DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 250/Wednesday, December 30

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 250/Wednesday, December 30 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules 71855 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR during normal business hours at the of each cave visited during the study above address. and presents information obtained from Fish and Wildlife Service FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: invertebrate collections. Veni's (1994a) report delineates six 50 CFR Part 17 Alisa Shull, Supervisory Fish and Wildlife Biologist (see ADDRESSES karst areas (hereafter referred to as karst RIN 1018±AF33 section) (telephone 512/490±0057; fauna regions) within Bexar County. The facsimile 512/490±0974). karst fauna regions he discusses are Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Stone Oak, UTSA (University of Texas SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and Plants; Proposal to List Nine at San Antonio), Helotes, Government Bexar County, Texas Invertebrate Background Canyon, Culebra Anticline, and Alamo Species as Endangered Rhadine exilis and Rhadine infernalis Heights. The boundaries of these karst fauna regions are geological or AGENCY: were first collected in 1959 and Fish and Wildlife Service geographical features that may represent Interior. described by Barr and Lawrence (1960) as Agonum exile and Agonum infernale, obstructions to troglobite movement (on ACTION: Proposed rule. an evolutionary time scale) that have respectively. Barr (1974) assigned the resulted in the present-day distribution SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife species to the genus Rhadine. Batrisodes of endemic (restricted in distribution) Service, propose to list nine cave- venyivi was first collected in 1984 and karst invertebrates in the San Antonio dwelling invertebrates from Bexar described by Chandler (1992). Texella County, Texas as endangered species region. cokendolpheri was first collected in The harvestman Texella under the Endangered Species Act of 1982 and described in Ubick and Briggs 1973, as amended (Act). Rhadine exilis cokendolpheri, Robber Baron Cave (1992). Cicurina baronia, Cicurina harvestman, is known only from Robber (no common name) and Rhadine madla, Cicurina venii, and Cicurina infernalis (no common name) are small, Baron cave in the Alamo Heights karst vespera were first collected in 1969, fauna region on private property. The essentially eyeless ground beetles. 1963, 1980, and 1965, respectively. Batrisodes venyivi (Helotes mold beetle) cave entrance has been donated to the They were all described by Gertsch Texas Cave Management Association is a small, eyeless mold beetle. Texella (1992). Neoleptoneta microps was first cokendolpheri (Robber Baron Cave (George Veni, Veni & Associates, pers. collected in 1965 and described by comm. 1995), which will likely be harvestman) is a small, eyeless Gertsch (1974) as Leptoneta microps. harvestman (daddy-longlegs). Cicurina interested in protection and The species was reassigned to improvement of the cave habitat. baronia (Robber Baron cave spider), Neoleptoneta following Brignoli (1977) Cicurina madla (Madla's cave spider), However, this cave is relatively large, and Platnick (1986). and the land over and around the cave Cicurina venii (no common name), These nine invertebrates are obligate Cicurina vespera (vesper cave spider), is heavily urbanized. The cave has also cave-dwelling species (troglobites) of been subject to extensive commercial and Neoleptoneta microps (Government local distribution in caves in Bexar Canyon cave spider) are all small and recreational use (Veni 1988). No County, Texas. The life habits of the confirmed specimens of T. eyeless, or essentially eyeless, spiders. species are not well known. They cokendolpheri were collected during the These species (referred to in this probably prey on the eggs, larvae, or 1993 status survey, but one Texella proposed rule as the ``nine adults of other cave invertebrates. harvestman collected at Robber Baron invertebrates'' are known from karst We funded a status survey (Veni Cave since completion of the status features (limestone formations 1994a; Redell 1993) of all nine species survey is highly likely to be this species containing caves, sinks, and fissures) in through a grant under section 6 of the (James Reddell, Texas Memorial north and northwest Bexar County. Act to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Museum, and Dr. Darrell Ubick, Threats to the species and their habitat Department (TPWD). Researchers California Academy of Sciences, pers. include destruction and/or deterioration obtained landowner permission to study comm. 1995). of habitat by construction; filling of and assess threats to 41 caves in north Batrisodes venyivi, the Helotes mold caves and karst features and loss of and northwest Bexar County, Texas. beetle, is known from only three caves permeable cover; contamination from Landowners denied permission to in the vicinity of Helotes, Texas, such things as septic effluent, sewer access an additional 36 caves that were northwest of San Antonio. Two of these leaks, run-off, and pesticides; predation believed likely to contain species of caves are located in the Helotes karst by and competition with non-native fire concern. All 77 caves had been fauna region on private property. The ants; and vandalism. This proposal also described to some extent before the owner of one of the caves within the constitutes our 12-month finding on a status survey was conducted. Four were Helotes karst fauna region has denied petition to list these nine invertebrates. already known to contain at least one of access in recent years, so Batrisodes This proposal, if made final, would the nine invertebrates. venyivi's status there is unknown. implement Federal protection provided During the status survey, the However, the cave is known to have by the Act for these species. researchers made a collection of the been heavily infested with fire ants DATES: Comments from all interested invertebrate fauna at each cave studied, (Solenopsis invicta) in the past (Reddell parties must be received by April 29, assessed the condition of the cave 1993). The owner of the second cave is 1999. Public hearing requests must be environment and threats to the species, very interested in protecting the cave received by February 16, 1999. and collected geological data. They used and the unique species inside. However, ADDRESSES: Send comments and this information to prepare two reports. fire ants are also present in the second materials concerning this proposal to One report discusses the overall karst locality. The collector of the specimen the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and geography in the San Antonio region from the third cave has declined to give Wildlife Service, Hartland Bank and the potential geologic and us a specific site collection record, but Building, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, geographic barriers to karst invertebrate this cave may be located in the UTSA Austin, Texas 78758. Comments and migration and limits to their karst fauna region and likely lies on materials received will be available for distribution (Veni 1994a). The other private property (James Reddell, pers. public inspection, by appointment, report (Reddell 1993) details the fauna comm. 1997). 71856 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules Rhadine exilis is known from 33 on private property in the UTSA karst officials in response to the 90-day caves in north and northwest Bexar fauna region. finding. Most of the comments were County. Nineteen are located on Cicurina vespera, the vesper cave similar in form, opposed the listing, and Department of Defense (DOD) land. The spider, has been found in only two requested that we delay making a 12- remainder are distributed among the caves. One is Government Canyon Bat month finding until the results of status Helotes, UTSA, and Stone Oak karst Cave in the Government Canyon State surveys conducted under section 6 of fauna regions, while one location lies in Natural Area, and the other is a cave 5 the Act were made available. Some the Government Canyon region. One is miles northeast of Helotes, the location commenters raised questions and issues located in a county road right-of-way, and name of which has not been regarding the status of the nine one is located in a state-owned natural revealed to us. invertebrates and the validity of the area, and the remainder are located on Neoleptoneta microps is known only science on which we based the 90-day private property. Ongoing efforts by the from the Government Canyon karst finding. We considered these comments DOD to locate and inventory karst fauna area from two caves within and information in preparing this features on Camp Bullis and to Government Canyon State Natural Area. proposed rule. document the karst fauna communities Threats to these species and their Eight of the nine invertebrates were in caves on Camp Bullis resulted in habitats include destruction and/or added to the Animal Notice of Review discovery of 18 of the 33 caves deterioration of habitat by commercial, as category 2 candidate species in the mentioned above (Veni 1994b; James residential, and road construction; Federal Register on November 15, 1994 Reddell, pers. comm. 1997). filling of caves, and loss of permeable (59 FR 58982). Rhadine exilis was cover; potential contamination from Rhadine infernalis is known from 25 presented with the other eight species in such things as septic effluent, sewer caves. This species occurs in five of the February of 1994 to be added to the leaks, run-off, and pesticides; predation six karst fauna regionsÐHelotes, UTSA, November 15, 1994, notice of review, by
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Oak Woodland Litter Spiders James Steffen Chicago Botanic Garden
    Oak Woodland Litter Spiders James Steffen Chicago Botanic Garden George Retseck Objectives • Learn about Spiders as Animals • Learn to recognize common spiders to family • Learn about spider ecology • Learn to Collect and Preserve Spiders Kingdom - Animalia Phylum - Arthropoda Subphyla - Mandibulata Chelicerata Class - Arachnida Orders - Acari Opiliones Pseudoscorpiones Araneae Spiders Arachnids of Illinois • Order Acari: Mites and Ticks • Order Opiliones: Harvestmen • Order Pseudoscorpiones: Pseudoscorpions • Order Araneae: Spiders! Acari - Soil Mites Characteriscs of Spiders • Usually four pairs of simple eyes although some species may have less • Six pair of appendages: one pair of fangs (instead of mandibles), one pair of pedipalps, and four pair of walking legs • Spinnerets at the end of the abdomen, which are used for spinning silk threads for a variety of purposes, such as the construction of webs, snares, and retreats in which to live or to wrap prey • 1 pair of sensory palps (often much larger in males) between the first pair of legs and the chelicerae used for sperm transfer, prey manipulation, and detection of smells and vibrations • 1 to 2 pairs of book-lungs on the underside of abdomen • Primitively, 2 body regions: Cephalothorax, Abdomen Spider Life Cycle • Eggs in batches (egg sacs) • Hatch inside the egg sac • molt to spiderlings which leave from the egg sac • grows during several more molts (instars) • at final molt, becomes adult – Some long-lived mygalomorphs (tarantulas) molt after adulthood Phenology • Most temperate
    [Show full text]
  • Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan
    Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan March 2008 Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan BEXAR COUNTY KARST INVERTEBRATES DRAFT RECOVERY PLAN Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico March 2008 Approved: ___DRAFT_______________________________________ Regional Director, Southwest Region Date U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Concur: __DRAFT____________________________________________ Executive Director Date Texas Parks and Wildlife Department ii Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that the best available science indicates are necessary to recover or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), but are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans are guidance and planning documents only. Identification of an action to be implemented by any private or public party does not create a legal obligation beyond existing legal requirements. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act (U.S.C. 1341) or any other law or regulation. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the Service. They represent the official position of the Service only after the plan has been signed by the Regional Director as approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Arachnida: Araneae) from the Middle Eocene Messel Maar, Germany
    Palaeoentomology 002 (6): 596–601 ISSN 2624-2826 (print edition) https://www.mapress.com/j/pe/ Short PALAEOENTOMOLOGY Copyright © 2019 Magnolia Press Communication ISSN 2624-2834 (online edition) PE https://doi.org/10.11646/palaeoentomology.2.6.10 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:E7F92F14-A680-4D30-8CF5-2B27C5AED0AB A new spider (Arachnida: Araneae) from the Middle Eocene Messel Maar, Germany PAUL A. SELDEN1, 2, * & torsten wappler3 1Department of Geology, University of Kansas, 1475 Jayhawk Boulevard, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA. 2Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK. 3Hessisches Landesmuseum Darmstadt, Friedensplatz 1, 64283 Darmstadt, Germany. *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] The Fossil-Lagerstätte of Grube Messel, Germany, has Thomisidae and Salticidae (Schawaller & Ono, 1979; produced some of the most spectacular fossils of the Wunderlich, 1986). The Pliocene lake of Willershausen, Paleogene (Schaal & Ziegler, 1992; Gruber & Micklich, produced by solution of evaporites and subsequent collapse, 2007; Selden & Nudds, 2012; Schaal et al., 2018). However, has produced some remarkably preserved arthropod fossils few arachnids have been discovered or described from this (Briggs et al., 1998), including numerous spider families: World Heritage Site. An araneid spider was reported by Dysderidae, Lycosidae, Thomisidae and Salticidae (Straus, Wunderlich (1986). Wedmann (2018) reported that 160 1967; Schawaller, 1982). All of these localities are much spider specimens were known from Messel although, sadly, younger than Messel. few are well preserved. She figured the araneid mentioned by Wunderlich (1986) and a nicely preserved hersiliid (Wedmann, 2018: figs 7.8–7.9, respectively). Wedmann Material and methods (2018) mentioned six opilionids yet to be described, and figured one (Wedmann, 2018: fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    1 Justin Augustine (CA Bar No. 235561) Jaclyn Lopez (CA Bar No. 258589) 2 Center for Biological Diversity 351 California Street, Suite 600 3 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 436-9682 4 Fax: (415) 436-9683 [email protected] 5 [email protected] 6 Collette L. Adkins Giese (MN Bar No. 035059X)* Center for Biological Diversity 8640 Coral Sea Street Northeast 7 Minneapolis, MN 55449-5600 Tel: (651) 955-3821 8 Fax: (415) 436-9683 [email protected] 9 Michael W. Graf (CA Bar No. 136172) 10 Law Offices 227 Behrens Street 11 El Cerrito, CA 94530 Tel: (510) 525-7222 12 Fax: (510) 525-1208 [email protected] 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and 14 Pesticide Action Network North America *Seeking admission pro hac vice 15 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 19 20 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL ) 21 DIVERSITY, a non-profit organization; and ) Case No.__________________ PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK ) 22 NORTH AMERICA, a non-profit ) organization; ) 23 ) Plaintiffs, ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY 24 ) AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF v. ) 25 ) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ) 26 AGENCY; and LISA JACKSON, ) Administrator, U.S. EPA; ) 27 ) Defendants. ) 28 _____________________________________ ) Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 1 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1. This action challenges the failure of Defendants Environmental Protection Agency and 3 Lisa Jackson, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, (collectively “EPA”) to consult with the 4 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) 5 (collectively “Service”) pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Invertebrate Distribution and Diversity Assessment at the U. S. Army Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site a Report to the U
    Invertebrate Distribution and Diversity Assessment at the U. S. Army Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site A report to the U. S. Army and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service G. J. Michels, Jr., J. L. Newton, H. L. Lindon, and J. A. Brazille Texas AgriLife Research 2301 Experiment Station Road Bushland, TX 79012 2008 Report Introductory Notes The invertebrate survey in 2008 presented an interesting challenge. Extremely dry conditions prevailed throughout most of the adult activity period for the invertebrates and grass fires occurred several times throughout the summer. By visual assessment, plant resources were scarce compared to last year, with few green plants and almost no flowering plants. Eight habitats and nine sites continued to be sampled in 2008. The Ponderosa pine/ yellow indiangrass site was removed from the study after the low numbers of species and individuals collected there in 2007. All other sites from the 2007 survey were included in the 2008 survey. We also discontinued the collection of Coccinellidae in the 2008 survey, as only 98 individuals from four species were collected in 2007. Pitfall and malaise trapping were continued in the same way as the 2007 survey. Sweep net sampling was discontinued to allow time for Asilidae and Orthoptera timed surveys consisting of direct collection of individuals with a net. These surveys were conducted in the same way as the time constrained butterfly (Papilionidea and Hesperoidea) surveys, with 15-minute intervals for each taxanomic group. This was sucessful when individuals were present, but the dry summer made it difficult to assess the utility of these techniques because of overall low abundance of insects.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Pinon Canyon Invertebrate Survey Report
    "- - 70.096 60.096 50.096 40.096 30.096 20.096 10.096 0.0% Fig. 1 Most abundant Apiformes species calculated as a proportion of the total abundance of Apiformes in the collection period. Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, 2008. 04% 1 j 0.391> 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% Fig. 2 Least abundant Apiformes species calculated as a proportion of the total abundance of Apiformes in the collection period. Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, 2008.7 Fig. 3 Most abundant Carabidae species calculated as a proportion of the total abundance of Carabidae in the collection period. Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, 2008. Fig. 4 Least abundant Carabidae species calculated as a proportion of the total abundance of Carabidae in the collection period. Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, 2008. Fig. 5 Asilidae species abundance calculated as a proportion of the total abundace of Asilidae in the collection period. Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, 2008. 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Fig. 6 Butterfly species abundance calculated as a proportion of the total abundance of butterflies in the collection period. Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, 2008. Fig. 7 Most abundant Orthoptera species calculated as a proportion of the total abundance of Orthoptera in the collection period. Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, 2008. Fig. 8 Moderately abundant Orthoptera species calculated as a proportion of the total abundance of Orthoptera in the collection period. Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, 2008. Fig. 9 Least abundant Orthoptera species calculated as a proportion of the total abundance of Orthoptera in the collection period.
    [Show full text]
  • THE NATURAL HISTORY and TAXONOMY O F CICURINA BRYANTAE EXLINE (ARANEAE, AGELENIDAE ) R. G. Bennett
    Bennett, R. G. 1985. The natural history and taxonomy of Cicurina bryantae Exline (Araneae, Agelen- idae). J. Arachnol ., 13 :87-96 . THE NATURAL HISTORY AND TAXONOMY O F CICURINA BRYANTAE EXLINE (ARANEAE, AGELENIDAE ) R. G. Bennett Department of Biolog y Western Carolina University Cullowhee, North Carolina 28723 ABSTRACT Since its description in 1936 Cicurina bryantae Exline has been rarely collected . The recen t discovery of the microhabitat preference of this spider has allowed the observation and collection o f substantial numbers of specimens . The following account is compiled from these data . The natural history of the species is discussed (including the interesting tubular retreat constructs inhabited by immatures and adults) . Both sexes are described and figured (the male for the first time) . INTRODUCTION In 1936 Harriet Exline described a new species in the genus Cicurina Menge, 1869 on the basis of female specimens collected at Newfound Gap on the Tennessee-North Caro- lina border in 1930 by Nathan Banks . She named the species bryantae in honor of Eliza- beth Bangs Bryant who was at that time working at the Museum of Comparative Zoology where the specimens were deposited . Since that date, Cicurina bryantae has rarely been collected, its behavior and life history have not been recorded, and the male has not been described . Chamberlin and Ivie (1940) redescribed the female and mentioned two more female s captured by Ivie in 1933 in East Tennessee . Apparently no other specimens were col- lected until 1972 when J. O. Howell found an undescribed Cicurina male in a pitfall trap set in Union County, Georgia .
    [Show full text]
  • WO 2017/035099 Al 2 March 2017 (02.03.2017) P O P C T
    (12) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) (19) World Intellectual Property Organization International Bureau (10) International Publication Number (43) International Publication Date WO 2017/035099 Al 2 March 2017 (02.03.2017) P O P C T (51) International Patent Classification: BZ, CA, CH, CL, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DK, DM, C07C 39/00 (2006.01) C07D 303/32 (2006.01) DO, DZ, EC, EE, EG, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GH, GM, GT, C07C 49/242 (2006.01) HN, HR, HU, ID, IL, IN, IR, IS, JP, KE, KG, KN, KP, KR, KZ, LA, LC, LK, LR, LS, LU, LY, MA, MD, ME, MG, (21) International Application Number: MK, MN, MW, MX, MY, MZ, NA, NG, NI, NO, NZ, OM, PCT/US20 16/048092 PA, PE, PG, PH, PL, PT, QA, RO, RS, RU, RW, SA, SC, (22) International Filing Date: SD, SE, SG, SK, SL, SM, ST, SV, SY, TH, TJ, TM, TN, 22 August 2016 (22.08.2016) TR, TT, TZ, UA, UG, US, UZ, VC, VN, ZA, ZM, ZW. (25) Filing Language: English (84) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every kind of regional protection available): ARIPO (BW, GH, (26) Publication Language: English GM, KE, LR, LS, MW, MZ, NA, RW, SD, SL, ST, SZ, (30) Priority Data: TZ, UG, ZM, ZW), Eurasian (AM, AZ, BY, KG, KZ, RU, 62/208,662 22 August 2015 (22.08.2015) US TJ, TM), European (AL, AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HR, HU, IE, IS, IT, LT, LU, (71) Applicant: NEOZYME INTERNATIONAL, INC.
    [Show full text]
  • Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List
    Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List Associated Tables The Texas Priority Species List……………..733 Introduction For many years the management and conservation of wildlife species has focused on the individual animal or population of interest. Many times, directing research and conservation plans toward individual species also benefits incidental species; sometimes entire ecosystems. Unfortunately, there are times when highly focused research and conservation of particular species can also harm peripheral species and their habitats. Management that is focused on entire habitats or communities would decrease the possibility of harming those incidental species or their habitats. A holistic management approach would potentially allow species within a community to take care of themselves (Savory 1988); however, the study of particular species of concern is still necessary due to the smaller scale at which individuals are studied. Until we understand all of the parts that make up the whole can we then focus more on the habitat management approach to conservation. Species Conservation In terms of species diversity, Texas is considered the second most diverse state in the Union. Texas has the highest number of bird and reptile taxon and is second in number of plants and mammals in the United States (NatureServe 2002). There have been over 600 species of bird that have been identified within the borders of Texas and 184 known species of mammal, including marine species that inhabit Texas’ coastal waters (Schmidly 2004). It is estimated that approximately 29,000 species of insect in Texas take up residence in every conceivable habitat, including rocky outcroppings, pitcher plant bogs, and on individual species of plants (Riley in publication).
    [Show full text]
  • Karst Invertebrates Taxonomy
    Endangered Karst Invertebrate Taxonomy of Central Texas U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Ecological Services Field Office 10711 Burnet Rd. Suite #200 Austin, TX 78758 Original date: July 28, 2011 Revised on: April 4, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 ENDANGERED KARST INVERTEBRATE TAXONOMY ................................................. 1 2.1 Batrisodes texanus (Coffin Cave mold beetle) ......................................................................... 2 2.2 Batrisodes venyivi (Helotes mold beetle) .................................................................................. 3 2.3 Cicurina baronia (Robber Baron Cave meshweaver) ............................................................... 4 2.4 Cicurina madla (Madla Cave meshweaver) .............................................................................. 5 2.5 Cicurina venii (Braken Bat Cave meshweaver) ........................................................................ 6 2.6 Cicurina vespera (Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver) ............................................. 7 2.7 Neoleptoneta microps (Government Canyon Bat Cave spider) ................................................ 8 2.8 Neoleptoneta myopica (Tooth Cave spider) .............................................................................. 9 2.9 Rhadine exilis (no common name) .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pinyon Pine Mortality Alters Communities of Ground-Dwelling Arthropods
    Western North American Naturalist 74(2), © 2014, pp. 162–184 PINYON PINE MORTALITY ALTERS COMMUNITIES OF GROUND-DWELLING ARTHROPODS Robert J. Delph1,2,6, Michael J. Clifford2,3, Neil S. Cobb2, Paulette L. Ford4, and Sandra L. Brantley5 ABSTRACT.—We documented the effect of drought-induced mortality of pinyon pine (Pinus edulis Engelm.) on com- munities of ground-dwelling arthropods. Tree mortality alters microhabitats utilized by ground-dwelling arthropods by increasing solar radiation, dead woody debris, and understory vegetation. Our major objectives were to determine (1) whether there were changes in community composition, species richness, and abundance of ground-dwelling arthro- pods associated with pinyon mortality and (2) whether specific habitat characteristics and microhabitats accounted for these changes. We predicted shifts in community composition and increases in arthropod diversity and abundance due to the presumed increased complexity of microhabitats from both standing dead and fallen dead trees. We found signifi- cant differences in arthropod community composition between high and low pinyon mortality environments, despite no differences in arthropod abundance or richness. Overall, 22% (51 taxa) of the arthropod community were identified as being indicators of either high or low mortality. Our study corroborates other research indicating that arthropods are responsive to even moderate disturbance events leading to changes in the environment. These arthropod responses can be explained in part due to the increase in woody debris and reduced canopy cover created by tree mortality. RESUMEN.—Documentamos el efecto de la mortalidad causada por la sequía del pino piñonero (Pinus edulis Engelm.) sobre comunidades de artrópodos subterráneos. Utilizamos tres variantes en el microhábitat de los artrópodos incrementando la radiación solar, desechos de madera muerta y vegetación baja.
    [Show full text]
  • Araneae (Spider) Photos
    Araneae (Spider) Photos Araneae (Spiders) About Information on: Spider Photos of Links to WWW Spiders Spiders of North America Relationships Spider Groups Spider Resources -- An Identification Manual About Spiders As in the other arachnid orders, appendage specialization is very important in the evolution of spiders. In spiders the five pairs of appendages of the prosoma (one of the two main body sections) that follow the chelicerae are the pedipalps followed by four pairs of walking legs. The pedipalps are modified to serve as mating organs by mature male spiders. These modifications are often very complicated and differences in their structure are important characteristics used by araneologists in the classification of spiders. Pedipalps in female spiders are structurally much simpler and are used for sensing, manipulating food and sometimes in locomotion. It is relatively easy to tell mature or nearly mature males from female spiders (at least in most groups) by looking at the pedipalps -- in females they look like functional but small legs while in males the ends tend to be enlarged, often greatly so. In young spiders these differences are not evident. There are also appendages on the opisthosoma (the rear body section, the one with no walking legs) the best known being the spinnerets. In the first spiders there were four pairs of spinnerets. Living spiders may have four e.g., (liphistiomorph spiders) or three pairs (e.g., mygalomorph and ecribellate araneomorphs) or three paris of spinnerets and a silk spinning plate called a cribellum (the earliest and many extant araneomorph spiders). Spinnerets' history as appendages is suggested in part by their being projections away from the opisthosoma and the fact that they may retain muscles for movement Much of the success of spiders traces directly to their extensive use of silk and poison.
    [Show full text]