1,145 research outputs found
Calligrapha argus Stal 1859
No full textCalligrapha argus Stål, 1859 Stål, C. 1859: 324. (Figs 2 d, 6 b, 9 i, 9 j, 10) Chrysomela argus: Stål, 1865, Mon. Chrys. Amer., 3, p. 277. Calligrapha argus: Gemminger & Harold, 1874, Cat. Col., XI, p. 3432. Calligrapha argus: Steinheil, 1877, Mittheil. Münch. Ent. Ver. 1, p. 32 Calligrapha argus: Jacoby, 1882, Biol. Centr. Am., vol. 6, pt. 1, p. 201. Calligrapha famularis: Jacoby, 1882, Biol. Centr. Am., vol. 6, pt. 1, p. 201. Calligrapha argus: Jacoby, 1892, Biol. Centr. Am., vol. 6, pt. 1, suppl., p. 246. Chrysomela argus: Dugés, 1901, Cat. Col. Coleópt. Mex., p. 97. Polyspila argus: Weise, 1916, Col. Cat., pars 68, 12, p. 38. Calligrapha argus: Blackwelder, 1946, Checklist Col., Pt. 4, p. 674. Calligrapha ramulifera var. argus: Bechyné, 1952, Entom. Arb. Mus. Frey 3, p. 4. Calligrapha ramulifera s. argus: Blackwelder, 1957, Checklist Col., Pt. 6, p. 1436. Calligrapha argus: Bechyné & Springlová de Bechyné, 1965, Rev. Fac. Agron. Maracay 3, p. 48. Calligrapha argus: Wilcox, 1975, Checklist, Biol. Res. Inst. Amer., p. 66. Calligrapha famularis: Wilcox, 1975, Checklist, Biol. Res. Inst. Amer., p. 66. Calligrapha argus: Burgos-Solorio & Anaya-Rosales, 2004, Acta Zool. Mex. 20 (3), p. 45. Calligrapha argus: Flowers, 2004, Rev. Biol. Trop., p. 80. Calligrapha ramulifera: Gómez-Zurita et al., 2006, Evolution, 60, p. 332. Calligrapha argus: Montelongo & Gómez-Zurita, 2014, Zool. Scr. 43, p. 607. Jacoby (1882) expressed doubts about the conspecificity of this taxon with C. ramulifera Stål, and this prompted some nomenclature instability by subsequent authors possibly without revising relevant type material, which would have shown at once the remarkable differences between both taxa (e.g., Gómez-Zurita et al. 2006). Bechyné (1952), for instance, proposed that C. argus was but a mere colour variety of C. ramulifera with larger spots on elytra, a stance followed shortly by Blackwelder (1957) in his corrigenda to the Checklist of American beetles, but proposing a subspecific status for the former taxon. Years later, J. Bechyné actually withdraw his earlier opinion explicitly describing several differences found between both species (Bechyné & Springlová de Bechyné 1965), a viewpoint which I completely endorse here. I found two specimens from Mexico, the locality mentioned in the original description, labelled as types, one in the collection in Stockholm (NRM) and one in London (NHM). The original description of C. argus is, like most others, very succinct but it is possible to deduce that it was based on a single specimen, since the author gave a discrete size for the specimen. The specimen at NRM fits these dimensions as well as the other details in the description. The one at NHM was very likely seen by C. Stål because it is labelled "Campeche", an unusual locality mentioned precisely for this species in his later monograph. However, this origin is not given in the orignal description and the size of the specimen has poorer fit with the measures given by C. Stål, therefore, I designate here as lectotype the specimen in the NRM collection. Lectotype by present designation: Mexico / Chevrol. / Type / Typus [red] (NRM). Paralectotype: Campeche, Pilate / Type Stål Coll: Deyrolle / Baly Coll. / argus Stål Mexico [underneath: Type Stål Col. Deyrolle] (NHM). Habitus (Fig. 6 b). Length: 9.39 mm, width: 5.57 mm. Body oval oblong, moderately convex. Head, pronotum, scutellum, epipleura, apendages, ventral surfaces and elytral markings reddish brown; antennae and palpi paler. Apex of mandibles and narrow anterior and lateral margins of pronotum blackish. Elytra creamy yellow, brighter around margin and markings. Head broad, deeply inserted in pronotum; surface microreticulate, moderately strongly punctured, sparser on vertex and around antennal insertions; longitudinal frontal suture perpendicularly joining obtuse V-shaped clypeal suture; supraocular sulci parallel to frontal suture, running close to dorsal margin of eye; eyes elongated dorsoventrally, finely faceted. Antennae relatively short, reaching humeri; first antennomere long, thick nearly straight posteriorly and convex at anterior border; antennomeres 2–5 elongated, thin, relatively smooth and nearly glabrous; second antennomere half as long as first, third slightly shorter than first; antennomeres 3–6 shortening progressively, sixth subequal to second; antennomeres gradually lengthening beyond sixth antennomere; antennomeres 7–11 thicker, darker, widening from base to apex, rugose and pubescent beyond eighth antennomere; eleventh about as long as first, tappering towards blunt apex and slightly emarginate dorsally. Labrum relatively small, sides regularly curved, anterior border emarginate, laterally on disc with nearly straight, long pale traslucent setae directed forwards. Mandibles large, strong, largely protruding, about 4 x beyond apex of labrum; sides concave before strong preapical curvature; surface covered by very strong punctures except at smooth molar area, each puncture with a very long whitish seta. Last maxillary palpomere broad, parallel-sided at apical half, slightly obliquely truncated at apex. Pronotum 1.88 times broader at base than long medially; surface microsculptured with irregularly sparse punctation, stronger (2– 3 x) and denser towards sides; apical border bisinuated, finely margined behind head, with markedly protruding anterior angles, with thicker margin; posterior border broadly convex, unmargined; sides margined, nearly straight, subparallel at basal 1 / 3, gently and regularly curved towards anterior angles. Hypomeral suture (Fig. 1 d) deep, parallel to pronotal margin, curved basally, close but not reaching pronotal base, and regularly curved apically, following basal contour of anterior pronotal angle; hypomera finely shagreened, unpunctured, finely transversely wrinkled at base. Prosternum punctured near coxae; prosternal process narrow between coxae, gradually expanding apically, reaching slightly beyond coxae, cut almost straight at apex. Metepisterna strongly punctured; punctures elongated, dense, confluent at apical 1 / 3. Metaventrite regularly punctured at sides, with fine sparse pubescence. Scutellum narrowly triangular (W/L= 0.7) with sides gently curved; feebly convex, shiny, unpunctured. Elytra slightly broader than pronotum; surface finely and sparsely punctured with brownish minute spots, punctures irregularly scattered except at regular premarginal line; space between premarginal line and margin of elytra smooth, unpunctured; dark markings surrounded by stronger punctures; scutellar row of punctures present. Markings: (i) uninterrupted sutural stripe basally surrounding scutellum and reaching elytral apex suddenly and obliquely narrowed; (ii) subsutural stripe divergent from sutural stripe basally, shortly for 5–6 punctures; slightly widened preapically; (iii) arcuate band continuous and confluent for most of its length with subsutural stripe, except briefly at basal end and apically, shaped as big round spot; (iv) humeral lunule well defined, also by surrounding punctures; base detached from basal margin of elytron, apex at level with basal end of arcuate band; confluent basally by half of its length with (v) elongated humeral spot, basally free from basal margin of elytron, slightly broader than humeral lunule, with punctures inside marking and imperfectly surrounded by punctures; (vi) spot enclosed by humeral lunule large, roundish with small basal emargination but punctures defining U-shape; (vii) spot of apical declivity of elytra large and laterally confluent with preapical enlargement of subsutural stripe; (viii) apical spot round, free; (ix) midlateral spot large (seven punctures of premarginal line), subrectangular, laterally confluent with brownish elytral margin; (x) nine additional discal spots loosely arranged in a 3 - 1-2 - 1-2 oblique pattern. Legs mostly unpunctured, very finely and sparsely pubescent except at tibial apices, with dense golden pubescence; tibiae broadening apically, externally furrowed at apical third, furrow broadening towards tarsal insertion. Penis as in Figs 9 i, 9 j. Distribution. This is one of the species in the group with a wider distribution, ranging from the southern half of Mexico (particularly in the Caribbean domain) to Venezuela, through Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama and Colombia (Fig. 10). It is one of the three species in this evolutionary lineage that possibly reached the Caribbean NW South American region from its main distribution in the Caribbean Mesoamerican domain in recent times (Montelongo & Gómez-Zurita, 2014). Material examined (350 specimens). BELIZE NMB: (1) one specimen: Br. Honduras, Punta Gorda, 1915, Col. R. Vitalis, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Bechyné det. 1954. NMNH: (1) one specimen: Belize, Toledo dist., Blue Creek Village, 18 June 1981, W.E. Steiner, Earthwatch Belize Expedition 1981, D.H. Messersmith, W.E. Steiner et al., Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011. COLOMBIA MCZ: (1) one specimen: Sevilla, Mgd. Colombia, v. 6.28, Darlington, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2010. NHM: (1) one specimen: Calligrapha pacta Dej. Columbia, [illegible], Chrysomela argus Stål, Baly Coll.; (2) one specimen: E. Coll. Laferté, 426, Calligrapha pacta Dej. Colombia, argus Stål Stål, 67 - 56; (3) one specimen: E. Coll. Laferté, 479, Granada, 67 - 56. NRM: (1) one specimen: Columbia, Stål. COSTA RICA EGRC: (1) one specimen: Costa Rica, Monte Verde, Cordillera de Tilarán, 10.iii. 1991, M.E. Rice, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011. FSCA: (1) one specimen: Costa Rica, Guanacaste, Finca Taboga Res. Farm, 9.vii. 1966, G.R. Buckingham; (2) two specimens: Costa Rica, Ala. Pr., 8 km S S. Ramon, 31.v. 1980, J.E. Wappes, Calligrapha argus St. Det. E.G. Riley ’ 80; (3) one specimen: Costa Rica, Guanacaste, La Pacífica, nr. Cañas, 8.vi. 1983, J.E. Wappes; (4) two specimens: Costa Rica, Pun., 13 mi NW Esparza, 250 ’, 19.vi. 1974, C.W. & L.B. O’Brien & G.B. Marshall, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011; (5) one specimen: Costa Rica, Puntarenas, Monteverde, 23–27.v. 1987, E. Giesbert, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez- Zurita det. 2011; (6) four specimens: Costa Rica, Puntarenas, 4 km NE San Luis de Guacimal, 22.ii. 1987, E. Giesbert, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011. IBE-JGZ: (1) one specimen: IBE-JGZ-0077, Costa Rica, Guanacaste, Area Conservación Guanacaste, Sector Santa Elena, Potrero Grande, 27 /05/ 2000, A. Solís leg. MfN: (1) one specimen: Costa Rica, Piedras Negras, Collection Schild-Burgdorf, Calligrapha notatipennis Stål. NHM: (1) one specimen: Costa Rica, 92 - 18, C. suboculata Stål; (2) one specimen: Irazu, 6–7000ft, H. Rogers, Godman-Salvin Coll., Biol. Centr.-Amer.; (3) one specimen: Surface of fallen tree, Dry tropical forest, Costa Rica, Volcán Rincón de la Vieja, 10 º 47 'N 85 º 19 'W 2700 ', 18.iii. 1982, R.J. Kirby & S.A. Speight BM 1982 - 260. NMB: (1) one specimen: Turrialba, Costa Rica, C. argus ab. famularis St. J. Bechyné det. 1951; (2) one specimen: Bebedero, Costa Rica, Reimoser; (3) one specimen: Turrialba, Costa Rica. NMCZ: (1) two specimens: Costa Rica, Coll. Achard Mus. Pragense [one with: Calligrapha argus St.]. NMNH: (1) one specimen: Costa Rica, F. Nevermann, 17.iii. 30, Turrucares 600 m, Pacifikseite, unter loser Rinde vorsteckt, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011; (2) one specimen: Costa Rica, F. Nevermann, Guanacaste, Mai 1932, P. Assmann leg.; (3) one specimen: Costa Rica, F. Nevermann, 17.i. 30, Sta Maria (Tilerán) 800 m, W.S. Thomas leg.; (4) one specimen: Costa Rica, Guanacaste, Hacienda Palo Verde, 6–15 July 1976, J.C. Solomon coll., 122, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez- Zurita det. 2011; (5) one specimen: Costa Rica, Cent. Am. ix. 1.1906, F. Monrós Collection 1959; (6) two specimens: Finca La Pacífica, 7 km NW Cañas, Guanacaste Prov., Costa Rica, DHJ, Jun, 17 –24, 1969 [one with: Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011]; (7) one specimen: Costa Rica, Rio Corobici, Las Canas, 15 June 1967, Flint & Ortiz; (8) one specimen: Costa Rica, Guanacaste Prov., Lomas Barbudel Res., 13 July 1989, leg. David G. Furth, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011. TAMUIC: (1) one specimen: Costa Rica, Guanacaste, 29 km WSW Cañas, Sta. OTS Paloverde, 10 º 21 ’N 85 º 21 ’W, 30 June 1976, H.A. Hespenheide, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011. EL SALVADOR EGRC: (1) one specimen: El Salvador, Ahuachapan, Apaneca, 4500 ft, 7–12.ix. 2002, D. Marqua, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011. FSCA: (1) one specimen: El Salvador, Tamanique 1000 m, 5.xii. 1971, S. & L. Steinhauser, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011. NMNH: (1) one specimen: El Salvador, Vol. Conchagua, 27–29 May 1958, O.L. Cartwright, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011; (2) two specimens: No. 444 -2806, 5.vii. 54, Metapan, M.S.V.; (3) two specimens: No. 444 -7813, 15.vi. 54, La Unión, M.S.V. GUATEMALA EGRC: (1) one specimen: Guatemala, Guat. City, Las Hamacas Tr. Pk., 5–8.viii. 1979, Thomas & Case, Calligrapha argus St. det. Daccordi ’ 81. FSCA: (1) one specimen: Guatemala, Baja Veracruz, 6–9 km E Purulhá 5000 ’, 15–24.iv. 1990, E. Giesbert, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011. MCZ: (1) three specimens: Chacoj, Vera Paz, Champion, Ex Godman and Salvin [one with: Calligrapha argus Stål]; (2) one specimen: Capetillo, Guatemala, C. Champion, 1 st Jacoby Coll.; (3) one specimen: Chacoj, Vera Paz, Champion, 1 st Jacoby Coll.; (4) one specimen: Panzos, Vera Paz, Conradt, Jacoby 2 nd; (5) one specimen: Teleman, Vera Paz, Champion, Jacoby 2 nd Coll.; (6) one specimen: Chacoj, Vera Paz, Champion, Jacoby 2 nd Coll. MfN: (1) two specimens: Chacoj, Vera Paz, Champion, 96424 [one with: Calligrapha argus St.]; (2) one specimen: Guatemala, [illegible]. MTJM: (1) one specimen: Guatemala, Suchitepequez Dept., Finca Los Tarrales, ca. 8 km N of Patulul, 14 º 32.37 ’N 91 º08.17’W, 760 m, 4 June 2005, R.S. Zack, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2009. NHM: (1) one specimen: El Reposo, 800ft., Champion, Godman-Salvin Coll., Biol. Centr.-Amer.; (2) four specimens: Chacoj, Vera Paz, Champion, Godman-Salvin Coll., Biol. Centr.-Amer.; (3) two specimens: S. Geronimo, Guatemala, Champion, Godman-Salvin Coll., Biol. Centr.-Amer.; (4) one specimen: Cerro Zunil, 4000ft., Champion, Godman- Salvin Coll., Biol. Centr.-Amer.; (5) one specimen: Capetillo, Guatemala, Rodríguez, Biol. Centr. Amer. Collection; (6) one specimen: Checoj, Vera Paz, Champion, Biol. Centr. Amer. Collection; (7) one specimen: Cerro Zunil, 4–5000ft., Champion, Godman-Salvin Coll., Biol. Centr.-Amer. NMNH: (1) one specimen: Guatemala, Chicacao, 13.vii. 1949, T.H. Farr, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011; (2) two specimens: Chacoj, Vera Paz, Champion [one with: Calligrapha argus Stål]; (3) one specimen: Guatemala, San Pedro, 11823, 9- 13 - ’60, 22083, in Orchidaceae, Calligrapha sp. DMW. NRM: (1) two specimens: Chacoj, Vera Paz, Champion; (2) one specimen: Cerro Zunil, 4–5000ft. Champion, Calligrapha argus Stål; (3) one specimen: Cerro Zunil, 4–5000ft. Champion; (4) one specimen: Capetillo, Guatemala, G.C. Champion. OUMNH: (1) nine specimens: Chacoj, Vera Paz, Champion, B.C.A. duplicates pres. 1909 by F.D. Godman Cat. No. 84; (2) one specimen: Panajachel, 5000 ft, Champion, B.C.A. duplicates pres. 1909 by F.D. Godman Cat. No. 84, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011; (3) one specimen: Panzos, Vera Paz, Conradt, B.C.A. duplicates pres. 1909 by F.D. Godman Cat. No. 84, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011; (4) one specimen: Capetillo, Guatemala, G.C. Champion, B.C.A. duplicates pres. 1909 by F.D. Godman Cat. No. 84, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011; (5) six specimens: Cerro Zunil, [four with: 4–5000 ft; two with: 4000 ft], Champion, B.C.A. duplicates pres. 1909 by F.D. Godman Cat. No. 84, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011. ZSM: (1) sixteen specimens: Guatemala, Suchitepequez, Patului, [one with: 15.8.83; three with: 1.7.83; two with: 10.8.83; three with: 16.8.83; seven with: 10.7.83], A. Poll, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011. HONDURAS EGRC: (1) one specimen: Honduras, Cortes Hill, behind San Pedro Sula, 17.ix. 1984, C.W. O’Brien. FSCA: (1) two specimens: Honduras, Intibuca, 18 km W La Esperanza, 3.xii. 1995, F.W. Skillman; (2) one specimen: Honduras, Choluteca, Cerro Guanacuare, 4.vi. 1993, F.W. Skillman, Jr.; (3) one specimen: Honduras, Francisco Morazon Zamorano, 4.x. 1993, R. Turnbow, Calligrapha argus Stal Det. E.G. Riley ’ 93; (4) one specimen: Honduras, Francisco, Morazon, 25.5 km SSW Talanga, 3.vi. 1993, M.C. Thomas, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez- Zurita det. 2011; (5) four specimens: Honduras, El Paraíso, Yuscarán, R. Turnbow, Calligrapha argus St. Det. E.G. Riley ’03 [three with: 14.vii. 2001; one with: 21.vii. 2001]; (6) one specimen: Honduras, El Paraíso, Yuscarán 840 m, 4–8.viii. 1992, L. Stange & C. Porter, degradated wet forest, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011. MCZ: (1) one specimen: Sn. P. Sula, Hond. NHM: (1) one specimen: Honduras, 45-123; (2) two specimens: Hond. [illegible], Baly Coll. NMNH: (1) one specimen: Hond., El P. vic Yuscaran, 18 May 1995, J.E. Wappes, Calligrapha argus (Stål) det. J.E. Wappes 2002. TAMUIC: (1) one specimen: X0534460, Honduras, Comayagua, 30 mi E Tegucigalpa, 31.vii. 1982, Robert W. Jones, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011. MEXICO EGRC: (1) three specimens: Mexico, Tamaulipas, Bocatoma, 7 km SSE Gomez Farias, 27–28.v. 1979, E.G. Riley, on Guazuma ulmifolia (Sterculiaceae); (2) two specimens: Mexico, Tamaulipas, Bocatoma, 7 km SSE Gomez Farias, [one with: 25–30.iii. 1978; one with: 19–23.v. 1979], E.G. Riley; (3) four specimens: Mexico, Tamaulipas, Bocatoma, 6 mi S Gomez Farias, 25–30.iii. 1978 [one with: F. Breitenbach; one with: Marlin E. Rice Coll.]; (4) six specimens: Mexico, San Luis de Potosí, El Salto, at the falls, 26.v. 1979 [three with: Marlin E. Rice Coll.; three with: E.G. Riley]; (5) one specimen: Mexico, Oaxaca, 37 mi NW Tehuantepec, 1500 ft, 12.viii. 1974, O’Brien & Marshall; (6) one specimen: Mexico, Chiapas, 16 km W Ocozocautla, Aguacera, 16.vi, D.B. Thomas; (7) one specimen: Mexico, Chiapas, Oaxaca border, Hwy90, 28.vii. 1988, D.B. and A.M. Thomas; (8) one specimen: Mexico, Chiapas, El Aguacero, 25.vi. 1989, P. Lago, J. Burne & D. Thomas; (9) three specimens: Mexico, Chiapas, El Aguacero, D.B. & A.M. Thomas [one with: 14.vi. 1988; two with: 29.vii. 1988, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011]; (10) one specimen: Mexico, Chiapas, Simojovel, 20.x. 1988, Thomas, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011. FSCA: (1) one specimen: Mexico, Chiapas, 16 km W Ocozocoautla, 20.vi. 1987, E. Giesbert, Calligrapha argus St. Det. J. Watts 1993; (2) one specimen: Mexico, San Luis de Potosí, El Salto Falls, 3.vii. 1990, J.K. Adams; (3) one specimen: Mexico, San Luis de Potosi, El Salto Falls, 29.vi. 1968, H.V. Weems, Jr.; (4) one specimen: Mexico, Tamaulipas, 1–2 mi E N Morelos, 2.vi. 1982, J.E. Wappes; (5) sixteen specimens: Mexico, Veracruz, 16.5 mi S Catemaco, Hwy180, 17– 25.vi. 1985, Askevold & Heffern [one with: Calligrapha argus Stal det. M. Daccordi 1986]; (6) two specimens: Mexico, Veracruz, 5.2 mi S Catemaco, Hwy180, 17.vi. 1985, Askevold & Heffern [one with: Calligrapha argus Stal det. I. Askevold 1986]; (7) two specimens: Mexico, Veracruz, 1.5 mi NE Tatahuicapan, 25.vi. 1985, Askevold & Heffern; (8) two specimens: Mexico, Veracruz, vic. of El Salto de Eyipantla, 15 km S San Andres Tuxtla, 15–28.vi. 1985, Askevold & Heffern; (9) three specimens: Mexico, Veracruz, Lake Catemaco, 7.vii. 1965, G.H. Nelson, sweeping roadside vegetation, Calligrapha argus St. det. A.J. Gilbert ’ 87; (10) one specimen: Mexico, Veracruz, Hwy145, 6 mi S Tinaja, 25.vii. 1972, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011; (11) one specimen: Mexico, San Luis de Potosí, 7.4 km E Tancuayalab, 24.vii. 1988, R. Turbow, Calligrapha argus St. det. E. G. Riley ’ 93; (12) one specimen: Mexico, San Luis de Potosí, El Salto, 19.vi. 1973, H.W. Weems, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011; (13) one specimen: Mexico, Chiapas, Hwy 190, Chiapas de Corsa, 3.viii. 2001, W. Opitz, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez- Zurita det. 2011; (14) one specimen: Mexico, Tamaulipas, Mun. de Aldana, Rancho Nuevo, Barra Coma, 11–28.vi. 1979, D.F. Gicca, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011; (15) one specimen: Mexico, Chiapas, 9 km N Arriaga, 15.x. 1988, E. Giesbert, Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2011. MCZ: (1) one specimen: Mex.; (2) one specimen: Mex., A.P. Morse Coll., Calligrapha argus Stål J. Gómez-Zurita det. 2010; (3) one specimen: Tuxtla, San Andrés, Mexico, Sallé Coll., 1 st Jacoby Coll.; (4) one specimen: Yucatan, contigua Chev. [illegible], 1 st Jacoby Coll.; (5) two specimens: Tapachula, Chiapas, Höge, Jacoby 2 nd Coll. MfN: (1) one specimen: 29787, argus Stål, Mexico, Ehrenb.; (2) two specimens: Atoyac; (3) one specimen: Tapachula; (4) one specimen: Sierra de Zungolica [Zongolica], 583, scalaris Lec.; (5) one specimen: Tupataro, 21; (6) two specimens: Mexico, Flohr. NHM: (1) one specimen: Temax, N. Yucatan, Gaumer; (2) one specimen: Tepachula, Chiapas, Höge, Godman-Salvin Coll., Biol. Centr.-Amer.; (3) one specimen: Juquila, Mexico, Sallé Coll., Calligrapha multipunctata Stål apud Sallé, Godman-Salvin Coll., Biol. Centr.-Amer.; (4) one specimen: Veracruz, Mexico, Sallé Coll., 643, Sp. figured, Godman-Salvin Coll., Biol. Centr.-Amer.; (5) one specimen: Minas Viejas, Mexico, Dr. Palmer, Godman-Salvin Coll., Biol. Centr.-Amer.;
Late Roman amphora 1: a study of diversification
No full textThis paper draws on petrological work done by the author on the most important type of late Roman amphora - LR1, which was widely distributed in the Mediterranean, Red Sea area and western Britain
Letter from D.F. Goggin, Motor Officer, April 5, 1950
No full textIn this letter, D.F. Goggin, Motor Officer, affirms that Tsugitada Kanamori was employed by his organization starting June 8, 1946 and was still employed there at the time this letter was written. He remarks that Kanamori is a loyal and honest employee and recommends him for any position.This collection contains one box of documents belonging to Tsugitada Kanamori. Materials in this collection mostly pertain to Kanamori’s efforts regarding canceling his renunciation and reinstating his American citizenship
Reconstruction of turbulent pipe-flow profiles from laser Doppler velocimetry data
No full textLaser Doppler velocimetry (LDV) is a powerful experimental tool that finds increasing application in industrial research and product development. For example, LDV may be used to support the development of water, heat, and cooling meters as well as the design and validation of the associated testing and calibration facilities. For such applications, a basic quantity of interest is the volume flow rate Q that can be determined through numerical integration of the velocity profile over the measurement grid. However, under realistic experimental conditions, optical disturbances and reflections may cause corrupted and unreliable data at various measurement points. Here, we study a criterium to identify and reconstruct such data points. The reconstruction criterium is based on the standard error associated with each measurement point. Using some of our LDV data, we show that the error in Q with respect to a reference flow rate may be reduced significantly through the reconstruction. Consequently, the reconstruction criterium allows to establish accurate and reliable flow rates that have potential to be used as a primary validation reference
Letter from D.F. Goggin, Motor Officer, to the American Consul, Yokohama, Japan, April 18, 1951
No full textThis letter confirms that Tsugitada Kanamori has worked for D.F. Goggin since June 1946 at the time this letter was written and has been a model employee.This collection contains one box of documents belonging to Tsugitada Kanamori. Materials in this collection mostly pertain to Kanamori’s efforts regarding canceling his renunciation and reinstating his American citizenship
Depolarization and decreased surface expression of K+ channels contribute to NSAID-inhibition of intestinal restitution
No full textNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) contribute to gastrointestinal ulcer formation by inhibiting epithelial cell migration and mucosal restitution; however, the drug-affected signaling pathways are poorly defined. We investigated whether NSAID inhibition of intestinal epithelial migration is associated with depletion of intracellular polyamines, depolarization of membrane potential (Em) and altered surface expression of K+ channels. Epithelial cell migration in response to the wounding of confluent IEC-6 and IEC-Cdx2 monolayers was reduced by indomethacin (100μM), phenylbutazone (100μM) and NS-398 (100μM) but not by SC-560 (1μM). NSAID-inhibition of intestinal cell migration was not associated with depletion of intracellular polyamines. Treatment of IEC-6 and IEC-Cdx2 cells with indomethacin, phenylbutazone and NS-398 induced significant depolarization of Em, whereas treatment with SC-560 had no effect on Em. The Em of IEC-Cdx2 cells was: −38.5±1.8mV under control conditions; −35.9±1.6mV after treatment with SC-560; −18.8±1.2mV after treatment with indomethacin; and −23.7±1.4mV after treatment with NS-398. Whereas SC-560 had no significant effects on the total cellular expression of Kv1.4 channel protein, indomethacin and NS-398 decreased not only the total cellular expression of Kv1.4, but also the cell surface expression of both Kv1.4 and Kv1.6 channel subunits in IEC-Cdx2. Both Kv1.4 and Kv1.6 channel proteins were immunoprecipitated by Kv1.4 antibody from IEC-Cdx2 lysates, indicating that these subunits co-assemble to form heteromeric Kv channels. These results suggest that NSAID inhibition of epithelial cell migration is independent of polyamine-depletion, and is associated with depolarization of Em and decreased surface expression of heteromeric Kv1 channels.ID: S0006295207001931; M3: Article; Accession Number: S0006295207001931; Author: L.C. Freeman (b); Author: D.F. Narvaez (a); Author: A. McCoy (a); Author: F.B. von Stein (c); Author: S. Young (b); Author: K. Silver (a); Author: S. Ganta (b); Author: D. Koch (b); Author: R. Hunter (b); Author: R.F. Gilmour (c); Author: J.D. Lillich (a, ⁎); Affiliation: Department of Clinical Sciences, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, United States; Affiliation: Department of Anatomy and Physiology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, United States; Affiliation: Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, United States; Keyword: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; Keyword: Intestinal epithelial cells; Keyword: Membrane potential; Keyword: Potassium channels; Number of Pages: 12; Language: English;Source type: Electronic(1)http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S0006295207001931&site=eds-live&scope=sit
The non-extractive economic value of spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, in the Turks and Caicos Islands
No full textHet Ir. D.F. Woudagemaal: De relatie tussen de ingrepen in het Ir. D.F. Woudagemaal en de aanwijzingen als rijksmonument en werelderfgoed
No full textHet Ir. D.F. Woudagemaal is het grootste functionerende stoomgemaal ter wereld. Dankzij de technische en bouwkundige waarde, is het Woudagemaal in 1977 aangewezen als rijksmonument door de Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (RCE). Jaren later, in 1998, is het door de United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) opgenomen in de werelderfgoedlijst. Dit betekent dat het stoomgemaal uniek is en absoluut niet verloren mag gaan. Sinds de oplevering in 1920 is het stoomgemaal van civiel ingenieur en architect Dirk Frederik Wouda (1880-1961) ieder jaar in gebruik gesteld. Door de jaren heen heeft het stoomgemaal enkele veranderingen ondergaan. Desalniettemin is de wisselwerking tussen de innovaties, conservering en de aanwijzing als erfgoed onderbelicht. Het doel van deze thesis is daarom om de volgende vraag te beantwoorden: wat is de relatie tussen de ingrepen in het Ir. D. F. Woudagemaal en de aanwijzingen als rijksmonument en werelderfgoed?AR2A011Architecture, Urbanism and Building Science
Descubrimiento de una escultura monolítica en el Cerro Mazatepetl, Magdalena Contreras, D.F.. 28. Arqueología
No full textGendrop, Paul, 1990. Arte prehispánico en Mesoamérica, México, Trillas, Centro de Investigaciones Arquitectónicas, Escuela Nacional de Arquitectura, UNAM, 1990.Nicholson, H.B., “The Chapultepec cliff sculpture of Moctezuma Xocoyotzin”, en: El México Antiguo, Revista internacional de Arqueología, Etnología, Folklore, Prehistoria, Historia Antigua y Lingüística mexicanas, t. IX, México, Sociedad Alemana Mexicanista de México, 1961, pp. 379-444.Santana Sandoval, Andrés, “La ceja azul o elemento ‘C’ en las pinturas murales de Cacaxtla y su significado”, en: Cacaxtla. Proyecto de Investigación y Conservación, México, Conaculta-Gobierno de Tlaxcala-INAH-Consejo estatal de Cultura, Tlaxcala, 1980a, pp. 53- 65.____, “El simbolismo de las pinturas murales del templo de Venus y el templo rojo”, en: Cacaxtla. Proyecto de Investigación y Conservación, México, Conaculta-Gobierno de Tlaxcala-INAH y Consejo estatal de Cultura Tlaxcala, 1990b, pp. 67-75.Santos Ramírez, Joel, “Informe parcial trabajos de exploración de la estructura ‘A’, del sitio Maztepetl, Cerro del Judío, Magdalena Contreras, D.F.”, en: Archivo del Proyecto Arqueológico, 2000, (mecanuscrito)
Bilateral and unilateral arm training improve motor function through differing neuroplastic mechanisms: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial
No full textBACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:
This randomized controlled trial tests the efficacy of bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing (BATRAC) versus dose-matched therapeutic exercises (DMTEs) on upper-extremity (UE) function in stroke survivors and uses functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine effects on cortical reorganization.
METHODS:
A total of 111 adults with chronic UE paresis were randomized to 6 weeks (3×/week) of BATRAC or DMTE. Primary end points of UE assessments of Fugl-Meyer UE Test (FM) and modified Wolf Motor Function Test Time (WT) were performed 6 weeks prior to and at baseline, after training, and 4 months later. Pretraining and posttraining, fMRI for UE movement was evaluated in 17 BATRAC and 21 DMTE participants.
RESULTS:
The improvements in UE function (BATRAC: FM Δ = 1.1 + 0.5, P = .03; WT Δ = -2.6 + 0.8, P < .00; DMTE: FM Δ = 1.9 + 0.4, P < .00; WT Δ = -1.6 + 0.7; P = .04) were comparable between groups and retained after 4 months. Satisfaction was higher after BATRAC than DMTE (P = .003). BATRAC led to significantly higher increase in activation in ipsilesional precentral, anterior cingulate and postcentral gyri, and supplementary motor area and contralesional superior frontal gyrus (P < .05). Activation change in the latter was correlated with improvement in the WMFT (P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS:
BATRAC is not superior to DMTE, but both rehabilitation programs durably improve motor function for individuals with chronic UE hemiparesis and with varied deficit severity. Adaptations in brain activation are greater after BATRAC than DMTE, suggesting that given similar benefits to motor function, these therapies operate through different mechanisms
- …
