Entomology Day 2018 Wyre Forest Study Group
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Convergent Recruitment of Knottin and Defensin Peptide Scaffolds Into the Venom of Predatory Assassin Flies
Journal Pre-proof Weaponisation ‘on the fly’: convergent recruitment of knottin and defensin peptide scaffolds into the venom of predatory assassin flies Jiayi Jin, Akello J. Agwa, Tibor G. Szanto, Agota Csóti, Gyorgy Panyi, Christina I. Schroeder, Andrew A. Walker, Glenn F. King PII: S0965-1748(19)30425-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibmb.2019.103310 Reference: IB 103310 To appear in: Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Received Date: 8 October 2019 Revised Date: 12 December 2019 Accepted Date: 16 December 2019 Please cite this article as: Jin, J., Agwa, A.J., Szanto, T.G., Csóti, A., Panyi, G., Schroeder, C.I, Walker, A.A., King, G.F., Weaponisation ‘on the fly’: convergent recruitment of knottin and defensin peptide scaffolds into the venom of predatory assassin flies Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ibmb.2019.103310. This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Intended for submission to Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Special Issue on Active Peptides in Insects Weaponisation ‘on the fly’: convergent recruitment of knottin and defensin peptide scaffolds into the venom of predatory assassin flies Jiayi Jin 1, Akello J. -
Final Report 1
Sand pit for Biodiversity at Cep II quarry Researcher: Klára Řehounková Research group: Petr Bogusch, David Boukal, Milan Boukal, Lukáš Čížek, František Grycz, Petr Hesoun, Kamila Lencová, Anna Lepšová, Jan Máca, Pavel Marhoul, Klára Řehounková, Jiří Řehounek, Lenka Schmidtmayerová, Robert Tropek Březen – září 2012 Abstract We compared the effect of restoration status (technical reclamation, spontaneous succession, disturbed succession) on the communities of vascular plants and assemblages of arthropods in CEP II sand pit (T řebo ňsko region, SW part of the Czech Republic) to evaluate their biodiversity and conservation potential. We also studied the experimental restoration of psammophytic grasslands to compare the impact of two near-natural restoration methods (spontaneous and assisted succession) to establishment of target species. The sand pit comprises stages of 2 to 30 years since site abandonment with moisture gradient from wet to dry habitats. In all studied groups, i.e. vascular pants and arthropods, open spontaneously revegetated sites continuously disturbed by intensive recreation activities hosted the largest proportion of target and endangered species which occurred less in the more closed spontaneously revegetated sites and which were nearly absent in technically reclaimed sites. Out results provide clear evidence that the mosaics of spontaneously established forests habitats and open sand habitats are the most valuable stands from the conservation point of view. It has been documented that no expensive technical reclamations are needed to restore post-mining sites which can serve as secondary habitats for many endangered and declining species. The experimental restoration of rare and endangered plant communities seems to be efficient and promising method for a future large-scale restoration projects in abandoned sand pits. -
Britain's Robberflies – Diptera Asilidae
Britain’s Robberflies – Diptera Asilidae Malcolm Smart Asilidae – the BIG CATS of the Diptera World Adults exclusively carnivorous predators of other insects – mostly other Diptera Larvae where known are also believed to be predatory What distinguishes a Robber Fly (an Asilid) from other Diptera ??? Example based on drawings and photos of Philonicus albiceps notch Two primary characters: * Eyes separated in both sexes by a deep notch at the top of mystax the head. * There is a central clump of down-curved bristles on the face above the upper mouth edge (called the mystax). Typically large and robust Diptera with elongated bodies . The proboscis is rigid and adapted for piercing insect cuticle. Asilidae species count with examples World Britain VCs surrounding Bedford Bedfordshire VC 7000+ 29 18 13 World distribution of Asilidae Genera and Species (after F. Geller-Grim) An introduction to the British Asilidae fauna compiled using data primarily from the following sources Data held by the Soldierflies and Allies Recording Scheme run by & Distribution maps derived from it at October 2016 (15900 Asilidae records) Photographs of Asilidae submitted to Facebook for identification or comment by: Lester Wareham, Mo Richards, Graham Dash, Martin Parr, Graham Brownlow, Mark Welch Albums of Asilidae photographs submitted for public scrutiny by wildlife/ dipterist specialists: Steven Falk, Janet Graham, Ian Andrews, Gail Hampshire Pictures offered by or requested from: Nigel Jones, Martin Harvey, Alan Outen, Mike Taylor, Tim Ransom, Tim Hodge, Fritz -
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections
SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLUME 104, NUMBER 7 THE FEEDING APPARATUS OF BITING AND SUCKING INSECTS AFFECTING MAN AND ANIMALS BY R. E. SNODGRASS Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine Agricultural Research Administration U. S. Department of Agriculture (Publication 3773) CITY OF WASHINGTON PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION OCTOBER 24, 1944 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLUME 104, NUMBER 7 THE FEEDING APPARATUS OF BITING AND SUCKING INSECTS AFFECTING MAN AND ANIMALS BY R. E. SNODGRASS Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine Agricultural Research Administration U. S. Department of Agriculture P£R\ (Publication 3773) CITY OF WASHINGTON PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION OCTOBER 24, 1944 BALTIMORE, MO., U. S. A. THE FEEDING APPARATUS OF BITING AND SUCKING INSECTS AFFECTING MAN AND ANIMALS By R. E. SNODGRASS Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Agricultural Research Administration, U. S. Department of Agriculture CONTENTS Page Introduction 2 I. The cockroach. Order Orthoptera 3 The head and the organs of ingestion 4 General structure of the head and mouth parts 4 The labrum 7 The mandibles 8 The maxillae 10 The labium 13 The hypopharynx 14 The preoral food cavity 17 The mechanism of ingestion 18 The alimentary canal 19 II. The biting lice and booklice. Orders Mallophaga and Corrodentia. 21 III. The elephant louse 30 IV. The sucking lice. Order Anoplura 31 V. The flies. Order Diptera 36 Mosquitoes. Family Culicidae 37 Sand flies. Family Psychodidae 50 Biting midges. Family Heleidae 54 Black flies. Family Simuliidae 56 Net-winged midges. Family Blepharoceratidae 61 Horse flies. Family Tabanidae 61 Snipe flies. Family Rhagionidae 64 Robber flies. Family Asilidae 66 Special features of the Cyclorrhapha 68 Eye gnats. -
Metabarcoding for the Parallel Identification of Several Hundred Predators And
bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/155721; this version posted June 26, 2017. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. Metabarcoding for the parallel identification of several hundred predators and their preys: application to bat species diet analysis MAXIME GALAN*1, JEAN-BAPTISTE PONS2, ORIANNE TOURNAYRE1, ERIC PIERRE1, MAXIME LEUCHTMANN3, DOMINIQUE PONTIER2.4.* and NATHALIE CHARBONNEL1* Full postal addresses 1CBGP, INRA, CIRAD, IRD, MontpElliEr SupAgro, Univ. MontpelliEr, MontpelliEr, FrancE 2Univ Lyon, LabEx ECOFECT EcoEvolutionary Dynamics of InfEctious DisEasEs, Villeurbanne F-69365 Lyon, France 3 Nature EnvironnEment, 2 AvEnuE Saint-Pierre, 17700 Surgères, France 4Univ Lyon, UnivErsité Lyon 1, CNRS, LaboratoirE dE BiométriE Et BiologiE ÉvolutivE UMR5558, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France * equal author contributions Keywords (4-6): Chiroptera, arthropods, Environmental DNA (EDNA), high-throughput sequencing, false positives, predator–prey interactions Name, address, fax number and email of corresponding author * Maxime Galan, INRA, UMR CBGP (INRA/IRD/CIRAD/MontpElliEr Supagro/Univ. MontpelliEr), 755 avEnue du Campus Agropolis, CS 300 16, F-34988 Montferrier-sur-Lez cedex, France. Fax: (+00 33) 04 99 62 33 05; E-mail: [email protected] Running title : Metabarcoding of prEdators and their preys 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/155721; this version posted June 26, 2017. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. -
A Review of the Status of Larger Brachycera Flies of Great Britain
Natural England Commissioned Report NECR192 A review of the status of Larger Brachycera flies of Great Britain Acroceridae, Asilidae, Athericidae Bombyliidae, Rhagionidae, Scenopinidae, Stratiomyidae, Tabanidae, Therevidae, Xylomyidae. Species Status No.29 First published 30th August 2017 www.gov.uk/natural -england Foreword Natural England commission a range of reports from external contractors to provide evidence and advice to assist us in delivering our duties. The views in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Natural England. Background Making good decisions to conserve species This report should be cited as: should primarily be based upon an objective process of determining the degree of threat to DRAKE, C.M. 2017. A review of the status of the survival of a species. The recognised Larger Brachycera flies of Great Britain - international approach to undertaking this is by Species Status No.29. Natural England assigning the species to one of the IUCN threat Commissioned Reports, Number192. categories. This report was commissioned to update the threat status of Larger Brachycera flies last undertaken in 1991, using a more modern IUCN methodology for assessing threat. Reviews for other invertebrate groups will follow. Natural England Project Manager - David Heaver, Senior Invertebrate Specialist [email protected] Contractor - C.M Drake Keywords - Larger Brachycera flies, invertebrates, red list, IUCN, status reviews, IUCN threat categories, GB rarity status Further information This report can be downloaded from the Natural England website: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/natural-england. For information on Natural England publications contact the Natural England Enquiry Service on 0300 060 3900 or e-mail [email protected]. -
Sarcophagidae
Cornell University Insect Collection SARCOPHAGIDAE Determined Species: 215 Emily Satinsky Updated: August 13, 2014 Subfamily Tribe Genus Species Author Zoogeography Miltogramminae Miltogrammini Amobia aurifrons (Townsend 1891) NEA distorta (Allen 1926) NEA erythrura (Wulp 1890) NEA floridensis (Townsend 1892) NEA oculata (Zetterstedt 1844) NEA spp. NEA Euaraba tergata (Coquillett 1895) NEA Eumacronychia agnella (Reinhard 1939) NEA montana Allen 1926 NEA spp. NEA Gymnoprosopa argentifrons Townsend 1892 NEA filipalpus Allen 1926 NEA milanoensis Reinhard 1945 NEA Hilarella hilarella Zetterstedt 1844 NEA Macronychia aurata (Coquillett 1902) NEA confundens (Townsend 1915) NEA townsendi (Smith 1916) NEA Metopia argyrocephala (Meigen 1824) NEA campestris (Fallen 1810) NEA/PAL lateralis (Macquart 1848) NEA perpendicularis Wulp 1890 NEA sinipalpis Allen 1926 NEA spp. NEA Oebalia aristalis (Coquillett 1897) NEA Opsidia gonioides Coquillett 1895 NEA Phrosinella aldrichi Allen 1926 NEA aurifacies Downes 1985 NEA fulvicornis (Coquillett 1895) NEA Senotainia flavicornis (Townsend 1891) NEA inyoensis Reinhard 1955 NEA litoralis Allen 1924 NEA nana Coquillett 1897 NEA opiparis Reinhard 1955 NEA rubriventris Macquart 1846 NEA trilineata (Wulp 1890) NEA vigilans Allen 1924 NEA spp. NEA/NEO Sphenometopa tergata (Coquillett 1895) NEA Taxigramma heteroneura (Meigen 1830) NEA hilarella (Zetterstedt 1844) NEA Miltogrammini spp. NEA Paramacronychiinae Paramacronychiini Agria housei Shewell 1971 NEA Brachicoma devia (Fallen 1820) NEA sarcophagina (Townsend 1891) -
ARTHROPODA Subphylum Hexapoda Protura, Springtails, Diplura, and Insects
NINE Phylum ARTHROPODA SUBPHYLUM HEXAPODA Protura, springtails, Diplura, and insects ROD P. MACFARLANE, PETER A. MADDISON, IAN G. ANDREW, JOCELYN A. BERRY, PETER M. JOHNS, ROBERT J. B. HOARE, MARIE-CLAUDE LARIVIÈRE, PENELOPE GREENSLADE, ROSA C. HENDERSON, COURTenaY N. SMITHERS, RicarDO L. PALMA, JOHN B. WARD, ROBERT L. C. PILGRIM, DaVID R. TOWNS, IAN McLELLAN, DAVID A. J. TEULON, TERRY R. HITCHINGS, VICTOR F. EASTOP, NICHOLAS A. MARTIN, MURRAY J. FLETCHER, MARLON A. W. STUFKENS, PAMELA J. DALE, Daniel BURCKHARDT, THOMAS R. BUCKLEY, STEVEN A. TREWICK defining feature of the Hexapoda, as the name suggests, is six legs. Also, the body comprises a head, thorax, and abdomen. The number A of abdominal segments varies, however; there are only six in the Collembola (springtails), 9–12 in the Protura, and 10 in the Diplura, whereas in all other hexapods there are strictly 11. Insects are now regarded as comprising only those hexapods with 11 abdominal segments. Whereas crustaceans are the dominant group of arthropods in the sea, hexapods prevail on land, in numbers and biomass. Altogether, the Hexapoda constitutes the most diverse group of animals – the estimated number of described species worldwide is just over 900,000, with the beetles (order Coleoptera) comprising more than a third of these. Today, the Hexapoda is considered to contain four classes – the Insecta, and the Protura, Collembola, and Diplura. The latter three classes were formerly allied with the insect orders Archaeognatha (jumping bristletails) and Thysanura (silverfish) as the insect subclass Apterygota (‘wingless’). The Apterygota is now regarded as an artificial assemblage (Bitsch & Bitsch 2000). -
St Mawes to Cremyll Nature Conservation Assessment
Assessment of Coastal Access Proposals between St Mawes to Cremyll on sites and features of nature conservation concern th 20 June 2019 Nature Conservation Assessment for Coastal Access Proposals between St Mawes to Cremyll About this document This document should be read in conjunction with the published Reports for the St Mawes to Cremyll Stretch and the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). The Coastal Access Reports contain a full description of the access proposals, including any additional mitigation measures that have been included. These Reports can be viewed here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/england-coast-path-from-st-mawes-to-cremyll-comment- on-proposals A HRA is required for European sites (SPA, SAC and Ramsar sites). The HRA is published alongside the Coastal Access Reports. This document, the Nature Conservation Assessment (NCA), covers all other aspects (including SSSIs, MCZs and undesignated but locally important sites and features) in so far as any HRA does not already address the issue for the sites and feature(s) in question. The NCA is arranged site by site. Maps 1-8 on pages 38-44 show designated sites along this stretch of coast. See Annex 1 for an index to designated sites and features for this stretch of coast, including features that have been considered within any HRA. Page 2 Nature Conservation Assessment for Coastal Access Proposals between St Mawes to Cremyll Contents About this document ................................................................................................................. -
Ireland's Biodiversity in 2010
Biodiversity in 2010 State of Knowledge Ireland’s Biodiversity in 2010: State of Knowledge Editors: Úna FitzPatrick, Eugenie Regan and Liam Lysaght Citation: FitzPatrick, Ú., Regan, E. and Lysaght, L. (editors)(2010) Ireland’s Biodiversity in 2010: State of Knowledge. National Biodiversity Data Centre, Waterford. © National Biodiversity Data Centre 2010 ISBN 978-1-906304-15-7 Contents Foreword 1 Introduction 3 Habitats (non-marine) 7 Vegetation 8 Fungi 9 Lichens 11 Bryophytes 12 Algae 13 Vascular plants 15 Non-insect invertebrates 17 Insects 21 Tunicates & lancelets 24 Marine fishes 25 Freshwater fishes 27 Amphibians & reptiles 29 Birds 31 Land mammals 33 Bats 34 Marine mammals 35 References 36 Appendix 41 The National Biodiversity Data Centre is an initiative of the Heritage Council and is operated under a service level agreement by Compass Informatics. The Centre is funded by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Foreword Dr Liam Lysaght Ireland, along with its EU partners, agreed to ‘Halt biodiversity loss by 2010’. Before we can halt biodiversity loss, we need to have some understanding of what that biodiversity resource is. As a contribution to this target, and to mark International Year of Biodiversity 2010, the National Biodiversity Data Centre set out to produce an overview of the state of knowledge on Ireland’s biodiversity. The scope of this task relates only to knowledge on what species and habitats occur in Ireland, how they are distributed, and how their range and/or populations are changing. Ecosystem function and conservation management are outside the remit of the Centre thus are not addressed in this document. -
The Morphology and Taxonomic Value of Thoracic Structures in Some Brachycera, Diptera
\ THE MORPHOLOGY AND TAXONOMIC VALUE OF THORACIC STRUCTURES IN SOME BRACHYCERA, DIPTERA by MUSA ABDALLA AHMED, D.I.C., M.Sc. (London) Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of London Department of Pure and Applied Biology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, South Kensington, S.W.7. July 1982 jXJrl JjLJ' J& -^llUT J^ ^ l^r tLe^Vf f Jfc'iej _xx»£x x . - -- x x x» xxx x » > • > x x * i — x> x LiJcU ^LJ Ij|U Cn) ^O^JlA i- - >lxfl —£xx » —X»t f X x x XX > /» . > x»r x I x S ^UIUA ^Ur-u ^^^J^^lib JU eg) ^-^IJ^T^UJT vil;^ x x^xvix ».x xx £ „ X »x >x»l v £ »xl xx » j^ju-U^lj iU JiU' JU ^tH- X > XX (g) O^xj^TUj rr'-n . iyM1 <T> /r? f/ie name o/ God, f/?e Merciful, the Mercy-Giving He taught Adam all the names of everything; then presented them to the angels, and said: "Tell me the names of these, if you are truthful." They said: "Glory be to You; we have no knowledge except what You have taught us. You are the Aware, the Wise!" He said: "Adam, tell them their names." Once he had told them their names, He said: "Did I not tell you that I know the Unseen in Heaven and Earth? I know whatever you disclose and whatever you have been hiding." The Cow 2: 31-33 THE MORPHOLOGY AND TAXONOMIC VALUE OF THORACIC STRUCTURES IN SOME BRACHYCERA, DIPTERA ABSTRACT The thoracic morphology of some Brachycera (Diptera) is considered. -
Portishead Branch Line (Metrowest Phase 1)
Portishead Branch Line (MetroWest Phase 1) TR040011 Applicant: North Somerset District Council 6.25, Environmental Statement, Volume 4, Appendix 9.1, Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Part 1 of 2 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009, regulation 5(2)(a) Planning Act 2008 Author: CH2M Date: November 2019 Notice © Copyright 2019 CH2M HILL United Kingdom. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of CH2M HILL United Kingdom, a wholly owned subsidiary of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright. Limitation: This document has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this document by any third party. Where any data supplied by the client or from other sources have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct. No responsibility can be accepted by Jacobs for inaccuracies in the data supplied by any other party. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on the assumption that all relevant information has been supplied by those bodies from whom it was requested. Where field investigations have been carried out, these have been restricted to a level of detail required to achieve the stated objectives of the work. This work has been undertaken in accordance with the quality management system of Jacobs.