - 42 1.3.3.2. Methods of phyletic analysis - -- -- -- -- 44 1.3.4. Classification - -- -- -- -- -- -- - 54 1.3*4*1* Relationship of classification and systematic analysis- 54 1.3.4*2. Structure of the classification -------- 55 1.4* Character survey - -- -- -- -- -- -- - 63 1.4.1. The taxonomic character - -- -- -- -- -- 63 1.4.2. Use of characters for grouping taxa - -- -- -- 63 1.4*2.1. Choice of characters and their relative values - - - 63 1.4*2.2. Determination of polarity for phyletic analysis - - - 63 1.4.2.3* Character weighting in phyletic analysis ----- 66 1.4*2.4* Problems of complex characters — - - ----- 68 1.4.2.5* Constitutive and diagnostic characters ------ 65 1.4*3* Lata recording in this study - -- -- -- -- - 69 1.4.3.1. Procedure - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 65 1.4.3.2. Coding - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 70 5 Page 2. T'ORPHOLOGY AND CHARACTER ANALYSIS CF TRICEODECTIDAE - - - 75 2.1. Systematic position of Trichodectidae - -- -- -- 75 2.1.1. Introduction - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 75 2.1.2. Relationship of Fhthiraptera to other insects - - - - 78 2.1.2.1. Introduction - -- -- -- -- -- -- - 73 2.1.2.2. Apomorphies proposed for relevant groups of P hall one opt era - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 78 2.1.2.3. Significance of ahove characters -------- 89 2.1.2.4. Relationship of Phthiraptera to Liposcelidae - - - - co 2.1.3. Relationship of Trichodectidae to other Fhthiraptera - - 94 2.1.3.1. Introduction - -- -- -- -- -- -- - 04 2.1.3.2. Apomorphies proposed for families and supra-familial groups within the Phthiraptera - -- -- -- -- -- 05 2.1.3.3. Significance of ahove characters -------- 103 2.1.3.4. Ranking and classification - -- -- -- -- - 108 2.2. General morphology --------------110 2.2.1. Terminology - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- no 2.2.2. The head - -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- m 2.2.2.1. Introduction - -- -- -- -- -- -- - ni 2.2.2.2. Structure of the head capsule - -- -- -- --112 2.2.2.3. The tentorium - -- -- -- -- -- -- - 120 2.2.2.4. The antennae - -- -- -- -- -- -- - 121 2.2.2.5. The ocelli and compound eyes - -- -- -- -- 127 2.2.2.6. The mouthparts - -- -- -- -- -- -- -129 2.2.3. The thorax - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -137 2.2.3.1. Introduction - -- -- -- -- -- -- -137 2.2.3.2. The neck region - -- -- -- -- -- -- 137 2.2.3.3. Segments of the thorax - -- -- -- -- --137 2.2.3.4. Description of the trichodectid thorax ------ 140 2.2.3.5. Goxal articulations - -- -- -- -- -- - 142 2.2.3.6. The legs - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -142 2.2.4. The ahdomen - -- -- -- -- -- -- --148 2.2.4.1. Segmentation - -- -- -- -- -- -- - 148 2.2.4.2. Female genital and postgenital segments ----- 154 2.2.4.3. The male ahdomen - -- -- -- -- -- --166 2.2.4.4. The male genitalia - -- -- -- -- -- - 173 2.2.4.5- The tracheal system and spiracles ------- <jc-| 6 £age 2.3. Character survey of Trichodectidae - -- -- -- - qo6 2.3.1. Introduction - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- qc6 2.3.2. List of characters - -- -- -- -- -- -- -jcy 2.4. Character analysis - -- -- -- -- -- -- - 229 2.4.1. Introduction - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 229 2.4.2. Identification of apomorphic states for phyletic analysis 229 2.4.3. Cladistic analysis - -- -- -- -- -- -- 248 VOLUME 2 3. CLASSIFICATION AND TAXONOMY OF TRICHODECTIDAE ----- 264 3.1. Taxonomic history of Trichodectidae - -- -- -- - 265 3.2. Proposed classification - -- -- -- -- -- - 282 3.3. Descriptions of genera and subgenera -------- 291 3.3.1. Introduction - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 291 3.3.2. Bovicolinae - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 292 3.3.2.1. Bovicola Ewing - -- -- -- -- -- -- - 292 3.3.2.2. Genus n. '2 - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 303 3.3.2.3. Nerneckiella Eichler - -- -- -- -- -- - 305 3.3.2.4. Genus n. 3 - -- - - -- -- -- -- -- 307 3.3.2.5. Damalinia Fjttberg ------------ - 309 3.3.3. Eutrichophilinae - -- -- -- -- -- -- - 323 3.3.3.1. Eutrichophilus Mjbberg - -- -- -- -- -- 323 3.3.4. Dasyonyginae - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 327 3.3.4.1. Cebidicola Bedford - -- -- -- -- -- - 327 3.3.4.2. Procavicola Bedford - -- -- -- -- -- - 331 3.3.4.3. Frocaviphilus Bedford - -- -- -- -- -- 338 3.3.4.4. Dasyonyx Bedford - -- -- -- -- -- -- 346 3.3.4.5. Eurytrichodectes Stobbe - -- -- -- -- -- 352 3.3.5. Trichodectinae - -- -- -- -- -- -- - 354 3.3.5.1. Frotelicola Bedford - -- -- -- -- -- - 354 3.3.5.2. Lutridia Kdler - - -- -- -- -- -- -- 358 3.3.5.3. Genus n. 4-------------- - 362 3.3.5.4. Nerneckodect es Conci - -- -- -- -- -- - 364 3.3.5.5. Trichodectes Nitzsch - -- -- -- -- -- - 366 3.3.5.6. Felicola Bring - -- -- -- -- -- -- - 383 3.3.5.7. Lorisicola Bedford - -- -- -- -- -- - 357 3.3.6. Subfamily n.--------------- - 409 3.3.6.1. Neotrichodect es Ewing - -- -- -- -- -- 409 3.3-6.2. Geomydcecus Ewing ------------
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Genetic Variation Within a Broadly Distributed Chewing Louse Genus (Thomomydoecus)
    University of Northern Iowa UNI ScholarWorks Honors Program Theses Honors Program 2020 Genetic variation within a broadly distributed chewing louse genus (Thomomydoecus) Clarissa Elizabeth Bruns University of Northern Iowa Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy Copyright ©2020 Clarissa Elizabeth Bruns Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/hpt Part of the Entomology Commons, and the Genetics Commons Recommended Citation Bruns, Clarissa Elizabeth, "Genetic variation within a broadly distributed chewing louse genus (Thomomydoecus)" (2020). Honors Program Theses. 433. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/hpt/433 This Open Access Honors Program Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors Program at UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Program Theses by an authorized administrator of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GENETIC VARIATION WITHIN A BROADLY DISTRIBUTED CHEWING LOUSE GENUS (THOMOMYDOECUS) A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Designation University Honors with Distinction Clarissa Elizabeth Bruns University of Northern Iowa May 2020 This Study by: Clarissa Elizabeth Bruns Entitled: Genetic distribution within a broadly distributed chewing louse genus (Thomomydoecus) has been approved as meeting the thesis or project requirement for the Designation University Honors with Distinction ________ ______________________________________________________ Date James Demastes, Honors Thesis Advisor, Biology ________ ______________________________________________________ Date Dr. Jessica Moon, Director, University Honors Program Abstract No broad study has been conducted to examine the genetics of Thomomydoecus species and their patterns of geographic variation. Chewing lice and their parasite-host relationships with pocket gophers have been studied as a key example of cophylogeny (Demastes et al., 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • (Phthiraptera: Ischnocera), with an Overview of the Geographical Distribution of Chewing Lice Parasitizing Chicken
    European Journal of Taxonomy 685: 1–36 ISSN 2118-9773 https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2020.685 www.europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu 2020 · Gustafsson D.R. & Zou F. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). Research article urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:151B5FE7-614C-459C-8632-F8AC8E248F72 Gallancyra gen. nov. (Phthiraptera: Ischnocera), with an overview of the geographical distribution of chewing lice parasitizing chicken Daniel R. GUSTAFSSON 1,* & Fasheng ZOU 2 1 Institute of Applied Biological Resources, Xingang West Road 105, Haizhu District, Guangzhou, 510260, Guangdong, China. 2 Guangdong Key Laboratory of Animal Conservation and Resource Utilization, Guangdong Public Laboratory of Wild Animal Conservation and Utilization, Guangdong, China. * Corresponding author: [email protected] 2 Email: [email protected] 1 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:8D918E7D-07D5-49F4-A8D2-85682F00200C 2 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:A0E4F4A7-CF40-4524-AAAE-60D0AD845479 Abstract. The geographical range of the typically host-specific species of chewing lice (Phthiraptera) is often assumed to be similar to that of their hosts. We tested this assumption by reviewing the published records of twelve species of chewing lice parasitizing wild and domestic chicken, one of few bird species that occurs globally. We found that of the twelve species reviewed, eight appear to occur throughout the range of the host. This includes all the species considered to be native to wild chicken, except Oxylipeurus dentatus (Sugimoto, 1934). This species has only been reported from the native range of wild chicken in Southeast Asia and from parts of Central America and the Caribbean, where the host is introduced.
    [Show full text]
  • International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
    International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Fourth Edition adopted by the International Union of Biological Sciences The provisions of this Code supersede those of the previous editions with effect from 1 January 2000 ISBN 0 85301 006 4 The author of this Code is the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Editorial Committee W.D.L. Ride, Chairman H.G. Cogger C. Dupuis O. Kraus A. Minelli F. C. Thompson P.K. Tubbs 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 (electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise), without the prior written consent of the publisher and copyright holder. Published by The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1999 c/o The Natural History Museum - Cromwell Road - London SW7 5BD - UK © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1999 Explanatory Note This Code has been adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and has been ratified by the Executive Committee of the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS) acting on behalf of the Union's General Assembly. The Commission may authorize official texts in any language, and all such texts are equivalent in force and meaning (Article 87). The Code proper comprises the Preamble, 90 Articles (grouped in 18 Chapters) and the Glossary. Each Article consists of one or more mandatory provisions, which are sometimes accompanied by Recommendations and/or illustrative Examples. In interpreting the Code the meaning of a word or expression is to be taken as that given in the Glossary (see Article 89).
    [Show full text]
  • Full Proposal
    FUNDING APPLICATION FOR YOUNG RESEARCH TEAMS - PN-II-RU-TE-2014-4 This document uses Times New Roman font, 12 point, 1.5 line spacing and 2 cm margins. Any modification of these parameters (excepting the figures and their captions), as well as exceeding the maximum number of pages set for each section will lead to the automatic disqualification of the application. The imposed number of pages does not contain the references; these will be written on additional pages. The black text must be kept, as it marks the mandatory information and sections of the application. CUPRINS B. Project leader ................................................................................................................................. 3 B1. Important scientific achievements of the project leader ............................................................ 3 B2. Curriculum vitae ........................................................................................................................ 5 B3. Defining elements of the remarkable scientific achievements of the project leader ................. 7 B3.1 The list of the most important scientific publications from 2004-2014 period ................... 7 B3.2. The autonomy and visibility of the scientific activity. ....................................................... 9 C.Project description ....................................................................................................................... 11 C1. Problems. ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • (Mallophaga: Trichodectidae) from the Introduced Fallow Deer to the Columbian Black-Tailed Deer in California
    J. Med. Ent. Vol. 13, no. 2: 169-173 10 September 1976 TRANSFER OF BOVICOLA TIBIALIS (PIAGET) (MALLOPHAGA: TRICHODECTIDAE) FROM THE INTRODUCED FALLOW DEER TO THE COLUMBIAN BLACK-TAILED DEER IN CALIFORNIA By Dale R. Westrom1, Bernard C. Nelson24 and Guy E. Connolly3 Abstract: Bovicola tibialis (Piaget), a louse parasite of the known in the family Boopidae that was not found European Fallow Deer, was found infesting 3 Columbian exclusively on marsupials. In 1971 Clay described Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jme/article/13/2/169/2219257 by guest on 28 September 2021 Black-tailed Deer at Hopland Field Station, Mendocino Co., California. In 19(55, Fallow Deer were introduced onto the a new genus and species of boopid from the avian Station and were kept in an experimental pasture with Black- host Casuarius casuarius sclaterii Salvadori, indicating tailed Deer. Transfer of lice presumably occurred by direct that an interclass transfer of lice had occurred. contact between the 2 species of deer as they congregated at a feeder within the pasture, and subsequent transfers among Most examples of secondary infestation given by Black-tailed Deer accounted for the infestations reported herein. the above authors indicate that these occurred As no males were found among the 18,148 specimens collected, naturally. We conclude that lice, in like manner we suggest that parthenogenetic. reproduction occurs in B. to free-living animals, have the opportunities and tibialis. abilities to colonize new habitats. Colonizing species Although lice of the order Mallophaga are of lice are subject to the same hazards that free- usually considered extremely host-specific ecto- living colonizers face when entering into new areas parasites of birds and mammals, examples exist and habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • BÖCEKLERİN SINIFLANDIRILMASI (Takım Düzeyinde)
    BÖCEKLERİN SINIFLANDIRILMASI (TAKIM DÜZEYİNDE) GÖKHAN AYDIN 2016 Editör : Gökhan AYDIN Dizgi : Ziya ÖNCÜ ISBN : 978-605-87432-3-6 Böceklerin Sınıflandırılması isimli eğitim amaçlı hazırlanan bilgisayar programı için lütfen aşağıda verilen linki tıklayarak programı ücretsiz olarak bilgisayarınıza yükleyin. http://atabeymyo.sdu.edu.tr/assets/uploads/sites/76/files/siniflama-05102016.exe Eğitim Amaçlı Bilgisayar Programı ISBN: 978-605-87432-2-9 İçindekiler İçindekiler i Önsöz vi 1. Protura - Coneheads 1 1.1 Özellikleri 1 1.2 Ekonomik Önemi 2 1.3 Bunları Biliyor musunuz? 2 2. Collembola - Springtails 3 2.1 Özellikleri 3 2.2 Ekonomik Önemi 4 2.3 Bunları Biliyor musunuz? 4 3. Thysanura - Silverfish 6 3.1 Özellikleri 6 3.2 Ekonomik Önemi 7 3.3 Bunları Biliyor musunuz? 7 4. Microcoryphia - Bristletails 8 4.1 Özellikleri 8 4.2 Ekonomik Önemi 9 5. Diplura 10 5.1 Özellikleri 10 5.2 Ekonomik Önemi 10 5.3 Bunları Biliyor musunuz? 11 6. Plocoptera – Stoneflies 12 6.1 Özellikleri 12 6.2 Ekonomik Önemi 12 6.3 Bunları Biliyor musunuz? 13 7. Embioptera - webspinners 14 7.1 Özellikleri 15 7.2 Ekonomik Önemi 15 7.3 Bunları Biliyor musunuz? 15 8. Orthoptera–Grasshoppers, Crickets 16 8.1 Özellikleri 16 8.2 Ekonomik Önemi 16 8.3 Bunları Biliyor musunuz? 17 i 9. Phasmida - Walkingsticks 20 9.1 Özellikleri 20 9.2 Ekonomik Önemi 21 9.3 Bunları Biliyor musunuz? 21 10. Dermaptera - Earwigs 23 10.1 Özellikleri 23 10.2 Ekonomik Önemi 24 10.3 Bunları Biliyor musunuz? 24 11. Zoraptera 25 11.1 Özellikleri 25 11.2 Ekonomik Önemi 25 11.3 Bunları Biliyor musunuz? 26 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Phthiraptera: Trichodectidae): Occurrence of an Exotic Chewing Louse on Cervids in North America
    SAMPLING,DISTRIBUTION,DISPERSAL Bovicola tibialis (Phthiraptera: Trichodectidae): Occurrence of an Exotic Chewing Louse on Cervids in North America JAMES W. MERTINS,1 JACK A. MORTENSON,2,3 JEFFREY A. BERNATOWICZ,4 5 AND P. BRIGGS HALL J. Med. Entomol. 48(1): 1Ð12 (2011); DOI: 10.1603/ME10057 ABSTRACT Through a recent (2003Ð2007) survey of ectoparasites on hoofed mammals in western North America, a literature review, and examination of archived museum specimens, we found that the exotic deer-chewing louse, Bovicola tibialis (Piaget), is a long-term, widespread resident in the region. The earliest known collection was from Salt Spring Island, Canada, in 1941. We found these lice on the typical host, that is, introduced European fallow deer (Dama dama L.), and on Asian chital (Axis axis [Erxleben]), native Columbian black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus [Ri- chardson]), and Rocky Mountain mule deer (O. h. hemionus [RaÞnesque]) ϫ black-tailed deer hybrids. Chital and the hybrid deer are new host records. All identiÞed hosts were known to be or probably were exposed to fallow deer. Geographic records include southwestern British Columbia, Canada; Marin and Mendocino Counties, California; Deschutes, Lincoln, and Linn Counties, Oregon; Yakima and Kittitas Counties, Washington; Curry County, New Mexico; and circumstantially, at least, Kerr County, Texas. All but the Canadian and Mendocino County records are new. Bovicola tibialis displays a number of noteworthy similarities to another exotic deer-chewing louse already established in the region, that is, Damalinia (Cervicola) sp., which is associated with a severe hair-loss syndrome in black-tailed deer. We discuss longstanding problems with proper identiÞcation of B.
    [Show full text]
  • Türleri Chewing Lice (Phthiraptera)
    Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg RESEARCH ARTICLE 17 (5): 787-794, 2011 DOI:10.9775/kvfd.2011.4469 Chewing lice (Phthiraptera) Found on Wild Birds in Turkey Bilal DİK * Elif ERDOĞDU YAMAÇ ** Uğur USLU * * Selçuk University, Veterinary Faculty, Department of Parasitology, Alaeddin Keykubat Kampusü, TR-42075 Konya - TURKEY ** Anadolu University, Faculty of Science, Department of Biology, TR-26470 Eskişehir - TURKEY Makale Kodu (Article Code): KVFD-2011-4469 Summary This study was performed to detect chewing lice on some birds investigated in Eskişehir and Konya provinces in Central Anatolian Region of Turkey between 2008 and 2010 years. For this aim, 31 bird specimens belonging to 23 bird species which were injured or died were examined for the louse infestation. Firstly, the feathers of each bird were inspected macroscopically, all observed louse specimens were collected and then the examined birds were treated with a synthetic pyrethroid spray (Biyo avispray-Biyoteknik®). The collected lice were placed into the tubes with 70% alcohol and mounted on slides with Canada balsam after being cleared in KOH 10%. Then the collected chewing lice were identified under the light microscobe. Eleven out of totally 31 (35.48%) birds were found to be infested with at least one chewing louse species. Eighteen lice species were found belonging to 16 genera on infested birds. Thirteen of 18 lice species; Actornithophilus piceus piceus (Denny, 1842); Anaticola phoenicopteri (Coincide, 1859); Anatoecus pygaspis (Nitzsch, 1866); Colpocephalum heterosoma Piaget, 1880; C. polonum Eichler and Zlotorzycka, 1971; Fulicoffula lurida (Nitzsch, 1818); Incidifrons fulicia (Linnaeus, 1758); Meromenopon meropis Clay ve Meinertzhagen, 1941; Meropoecus meropis (Denny, 1842); Pseudomenopon pilosum (Scopoli, 1763); Rallicola fulicia (Denny, 1842); Saemundssonia lari Fabricius, O, 1780), and Trinoton femoratum Piaget, 1889 have been recorded from Turkey for the first time.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying British Insects and Arachnids: an Annotated Bibliography of Key Works Edited by Peter C
    Cambridge University Press 0521632412 - Identifying British Insects and Arachnids: An Annotated Bibliography of Key Works Edited by Peter C. Barnard Index More information Index This index includes all the higher taxonomic categories mentioned in the book, from orders down to families, but page numbers are given only for the main occurrences of those names. It therefore also acts as a complete alphabetic list of the higher taxa of British insects and arachnids (except for the numerous families of mites). Acalyptratae 173, 188 Anyphaenidae 327 Acanthosomatidae 55 Aphelinidae 198, 293, 308 Acari 320, 330 Aphelocheiridae 55 Acartophthalmidae 173, 191 Aphididae 56, 62 Acerentomidae 23 Aphidoidea 56, 61 Acrididae 39 Aphrophoridae 56 Acroceridae 172, 180, 181 Apidae 198, 217 Aculeata 197, 206 Apioninae 83, 134 Adelgidae 56, 62, 64 Apocrita 197, 198, 206, 227 Adelidae 146 Apoidea 198, 214 Adephaga 82, 91 Arachnida 320 Aderidae 83, 126, 127 Aradidae 55 Aeolothripidae 52 Araneae 320, 326 Aepophilidae 55 Araneidae 327 Aeshnidae 31 Araneomorphae 327 Agelenidae 327 Archaeognatha 21, 25, 26 Agromyzidae 173, 188, 193 Arctiidae 146, 162 Alexiidae 83 Argidae 197, 201 Aleyrodidae 56, 67, 68 Argyronetidae 327 Aleyrodoidea 56, 66 Arthropleona 22 Alucitidae 146 Aschiza 173, 184 Alucitoidea 146 Asilidae 172, 180, 181, 182 Alydidae 55, 58 Asiloidea 172, 181 Amaurobiidae 327 Asilomorpha 172, 180, 182 Amblycera 48 Asteiidae 173, 189 Anisolabiidae 41 Asterolecaniidae 56, 70 Anisopodidae 172, 175, 177 Atelestidae 172, 183, 185 Anisopodoidea 172 Athericidae 172, 181 Anisoptera 31 Attelabidae 83, 134 Anobiidae 82, 119 Atypidae 327 Anoplura 48 Auchenorrhyncha 54, 55, 59 Anthicidae 83, 90, 126 Aulacidae 198, 228 Anthocoridae 55, 57, 58 Aulacigastridae 173, 192 Anthomyiidae 173, 174, 186, 187 Anthomyzidae 173, 188 Baetidae 28 Anthribidae 83, 88, 133, 134 Beraeidae 142 © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521632412 - Identifying British Insects and Arachnids: An Annotated Bibliography of Key Works Edited by Peter C.
    [Show full text]
  • Folk Taxonomy, Nomenclature, Medicinal and Other Uses, Folklore, and Nature Conservation Viktor Ulicsni1* , Ingvar Svanberg2 and Zsolt Molnár3
    Ulicsni et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2016) 12:47 DOI 10.1186/s13002-016-0118-7 RESEARCH Open Access Folk knowledge of invertebrates in Central Europe - folk taxonomy, nomenclature, medicinal and other uses, folklore, and nature conservation Viktor Ulicsni1* , Ingvar Svanberg2 and Zsolt Molnár3 Abstract Background: There is scarce information about European folk knowledge of wild invertebrate fauna. We have documented such folk knowledge in three regions, in Romania, Slovakia and Croatia. We provide a list of folk taxa, and discuss folk biological classification and nomenclature, salient features, uses, related proverbs and sayings, and conservation. Methods: We collected data among Hungarian-speaking people practising small-scale, traditional agriculture. We studied “all” invertebrate species (species groups) potentially occurring in the vicinity of the settlements. We used photos, held semi-structured interviews, and conducted picture sorting. Results: We documented 208 invertebrate folk taxa. Many species were known which have, to our knowledge, no economic significance. 36 % of the species were known to at least half of the informants. Knowledge reliability was high, although informants were sometimes prone to exaggeration. 93 % of folk taxa had their own individual names, and 90 % of the taxa were embedded in the folk taxonomy. Twenty four species were of direct use to humans (4 medicinal, 5 consumed, 11 as bait, 2 as playthings). Completely new was the discovery that the honey stomachs of black-coloured carpenter bees (Xylocopa violacea, X. valga)were consumed. 30 taxa were associated with a proverb or used for weather forecasting, or predicting harvests. Conscious ideas about conserving invertebrates only occurred with a few taxa, but informants would generally refrain from harming firebugs (Pyrrhocoris apterus), field crickets (Gryllus campestris) and most butterflies.
    [Show full text]
  • Elephant Bibliography Elephant Editors
    Elephant Volume 2 | Issue 3 Article 17 12-20-1987 Elephant Bibliography Elephant Editors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/elephant Recommended Citation Shoshani, J. (Ed.). (1987). Elephant Bibliography. Elephant, 2(3), 123-143. Doi: 10.22237/elephant/1521732144 This Elephant Bibliography is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at DigitalCommons@WayneState. It has been accepted for inclusion in Elephant by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@WayneState. Fall 1987 ELEPHANT BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1980 - PRESENT 123 ELEPHANT BIBLIOGRAPHY With the publication of this issue we have on file references for the past 68 years, with a total of 2446 references. Because of the technical problems and lack of time, we are publishing only references for 1980-1987; the rest (1920-1987) will appear at a later date. The references listed below were retrieved from different sources: Recent Literature of Mammalogy (published by the American Society of Mammalogists), Computer Bibliographic Search Services (CCBS, the same used in previous issues), books in our office, EIG questionnaires, publications and other literature crossing the editors' desks. This Bibliography does not include references listed in the Bibliographies of previous issues of Elephant. A total of 217 new references has been added in this issue. Most of the references were compiled on a computer using a special program developed by Gary L. King; the efforts of the King family have been invaluable. The references retrieved from the computer search may have been slightly altered. These alterations may be in the author's own title, hyphenation and word segmentation or translation into English of foreign titles.
    [Show full text]
  • THE LIFE HISTORY and COMPARATIVE INFESTATIONS of POLYPLAX SPINULOSA (BURMEISTER) on NORMAL and RIBOFLAVIN-DEFICIENT RATS : Prese
    THE LIFE HISTORY AND COMPARATIVE INFESTATIONS OF POLYPLAX SPINULOSA (BURMEISTER) ON NORMAL AND RIBOFLAVIN-DEFICIENT RATS dissertation : Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy In the Graduate School of The Ohio State University 3y DEFIELD TROLLINGER HOLMES,, B. Sc., M; Sc. The Ohio State University 1958 Approved by BriLd: Adviser Department of Zoology and Entomology ACKNOWLEDGMENTS X would like to make special acknowledgment to my adviser, Dr. C. E. Venard, Department of Zoology and Entomology, The Ohio State University, for his understanding encouragement and oontlnued assistance and stimulation throughout this research. Thanks are also due to Dr. D. M. DeLong and Dr. F. W. Fisk, also of this department, for the contribution of materials when needed; to Mr. Fhelton Simmons of the Columbus Health Department for kindly contributing rats from various areas In Columbus; to Mr. William W. Barnes and Mr. Roger Meola for technical assistance. Finally, I wish to express sincere appreciation to my wife, Ophelia, for her patience and enoouragement throughout this research and for her aid In the preparation and typing of this material. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pag© Introduction .............................................. 1 Historical Review and Taxonomy .................. .... 6 Materials and Methods .....................................14 Life History ........................... .22 Incubation Period of the E g g ....................... 23 First Stage Nymph ....................................26 Second
    [Show full text]