DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 154/Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

40540 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR questions concerning this notice to the precluded finding on a petition to list above address. means that listing is warranted, but that Fish and Wildlife Service FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the immediate proposal and timely Chief, Branch of Listing, Endangered promulgation of a final regulation is 50 CFR Part 17 Species Program, (see ADDRESSES); by precluded by higher priority listing [Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2009-0057] telephone at 703-358-2171; or by actions. In making a warranted-but [90100 16641FLA-B6] facsimile at 703-358-1735). Persons who precluded finding under the Act, the use a telecommunications device for the Service must demonstrate that Endangered and Threatened Wildlife deaf (TDD) may call the Federal expeditious progress is being made to and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800- add and remove species from the lists of on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign 877-8339. endangered and threatened wildlife and Species; Annual Description of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: plants. Progress on Listing Actions Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Background Act, when, in response to a petition, we AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, The Endangered Species Act of 1973, find that listing a species is warranted Interior. but precluded, we must make a new 12– ACTION: Notice of review. as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), provides two mechanisms for month finding annually until we SUMMARY: In this notice of review, we considering species for listing. First, we publish a proposed rule or make a announce our annual petition findings can identify and propose for listing determination that listing is not for foreign species, as required under those species that are endangered or warranted. These subsequent 12–month section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Endangered threatened based on the factors findings are referred to as ‘‘resubmitted’’ Species Act of 1973, as amended. When, contained in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. petition findings. This notice contains in response to a petition, we find that We implement this mechanism through our resubmitted petition findings for listing a species is warranted but the candidate program. Candidate taxa foreign species previously described in precluded by higher priority listing are those taxa for which we have the 2008 Notice of Review (73 FR 44062; actions, we must complete a new status sufficient information on file relating to July 29, 2008) and that are currently the review each year until we publish a biological vulnerability and threats to subject of outstanding petitions. proposed rule or make a determination support a proposal to list the taxa as Previous Notices that listing is not warranted. These endangered or threatened, but for which The species discussed in this notice subsequent status reviews and the preparation and publication of a were the result of three separate accompanying 12–month findings are proposed rule is precluded by higher petitions submitted to the U.S. Fish and referred to as ‘‘resubmitted’’ petition priority listing actions. The second Wildlife Service (Service) to list a findings. mechanism for considering species for Information contained in this notice number of foreign bird and butterfly listing is for the public to petition to add species as threatened or endangered describes our status review of 20 foreign species to the Lists of Endangered and taxa that were the subjects of previous under the Act. We received petitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). list foreign bird species on November warranted-but-precluded findings, most The species covered by this notice were recently summarized in our 2008 Notice 24, 1980, and May 6, 1991 (46 FR 26464; assessed through the petition process. May 12, 1981, and 56 FR 65207; of Review. Based on our current review, Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we find that 20 species (see Table 1) December 16, 1991, respectively). On when we receive a listing petition, we January 10, 1994, we received a petition continue to warrant listing, but that must determine within 90 days, to the their listing remains precluded by to list 7 butterfly species as threatened maximum extent practicable, whether or endangered (59 FR 24117; May 10, higher priority listing actions. the petition presents substantial With this annual notice of review 1994). scientific or commercial information We took several actions on these (ANOR), we are requesting additional indicating that the petitioned action status information for the 20 taxa that petitions. To notify the public on these may be warranted (90–day finding). If actions, we published petition findings, remain warranted but precluded by we make a positive 90–day finding, we higher priority listing actions. We will listing rules, status reviews, and petition are required to promptly commence a finding reviews that included foreign consider this information in preparing review of the status of the species, listing documents and future species in the Federal Register on the whereby, in accordance with section following dates: resubmitted petition findings for these 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act we must make one Date FR Citation 20 taxa. This information will also help of three findings within 12 months of us to monitor the status of the taxa and May 12, 1981 ............ 46 FR 26464 the receipt of the petition (12–month January 20, 1984 ...... 49 FR 2485 in conserving them. finding). The first possible 12–month May 10, 1985 ............ 50 FR 19761 DATES: We will accept information on finding is that listing is not warranted, January 9, 1986 ........ 51 FR 996 these resubmitted petition findings at in which case we need not take any July 7, 1988 .............. 53 FR 25511 any time. further action on the petition. The December 29, 1988 .. 53 FR 52746 April 25, 1990 ............ 55 FR 17475 ADDRESSES: This notice is available on second possibility is that we may find September 28, 1990 55 FR 39858 the Internet at http:// that listing is warranted, in which case November 21, 1991 .. 56 FR 58664 www.regulations.gov, and http:// we must promptly publish a proposed December 16, 1991 .. 56 FR 65207 endangered.fws.gov/. Supporting rule to list the species. Once we publish March 28, 1994 ......... 59 FR 14496 information used in preparing this a proposed rule for a species, sections May 10, 1994 ............ 59 FR 24117 notice is available for public inspection, 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) govern further January 12, 1995 ...... 60 FR 2899 by appointment, during normal business procedures, regardless of whether or not May 21, 2004 ............ 69 FR 29354 hours at the Branch of Listing, 4401 N. we issued the proposal in response to April 23, 2007 ............ 72 FR 20184 Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, the petition. The third possibility is that Our most recent review of petition Virginia 22203. Please submit any new we may find that listing is warranted findings was published on July 29, 2008 information, materials, comments, or but precluded. A warranted-but- (73 FR 44062). VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40541 Since our last review of petition referred to as ‘‘candidates’’ under the (Hennessey 2004a as cited in BirdLife findings in July 2008, we have taken Act. The column labeled ‘‘Priority’’ International 2009a8; Maccormack in four listing actions related to species indicates the LPN. Following the litt. 2004 as cited in BirdLife previously included in this notice (see scientific name of each taxon (third International 2008; MacLeod in litt. Preclusion and Expeditious Progress column) is the family designation 2003 as cited in BirdLife International section for additional listing actions that (fourth column) and the common name, 2009a), on the eastern edge of the were not related to this notice). On if one exists (fifth column). The sixth Mosetenes Mountains in Cochabamba, December 8, 2008, we published two column provides the known historic and in the Rio Tambopata area near the proposed rules to list species under the range for the taxon. The avian species in Bolivia/Peru border. Act: One to list the medium tree finch Table 1 are listed taxonomically. In Peru, a subpopulation (Pauxi (73 FR 74434), and the other to list the unicornis koepckeae) is known only black-breasted puffleg (73 FR 74427). Findings on Species for Which Listing from the Sira Mountains in Huanuco On December 24, 2008, we published a Is Warranted but Precluded (Tobias and del Hoyo 2006). In 2005, a proposed rule to list the Andean We have found that, for the 20 taxa team from the Armonia Association flamingo, the Chilean woodstar, and the discussed below, publication of (BirdLife in Bolivia) saw one and heard St. Lucia forest thrush (73 FR 79226). proposed listing rules will continue to three southern helmeted curassow in On July 7, 2009, we published a be precluded over the next year due to the Sira’s: the first sighting of the proposed rule to list the blue-billed the need to complete pending, higher distinctive endemic Peruvian race since curassow, the brown-banded antpitta, priority listing actions. We will 1969 (BirdLife International 2008). the Cauca guan, the gorgeted wood- continue to monitor the status of these Limited reports suggest that the quail, and the Esmeraldas woodstar (74 species as new information becomes southern helmeted curassow is rare here FR 32307). available (see Monitoring, below). Our (MacLeod in litt. 2004 as cited in BirdLife International 2008; Findings on Resubmitted Petitions review of new information will determine if a change in status is Maccormack in litt.
Recommended publications
  • Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea) in a Heterogeneous Area Between Two Biodiversity Hotspots in Minas Gerais, Brazil

    Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea) in a Heterogeneous Area Between Two Biodiversity Hotspots in Minas Gerais, Brazil

    ARTICLE Butterfly fauna (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea) in a heterogeneous area between two biodiversity hotspots in Minas Gerais, Brazil Déborah Soldati¹³; Fernando Amaral da Silveira¹⁴ & André Roberto Melo Silva² ¹ Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Instituto de Ciências Biológicas (ICB), Departamento de Zoologia, Laboratório de Sistemática de Insetos. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil. ² Centro Universitário UNA, Faculdade de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil. ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3113-5840. E-mail: [email protected] ³ ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9546-2376. E-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author). ⁴ ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2408-2656. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. This paper investigates the butterfly fauna of the ‘Serra do Rola-Moça’ State Park, Minas Gerais, Brazil. We eval- uate i) the seasonal variation of species richness and composition; and ii) the variation in composition of the local butterfly assemblage among three sampling sites and between the dry and rainy seasons. Sampling was carried out monthly between November 2012 and October 2013, using entomological nets. After a total sampling effort of 504 net hours, 311 species were recorded. One of them is endangered in Brazil, and eight are probable new species. Furthermore, two species were new records for the region and eight considered endemic of the Cerrado domain. There was no significant difference in species richness between the dry and the rainy seasons, however the species composition varies significantly among sampling sites. Due to its special, heterogeneous environment, which is home to a rich butterfly fauna, its preservation is important for the conservation of the regional butterfly fauna.
  • Flight Behaviour During Foraging of the Social Wasp Vespula Vulgaris

    Flight Behaviour During Foraging of the Social Wasp Vespula Vulgaris

    The Journal of Experimental Biology 208, 4523-4527 4523 Published by The Company of Biologists 2005 doi:10.1242/jeb.01932 Flight behaviour during foraging of the social wasp Vespula vulgaris (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) and four mimetic hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) Sericomyia silentis, Myathropa florea, Helophilus sp. and Syrphus sp. Y. C. Golding1, M. Edmunds2 and A. R. Ennos1,* 1Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, 3.614 Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK and 2Department of Environmental Management, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, UK *Author for correspondence (e-mail: [email protected]) Accepted 14 October 2005 Summary Many hoverfly species show specific or non specific Syrphus, showed similar flight behaviour to the wasps; it morphological resemblance to wasps (Vespula sp.) and it flew more slowly, and with more roundabout routes than has been suggested that they also show similar flight the other flies, hesitating before landing. These results behaviour. In this study we therefore compared the flight suggest that in hoverflies there is little reason to expect behaviour of wasps with that of four mimetic hoverflies, strict correlation between morphological and behavioural Sericomyia silentis, Myathropa florea, Helophilus sp. and mimicry; insects may acquire the similarities to their Syrphus sp., by filming insects while they were foraging on model more-or-less independently. an artificial array of flowers. Films were analysed to determine the routes taken, time spent hovering and flight speed. Of the four flies, only the non specific mimic, Key words: flight, mimicry, Syrphidae, behaviour. Introduction Batesian and Müllerian mimicry are textbook cases similar amounts of time foraging on individual flowers and demonstrating evolution by natural selection (Bates, 1862; flying between flowers (Golding and Edmunds, 2000).
  • Lepidoptera Argentina - Parte Vii: Papilionidae

    Lepidoptera Argentina - Parte Vii: Papilionidae

    LEPIDOPTERA ARGENTINA Catálogo ilustrado y comentado de las mariposas de Argentina Parte VII: PAPILIONIDAE Fernando César Penco Osvaldo Di Iorio 2014 PLAN GENERAL DE LA OBRA Parte I CASTNIIDAE Parte II COSSIDAE & LIMACODIDAE Parte III TORTRICIDAE Parte IV SEMATURIDAE & URANIIDAE Parte V GEOMETRIDAE Parte VI HESPERIIDAE Parte VII PAPILIONIDAE Parte VIII PIERIDAE Parte IX LYCAENIDAE Parte X RIODINIDAE Parte XI NYMPHALIDAE & LIBYTHEIDAE Parte XII MEGALOPYGIDAE Parte XIII APATELODIDAE, MIMALLONIDAE & LASIOCAMPIDAE Parte XIV SATURNIIDAE Parte XV SPHINGIDAE Parte XVI EREBIDAE: ARCTIINAE & EREBINAE Parte XVII NOTODONTIDAE Parte XVIII NOCTUIDAE Parte XIX TAXONOMIA DE LEPIDOPTERA Parte XX BIBLIOGRAFIA LEPIDOPTERA ARGENTINA Catálogo ilustrado y comentado de las mariposas de Argentina Parte VII: PAPILIONIDAE Fernando César Penco Osvaldo R. Di Iorio 2014 Copyright © 2014 Fernando César Penco Ninguna parte de esta publicación, incluido el diseño de la portada y de las páginas interiores puede ser reproducida, almacenadas o transmitida de ninguna forma ni por ningún medio, sea éste electrónico, mecánico, grabación, fotocopia o cualquier otro sin la previa autorización escrita del autor. LEPIDOPTERA ARGENTINA - PARTE VII: PAPILIONIDAE Autores: Fernando César Penco Area de Biodiversidad, Fundación de Historia Natural Félix de Azara, Departamento de Ciencias Naturales y Antropológicas CEBBAD, Universidad Maimónides, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina. E-mail: [email protected] Osvaldo R. Di Iorio Entomología, Departamento de Biodiversidad
  • Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2019–0009; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 167]

    Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2019–0009; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 167]

    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 10/10/2019 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-21478, and on govinfo.gov DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2019–0009; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 167] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Domestic and Foreign Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of review. SUMMARY: In this candidate notice of review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and animal species that we regard as candidates for or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Identification of candidate species can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential listings, and by allowing landowners and resource managers to alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate species, the early notice provided here could result in more options for species management and recovery by prompting earlier candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to the species. This document also includes our findings on resubmitted petitions and describes our 1 progress in revising the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) during the period October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2018.
  • Tanya Sanerib (DC Bar No

    Tanya Sanerib (DC Bar No

    Case 4:21-cv-00251-RCC Document 1 Filed 06/23/21 Page 1 of 20 1 Sarah Uhlemann (DC Bar No. 501328)* Tanya Sanerib (DC Bar No. 473506)* 2 Center for Biological Diversity 3 2400 NW 80th Street, #146 Seattle, WA 98117 4 Phone: (206) 327-2344 5 (206) 379-7363 Email: [email protected] 6 [email protected] *Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending 7 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 11 TUCSON DIVISION 12 13 Center for Biological Diversity, 14 Plaintiff, Case No. 15 v. 16 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 17 Debra Haaland, in her official capacity 18 as Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, 19 Defendants. 20 21 INTRODUCTION 22 1. Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity challenges the failure of the U.S. 23 Fish and Wildlife Service and the Secretary of the Interior Debra Haaland (collectively 24 “the Service” or “Defendants”) to make required, 12-month findings as to whether seven 25 foreign wildlife species “warrant” listing under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). 26 These species have been on the Service’s “candidate” list awaiting ESA protections for 27 28 1 Case 4:21-cv-00251-RCC Document 1 Filed 06/23/21 Page 2 of 20 1 decades, even though the Service has acknowledged that each qualifies for full ESA 2 listing. 3 2. The Okinawa woodpecker, Kaiser-i-hind swallowtail, Jamaican kite 4 swallowtail, black-backed tanager, Harris’ mimic swallowtail, fluminense swallowtail, 5 and the southern helmeted curassow are each in danger of or threatened with extinction.
  • Biden Urged to Protect 19 Foreign Species

    Biden Urged to Protect 19 Foreign Species

    Via electronic and certified mail February 3, 2021 Scott de la Vega Director Acting Secretary U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, NW 1849 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20240 Washington, DC 20240 [email protected] Don Morgan Chief, Branch of Delisting and Foreign Martha Williams Species, Ecological Services Principal Deputy Director 5275 Leesburg Pike U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Falls Church, VA 22041-3808 1849 C Street, NW [email protected] Washington, DC 20240 [email protected] Re: Sixty-Day Notice of Intent to Sue for Failing to Make Timely 12-Month Findings on Foreign Candidate Species in Violation of the Endangered Species Act Dear Acting Secretary de la Vega, Director of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Principal Deputy Director Williams, and Chief Morgan, On behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (Center), we write to notify you that the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (together, the Service) are currently in violation of Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for failing to make required 12-month findings on 19 foreign candidate species (Table 1). Section 4(b)(3) of the ESA requires the Service to determine if ESA protections are warranted for a species within 12 months of previously finding that listing was precluded by other pending proposals.1 Here, the Service found listing of 19 foreign species was warranted but precluded on October 10, 2019, and thus new listing determinations were due by October 10, 2020—nearly four months ago.
  • Guia Para Observação Das Aves Do Parque Nacional De Brasília

    Guia Para Observação Das Aves Do Parque Nacional De Brasília

    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234145690 Guia para observação das aves do Parque Nacional de Brasília Book · January 2011 CITATIONS READS 0 629 4 authors, including: Mieko Kanegae Fernando Lima Favaro Federal University of Rio de Janeiro Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Bi… 7 PUBLICATIONS 74 CITATIONS 17 PUBLICATIONS 69 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Fernando Lima Favaro on 28 May 2014. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Brasília - 2011 GUIA PARA OBSERVAÇÃO DAS AVES DO PARQUE NACIONAL DE BRASÍLIA Aílton C. de Oliveira Mieko Ferreira Kanegae Marina Faria do Amaral Fernando de Lima Favaro Fotografia de Aves Marcelo Pontes Monteiro Nélio dos Santos Paulo André Lima Borges Brasília, 2011 GUIA PARA OBSERVAÇÃO DAS AVES DO APRESENTAÇÃO PARQUE NACIONAL DE BRASÍLIA É com grande satisfação que apresento o Guia para Observação REPÚblica FEDERATiva DO BRASIL das Aves do Parque Nacional de Brasília, o qual representa um importante instrumento auxiliar para os observadores de aves que frequentam ou que Presidente frequentarão o Parque, para fins de lazer (birdwatching), pesquisas científicas, Dilma Roussef treinamentos ou em atividades de educação ambiental. Este é mais um resultado do trabalho do Centro Nacional de Pesquisa e Vice-Presidente Conservação de Aves Silvestres - CEMAVE, unidade descentralizada do Instituto Michel Temer Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio) e vinculada à Diretoria de Conservação da Biodiversidade. O Centro tem como missão Ministério do Meio Ambiente - MMA subsidiar a conservação das aves brasileiras e dos ambientes dos quais elas Izabella Mônica Vieira Teixeira dependem.
  • Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 200/Monday, October 17, 2016

    Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 200/Monday, October 17, 2016

    Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 71457 for the relevant maintenance period in attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS Technology Transfer and Advancement with mobile source emissions at the through 2030. Finally, EPA finds Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because levels of the MVEBs. adequate and is proposing to approve application of those requirements would the newly-established 2020 and 2030 be inconsistent with the CAA; and C. What is a safety margin? MVEBs for the Cleveland area. • Does not provide EPA with the A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference discretionary authority to address, as VII. Statutory and Executive Order between the attainment level of appropriate, disproportionate human Reviews emissions (from all sources) and the health or environmental effects, using projected level of emissions (from all Under the CAA, redesignation of an practicable and legally permissible sources) in the maintenance plan. As area to attainment and the methods, under Executive Order 12898 noted in Table 11, the emissions in the accompanying approval of a (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Cleveland area are projected to have maintenance plan under section In addition, the SIP is not approved safety margins of 117.22 TPSD for NOX 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the to apply on any Indian reservation land and 28.48 TPSD for VOC in 2030 (the status of a geographical area and do not or in any other area where EPA or an total net change between the attainment impose any additional regulatory Indian tribe has demonstrated that a year, 2014, emissions and the projected requirements on sources beyond those tribe has jurisdiction.
  • 100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species

    100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species

    100 OF THE WORLD’S WORST INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES A SELECTION FROM THE GLOBAL INVASIVE SPECIES DATABASE Published by Contribution to the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) In Association with SPECIES SURVIVAL COMMISSION Citation Lowe S., Browne M., Boudjelas S., De Poorter M. (2000) 100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species A selection from the Global Invasive Species Database. Published by The Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) a specialist group of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN), 12pp. First published as special lift-out in Aliens 12, December 2000. Updated and reprinted version: November 2004. Electronic version available at: www.issg.org/booklet.pdf For information, or copies of the booklet in English, French or Spanish, please contact: ISSG Office: School of Geogra- phy and Environmental Sciences (SGES) University of Auckland (Tamaki Campus) Private Bag 92019 Auckland, New Zealand Phone: #64 9 3737 599 x85210 Fax: #64 9 3737 042 E-mail: [email protected] Development of the 100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Spe- cies list has been made possible by Cover image: Brown tree snake the support of the Fondation (Boiga irregularis). d’Entreprise TOTAL (1998 - 2000). Photo: Gordon Rodda Printed in New Zealand by: Hollands Printing Ltd Contact: Otto van Gulik Email: [email protected] 2 Biological Invasion What happens when a species is in- The list of “100 of the World’s precedented rate. A number of the troduced into an ecosystem where Worst Invasive Alien Species” in invasive alien species featured in it doesn’t occur naturally? Are eco- this booklet illustrates the incred- this booklet are contributing to systems flexible and able to cope ible variety of species that have the these losses.
  • Scientific Notes 193 APPLICATION of ALARM PHEROMONE TO

    Scientific Notes 193 APPLICATION of ALARM PHEROMONE TO

    Scientific Notes 193 APPLICATION OF ALARM PHEROMONE TO TARGETS BY SOUTHERN YELLOWJACKETS (HYMENOPTERA: VESPIDAE) HAL C. REED1 AND PETER J. LANDOLT USDA, ARS, 5230 Konnowac Pass Rd., Wapato, WA 98951, USA 1Current address: Department of Biology, Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, OK 74171 Alarm pheromones have been demonstrated for a number of species of social Vesp- idae including several hornets and yellowjackets (Vespines) (Landolt et al. 1997). Maschwitz (1964a, b) first demonstrated alarm pheromone responses in the yellow- jackets Vespula vulgaris L. and V. germanica (Fab.) in response to crushed wasps and body parts. Pheromone-mediated alarm has since been observed in other vespines: Dolichovespula saxonica (Fab.) (Maschwitz 1984), the southern yellowjacket V. squa- mosa (Drury) (Landolt & Heath 1987, Landolt et al. 1999), the eastern yellowjacket V. maculifrons (Buysson) (Landolt et al. 1995), Provespa anomala Saussure (Maschwitz & Hanel 1988), and Vespa crabro L. (Veith et al. 1984). 2-Methyl-3- butene-2-ol was identified as a component of the alarm pheromone of V. crabro (Veith et al. 1984), and N-3- methylbutylacetamide was isolated and identified as an alarm pheromone of the southern and eastern yellowjackets (Heath & Landolt 1988, Landolt et al. 1995). The source of alarm pheromones in social wasps generally is the venom, although the head is implicated as an additional source of alarm pheromone for V. vulgaris (Al- diss 1983) and V. squamosa (Landolt et al. 1999). Alarm behavior in V. germanica and V. vulgaris occurred in response to the squashed sting apparatus, sting sac, and sol- vent extract of the sting sac (Maschwitz 1964b) and in D.
  • Hoverflies: the Garden Mimics

    Hoverflies: the Garden Mimics

    Article Hoverflies: the garden mimics. Edmunds, Malcolm Available at http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/1620/ Edmunds, Malcolm (2008) Hoverflies: the garden mimics. Biologist, 55 (4). pp. 202-207. ISSN 0006-3347 It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. For more information about UCLan’s research in this area go to http://www.uclan.ac.uk/researchgroups/ and search for <name of research Group>. For information about Research generally at UCLan please go to http://www.uclan.ac.uk/research/ All outputs in CLoK are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including Copyright law. Copyright, IPR and Moral Rights for the works on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the policies page. CLoK Central Lancashire online Knowledge www.clok.uclan.ac.uk Hoverflies: the garden mimics Mimicry offers protection from predators by convincing them that their target is not a juicy morsel after all. it happens in our backgardens too and the hoverfly is an expert at it. Malcolm overflies are probably the best the mimic for the model and do not attack Edmunds known members of tbe insect or- it (Edmunds, 1974). Mimicry is far more Hder Diptera after houseflies, blue widespread in the tropics than in temperate bottles and mosquitoes, but unlike these lands, but we have some of the most superb insects they are almost universally liked examples of mimicry in Britain, among the by the general public. They are popular hoverflies.
  • Detection and Replication of Moku Virus in Honey Bees and Social Wasps

    Detection and Replication of Moku Virus in Honey Bees and Social Wasps

    viruses Communication Detection and Replication of Moku Virus in Honey Bees and Social Wasps Andrea Highfield 1,*, Jessica Kevill 2,3, Gideon Mordecai 1,4 , Jade Hunt 1, Summer Henderson 1, Daniel Sauvard 5 , John Feltwell 6, Stephen J. Martin 2 , Seirian Sumner 7 and Declan C. Schroeder 1,3,8,* 1 The Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, Citadel Hill, Plymouth PL1 2PB, UK; [email protected] (G.M.); [email protected] (J.H.); [email protected] (S.H.) 2 School of Environmental and Life Sciences, The University of Salford, Manchester M5 4WT, UK; [email protected] (J.K.); [email protected] (S.J.M.) 3 Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN 55108, USA 4 Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada 5 INRAE UR633 Zoologie Forestière, 45075 Orléans, France; [email protected] 6 Wildlife Matters Consultancy Unit, Battle, East Sussex TN33 9BN, UK; [email protected] 7 Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK; [email protected] 8 School of Biological Sciences, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6LA, UK * Correspondence: [email protected] (A.H.); [email protected] (D.C.S.); Tel.: +1-612-413-0030 (D.C.S.) Received: 6 May 2020; Accepted: 26 May 2020; Published: 2 June 2020 Abstract: Transmission of honey bee viruses to other insects, and vice versa, has previously been reported and the true ecological importance of this phenomenon is still being realized.