592 INDEX EA2 P592 607 Indexnew 12/24
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Lake Baikal Russian Federation
LAKE BAIKAL RUSSIAN FEDERATION Lake Baikal is in south central Siberia close to the Mongolian border. It is the largest, oldest by 20 million years, and deepest, at 1,638m, of the world's lakes. It is 3.15 million hectares in size and contains a fifth of the world's unfrozen surface freshwater. Its age and isolation and unusually fertile depths have given it the world's richest and most unusual lacustrine fauna which, like the Galapagos islands’, is of outstanding value to evolutionary science. The exceptional variety of endemic animals and plants make the lake one of the most biologically diverse on earth. Threats to the site: Present threats are the untreated wastes from the river Selenga, potential oil and gas exploration in the Selenga delta, widespread lake-edge pollution and over-hunting of the Baikal seals. However, the threat of an oil pipeline along the lake’s north shore was averted in 2006 by Presidential decree and the pulp and cellulose mill on the southern shore which polluted 200 sq. km of the lake, caused some of the worst air pollution in Russia and genetic mutations in some of the lake’s endemic species, was closed in 2009 as no longer profitable to run. COUNTRY Russian Federation NAME Lake Baikal NATURAL WORLD HERITAGE SERIAL SITE 1996: Inscribed on the World Heritage List under Natural Criteria vii, viii, ix and x. STATEMENT OF OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE The UNESCO World Heritage Committee issued the following statement at the time of inscription. Justification for Inscription The Committee inscribed Lake Baikal the most outstanding example of a freshwater ecosystem on the basis of: Criteria (vii), (viii), (ix) and (x). -
GIS Handbook Appendices
Aerial Survey GIS Handbook Appendix D Revised 11/19/2007 Appendix D Cooperating Agency Codes The following table lists the aerial survey cooperating agencies and codes to be used in the agency1, agency2, agency3 fields of the flown/not flown coverages. The contents of this list is available in digital form (.dbf) at the following website: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/id/id_guidelines.html 28 Aerial Survey GIS Handbook Appendix D Revised 11/19/2007 Code Agency Name AFC Alabama Forestry Commission ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources AZFH Arizona Forest Health Program, University of Arizona AZS Arizona State Land Department ARFC Arkansas Forestry Commission CDF California Department of Forestry CSFS Colorado State Forest Service CTAES Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station DEDA Delaware Department of Agriculture FDOF Florida Division of Forestry FTA Fort Apache Indian Reservation GFC Georgia Forestry Commission HOA Hopi Indian Reservation IDL Idaho Department of Lands INDNR Indiana Department of Natural Resources IADNR Iowa Department of Natural Resources KDF Kentucky Division of Forestry LDAF Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry MEFS Maine Forest Service MDDA Maryland Department of Agriculture MADCR Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation MIDNR Michigan Department of Natural Resources MNDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources MFC Mississippi Forestry Commission MODC Missouri Department of Conservation NAO Navajo Area Indian Reservation NDCNR Nevada Department of Conservation -
Management and Breeding of Birds of Paradise (Family Paradisaeidae) at the Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation
Management and breeding of Birds of Paradise (family Paradisaeidae) at the Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation. By Richard Switzer Bird Curator, Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation. Presentation for Aviary Congress Singapore, November 2008 Introduction to Birds of Paradise in the Wild Taxonomy The family Paradisaeidae is in the order Passeriformes. In the past decade since the publication of Frith and Beehler (1998), the taxonomy of the family Paradisaeidae has been re-evaluated considerably. Frith and Beehler (1998) listed 42 species in 17 genera. However, the monotypic genus Macgregoria (MacGregor’s Bird of Paradise) has been re-classified in the family Meliphagidae (Honeyeaters). Similarly, 3 species in 2 genera (Cnemophilus and Loboparadisea) – formerly described as the “Wide-gaped Birds of Paradise” – have been re-classified as members of the family Melanocharitidae (Berrypeckers and Longbills) (Cracraft and Feinstein 2000). Additionally the two genera of Sicklebills (Epimachus and Drepanornis) are now considered to be combined as the one genus Epimachus. These changes reduce the total number of genera in the family Paradisaeidae to 13. However, despite the elimination of the 4 species mentioned above, 3 species have been newly described – Berlepsch's Parotia (P. berlepschi), Eastern or Helen’s Parotia (P. helenae) and the Eastern or Growling Riflebird (P. intercedens). The Berlepsch’s Parotia was once considered to be a subspecies of the Carola's Parotia. It was previously known only from four female specimens, discovered in 1985. It was rediscovered during a Conservation International expedition in 2005 and was photographed for the first time. The Eastern Parotia, also known as Helena's Parotia, is sometimes considered to be a subspecies of Lawes's Parotia, but differs in the male’s frontal crest and the female's dorsal plumage colours. -
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. -
Bionomics of Bagworms (Lepidoptera: Psychidae)
ANRV363-EN54-11 ARI 27 August 2008 20:44 V I E E W R S I E N C N A D V A Bionomics of Bagworms ∗ (Lepidoptera: Psychidae) Marc Rhainds,1 Donald R. Davis,2 and Peter W. Price3 1Department of Entomology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 47901; email: [email protected] 2Department of Entomology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., 20013-7012; email: [email protected] 3Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, 86011-5640; email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2009. 54:209–26 Key Words The Annual Review of Entomology is online at bottom-up effects, flightlessness, mating failure, parthenogeny, ento.annualreviews.org phylogenetic constraint hypothesis, protogyny This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.54.110807.090448 Abstract Copyright c 2009 by Annual Reviews. The bagworm family (Lepidoptera: Psychidae) includes approximately All rights reserved 1000 species, all of which complete larval development within a self- 0066-4170/09/0107-0209$20.00 enclosing bag. The family is remarkable in that female aptery occurs in ∗The U.S. Government has the right to retain a over half of the known species and within 9 of the 10 currently recog- nonexclusive, royalty-free license in and to any nized subfamilies. In the more derived subfamilies, several life-history copyright covering this paper. traits are associated with eruptive population dynamics, e.g., neoteny of females, high fecundity, dispersal on silken threads, and high level of polyphagy. Other salient features shared by many species include a short embryonic period, developmental synchrony, sexual segrega- tion of pupation sites, short longevity of adults, male-biased sex ratio, sexual dimorphism, protogyny, parthenogenesis, and oviposition in the pupal case. -
The Birds (Aves) of Oromia, Ethiopia – an Annotated Checklist
European Journal of Taxonomy 306: 1–69 ISSN 2118-9773 https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2017.306 www.europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu 2017 · Gedeon K. et al. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Monograph urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:A32EAE51-9051-458A-81DD-8EA921901CDC The birds (Aves) of Oromia, Ethiopia – an annotated checklist Kai GEDEON 1,*, Chemere ZEWDIE 2 & Till TÖPFER 3 1 Saxon Ornithologists’ Society, P.O. Box 1129, 09331 Hohenstein-Ernstthal, Germany. 2 Oromia Forest and Wildlife Enterprise, P.O. Box 1075, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia. 3 Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig, Centre for Taxonomy and Evolutionary Research, Adenauerallee 160, 53113 Bonn, Germany. * Corresponding author: [email protected] 2 Email: [email protected] 3 Email: [email protected] 1 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:F46B3F50-41E2-4629-9951-778F69A5BBA2 2 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:F59FEDB3-627A-4D52-A6CB-4F26846C0FC5 3 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:A87BE9B4-8FC6-4E11-8DB4-BDBB3CFBBEAA Abstract. Oromia is the largest National Regional State of Ethiopia. Here we present the first comprehensive checklist of its birds. A total of 804 bird species has been recorded, 601 of them confirmed (443) or assumed (158) to be breeding birds. At least 561 are all-year residents (and 31 more potentially so), at least 73 are Afrotropical migrants and visitors (and 44 more potentially so), and 184 are Palaearctic migrants and visitors (and eight more potentially so). Three species are endemic to Oromia, 18 to Ethiopia and 43 to the Horn of Africa. 170 Oromia bird species are biome restricted: 57 to the Afrotropical Highlands biome, 95 to the Somali-Masai biome, and 18 to the Sudan-Guinea Savanna biome. -
Nesting Behavior of a Raggiana Bird of Paradise
Wilson Bull., 106(3), 1994, pp. 522-530 NESTING BEHAVIOR OF A RAGGIANA BIRD OF PARADISE WILLIAM E. DAVIS, JR.’ AND BRUCE M. BEEHLER* ABSTRACT..-WC made observations of a nest of a Raggiana Bird of Paradise (Parudisaea raggiana) for 22 days. The single nestling was attended only by the female and was fed only arthropods until day 5, and thereafter a mix of arthropods and fruit. Evidence from regurgitation of seeds at the nest indicates that the parent subsisted largely on fruit. This dietary dichotomy conforms to that of other polygynous birds of paradise and accords with socioecological predictions concerning single-parent nestling care. Received 3 Aug. 1993, accepted 1 Feb. 1994. Many aspects of the life history of birds of paradise (Paradisaeidae) are at least superficially understood (Gilliard 1969, Cooper and Forshaw 1977, Diamond 1981, Beehler 1989). One notable exception is nesting biology which is inadequately documented for many paradisaeid species (Cooper and Forshaw 1977). In spite of recent contributions (Pruett-Jones and Pruett-Jones 1988; Frith and Frith 1990, 1992, 1993a, b; Mack 1992), the nests of 13 species remain undescribed, and 26 species have never been studied at the nest (Cooper and Forshaw 1977; Beehler, unpubl.). Here we provide the first detailed description of nesting behavior of the Raggiana Bird of Paradise (Parudisaea ruggianu) in the wild, one of the best-known members of the family, and Papua New Guinea’s national symbol. The Raggiana Bird of Paradise is a common, vocal, and widespread species of forest and edge that inhabits lowlands and hills of southern, central, and southeastern Papua New Guinea (Cooper and Forshaw 1977). -
Status and Protection of Globally Threatened Species in the Caucasus
STATUS AND PROTECTION OF GLOBALLY THREATENED SPECIES IN THE CAUCASUS CEPF Biodiversity Investments in the Caucasus Hotspot 2004-2009 Edited by Nugzar Zazanashvili and David Mallon Tbilisi 2009 The contents of this book do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of CEPF, WWF, or their sponsoring organizations. Neither the CEPF, WWF nor any other entities thereof, assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, product or process disclosed in this book. Citation: Zazanashvili, N. and Mallon, D. (Editors) 2009. Status and Protection of Globally Threatened Species in the Caucasus. Tbilisi: CEPF, WWF. Contour Ltd., 232 pp. ISBN 978-9941-0-2203-6 Design and printing Contour Ltd. 8, Kargareteli st., 0164 Tbilisi, Georgia December 2009 The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) is a joint initiative of l’Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank. This book shows the effort of the Caucasus NGOs, experts, scientific institutions and governmental agencies for conserving globally threatened species in the Caucasus: CEPF investments in the region made it possible for the first time to carry out simultaneous assessments of species’ populations at national and regional scales, setting up strategies and developing action plans for their survival, as well as implementation of some urgent conservation measures. Contents Foreword 7 Acknowledgments 8 Introduction CEPF Investment in the Caucasus Hotspot A. W. Tordoff, N. Zazanashvili, M. Bitsadze, K. Manvelyan, E. Askerov, V. Krever, S. Kalem, B. Avcioglu, S. Galstyan and R. Mnatsekanov 9 The Caucasus Hotspot N. -
Controlled Animals
Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Fish and Wildlife Policy Division Controlled Animals Wildlife Regulation, Schedule 5, Part 1-4: Controlled Animals Subject to the Wildlife Act, a person must not be in possession of a wildlife or controlled animal unless authorized by a permit to do so, the animal was lawfully acquired, was lawfully exported from a jurisdiction outside of Alberta and was lawfully imported into Alberta. NOTES: 1 Animals listed in this Schedule, as a general rule, are described in the left hand column by reference to common or descriptive names and in the right hand column by reference to scientific names. But, in the event of any conflict as to the kind of animals that are listed, a scientific name in the right hand column prevails over the corresponding common or descriptive name in the left hand column. 2 Also included in this Schedule is any animal that is the hybrid offspring resulting from the crossing, whether before or after the commencement of this Schedule, of 2 animals at least one of which is or was an animal of a kind that is a controlled animal by virtue of this Schedule. 3 This Schedule excludes all wildlife animals, and therefore if a wildlife animal would, but for this Note, be included in this Schedule, it is hereby excluded from being a controlled animal. Part 1 Mammals (Class Mammalia) 1. AMERICAN OPOSSUMS (Family Didelphidae) Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana 2. SHREWS (Family Soricidae) Long-tailed Shrews Genus Sorex Arboreal Brown-toothed Shrew Episoriculus macrurus North American Least Shrew Cryptotis parva Old World Water Shrews Genus Neomys Ussuri White-toothed Shrew Crocidura lasiura Greater White-toothed Shrew Crocidura russula Siberian Shrew Crocidura sibirica Piebald Shrew Diplomesodon pulchellum 3. -
South Africa: Magoebaskloof and Kruger National Park Custom Tour Trip Report
SOUTH AFRICA: MAGOEBASKLOOF AND KRUGER NATIONAL PARK CUSTOM TOUR TRIP REPORT 24 February – 2 March 2019 By Jason Boyce This Verreaux’s Eagle-Owl showed nicely one late afternoon, puffing up his throat and neck when calling www.birdingecotours.com [email protected] 2 | TRIP REPORT South Africa: Magoebaskloof and Kruger National Park February 2019 Overview It’s common knowledge that South Africa has very much to offer as a birding destination, and the memory of this trip echoes those sentiments. With an itinerary set in one of South Africa’s premier birding provinces, the Limpopo Province, we were getting ready for a birding extravaganza. The forests of Magoebaskloof would be our first stop, spending a day and a half in the area and targeting forest special after forest special as well as tricky range-restricted species such as Short-clawed Lark and Gurney’s Sugarbird. Afterwards we would descend the eastern escarpment and head into Kruger National Park, where we would make our way to the northern sections. These included Punda Maria, Pafuri, and the Makuleke Concession – a mouthwatering birding itinerary that was sure to deliver. A pair of Woodland Kingfishers in the fever tree forest along the Limpopo River Detailed Report Day 1, 24th February 2019 – Transfer to Magoebaskloof We set out from Johannesburg after breakfast on a clear Sunday morning. The drive to Polokwane took us just over three hours. A number of birds along the way started our trip list; these included Hadada Ibis, Yellow-billed Kite, Southern Black Flycatcher, Village Weaver, and a few brilliant European Bee-eaters. -
Canid, Hye A, Aardwolf Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (Camp) Canid, Hyena, & Aardwolf
CANID, HYE A, AARDWOLF CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN (CAMP) CANID, HYENA, & AARDWOLF CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN (CAMP) Final Draft Report Edited by Jack Grisham, Alan West, Onnie Byers and Ulysses Seal ~ Canid Specialist Group EARlliPROMSE FOSSIL RIM A fi>MlY Of CCNSERVA11QN FUNDS A Joint Endeavor of AAZPA IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group IUCN/SSC Hyaena Specialist Group IUCN/SSC Captive Breeding Specialist Group CBSG SPECIES SURVIVAL COMMISSION The work of the Captive Breeding Specialist Group is made possible by gellerous colltributiolls from the following members of the CBSG Institutional Conservation Council: Conservators ($10,000 and above) Federation of Zoological Gardens of Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Claws 'n Paws Australasian Species Management Program Great Britain and Ireland BanhamZoo Darmstadt Zoo Chicago Zoological Society Fort Wayne Zoological Society Copenhagen Zoo Dreher Park Zoo Columbus Zoological Gardens Gladys Porter Zoo Cotswold Wildlife Park Fota Wildlife Park Denver Zoological Gardens Indianapolis Zoological Society Dutch Federation of Zoological Gardens Great Plains Zoo Fossil Rim Wildlife Center Japanese Association of Zoological Parks Erie Zoological Park Hancock House Publisher Friends of Zoo Atlanta and Aquariums Fota Wildlife Park Kew Royal Botanic Gardens Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust Givskud Zoo Miller Park Zoo International Union of Directors of Lincoln Park Zoo Granby Zoological Society Nagoya Aquarium Zoological Gardens The Living Desert Knoxville Zoo National Audubon Society-Research Metropolitan Toronto Zoo Marwell Zoological Park National Geographic Magazine Ranch Sanctuary Minnesota Zoological Garden Milwaukee County Zoo National Zoological Gardens National Aviary in Pittsburgh New York Zoological Society NOAHS Center of South Africa Parco Faunistico "La To:rbiera" Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo North of Chester Zoological Society Odense Zoo Potter Park Zoo Saint Louis Zoo Oklahoma City Zoo Orana Park Wildlife Trust Racine Zoological Society Sea World, Inc. -
Species Diversity and Conservation Status of Amphibians in Madre De Dios, Southern Peru
Herpetological Conservation and Biology 4(1):14-29 Submitted: 18 December 2007; Accepted: 4 August 2008 SPECIES DIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF AMPHIBIANS IN MADRE DE DIOS, SOUTHERN PERU 1,2 3 4,5 RUDOLF VON MAY , KAREN SIU-TING , JENNIFER M. JACOBS , MARGARITA MEDINA- 3 6 3,7 1 MÜLLER , GIUSEPPE GAGLIARDI , LILY O. RODRÍGUEZ , AND MAUREEN A. DONNELLY 1 Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th Street, OE-167, Miami, Florida 33199, USA 2 Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] 3 Departamento de Herpetología, Museo de Historia Natural de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Avenida Arenales 1256, Lima 11, Perú 4 Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, California 94132, USA 5 Department of Entomology, California Academy of Sciences, 55 Music Concourse Drive, San Francisco, California 94118, USA 6 Departamento de Herpetología, Museo de Zoología de la Universidad Nacional de la Amazonía Peruana, Pebas 5ta cuadra, Iquitos, Perú 7 Programa de Desarrollo Rural Sostenible, Cooperación Técnica Alemana – GTZ, Calle Diecisiete 355, Lima 27, Perú ABSTRACT.—This study focuses on amphibian species diversity in the lowland Amazonian rainforest of southern Peru, and on the importance of protected and non-protected areas for maintaining amphibian assemblages in this region. We compared species lists from nine sites in the Madre de Dios region, five of which are in nationally recognized protected areas and four are outside the country’s protected area system. Los Amigos, occurring outside the protected area system, is the most species-rich locality included in our comparison.