DOCSLIB.ORG

Notes on <I>Dubiraphia</I> (Coleoptera: Elniidae) With

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Notes on <I>Dubiraphia</I> (Coleoptera: Elniidae) With Notes on Dubiraphia (Coleoptera: Elniidae) with Descriptions of Five New Species1 WILLIAM L. HILSENHOFF Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin, Madison 53706 ABSTRACT Because of the brevity of original descriptions, the included, as new species, D. brevipennis, D. browiii, I), status of Dubiraphia east of the Rocky Mountains has been minima, D. parva, and D. robusta, in addition to I), confused, with /). vittata (Melsheimer) and D. quadri- quadrinotata and D. vittata. Descriptions and a key to notata (Say) frequently being considered synonyms. the 8 species in the Central United States are presented Only /). bhnttata (LeConte) was being correctly identi- to permit their separation, and genitalia of the 10 species fied. A study of the genitalia revealed that the vittata- known to occur in the United States are figured. (]uadrinotata complex in the Central United States also Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aesa/article/66/1/55/23410 by guest on 01 October 2021 Tti 1954, Sanderson placed 5 species of elmids in especially useful. The shape of the parameres is also a new genus, Dubiraphia. Two, D. brumicscens (Fall useful; wrinkles on the membraneous inner margins 1925) and A ginlianii (Van Dyke 1949), are found (Fig. 1 B, E, I) are artifacts of mounting. The in California and can be readily distinguished (Van ventral shield appears to be of no taxonomic value, Dyke 1949). The other 3 species occur east of the and the phallobase was not used because it is fragile Rocky Mountains. /). bivittata (LeConte 1852) has and frequently mutilated when the genitalia are usually been correctly identified because it is dis- removed. tinctly larger, but /). quadrinotata (Say 1825) and All Dubiraphia are very similar morphologically, /). vittata (Melsheimer 1844) have caused much differing mostly in size, color pattern, and male confusion. They have, frequently been considered genital structure. Within a species there are often synonyms, probably a result of LeConte's statement wide differences in general coloration. In D. vittata, (1852) that "Dr. Melsheimer's species, as I know for example, the color of the pronotum ranges from by actual inspection, is only an immature specimen piceous to testaceous. At first a species difference of the not unusual variety with the spots confluent was suspected, but corresponding differences could forming a vitta." not be found in the genitalia. In individuals with a A study of male genitalia of Dubiraphia collected piceous pronotum, other structures such as the vittae, in Wisconsin revealed 4 species in the quadrinotata- legs, venter, gula, etc., are dark, and in those with a vittata complex, and additional material from Okla- testaceous pronotum these structures are correspond- homa and Louisiana loaned to me by Harley Brown ingly light. Color differences seem to be related to contained 3 more species. A complete generic revi- habitat, with beetles from the same stream having sion is needed, but other commitments did not permit less variation in coloration. Variations in size were me to undertake this task. The results of this pre- also noticed when populations from different streams liminary study are presented to permit identification and especially from different regions of the country of species known to occur in the Central United were compared. D. vittata adults from southern States and to stimulate additional study of this States average smaller than those from Wisconsin. genus. In this paper, I will figure the genitalia of all In Wisconsin, D. vittata can be readily separated known species (Fig. 1), expand descriptions of D. from D. minima by its larger size, but D. vittata vittata, D. bivittata, and D. quadrinotata, describe 5 from Tennessee and Ohio are near the size of D. new species, and provide a key to species known to minima. occur in the Central United States. Except for types of D. vittata and D. bivittata T have placed much reliance on the male genitalia and specimens of D. ginlianii and D. bnawescens, for separation of species. Because of their extremely all beetles examined in this study were preserved small size, genitalia were mounted on microscope in 70% ethanol. Occasionally specimens were coated slides dorsal side up in Hoyer's medium. In all spe- with debris. Encrustations were readily removed by cies the aedeagus has a dorsal keel in at least the placing beetles in concentrated HC1 for ca. 30 sec. basal half and is curved ventrad near the apex. a technique that has been very valuable in cleaning Within most species there are variations in the size other elmids, especially Stenclmis. The location of and shape of the aedeagus. The extreme variations type specimens is detailed under each species. Other suggested possible species differences, but series re- specimens that were studied are housed in the Uni- veal many shapes and sizes between the extremes. In versity of Wisconsin insect collection or in the spite of variations, the aedeagus is the most valuable Stovall Museum at the University of Oklahoma. character for separating species. A sheath near the Because of similarity in morphology and coloration tip has a dorsal straited area (Fig. 1 B, F) that is among all Dubiraphia, characteristics possessed in common by all species studied are described below 3 Published with the approval of the Director of the Research Division, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. Research in detail, expanding on the generic description by supported in part by a grant from the "Wisconsin Department of Sanderson (1954), and are not repeated under the Natural Resources. Received for publication May 17, 1972. 55 56 ANNALS OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA [Vol. 66, no. 1 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aesa/article/66/1/55/23410 by guest on 01 October 2021 FIG. 1.—Dorsal view of genitalia of Dubiraphia. A, D. quadrinotata; B, C, D. vittata; D, I), bivittata; E, I), robusta; F, G, D. minima; H, D. browni; I, D. brcvipcnnis; J, D. prava; K, D. brunncsccns; L, D. giulianii. Scale on each photomicrograph = 100 turn. January 1973J HILSENHOFF: NOTES ON DubirapJiia 57 descriptions of each species. The length of the elytra Legs.—All legs subequal, prothoracic legs slightly (measured with the base and apex in the same plane) shorter. Femora and tibiae with scattered setae and was relied upon as a measure of size, rather than fine punctures separated by 1-4 times the diameter overall length, which varied depending on the pos- of a puncture. Area between punctures with reticu- ture of the beetle at death. The length of the aede- late sculpturing and fine pubescence. Inner margins agus was measured from the midpoint of a line be- of tibiae with several bristlelike setae, a patch of tween the knoblike basolateral angles of the median tomentum on distal fourth, and a pair of apical lobe to its apex. The "striated area ratio" was spines. Last tarsal segment subequal to preceding obtained by measuring the distance from the apex four, with short spines on the inner sides of all seg- of the aedeagus to the point where striae were no ments. Tarsal claw simple, hooked, ca. % length of longer distinct, and dividing by the total length of last tarsal segment. the aedeagus. The following key is presented to separate species of Dubiraphia in the Central United States. Although Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aesa/article/66/1/55/23410 by guest on 01 October 2021 Dubiraphia Sanderson 1954 the key is to males, it may be used for females if one Head.—Black, with large continuous patch of flat, keeps in mind that they usually are 5-10% larger pale tomentum behind and below each eye. Remainder than males. Species can be identified without ex- of head sparsely covered with light hairs and fine amining genitalia, but the genitalia are diagnostic punctures separated by 1—4 times the diameter of a and should be examined to confirm identifications. puncture. Area between punctures glabrous. Gula often much lighter in color. Maxillary palpi 4-seg- Key to Species of Dubiraphia in the Central United mented. Antennae testaceous to rufotestaceous, slen- States (Males) der, 11-segmented, and extending almost to posterior 1. Large, length of elytra 2.1-2.4 mm. Aedeagus ca. 5 margin of prothorax. times as wide as parameres at midlength (Fig. 1 Pronotum.—Sides slightly sinuate in basal third, D) D. bivittata Smaller, length of elytra 1.9 mm or less. Aedeagus then conspicuously narrowed to apex. Widest just not more than 3 times as wide as parameres at behind middle, but only slightly wider than at base. midlength 2 Pronotum at anterior margin %-% as wide as at 2. Usually quadrinotate; if vittate, vittae cover only posterior margin. Anterior margin broadly rounded, 3rd interval at basal third. Elytra 1.6-1.9 mm long. Aedeagus thin and sword-shaped, 400-470 with projecting anterolateral angles. Posterior mar- /tm long (Fig. 1 A) D. quadrinotata gin slightly concave on each side of middle, which Vittate; if quadrinotate, elytra less than 1.5 mm is slightly more caudad than lateral margins. Con- long. Aedeagus less than 400 /tm long and as vex above and sparsely covered by pale setae and wide or wider than parameres at midlength 3 3. Elytra at least 1.6 mm long. Aedeagus broad with moderate punctures separated by Y>-2 times the base of striated area close to midlength (Fig. 1 diameter of a puncture. Area between punctures B, C, E) 4 glabrous with only a hint of sculpturing. Elytra less than 1.6 mm long. Aedeagus variable . 5 Elytra.—Elongate, nearly parallel sided in basal 4. Robust species, width of pronotum 0.75 mm or greater. Aedeagus more than 335 /tm long (Fig. -:'i and then narrowed to a rounded apex.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Research Report110
    ~ ~ WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES A Survey of Rare and Endangered Mayflies of Selected RESEARCH Rivers of Wisconsin by Richard A. Lillie REPORT110 Bureau of Research, Monona December 1995 ~ Abstract The mayfly fauna of 25 rivers and streams in Wisconsin were surveyed during 1991-93 to document the temporal and spatial occurrence patterns of two state endangered mayflies, Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex. Both species are candidates under review for addition to the federal List of Endang­ ered and Threatened Wildlife. Based on previous records of occur­ rence in Wisconsin, sampling was conducted during the period May-July using a combination of sampling methods, including dredges, air-lift pumps, kick-nets, and hand-picking of substrates. No specimens of Anepeorus simplex were collected. Three specimens (nymphs or larvae) of Acanthametropus pecatonica were found in the Black River, one nymph was collected from the lower Wisconsin River, and a partial exuviae was collected from the Chippewa River. Homoeoneuria ammophila was recorded from Wisconsin waters for the first time from the Black River and Sugar River. New site distribution records for the following Wiscon­ sin special concern species include: Macdunnoa persimplex, Metretopus borealis, Paracloeodes minutus, Parameletus chelifer, Pentagenia vittigera, Cercobrachys sp., and Pseudiron centra/is. Collection of many of the aforementioned species from large rivers appears to be dependent upon sampling sand-bottomed substrates at frequent intervals, as several species were relatively abundant during only very short time spans. Most species were associated with sand substrates in water < 2 m deep. Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex should continue to be listed as endangered for state purposes and receive a biological rarity ranking of critically imperiled (S1 ranking), and both species should be considered as candidates proposed for listing as endangered or threatened as defined by the Endangered Species Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Monitoring of Surface Waters in New York State, 2019
    NYSDEC SOP #208-19 Title: Stream Biomonitoring Rev: 1.2 Date: 03/29/19 Page 1 of 188 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water Standard Operating Procedure: Biological Monitoring of Surface Waters in New York State March 2019 Note: Division of Water (DOW) SOP revisions from year 2016 forward will only capture the current year parties involved with drafting/revising/approving the SOP on the cover page. The dated signatures of those parties will be captured here as well. The historical log of all SOP updates and revisions (past & present) will immediately follow the cover page. NYSDEC SOP 208-19 Stream Biomonitoring Rev. 1.2 Date: 03/29/2019 Page 3 of 188 SOP #208 Update Log 1 Prepared/ Revision Revised by Approved by Number Date Summary of Changes DOW Staff Rose Ann Garry 7/25/2007 Alexander J. Smith Rose Ann Garry 11/25/2009 Alexander J. Smith Jason Fagel 1.0 3/29/2012 Alexander J. Smith Jason Fagel 2.0 4/18/2014 • Definition of a reference site clarified (Sect. 8.2.3) • WAVE results added as a factor Alexander J. Smith Jason Fagel 3.0 4/1/2016 in site selection (Sect. 8.2.2 & 8.2.6) • HMA details added (Sect. 8.10) • Nonsubstantive changes 2 • Disinfection procedures (Sect. 8) • Headwater (Sect. 9.4.1 & 10.2.7) assessment methods added • Benthic multiplate method added (Sect, 9.4.3) Brian Duffy Rose Ann Garry 1.0 5/01/2018 • Lake (Sect. 9.4.5 & Sect. 10.) assessment methods added • Detail on biological impairment sampling (Sect.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Assessment of the Patapsco River Tributary Watersheds, Howard County, Maryland
    Biological Assessment of the Patapsco River Tributary Watersheds, Howard County, Maryland Spring 2003 Index Period and Summary of Round One County- Wide Assessment Patuxtent River April, 2005 Final Report UT to Patuxtent River Biological Assessment of the Patapsco River Tributary Watersheds, Howard County, Maryland Spring 2003 Index Period and Summary of Round One County-wide Assessment Prepared for: Howard County, Maryland Department of Public Works Stormwater Management Division 6751 Columbia Gateway Dr., Ste. 514 Columbia, MD 21046-3143 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 400 Red Brook Blvd., Ste. 200 Owings Mills, MD 21117 Acknowledgement The principal authors of this report are Kristen L. Pavlik and James B. Stribling, both of Tetra Tech. They were also assisted by Erik W. Leppo. This document reports results from three of the six subwatersheds sampled during the Spring Index Period of the third year of biomonitoring by the Howard County Stormwater Management Division. Fieldwork was conducted by Tetra Tech staff including Kristen Pavlik, Colin Hill, David Bressler, Jennifer Pitt, and Amanda Richardson. All laboratory sample processing was conducted by Carolina Gallardo, Shabaan Fundi, Curt Kleinsorg, Chad Bogues, Joey Rizzo, Elizabeth Yarborough, Jessica Garrish, Chris Hines, and Sara Waddell. Taxonomic identification was completed by Dr. R. Deedee Kathman and Todd Askegaard; Aquatic Resources Center (ARC). Hunt Loftin, Linda Shook, and Brenda Decker (Tetra Tech) assisted with budget tracking and clerical support. This work was completed under the Howard County Purchase Order L 5305 to Tetra Tech, Inc. The enthusiasm and interest of the staff in the Stormwater Management Division, including Howard Saltzman and Angela Morales is acknowledged and appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • IDEM Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment Report
    OWQ/WAPB Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment MHAB Report Site Name EPA ID Macro Sample Type Sample # Macro Event # Sample Date County WMI-04-0008 14T-101 MHAB AB18398 140716305 7/16/14 Delaware Stream Name Location HUC 12 HUCTO14 Tributary of Campbell Creek CR 200 N 051201030401 05120103030010 Northing Easting Ecoregion Gradient Drainage Area QHEI Score 4453690.06 650196.08 55 12.468 3.524 59 Metric Taxon Count Notes HBI Type Value Tolerance Score 1084 (TURBELLARIA) 1 4 Total Taxa: 63 5 1552 (Tubificidae with bifid chetae 2 Total No. Individuals: 279 5 and no hair chetae) 1553 (Tubificidae with pectinate EPT Taxa: 11 5 1 chetae and hair chetae) % Orthocladiinae + 1234 (GLOSSIPHONIIDAE) 3 Tanytarsini of 42.37 3 2269 (Menetus) 3 Chironomidae: % Non-insects 2252 (Physella) 16 8 excluding Astacidae: 23.66 3 2181 (Sphaerium) 4 6 Diptera Taxa: 21 5 2157 (Musculium) 1 6 1083 (ACARI) 2 4 % Intolerant (0-3): 22.58 3 9050 (Hyalella) 33 % Tolerant (8-10): 7.53 5 9019 (Cambarus) 1 2 8996 (Orconectes) 5 4 % Predators FFG 1: 5.38 1 3066 (Baetis intercalaris) 4 3 % Shredders + 12.54 3 3071 (Baetis flavistriga) 6 Slide 0213.4 3 Scrapers FFG 1: 3081 (Callibaetis) 1 Slide 0213.3 6 % Collector-Filterers FFG 1: 13.62 3 3183 (Caenis) 4 3 3188 (Caenis latipennis) 1 % Sprawlers: 2.15 1 3189 (Caenis punctata) 3 3157 (Aeshna) 1 mIBI Metric Score: 42 1026 (COENAGRIONIDAE) 2 9 3546 (Enallagma) 2 9 3551 (Enallagma exsulans) 1 9095 (Argia fumipennis) 2 Supplemental Metrics 7201 (Trichocorixa calva) 1 4 7220 (Ranatra nigra) 1 4 HBI 4.44 7120 (Trepobates pictus)
    [Show full text]
  • Microsoft Outlook
    Joey Steil From: Leslie Jordan <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 1:13 PM To: Angela Ruberto Subject: Potential Environmental Beneficial Users of Surface Water in Your GSA Attachments: Paso Basin - County of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainabilit_detail.xls; Field_Descriptions.xlsx; Freshwater_Species_Data_Sources.xls; FW_Paper_PLOSONE.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S1.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S2.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S3.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S4.pdf CALIFORNIA WATER | GROUNDWATER To: GSAs We write to provide a starting point for addressing environmental beneficial users of surface water, as required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA seeks to achieve sustainability, which is defined as the absence of several undesirable results, including “depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial users of surface water” (Water Code §10721). The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a science-based, nonprofit organization with a mission to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. Like humans, plants and animals often rely on groundwater for survival, which is why TNC helped develop, and is now helping to implement, SGMA. Earlier this year, we launched the Groundwater Resource Hub, which is an online resource intended to help make it easier and cheaper to address environmental requirements under SGMA. As a first step in addressing when depletions might have an adverse impact, The Nature Conservancy recommends identifying the beneficial users of surface water, which include environmental users. This is a critical step, as it is impossible to define “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts” without knowing what is being impacted. To make this easy, we are providing this letter and the accompanying documents as the best available science on the freshwater species within the boundary of your groundwater sustainability agency (GSA).
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of the Shale and Cobble Zone Macroinvertebrate Community 1994
    REPORT Survey of the Shale and Cobble Zone Macroinvertebrate Community 1994 Prepared By: Steven Fiske and Richard Levey Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Department of Environmental Conservation Water Quality Division Environmental Sciences Branch Biomonitoring and Aquatic Studies Section 103 So. Main St. DEC Lab Building Waterbury, Vermont 05671 (802) 244-4520 August 1, 1995 Prepared for: Lake Champlain Basin Program and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regions 1 and 2 Acknowledgments-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- This survey would not have been possible without the expertise and dedication of the following individuals: Micheala Stickney for her waterlogged days in the field and persistence in processing the samples in the laboratory; Dr. Douglas G. Smith of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst for verifying the taxa of the Crustacea and Mollusca; The Biomonitoring and Aquatic Studies Section: Douglas Burnham- Section Chief for reviewing the many revisions of this report and guiding us through the grant process, Rich Langdon, Alan Quackenbush, Jim Kellogg, and Jim Pease-Biologists who helped identify over 5,000 macroinvertebrate individuals representing 177 taxa. This report was funded and prepared under the authority of the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act of 1990, P.L. 101-596, through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . Publication of this report does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views of the States of New York and Vermont, the Lake Champlain Basin Program, or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation is an equal opportunity agency and offers all persons the benefits of participating in each of its programs and competing in all areas of employment regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or other non-merit factors.
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL REPORT USING BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES to IDENTIFY CAUSES of FISH KILLS in the SHENANDOAH RIVER (2006 and 2007) J. Reese
    FINAL REPORT USING BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES TO IDENTIFY CAUSES OF FISH KILLS IN THE SHENANDOAH RIVER (2006 and 2007) J. Reese Voshell, Jr. Chris L. Burcher Amy Braccia Department of Entomology Virginia Tech and Donald J. Orth Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences Virginia Tech 15 October 2008 In fulfillment of Virginia Tech Project # 208-11-110438 T-007-841-1, FRS # 447693; Sponsored By Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Sponsor # 2006-9553 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………….1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..6 Methods……………………………………………………………………………………………8 Study Sites……………………………………………………………………………………8 Large river……………………………………………………………………………….8 Tributaries………………………………………………………………………………..9 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling………………………………………………………...9 Environmental Variables……………………………………………………………………10 Periphyton………………………………………………………………………………10 Inorganic substrate……………………………………………………………………...10 Chemistry………………………………………………………………………………10 Comparison to Other Large Rivers………………………………………………………….12 Comparison to Historical Shenandoah River Data………………………………………….12 Indicator Species…………………………………………………………………………….12 In-Situ Toxicity Tests……………………………………………………………………….12 Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………………..13 General descriptors……………………………………………………………………..13 Ordination………………………………………………………………………………13 Linear regression……………………………………………………………………….13 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)……………………………………………………….14 Results and Discussion…………………………………………………………………………..14 Large River Assemblage
    [Show full text]
  • Paleoenvironmental Analysis of a Late-Holocene Subfossil Coleopteran Fauna from Starks, Maine
    Colby College Digital Commons @ Colby Senior Scholar Papers Student Research 1990 Paleoenvironmental analysis of a late-holocene subfossil Coleopteran fauna from Starks, Maine Heather A. Hall Colby College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/seniorscholars Part of the Geology Commons Colby College theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed or downloaded from this site for the purposes of research and scholarship. Reproduction or distribution for commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the author. Recommended Citation Hall, Heather A., "Paleoenvironmental analysis of a late-holocene subfossil Coleopteran fauna from Starks, Maine" (1990). Senior Scholar Papers. Paper 110. https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/seniorscholars/110 This Senior Scholars Paper (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at Digital Commons @ Colby. It has been accepted for inclusion in Senior Scholar Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Colby. PALEOENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF A LATE-HOLOCENE SUBFOSSIL COLEOPrERAN FAUNA FROM STARKS, MAINE by Heather A Hall Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Senior Scholars' Program COLBY COLLEGE 1990 APPROVED: /--- ~, ---~~:~~----------- TUTOR Robert E. Nelson -----~~--~---------------- CHAIR. DEPARTMENT' OF GEOWGY. Donald B. Allen -----~-~-~~~~-------------- READER Harold R Pestana -------------------------------------------~~ CHAJR. Diane F. Sadoff ABSTRACT The sandy River in central Maine Is flanked along much of its length by low terraces. Approximately 100 kg of sediment from one terrace in Starks. Somerset County, Maine was wet-sieved in the field. Over 1100 subfossll Coleoptera were recovered representing 53 individual species of a total of 99 taxa. Wood associated with the fauna is 2000 +/- 80 14C Yr in age (1-16,038).
    [Show full text]
  • An All-Taxa Biodiversity Inventory of the Huron Mountain Club
    AN ALL-TAXA BIODIVERSITY INVENTORY OF THE HURON MOUNTAIN CLUB Version: August 2016 Cite as: Woods, K.D. (Compiler). 2016. An all-taxa biodiversity inventory of the Huron Mountain Club. Version August 2016. Occasional papers of the Huron Mountain Wildlife Foundation, No. 5. [http://www.hmwf.org/species_list.php] Introduction and general compilation by: Kerry D. Woods Natural Sciences Bennington College Bennington VT 05201 Kingdom Fungi compiled by: Dana L. Richter School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science Michigan Technological University Houghton, MI 49931 DEDICATION This project is dedicated to Dr. William R. Manierre, who is responsible, directly and indirectly, for documenting a large proportion of the taxa listed here. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 5 SOURCES 7 DOMAIN BACTERIA 11 KINGDOM MONERA 11 DOMAIN EUCARYA 13 KINGDOM EUGLENOZOA 13 KINGDOM RHODOPHYTA 13 KINGDOM DINOFLAGELLATA 14 KINGDOM XANTHOPHYTA 15 KINGDOM CHRYSOPHYTA 15 KINGDOM CHROMISTA 16 KINGDOM VIRIDAEPLANTAE 17 Phylum CHLOROPHYTA 18 Phylum BRYOPHYTA 20 Phylum MARCHANTIOPHYTA 27 Phylum ANTHOCEROTOPHYTA 29 Phylum LYCOPODIOPHYTA 30 Phylum EQUISETOPHYTA 31 Phylum POLYPODIOPHYTA 31 Phylum PINOPHYTA 32 Phylum MAGNOLIOPHYTA 32 Class Magnoliopsida 32 Class Liliopsida 44 KINGDOM FUNGI 50 Phylum DEUTEROMYCOTA 50 Phylum CHYTRIDIOMYCOTA 51 Phylum ZYGOMYCOTA 52 Phylum ASCOMYCOTA 52 Phylum BASIDIOMYCOTA 53 LICHENS 68 KINGDOM ANIMALIA 75 Phylum ANNELIDA 76 Phylum MOLLUSCA 77 Phylum ARTHROPODA 79 Class Insecta 80 Order Ephemeroptera 81 Order Odonata 83 Order Orthoptera 85 Order Coleoptera 88 Order Hymenoptera 96 Class Arachnida 110 Phylum CHORDATA 111 Class Actinopterygii 112 Class Amphibia 114 Class Reptilia 115 Class Aves 115 Class Mammalia 121 INTRODUCTION No complete species inventory exists for any area.
    [Show full text]
  • Refinement of the Basin-Wide Index of Biotic Integrity for Non-Tidal Streams and Wadeable Rivers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
    Refinement of the Basin-Wide Index of Biotic Integrity for Non-Tidal Streams and Wadeable Rivers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed APPENDICES Appendix A: Taxonomic Classification Appendix B: Taxonomic Attributes Appendix C: Taxonomic Standardization Appendix D: Rarefaction Appendix E: Biological Metric Descriptions Appendix F: Abiotic Parameters for Evaluating Stream Environment Appendix G: Stream Classification Appendix H: HUC12 Watershed Characteristics in Bioregions Appendix I: Index Methodologies Appendix J: Scoring Methodologies Appendix K: Index Performance, Accuracy, and Precision Appendix L: Narrative Ratings and Maps of Index Scores Appendix M: Potential Biases in the Regional Index Ratings Appendix Citations Appendix A: Taxonomic Classification All taxa reported in Chessie BIBI database were assigned the appropriate Phylum, Subphylum, Class, Subclass, Order, Suborder, Family, Subfamily, Tribe, and Genus when applicable. A portion of the taxa reported were reported under an invalid name according to the ITIS database. These taxa were subsequently changed to the taxonomic name deemed valid by ITIS. Table A-1. The taxonomic hierarchy of stream macroinvertebrate taxa included in the Chesapeake Bay non-tidal database.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendices Include ICRMP? Comment Involved in the Management ….” Management the in Involved TNARNG
    APPENDIX A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REVISED INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE VOLUNTEER TRAINING SITE – CATOOSA TENNESSEE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD CATOOSA COUNTY, GEORGIA PREPARED BY Tennessee Military Department Environmental Office February 2012 Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan A-1 VTS-Catoosa Appendix A Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan A-2 VTS-Catoosa Appendix A Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REVISED INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN, VOLUNTEER TRAINING SITE CATOOSA TENNESSEE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD REVIEWED BY: DATE: __________________________________________ ________________________ TERRY M. HASTON MG, TNARNG The Adjutant General __________________________________________ ________________________ ISAAC G. OSBORNE, JR. BG, TNARNG Assistant Adjutant General, Army __________________________________________ ________________________ DARRELL D. DARNBUSH COL, TNARNG Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations __________________________________________ ________________________ GARY B. HERR LTC, TNARNG Training Site Commander _________________________________________ ________________________ STEPHEN B. LONDON COL, TNARNG Environmental Officer Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan A-3 VTS-Catoosa Appendix A Environmental Assessment Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan A-4 VTS-Catoosa Appendix A Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents A-5
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera: Insecta) of Saskatchewan
    1 CHECKLIST OF BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: INSECTA) OF SASKATCHEWAN R. R. Hooper1 and D. J. Larson2 1 – Royal Saskatchewan Museum, Regina, SK. Deceased. 2 – Box 56, Maple Creek, SK. S0N 1N0 Introduction A checklist of the beetles of Canada (Bousquet 1991) was published 20 years ago in order to provide a list of the species known from Canada and Alaska along with their correct names and a indication of their distribution by major political units (provinces, territories and state). A total of 7447 species and subspecies were recognized in this work. British Columbia and Ontario had the most diverse faunas, 3628 and 3843 taxa respectively, whereas Saskatchewan had a relatively poor fauna (1673 taxa) which was about two thirds that its neighbouring provinces (Alberta – 2464; Manitoba – 2351). This raises the question of whether the Canadian beetle fauna is distributed like a doughnut with a hole in the middle, or is there some other explanation. After assembling available literature records as well as the collection records available to us, we present a list of 2312 species (generally only single subspecies of a species are recognized in the province) suggesting that the Canadian distribution pattern of species is more like that of a Bismark, the dough may be a little thinner in the center but there is also a core of good things. This list was largely R. Hopper’s project. He collected Saskatchewan insects since at least the 1960’s and over the last decade before his death he had compiled a list of the species he had collected along with other records from the literature or given him by other collectors (Hooper 2001).
    [Show full text]