DOCSLIB.ORG

The Northern Fur Seal Bibliography

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Northern Fur Seal Bibliography The Northern Fur Seal Bibliography Erin Cheever, Librarian, NOAA Central Library Sonja Kromann, National Marine Mammal Laboratory Library NCRL subject guide 2019-08 https://doi.org/10.25923/32xp-j137 December 2019 U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research NOAA Central Library – Silver Spring, Maryland Table of Contents Background & Scope ................................................................................................................................. 3 Sources Reviewed ..................................................................................................................................... 3 References ................................................................................................................................................ 4 2 Background & Scope The goal of this bibliography is to update 2006’s The Northern Fur Seal (Callorhinus ursinus): A Bibliography, published as AFSC Processed Report 2006-05. This bibliography is intended to provide a review of the scientific literature from 2006 to the present. The starting point for compiling this review was an EndNote library provided by Sonja Kromann of the National Marine Mammal Laboratory. The listed sources are organized alphabetically by the lead author’s last name. “Northern fur seals are members of the ‘eared seal’ family (Otariidae). Northern fur seals, like all marine mammals, are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The Pribilof Islands/eastern Pacific stock is listed as depleted under the MMPA. In 1988, the Pribilof Islands population was designated as a depleted stock under the MMPA because it had declined by more than 50 percent from its estimated population of 2.1 million seals in the 1950s. Trends in abundance since the designation of the eastern Pacific stock are different for individual islands and even breeding areas.” - NMFS Sources Reviewed The following databases were used to identify sources: Science Direct, Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Science Index; EBSCO Academic Search Complete and Environment Complete; ProQuest Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts; NOAA Institutional Repository; BioDiversity Heritage Library; BioOne Complete; and JSTOR. 3 References Aalderink, M. T., Nguyen, H. P., Kass, P. H., Arzi, B., & Verstraete, F. J. M. (2015). Dental and Temporomandibular Joint Pathology of the Northern Fur Seal (Callorhinus ursinus). Journal of Comparative Pathology, 152(4), 325-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpa.2015.02.002 Skulls from 145 northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) were examined macroscopically according to predefined criteria. The museum specimens were acquired from strandings along the west coast of the USA between 1896 and 2008. Seventy-one skulls (49.0%) were from male animals, 56 (38.6%) from female animals and 18 (12.4%) from animals of unknown sex. Their age varied from juvenile to adult, with 58 adult animals (40.0%) and 87 juvenile animals (60.0%). The majority of teeth were available for examination (95.1%); 3.4% of teeth were artefactually absent, 0.8% were deemed absent due to acquired tooth loss and 0.6% were deemed congenitally absent. Males were no more likely than females to have either acquired tooth loss (P = 0.054) or congenitally absent teeth (P = 0.919). Adults had significantly more acquired tooth loss than juveniles (P = 0.0099). Malformations were seen in 11 teeth (0.2% of all 4,699 teeth available for examination). Two roots, instead of the typical one root, were found on 14 teeth (0.3%). Supernumerary teeth were associated with 14 normal teeth (0.3%) in eight specimens (5.5% of the total number of specimens). A total of 22 persistent deciduous teeth were found, 19 of which were associated with the maxillary canine teeth. Attrition/abrasion was seen on 194 teeth (3.9%); the canine teeth were most often affected, accounting for 39.7% of all abraded teeth. Adults were found to have a greater prevalence of abraded teeth than juveniles (P < 0.0001). No significant difference was found in the appearance of attrition/abrasion between males and females (P = 0.072). Tooth fractures were found in 24 specimens (16.6%), affecting a total of 54 teeth (1.1%). Periapical lesions were found in two skulls (1.4%). None of the specimens showed signs of enamel hypoplasia. About a fifth (18.6%) of alveoli, either with or without teeth, showed signs of alveolar bony changes consistent with periodontitis. A total of 108 specimens (74.5%) had at least one tooth associated with mild periodontitis. Lesions consistent with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ- OA) were found in 29 specimens (20.0%). Both periodontal disease and TMJ-OA were significantly more common in adults than in juveniles (P < 0.0001). Periodontitis was found to be more common in males than in females (P < 0.012). Although the significance of the high incidence of periodontitis and TMJ-OA in the northern fur seal remains unknown, the occurrence and severity of these diseases found in this study may play an important role in this species morbidity and mortality. Adamantopoulou, S., Androukaki, E., Dendrinos, P., Kotomatas, S., Paravas, V., Psaradellis, M., . Karamanlidis, A. A. (2011). Movements of Mediterranean Monk Seals (Monachus monachus) in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. Aquatic Mammals, 37(3), 256-261. https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.37.3.2011.256 Pinnipeds (the carnivorans in the families Otariidae, Odobenidae, and Phocidae) are mammals that spend their lives in both terrestrial and aquatic envi-ronments; thoroughly studying activity patterns in both environments is essential to fully understand their biology and consequently to define effective management and conservation actions (Harwood & Croxall, 1988; Thompson, 1989; Thompson et al., 2001). Studying individual activity patterns of seals at sea (i.e., estimating movements, calculating dive depth, identifying feeding locations, etc.) has relied mainly on telemetry and tagging; both methodolo- gies have been applied successfully for a wide range of geographical locations and species (e.g., Grey seals [Halichoerus grypus], McConnell et al., 1999; Hooded seals [Cystophora cristata], Hammill, 1993; 4 Northern fur seals [Callorhinus ursinus], Ream et al., 2005; South African fur seals [Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus], Oosthuizen, en, 1991; Southern elephant seals [Mirounga leonina], McConnell et al., 2002; Bester, 2006) and also included endangered species such as the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi; Henderson & Johanos, 1988; Parrish et al., 2002). Adams, G. P., Ward Testa, J., Goertz, C. E. C., Ream, R. R., & Sterling, J. T. (2007). Ultrasonographic Characterization of Reproductive Anatomy and Early Embryonic Detection in the Northern Fur Seal (Callorhinus ursinus) in the Field. Marine Mammal Science, 23(2), 445-452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2007.00104.x The article presents a study on the characterization of reproductive anatomy and early embryonic detection in the northern fur seal or Callorhinus ursinus using ultrasonography in Saint Paul Island, Alaska. The study's aim is to determine the feasibility of transrectal ultrasonography for assessing the reproductive status of female northern fur seals in the wild and to provide preliminary description of the reproductive tract and early embryo in situ. Subjects used were female northern fur seals of adult size, where ultrasonography was performed by an experienced operator with the use of a portable ultrasound unit. An overview of the results of the study is offered. Allen, B. M., & Angliss, R. P. (2012). Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2011. National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2011.pdf On 30 April 1994, Public Law 103-238 was enacted allowing significant changes to provisions within the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Interactions between marine mammals and commercial fisheries are addressed under three new sections. This new regime replaced the interim exemption that has regulated fisheries-related incidental takes since 1988. Section 117, Stock Assessments, required the establishment of three regional scientific review groups to advise and report on the status of marine mammal stocks within Alaska waters, along the Pacific Coast (including Hawaii), and the Atlantic Coast (including the Gulf of Mexico). This report provides information on the marine mammal stocks of Alaska under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Each stock assessment includes, when available, a description of the stock’s geographic range, a minimum population estimate, current population trends, current and maximum net productivity rates, optimum sustainable population levels and allowable removal levels, and estimates of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury through interactions with commercial fisheries and subsistence hunters. These data will be used to evaluate the progress of each fishery towards achieving the MMPA’s goal of zero fishery-related mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. Allen, B. M., & Angliss, R. P. (2013). Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2012. National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Fisheries Science Center. NMFS-AFSC-245. Retrieved from https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/4379 On 30 April 1994, Public Law 103-238 was enacted allowing significant changes to provisions within the Marine Mammal Protection
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alaska Sea Lions and Seals
    Alaska Sea Lions and Seals Blaire, Kate, Donovan, & Alex Biodiversity of Alaska 18 June 2017 https://www.stlzoo.org/files/3913/6260/5731/Sea-lion_RogerBrandt.jpg Similarities & Differences of Sea Lions and Seals Phocidae Family Otariidae Family cannot rotate back can rotate back flippers flippers; move like a marine under themselves to walk caterpillar on land mammals and run on land no external earflaps pinniped, “fin external earflaps footed” in use back flippers for Latin use front flippers for power when swimming power when swimming preyed upon by polar use front flippers for use back flippers for bears, orcas, steering when swimming steering when swimming and sharks food: krill, fish, lobster, food: squid, octopus, birds birds, and fish claws and fur on front no claws or hair on front flippers flippers Seals ("What’s the Difference “ 2017) Sea Lions Evolution • Both seals and sea lions are Pinnipeds • Descended from one ancestral line • Belong to order carnivora • Closest living relatives are bears and musteloids (diverged 50 million years ago) http://what-when-how.com/marine-mammals/pinniped-evolution- (Churchill 2015) marine-mammals/ http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-04/24/content_7710231.htm Phylogenetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinniped Steller: Eumetopias jubatus http://www.arkive.org/stellers-sea-lion/eumetopias-jubatus/image-G62602.html Steller: Eumetopias jubatus • Classification (”Steller Sea Lion” 2017) Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mamalia Order: Carnivora Family: Otarridae Genus: Eumetopias Species:
    [Show full text]
  • The Structure-Function Relationship of the Lung of the Australian Sea Lion Neophoca Cinerea
    The Structure-Function Relationship of the Lung of the Australian Sea Liont Neophoc e clnerea by Anthony Nicholson B.V.Sc. A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of PhilosoPhY' Department of PathologY' UniversitY of Adelaide February 1984 Frontispiece: Group of four adull female Australian sea lions basking in the sun at Seal Bay, Kangaroo Island. ËF:æ: oo',,, 'å¡ -*-d, l--- --a - .¡* É--- .-\tb.<¡- <} b' \ .ltl '' 4 qÙ CONTENTS Page List of Figures X List of Tables xi Abstract XIV Declaration XV Acknowledge m ents I I. Introduction Chapter \ I I.I Classification of Marine Mammals I I.2', Distribution of Australian Pinnipeds 2 I.3 Diving CaPabilitY 3 PhYsiologY 1.4 Diving 4 Cardiovascular SYstem ' l'.4.I B I.4.2 OxYgen Stores 1l L.4.3 BiochemicalAdaPtations L3 I.4.4 PulmonarYFunction I.4.5 Effects oi Incteased Hydrostatic Pressure T6 l-8 1.5 SummarY and Aims 20 Chapter 2. Materials and Methods 20 ?.I Specimen Collection 2I 2.2 Lung Fixation 2I 2.3 Lung Votume Determination 22 2.4 Parasite Collection and Incubation 22 2.5 M icroscoPY 22 2.5.I Light MicroscoPY Electron Microscopy 23 2..5.2 Trãnsmission 23 2.5.3 Scanning ElectronMicroscopy 25 Chapter 5. Norm al ResPiratorY Structure 25 t.r Introduction 25 Mam maI Respiratory System 3.2 Terrestrial 25 1.2.I MacroscoPtc 27 3.2.2 MicroscoPic 27 SYstem 3.3 Pinniped ResPiratorY 27 3.3.I MacroscoPic 28 3.3.2 MicroscoPic 3I 3.4 Results 3I 1.4.L MacroscoPic 32 3.4.2 MicroscoPic 7B 3.5 Discussion 7B 3.5.I MacroscoPtc 79 3.5.2 MicroscoPic 92 3.6 SummarY IV Page Chapter 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Mammals of Hudson Strait the Following Marine Mammals Are Common to Hudson Strait, However, Other Species May Also Be Seen
    Marine Mammals of Hudson Strait The following marine mammals are common to Hudson Strait, however, other species may also be seen. It’s possible for marine mammals to venture outside of their common habitats and may be seen elsewhere. Bowhead Whale Length: 13-19 m Appearance: Stocky, with large head. Blue-black body with white markings on the chin, belly and just forward of the tail. No dorsal fin or ridge. Two blow holes, no teeth, has baleen. Behaviour: Blow is V-shaped and bushy, reaching 6 m in height. Often alone but sometimes in groups of 2-10. Habitat: Leads and cracks in pack ice during winter and in open water during summer. Status: Special concern Beluga Whale Length: 4-5 m Appearance: Adults are almost entirely white with a tough dorsal ridge and no dorsal fin. Young are grey. Behaviour: Blow is low and hardly visible. Not much of the body is visible out of the water. Found in small groups, but sometimes hundreds to thousands during annual migrations. Habitat: Found in open water year-round. Prefer shallow coastal water during summer and water near pack ice in winter. Killer Whale Status: Endangered Length: 8-9 m Appearance: Black body with white throat, belly and underside and white spot behind eye. Triangular dorsal fin in the middle of the back. Male dorsal fin can be up to 2 m in high. Behaviour: Blow is tall and column shaped; approximately 4 m in height. Narwhal Typically form groups of 2-25. Length: 4-5 m Habitat: Coastal water and open seas, often in water less than 200 m depth.
    [Show full text]
  • Respiratory Turbinates of Canids and Felids: a Quantitative Comparison
    J. Zool., Lond. (2004) 264, 281–293 C 2004 The Zoological Society of London Printed in the United Kingdom DOI:10.1017/S0952836904005771 Respiratory turbinates of canids and felids: a quantitative comparison Blaire Van Valkenburgh1*, Jessica Theodor 2, Anthony Friscia1, Ari Pollack1 and Timothy Rowe3 1 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1606, U.S.A. 2 Department of Geology, Illinois State Museum, 1011 East Ash Street, Springfield, IL 62703, U.S.A. 3 Department of Geological Sciences, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, U.S.A. (Accepted 31 March 2004) Abstract The respiratory turbinates of mammals are complex bony plates within the nasal chamber that are covered with moist epithelium and provide an extensive surface area for the exchange of heat and water. Given their functional importance, maxilloturbinate size and structure are expected to vary predictably among species adapted to different environments. Here the first quantitative analysis is provided of maxilloturbinate structure based on high-resolution computed tomography (CT) scans of the skulls of eight canid and seven felid species. The key parameters examined were the density of the maxilloturbinate bones within the nasal chamber and how that density varied along the air pathway. In both canids and felids, total maxilloturbinate chamber volume and bone volume increased with body size, with canids having c. 1.5–2.0 times the volume of maxilloturbinate than felids of similar size. In all species, the volume of the maxilloturbinates varies from rostral to caudal, with the peak volume occurring approximately midway, close to where airway cross-sectional area is greatest.
    [Show full text]
  • Trapping Regulations You May Trap Wildlife for Subsistence Uses Only Within the Seasons and Harvest Limits in These Unit Trapping Regulations
    Trapping Regulations You may trap wildlife for subsistence uses only within the seasons and harvest limits in these unit trapping regulations. Trapping wildlife out of season or in excess of harvest limits for subsistence uses is illegal and prohibited. However, you may trap unclassified wildlife (such as all squirrel and marmot species) in all units, without harvest limits, from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2016. Subsistence Trapping Restrictions When taking wildlife for subsistence purposes, ● Take (or assist in the taking of) furbearers by firearm trappers may not: before 3:00 a.m. on the day following the day on which airborne travel occurred. This does not apply to a ● Disturb or destroy a den (except any muskrat pushup trapper using a firearm to dispatch furbearers caught in or feeding house that may be disturbed in the course of a trap or snare. trapping). ● Use a net or fish trap (except a blackfish or fyke trap). ● Disturb or destroy any beaver house. ● Use a firearm other than a shotgun, muzzle-loaded ● Take beaver by any means other than a steel trap or rifle, rifle or pistol using center-firing cartridges, for the snare, except certain times of the year when firearms taking of a wolf or wolverine, except that: may be used to take beaver in Units 9, 12, 17, 18, 20E, ■ You may use a firearm that shoots rimfire 21E, 22 and 23. See Unit-specific regulations. cartridges to take wolf and wolverine under a ● Under a trapping license, take a free-ranging furbearer trapping license. You may sell the raw fur or tanned with a firearm on NPS lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploitation of Fur Seals and Sea Lions from Australian, New Zealand and Adjacent Subantarctic Islands During the Eighteenth, Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries
    Exploitation of fur seals and sea lions from Australian, New Zealand and adjacent subantarctic islands during the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries John K. Ling P.O. Box 271, Clare, South Australia 5459 ABSTRACT Details of skin cargoes of fur seal Arctocephalus spp. and sea lion Neophoca cinerea and Phocarctos hookeri, originating from southern Australia, New Zealand and the adjacent subantarctic islands in the lath, 19th and 20th centuries have been collated from several secondary historicsl sources. These sources quoted quantities of skins in terms of actual tallied numbers, as untallied "cargoes" or as casks, sacks or bundles. Untallied cargoes were Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/australian-zoologist/article-pdf/31/2/323/1473420/az_1999_036.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 converted into numbers by averaging tallied cargoes; and casks, sacks and bundles were arbitrarily deemed to contain 40, 20 and 5 skins respectively. Annual and total yields of skins are presented for ten separate areas in the region: Bass Strait, King Island, Kangaroo Island. Western Australia, New Zealand, Bounty Islands, Auckland Islands, Antipodes Islands. Campbell Island and Macquarie island. At least 1 367 000 fur seal skins were harvested between 1792 and 1948149 in the whole of the Australasian region. More than 1309 000 skins - 96% of the total - were taken up to 1830. Records indicate that only about 4 100 Neophoca and 5 800 Phocarctos were obtained from their respective areas. These figures must be regarded as minimal, as it is likely thatmany cargoes were obtained by English, American and French vessels and shipped directly to European or Asian markets.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Impacts and Potential Mitigation for Icebreaking Vessels MARK Transiting Pupping Areas of an Ice-Breeding Seal
    Biological Conservation 214 (2017) 213–222 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Assessment of impacts and potential mitigation for icebreaking vessels MARK transiting pupping areas of an ice-breeding seal ⁎ Susan C. Wilsona, , Irina Trukhanovab, Lilia Dmitrievac, Evgeniya Dolgovad, Imogen Crawforda, Mirgaliy Baimukanove, Timur Baimukanove, Bekzat Ismagambetove, Meirambek Pazylbekovf, ⁎ Mart Jüssig, Simon J. Goodmanc, a Tara Seal Research, Killyleagh, Co. Down, N. Ireland, UK b Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, USA c School of Biology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK d Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russian Federation e Institute of Hydrobiology & Ecology, Karasaysky Raion, Almaty, Kazakhstan f Institute of Fisheries, Almaty, Kazakhstan g Pro Mare MTÜ, Saula, Kose, Harjumaa EE 75101, Estonia ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Icebreaker operations in the Arctic and other areas are increasing rapidly to support new industrial activities and Caspian Sea shipping routes, but the impact on pinnipeds in these habitats is poorly explored. We present the first quantitative Pinniped study of icebreakers transiting ice-breeding habitat of a phocid seal and recommendations for mitigation. Impacts Marine mammal were recorded from the vessel bridge during seven ice seasons 2006–2013, for Caspian seals (Pusa caspica) Ship strikes breeding on the winter ice-field of the Caspian Sea. Impacts included displacement and separation of mothers and Aerial survey pups, breakage of birth or nursery sites and vessel-seal collisions. The flight distance of mothers with pups ahead Conservation was < 100 m, but measurable disturbance occurred at distances exceeding 200 m.
    [Show full text]
  • 56. Otariidae and Phocidae
    FAUNA of AUSTRALIA 56. OTARIIDAE AND PHOCIDAE JUDITH E. KING 1 Australian Sea-lion–Neophoca cinerea [G. Ross] Southern Elephant Seal–Mirounga leonina [G. Ross] Ross Seal, with pup–Ommatophoca rossii [J. Libke] Australian Sea-lion–Neophoca cinerea [G. Ross] Weddell Seal–Leptonychotes weddellii [P. Shaughnessy] New Zealand Fur-seal–Arctocephalus forsteri [G. Ross] Crab-eater Seal–Lobodon carcinophagus [P. Shaughnessy] 56. OTARIIDAE AND PHOCIDAE DEFINITION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION Pinnipeds are aquatic carnivores. They differ from other mammals in their streamlined shape, reduction of pinnae and adaptation of both fore and hind feet to form flippers. In the skull, the orbits are enlarged, the lacrimal bones are absent or indistinct and there are never more than three upper and two lower incisors. The cheek teeth are nearly homodont and some conditions of the ear that are very distinctive (Repenning 1972). Both superfamilies of pinnipeds, Phocoidea and Otarioidea, are represented in Australian waters by a number of species (Table 56.1). The various superfamilies and families may be distinguished by important and/or easily observed characters (Table 56.2). King (1983b) provided more detailed lists and references. These and other differences between the above two groups are not regarded as being of great significance, especially as an undoubted fur seal (Australian Fur-seal Arctocephalus pusillus) is as big as some of the sea lions and has some characters of the skull, teeth and behaviour which are rather more like sea lions (Repenning, Peterson & Hubbs 1971; Warneke & Shaughnessy 1985). The Phocoidea includes the single Family Phocidae – the ‘true seals’, distinguished from the Otariidae by the absence of a pinna and by the position of the hind flippers (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Mammal Species Native to the USA and Canada for Which the MIL Has an Image (296) 31 July 2021
    Mammal species native to the USA and Canada for which the MIL has an image (296) 31 July 2021 ARTIODACTYLA (includes CETACEA) (38) ANTILOCAPRIDAE - pronghorns Antilocapra americana - Pronghorn BALAENIDAE - bowheads and right whales 1. Balaena mysticetus – Bowhead Whale BALAENOPTERIDAE -rorqual whales 1. Balaenoptera acutorostrata – Common Minke Whale 2. Balaenoptera borealis - Sei Whale 3. Balaenoptera brydei - Bryde’s Whale 4. Balaenoptera musculus - Blue Whale 5. Balaenoptera physalus - Fin Whale 6. Eschrichtius robustus - Gray Whale 7. Megaptera novaeangliae - Humpback Whale BOVIDAE - cattle, sheep, goats, and antelopes 1. Bos bison - American Bison 2. Oreamnos americanus - Mountain Goat 3. Ovibos moschatus - Muskox 4. Ovis canadensis - Bighorn Sheep 5. Ovis dalli - Thinhorn Sheep CERVIDAE - deer 1. Alces alces - Moose 2. Cervus canadensis - Wapiti (Elk) 3. Odocoileus hemionus - Mule Deer 4. Odocoileus virginianus - White-tailed Deer 5. Rangifer tarandus -Caribou DELPHINIDAE - ocean dolphins 1. Delphinus delphis - Common Dolphin 2. Globicephala macrorhynchus - Short-finned Pilot Whale 3. Grampus griseus - Risso's Dolphin 4. Lagenorhynchus albirostris - White-beaked Dolphin 5. Lissodelphis borealis - Northern Right-whale Dolphin 6. Orcinus orca - Killer Whale 7. Peponocephala electra - Melon-headed Whale 8. Pseudorca crassidens - False Killer Whale 9. Sagmatias obliquidens - Pacific White-sided Dolphin 10. Stenella coeruleoalba - Striped Dolphin 11. Stenella frontalis – Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 12. Steno bredanensis - Rough-toothed Dolphin 13. Tursiops truncatus - Common Bottlenose Dolphin MONODONTIDAE - narwhals, belugas 1. Delphinapterus leucas - Beluga 2. Monodon monoceros - Narwhal PHOCOENIDAE - porpoises 1. Phocoena phocoena - Harbor Porpoise 2. Phocoenoides dalli - Dall’s Porpoise PHYSETERIDAE - sperm whales Physeter macrocephalus – Sperm Whale TAYASSUIDAE - peccaries Dicotyles tajacu - Collared Peccary CARNIVORA (48) CANIDAE - dogs 1. Canis latrans - Coyote 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Broad Tapeworms (Diphyllobothriidae)
    IJP: Parasites and Wildlife 9 (2019) 359–369 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect IJP: Parasites and Wildlife journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijppaw Broad tapeworms (Diphyllobothriidae), parasites of wildlife and humans: T Recent progress and future challenges ∗ Tomáš Scholza, ,1, Roman Kuchtaa,1, Jan Brabeca,b a Institute of Parasitology, Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Branišovská 31, 370 05, České Budějovice, Czech Republic b Natural History Museum of Geneva, PO Box 6434, CH-1211, Geneva 6, Switzerland ABSTRACT Tapeworms of the family Diphyllobothriidae, commonly known as broad tapeworms, are predominantly large-bodied parasites of wildlife capable of infecting humans as their natural or accidental host. Diphyllobothriosis caused by adults of the genera Dibothriocephalus, Adenocephalus and Diphyllobothrium is usually not a life-threatening disease. Sparganosis, in contrast, is caused by larvae (plerocercoids) of species of Spirometra and can have serious health consequences, exceptionally leading to host's death in the case of generalised sparganosis caused by ‘Sparganum proliferum’. While most of the definitive wildlife hosts of broad tapeworms are recruited from marine and terrestrial mammal taxa (mainly carnivores and cetaceans), only a few diphyllobothriideans mature in fish-eating birds. In this review, we provide an overview the recent progress in our understanding of the diversity, phylogenetic relationships and distribution of broad tapeworms achieved over the last decade and outline the prospects of future research. The multigene family-wide phylogeny of the order published in 2017 allowed to propose an updated classi- fication of the group, including new generic assignment of the most important causative agents of human diphyllobothriosis, i.e., Dibothriocephalus latus and D.
    [Show full text]
  • Cestodes of the Fishes of Otsego Lake and Nearby Waters
    Cestodes of the fishes of Otsego Lake and nearby waters Amanda Sendkewitz1, Illari Delgado1, and Florian Reyda2 INTRODUCTION This study of fish cestodes (i.e., tapeworms) is part of a survey of the intestinal parasites of fishes of Otsego Lake and its tributaries (Cooperstown, New York) from 2008 to 2014. The survey included a total of 27 fish species, consisting of six centrarchid species, one ictalurid species, eleven cyprinid species, three percid species, three salmonid species, one catostomid species, one clupeid species, and one esocid species. This is really one of the first studies on cestodes in the area, although one of the first descriptions of cestodes was done on the Proteocephalus species Proteocephalus ambloplitis by Joseph Leidy in Lake George, NY in 1887; it was originally named Taenia ambloplitis. Parasite diversity is a large component of biodiversity, and is often indicative of the health and stature of a particular ecosystem. The presence of parasitic worms in fish of Otsego County, NY has been investigated over the course of a multi-year survey, with the intention of observing, identifying, and recording the diversity of cestode (tapeworm) species present in its many fish species. The majority of the fish species examined harbored cestodes, representing three different orders: Caryophyllidea, Proteocephalidea, and Bothriocephalidea. METHODS The fish utilized in this survey were collected through hook and line, gill net, electroshock, or seining methods throughout the year from 2008-2014. Cestodes were collected in sixteen sites throughout Otsego County. These sites included Beaver Pond at Rum Hill, the Big Pond at Thayer Farm, Canadarago Lake, a pond at College Camp, the Delaware River, Hayden Creek, LaPilusa Pond, Mike Schallart’s Pond in Schenevus, Moe Pond, a pond in Morris, NY, Oaks Creek, Paradise Pond, Shadow Brook, the Susquehanna River, the Wastewater Treatment Wetland (Cooperstown), and of course Otsego Lake.
    [Show full text]
  • Periodic Status Review for the Steller Sea Lion
    STATE OF WASHINGTON January 2015 Periodic Status Review for the Steller Sea Lion Gary J. Wiles The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains a list of endangered, threatened, and sensitive species (Washington Administrative Codes 232-12-014 and 232-12-011, Appendix E). In 1990, the Washington Wildlife Commission adopted listing procedures developed by a group of citizens, interest groups, and state and federal agencies (Washington Administrative Code 232-12-297, Appendix A). The procedures include how species listings will be initiated, criteria for listing and delisting, a requirement for public review, the development of recovery or management plans, and the periodic review of listed species. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is directed to conduct reviews of each endangered, threatened, or sensitive wildlife species at least every five years after the date of its listing. The reviews are designed to include an update of the species status report to determine whether the status of the species warrants its current listing status or deserves reclassification. The agency notifies the general public and specific parties who have expressed their interest to the Department of the periodic status review at least one year prior to the five-year period so that they may submit new scientific data to be included in the review. The agency notifies the public of its recommendation at least 30 days prior to presenting the findings to the Fish and Wildlife Commission. In addition, if the agency determines that new information suggests that the classification of a species should be changed from its present state, the agency prepares documents to determine the environmental consequences of adopting the recommendations pursuant to requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act.
    [Show full text]