DOCSLIB.ORG

Species at Risk Act

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Consultation on Amending the List of Species under the Species at Risk Act Terrestrial Species November 2011 Information contained in this publication or product may be reproduced, in part or in whole, and by any means, for personal or public non-commercial purposes, without charge or further permission, unless otherwise specified. You are asked to: Exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced; Indicate both the complete title of the materials reproduced, as well as the author organization; and Indicate that the reproduction is a copy of an official work that is published by the Government of Canada and that the reproduction has not been produced in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Government of Canada. Commercial reproduction and distribution is prohibited except with written permission from the Government of Canada’s copyright administrator, Public Works and Government Services of Canada (PWGSC). For more information, please contact PWGSC at 613-996-6886 or at [email protected]. Cover photo credits: Olive Clubtail © Jim Johnson Peacock Vinyl Lichen © Timothy B. Wheeler Cerulean Warbler © Carl Savignac Title page photo credits: Background photo: Dune Tachinid Fly habitat © Sydney Cannings Foreground, large photo: Dwarf Lake Iris © Jessie M. Harris Small photos, left to right: Butler’s Gartersnake © Daniel W.A. Noble Hungerford’s Crawling Water Beetle © Steve Marshall Barn Swallow © Gordon Court Spring Salamander © David Green Available also on the Internet. ISSN: 1710-3029 Cat. no.: EN1-36/2011E-PDF © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of the Environment, 2011 Consultation on Amending the List of Species under the Species at Risk Act Terrestrial Species November 2011 Please submit your comments by February 8, 2012, for terrestrial species undergoing normal consultations and by November 8, 2012, for terrestrial species undergoing extended consultations. For a description of the consultation paths these species will undergo, please see www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/listing/tab_1211_e.cfm Please email your comments to the Species at Risk Public Registry at: [email protected] Comments may also be mailed to: Director General Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 For more information on the Species at Risk Act, please visit the Species at Risk Public Registry at: www.sararegistry.gc.ca Consultation on Amending the List of Species under the Species at Risk Act: Terrestrial Species, November 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS ADDITION OF SPECIES TO THE SPECIES AT RISK ACT ..............................................2 The Species at Risk Act and the List of Wildlife Species at Risk .............................................................. 2 COSEWIC and the assessment process for identifying species at risk .................................................. 2 Terms used to define the degree of risk to a species .............................................................................. 2 Terrestrial and aquatic species eligible for Schedule 1 amendments .................................................. 2 Public comments solicited on the proposed amendment of Schedule 1 .......................................... 3 The SpecieS At RiSk Act LiSTiNg ProCeSS ANd CoNSuLTATioN ..........................................................3 The purpose of consultations on amendments to the List ...................................................................... 3 Legislative context of the consultations: the Minister’s recommendation to the Governor in Council ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1: The species listing process under SARA ................................................................................ 4 The Minister of the Environment’s response to the COSEWIC assessment: the response statement ....................................................................................................................... 5 Normal and extended consultation periods ........................................................................................... 5 Who is consulted and how ........................................................................................................................ 5 Role and impact of public consultations in the listing process .............................................................. 6 SigNifiCANCe of The AddiTioN of A SPeCieS To SCheduLe 1 .............................................................7 Protection for listed Extirpated, Endangered and Threatened species ............................................... 7 Recovery strategies and action plans for Extirpated, Endangered and Threatened species ......... 8 Protection for listed species of Special Concern .................................................................................... 8 Management plans for species of Special Concern ............................................................................. 8 THE LIST OF SPECIES PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION OR RECLASSIFICATION ON SCHEDULE 1 ..............................................................................................9 Status of the recently assessed species and consultation paths .......................................................... 9 Providing comments ................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 1: Terrestrial species recently assessed by COSEWIC eligible for addition to Schedule 1 or reclassification ............................................................................................... 10 Table 2: Terrestrial species recently reassessed by COSEWIC (no consultations – species status confirmation) ............................................................................................................... 11 THE COSEWIC SUMMARIES OF TERRESTRIAL SPECIES ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITION OR RECLASSIFICATION ON SCHEDULE 1 ................................................................ 12 INDEXES .................................................................................................. 63 Species by Common Name ..................................................................................................................... 63 Species by Scientific Name ...................................................................................................................... 64 Species by Province and Territory of Occurrence ................................................................................. 65 GLOSSARY ................................................................................................ 66 1 Consultation on Amending the List of Species under the Species at Risk Act: Terrestrial Species, November 2011 ADDITION OF SPECIES TO THE SPECIES AT RISK ACT The Species at Risk Act and the List status. To be accepted, status reports must be peer- of Wildlife Species at risk reviewed and approved by a subcommittee of species specialists. In special circumstances, assessments The Government of Canada is committed to can be done on an emergency basis. When the status preventing the disappearance of wildlife species at report is complete, COSEWIC meets to examine it risk from our lands. As part of its strategy for realizing and discuss the species. COSEWIC then determines that commitment, on June 5, 2003, the Government whether the species is at risk, and if so, then assesses of Canada proclaimed the Species at Risk Act (SARA). the level of risk and assigns a conservation status. Attached to the Act is Schedule 1, the list of the species provided for under SARA, also called the List of Wildlife Species at Risk. Endangered or Threatened Terms used to define the degree of risk species on Schedule 1 benefit from the protection to a species of prohibitions and recovery planning under SARA. The conservation status defines the degree of Special Concern species benefit from its management risk to a species. The terms used under SARA are planning. Schedule 1 has grown from the original 233 Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened and Special to 493 wildlife species at risk. Concern. Extirpated species are wildlife species that The complete list of species currently on no longer occur in the wild in Canada but still exist Schedule 1 can be viewed at: elsewhere. Endangered species are wildlife species that are likely to soon become extirpated or extinct. www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/schedules_e.cfm?id=1 Threatened species are likely to become endangered Species become eligible for addition to Schedule if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading 1 once they have been assessed as being at risk by to their extirpation or extinction. The term Special the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife Concern is used for wildlife species that may become in Canada (COSEWIC). The decision to add a species threatened or endangered due to a combination of to Schedule 1 is made by the Governor in Council biological characteristics and threats. Once COSEWIC following a recommendation from the Minister of the has assessed a species as Extirpated, Endangered, Environment. The Governor in Council is the formal Threatened or Special Concern, it is eligible for executive body that gives legal effect to decisions that inclusion on Schedule 1. are to have the force of law. For more information on COSEWIC, visit: www.cosewic.gc.ca
Recommended publications

  • Critically Endangered - Wikipedia

    Critically endangered - Wikipedia Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Article Talk Read Edit View history Critically endangered From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Main page Contents This article is about the conservation designation itself. For lists of critically endangered species, see Lists of IUCN Red List Critically Endangered Featured content species. Current events A critically endangered (CR) species is one which has been categorized by the International Union for Random article Conservation status Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild.[1] Donate to Wikipedia by IUCN Red List category Wikipedia store As of 2014, there are 2464 animal and 2104 plant species with this assessment, compared with 1998 levels of 854 and 909, respectively.[2] Interaction Help As the IUCN Red List does not consider a species extinct until extensive, targeted surveys have been About Wikipedia conducted, species which are possibly extinct are still listed as critically endangered. IUCN maintains a list[3] Community portal of "possibly extinct" CR(PE) and "possibly extinct in the wild" CR(PEW) species, modelled on categories used Recent changes by BirdLife International to categorize these taxa. Contact page Contents Tools Extinct 1 International Union for Conservation of Nature definition What links here Extinct (EX) (list) 2 See also Related changes Extinct in the Wild (EW) (list) 3 Notes Upload file Threatened Special pages 4 References Critically Endangered (CR) (list) Permanent
  • Xhaie'ican%Mllsllm

    Xhaie'ican%Mllsllm

    XhAie'ican1ox4tate%Mllsllm PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CENTRAL PARK WEST AT 79TH STREET, NEW YORK 24, N.Y. NUMBER 2 244 MAY I9, I 966 The Larvae of the Anthophoridae (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) Part 2. The Nomadinae BY JEROME G. ROZEN, JR.1 The present paper is the second of a series that treats the phylogeny and taxonomy of the larvae belonging to the bee family Anthophoridae. The first (Rozen, 1965a) dealt with the pollen-collecting tribes Eucerini and Centridini of the Anthophorinae. The present study encompasses the following tribes, all of which consist solely of cuckoo bees: Protepeolini, Epeolini, Nomadini, Ammobatini, Holcopasitini, Biastini, and Neolarrini. For reasons presented below, these tribes are believed to represent a monophyletic group, and consequently all are placed in the Nomadinae. It seems likely that the cleptoparasitic tribes Caenoprosopini, Ammoba- toidini, Townsendiellini, Epeoloidini, and Osirini are also members of the subfamily, although their larvae have not as yet been collected. Although the interrelationships of the numerous taxa within the Nomadinae need to be re-evaluated, the tribal concepts used by Michener (1944) are employed here. Adjustments in the classifications will certainly have to be made in the future, however, for Michener (1954) has already indicated, for example, that characters of the adults in the Osirini, the Epeolini, and the Nomadini intergrade. The affinities of the Nomadinae with the other subfamilies of the Antho- phoridae will be discussed in the last paper of the series. Because of char- 1 Curator, Department of Entomology, the American Museum of Natural History. 2 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO.
  • COSEWIC Annual Report 2010-2011

    COSEWIC Annual Report 2010-2011

    COSEWIC Annual Report presented to The Minister of the Environment and The Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC) from The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 2010 - 2011 September, 2011 COSEWIC ANNUAL REPORT – 2010-2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. III ITEM I – COSEWIC ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................. 5 1. Wildlife Species Assessment Meetings ............................................................................. 5 2. Summary Results of the Wildlife Species Assessment Meetings ..................................... 6 3. Important Note Regarding Status Assessments ............................................................... 8 4. Emergency Assessments .................................................................................................. 9 5. Wildlife Species Assessments returned by the Governor in Council (GIC) to COSEWIC for further information or consideration ........................................................... 9 6. Wildlife Species Selected for Status Report Preparation .................................................. 9 7. Annual Subcommittee Meetings ..................................................................................... 10 8. Update on Progress of Working Groups within COSEWIC ............................................. 12 ITEM II – COSEWIC MEMBERSHIP
  • US Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan—Pacific Region

    US Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan—Pacific Region

    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan Conservation Seabird Pacific Region U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan—Pacific Region 120 0’0"E 140 0’0"E 160 0’0"E 180 0’0" 160 0’0"W 140 0’0"W 120 0’0"W 100 0’0"W RUSSIA CANADA 0’0"N 0’0"N 50 50 WA CHINA US Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region OR ID AN NV JAP CA H A 0’0"N I W 0’0"N 30 S A 30 N L I ort I Main Hawaiian Islands Commonwealth of the hwe A stern A (see inset below) Northern Mariana Islands Haw N aiian Isla D N nds S P a c i f i c Wake Atoll S ND ANA O c e a n LA RI IS Johnston Atoll MA Guam L I 0’0"N 0’0"N N 10 10 Kingman Reef E Palmyra Atoll I S 160 0’0"W 158 0’0"W 156 0’0"W L Howland Island Equator A M a i n H a w a i i a n I s l a n d s Baker Island Jarvis N P H O E N I X D IN D Island Kauai S 0’0"N ONE 0’0"N I S L A N D S 22 SI 22 A PAPUA NEW Niihau Oahu GUINEA Molokai Maui 0’0"S Lanai 0’0"S 10 AMERICAN P a c i f i c 10 Kahoolawe SAMOA O c e a n Hawaii 0’0"N 0’0"N 20 FIJI 20 AUSTRALIA 0 200 Miles 0 2,000 ES - OTS/FR Miles September 2003 160 0’0"W 158 0’0"W 156 0’0"W (800) 244-WILD http://www.fws.gov Information U.S.
  • Gunnison Sage Grouse Biological Opinion

    Gunnison Sage Grouse Biological Opinion

    United States Department of Agriculture December 22, 2014 Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Programmatic Consultation for the Gunnison Sage-Grouse Attached is the regionally developed Biological Opinion for the Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) in the States of Colorado and Utah. This Opinion takes effect concurrent with the effective date of the grouse’s listing as a threatened species on December 22nd, 2014. This Opinion replaces the 2010 SGI Conference Report for the Gunnison sage-grouse. Continue to use the 2010 SGI Conference Report for the Greater sage-grouse. Section 1.2 describes the Conversion of the Conference Report to a Biological Opinion. Document expires on 07/30/2040. Citation: DOI, 2014. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion for the Natural Resources Conservation Services’ USDA Farm Bill programs, including the Sage Grouse Initiative, and associated procedures, conservation practices, and conservation measures for the Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus). Denver, Colorado. Contact Chanda Pettie, State Biologist, at 720-544-2804 or [email protected] for information regarding the content of this notice. FOTG, Section II NRCS, CO SEC, T&E December 2014 BIOLOGICAL OPINION 1.0 INTRODUCTION In accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. [ESA],), and the Interagency Cooperation Regulations (50 CFR 402), this document transmits the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Biological Opinion (Opinion) for the Natural Resources Conservation Services’ (NRCS) USDA Farm Bill programs, including the Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI), and associated procedures, conservation practices, and conservation measures for the Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus).
  • REGUA Bird List July 2020.Xlsx

    REGUA Bird List July 2020.Xlsx

    Birds of REGUA/Aves da REGUA Updated July 2020. The taxonomy and nomenclature follows the Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos (CBRO), Annotated checklist of the birds of Brazil by the Brazilian Ornithological Records Committee, updated June 2015 - based on the checklist of the South American Classification Committee (SACC). Atualizado julho de 2020. A taxonomia e nomenclatura seguem o Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos (CBRO), Lista anotada das aves do Brasil pelo Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos, atualizada em junho de 2015 - fundamentada na lista do Comitê de Classificação da América do Sul (SACC).
  • Die Raupenfliegen (Diptera: Tachinidae) Mitteleuropas: Bestimmungstabellen Und Angaben Zur Verbreitung Und Ökologie Der Einzelnen Arten

    Die Raupenfliegen (Diptera: Tachinidae) Mitteleuropas: Bestimmungstabellen Und Angaben Zur Verbreitung Und Ökologie Der Einzelnen Arten

    5 download Biodiversity Heritage Library, http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/ Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde Serie A (Biologie) Herausgeber: 4fr für Naturkunde, RosensteinV 70 19 l; , Staatliches Museum 1, D- r Stuttgart Stuttgarter Beitr. Naturk. Ser. A Nr. 506 170 S ,4. 9. 19.94 Professor Dr. Bernhard Ziegler zum 65. Geburtstag Die Raupenfliegen (Diptera: Tachinidae) Mitteleuropas: Bestimmungstabellen und Angaben zur Verbreitung und Ökologie der einzelnen Arten The Tachinids (Diptera: Tachinidae) of Central Europe: Identification Keys for the Species and Data on Distribution and Ecology Von Hans-Peter Tschorsnig und Benno Herting, Stuttgart Mit 291 Abbildungen Summary Keys are given for all central and northern European species of Tachinidae (Diptera). The most important data on distribution and ecology (mainly habitat, phenology, and host-range) are listed for the central European species. Zuammenfassung Es werden Bestimmungsschlüssel für alle in Mittel- und Nordeuropa vorkommenden Arten der Tachinidae (Diptera) gegeben. Für jede mitteleuropäische Art werden die wichtigsten Kenndaten zur Verbreitung und Ökologie (vor allem Habitat, Flugzeit und Wirtskreis) aufge- listet. Inhalt 1. Einleitung 2 2. Beg'iff.c erklärungen 4 2.1. Allgemeines 4 2.2. Kopf 5 2.3. Thorax 7 2.4. Flügel 8 2.5. Beine 9 2.6. Abdomen 10 2.7. Bereifung 11 2.8. Färbung . 11 download Biodiversity Heritage Library, http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/ 2 STUTTGARTER BEITRÄGE ZUR NATURKUNDE Ser. A, Nr. 506 2.9. Körpergröße 11 2.10. Abkürzungen 11 3. Schlüssel für die Gattungen 12 4. Schlüssel für die Arten . 42 4.1. Subfamilie Exoristinae 42 4.2. Subfamilie Tachininae 63 4.3. Subfamilie Dexiinae 79 4.4.
  • Redalyc.CLEPTOPARASITE BEES, with EMPHASIS on THE

    Redalyc.CLEPTOPARASITE BEES, with EMPHASIS on THE

    Acta Biológica Colombiana ISSN: 0120-548X [email protected] Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Bogotá Colombia ALVES-DOS-SANTOS, ISABEL CLEPTOPARASITE BEES, WITH EMPHASIS ON THE OILBEES HOSTS Acta Biológica Colombiana, vol. 14, núm. 2, 2009, pp. 107-113 Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Bogotá Bogotá, Colombia Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=319027883009 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Acta biol. Colomb., Vol. 14 No. 2, 2009 107 - 114 CLEPTOPARASITE BEES, WITH EMPHASIS ON THE OILBEES HOSTS Abejas cleptoparásitas, con énfasis en las abejas hospederas coletoras de aceite ISABEL ALVES-DOS-SANTOS1, Ph. D. 1Departamento de Ecologia, IBUSP. Universidade de São Paulo, Rua do Matão 321, trav 14. São Paulo 05508-900 Brazil. [email protected] Presentado 1 de noviembre de 2008, aceptado 1 de febrero de 2009, correcciones 7 de julio de 2009. ABSTRACT Cleptoparasite bees lay their eggs inside nests constructed by other bee species and the larvae feed on pollen provided by the host, in this case, solitary bees. The cleptoparasite (adult and larvae) show many morphological and behavior adaptations to this life style. In this paper I present some data on the cleptoparasite bees whose hosts are bees specialized to collect floral oil. Key words: solitary bee, interspecific interaction, parasitic strategies, hospicidal larvae. RESUMEN Las abejas Cleptoparásitas depositan sus huevos en nidos construídos por otras especies de abejas y las larvas se alimentan del polen que proveen las hospederas, en este caso, abejas solitarias.
  • P0483-P0485.Pdf

    P0483-P0485.Pdf

    SHORT COMMUNICATIONS The Condor 86:483-485 was seen in any of the unparasitizednests, including two 0 The Cooper Ornithological Society 1984 that were checked on the day prior to hatching. No damage was seen on the two infertile host eggsin DAMAGED WESTERN FLYCATCHER parasitized nests (Table 1). One of these eggsremained in EGGS IN NESTS CONTAINING the nest after the cowbird chick had fledged, still without sign of damage. BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD The severity of damage was correlated with the age of CHICKS the cowbird chick (Table 1). Small nicks were present on an egg in a nest with a cowbird as young as two days old, but extensivedamage was not seenuntil the chick was five PATRICIA M. DOLAN days old. In no case did flycatcher young remain in the nest AND with the cowbird chick for as long as two days after host PHILIP L. WRIGHT hatching. Most of the host eggsdisappeared within a day or two after they showed signs of hatching. We assumed them to have producedyoung that subsequentlydied and The young of many brood parasitesbehave in ways that were removed by the parents. harm the host young with which they share a nest. By ejecting or injuring their nestmates, they reduce compe- DISCUSSION tition for parental care. To our knowledge,no specificanti- We can offer severalpossible explanations for the damage host behavior has been reported for chicks of the Brown- observed. headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater). Instead, the young par- (1) Visitorsto the nest.Animals visiting the nest would asite’s advantage over nestmates is usually attributed to have an opportunity to damage eggs.Possible visitors in- its hatchingearlier than the hosts,to the preferential treat- cludeoredators and adult female cowbirds(Mavfield 1961).
  • Phase 1 Geoscientific Desktop Preliminary Assessment of Potential

    Phase 1 Geoscientific Desktop Preliminary Assessment of Potential

    Phase 1 Geoscientific Desktop Preliminary Assessment of Potential Suitability for Siting a Deep Geological Repository for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel MUNICIPALITIES OF ARRAN-ELDERSLIE, BROCKTON AND SOUTH BRUCE, TOWNSHIP OF HURON-KINLOSS AND TOWN OF SAUGEEN SHORES, ONTARIO APM-REP-06144-0108 JUNE 2014 This report has been prepared under contract to the NWMO. The report has been reviewed by the NWMO, but the views and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the NWMO. All copyright and intellectual property rights belong to the NWMO. For more information, please contact: Nuclear Waste Management Organization 22 St. Clair Avenue East, Sixth Floor Toronto, Ontario M4T 2S3 Canada Tel 416.934.9814 Toll Free 1.866.249.6966 Email [email protected] www.nwmo.ca Phase 1 Geoscientific Desktop Preliminary Assessment of Potential Suitability for Siting a Deep Geological Repository for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel Municipalities of Arran-Elderslie, Brockton and South Bruce, Township of Huron-Kinloss and Town of Saugeen Shores Revision: 0 (Final) Prepared for: Nuclear Waste Management Organization 22 ST. Clair Avenue East, 6th Floor Toronto, Ontario M4T 2S3 Prepared by: Document ID: Sed Sites_Main Report_ June 30_R0 NWMO Report Number: APM-REP-06144-0108 June 2014 Geoscientific Desktop Suitability Assessment Study Sedimentary Sites, Southern Ontario Final Report Phase 1 Geoscientific Desktop Preliminary Assessment of Potential Suitability for Siting a Deep Geological Repository for Canada’s Used Title: Nuclear Fuel,
  • IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ to Identify the Level of Threat to Plants

    IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ to Identify the Level of Threat to Plants

    Ex-Situ Conservation at Scott Arboretum Public gardens and arboreta are more than just pretty places. They serve as an insurance policy for the future through their well managed ex situ collections. Ex situ conservation focuses on safeguarding species by keeping them in places such as seed banks or living collections. In situ means "on site", so in situ conservation is the conservation of species diversity within normal and natural habitats and ecosystems. The Scott Arboretum is a member of Botanical Gardens Conservation International (BGCI), which works with botanic gardens around the world and other conservation partners to secure plant diversity for the benefit of people and the planet. The aim of BGCI is to ensure that threatened species are secure in botanic garden collections as an insurance policy against loss in the wild. Their work encompasses supporting botanic garden development where this is needed and addressing capacity building needs. They support ex situ conservation for priority species, with a focus on linking ex situ conservation with species conservation in natural habitats and they work with botanic gardens on the development and implementation of habitat restoration and education projects. BGCI uses the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ to identify the level of threat to plants. In-depth analyses of the data contained in the IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, Red List are published periodically (usually at least once every four years). The results from the analysis of the data contained in the 2008 update of the IUCN Red List are published in The 2008 Review of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species; see www.iucn.org/redlist for further details.
  • Continuing Progress Towards a Phylogeny of Tachinidae

    Continuing Progress Towards a Phylogeny of Tachinidae

    Wright State University CORE Scholar Biological Sciences Faculty Publications Biological Sciences 2015 Continuing Progress towards a Phylogeny of Tachinidae John O. Stireman III Wright State University - Main Campus, [email protected] James E. O'Hara John K. Moulton Pierfilippo Cerretti Isaac S. Winkler Wright State University - Main Campus See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/biology Part of the Biology Commons, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Entomology Commons, and the Systems Biology Commons Repository Citation Stireman, J. O., O'Hara, J. E., Moulton, J. K., Cerretti, P., Winkler, I. S., Blaschke, J. D., & Burington, Z. L. (2015). Continuing Progress towards a Phylogeny of Tachinidae. The Tachinid Times (28), 4-7. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/biology/410 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Biological Sciences at CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biological Sciences Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors John O. Stireman III, James E. O'Hara, John K. Moulton, Pierfilippo Cerretti, Isaac S. Winkler, Jeremy D. Blaschke, and Z. L. Burington This article is available at CORE Scholar: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/biology/410 Continuing progress towards a phylogeny of Tachinidae by John O. Stireman III1, James E. O’Hara2, John K. Moulton3, Pierfilippo Cerretti4, Isaac S. Winkler5, Jeremy D. Blaschke3 and Z.L. “Kai” Burington1 1 Department of Biological Sciences, 3640 Colonel Glenn Highway, 235A, BH, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio 45435, USA.