323,732 research outputs found
Cymothoa bychowskyi Avdeev 1979
No full textCymothoa bychowskyi Avdeev, 1979 (Fig. 1 j–l) Cymothoa bychowskyi Avdeev, 1979a: 230, pl. 6, 7; 1985: 217, fig. 1.— Trilles, 1994: 138.—Williams, Bunkley-Williams & Pitlik, 2000: 157.— Kensley, 2001: 232.— Bruce, Lew Ton & Poore, 2002: 174.—Paulay, Kropp, Ng & Eldredge, 2003: 479.— Trilles & Bariche, 2006: 228.— Rameshkumar, Ravichandran, Sivasubramanian & Trilles, 2013d: 42, fig. 1c.— Martin, Bruce & Nowak, 2016: 6. Type and type locality. The holotype Cymothoa bychowskyi, held at Russian Pacific Federal Fisheries Research Institute, Vladivostok (TINRO АGK 75011) from northwestern Australia, red cornetfish Fistularia petimba Lacépède, 1803. Material examined. 1 ovig. female (27 mm), Agatti Island, Lakshadweep, 20 April 2011, from Strongylura leiura (Bleeker, 1850), coll. G. Rameshkumar (CAS / MBRM C- 87). Reamarks. Cymothoa bychowskyi can be identified by the body 2.4 times as long as wide; pereonite 1 with broad anterolateral margins reaching half the length of cephalon; coxae 2–4 posteroventral margins rounded, coxae 5–7 posteroventral margins project laterally in dorsal view; pleonites subequal in length, pereonite 7 posterolateral margin extending to pleonite 4; pleotelson posterior margin rounded; uropods not extending beyond posterior margin of the pleotelson and pleopod 2 of female holotype with an appendix masculine. Avdeev (1979a) originally described C. bychowskyi from Australia and included information on the male specimen. Avdeev (1979a) made a comparison to C. parupenei Avdeev, 1979a and also mentioned the deposition of the paratypes at TINRO (AGK 75012 –75021). Cymothoa bychowskyi is currently known to parasitise only the red cornetfish, Fistularia petimba and occurs in a small geographical range. This species has only been collected least and would require more collections for a more informative analysis. Cymothoa bychowskyi has high host specificity and the infrequent reports would suggest low occurrence. Rameshkumar et al. (2013) reported 7.9% prevalence (3 of 38 hosts) of the species from Agatti Island, Lakshadweep, southeastern India. Distribution. Northwestern and Western Australia, precise locality not given (Avdeev 1979a; Kensley 2001). Also reported from Guam, Micronesia (Williams et al. 2000), Okinawa, Japan (Williams et al. 2000), Lakshadweep and India (Rameshkumar et al. 2013). Hosts. Known only from family Fistulariidae: Fistularia petimba, Lacepède, 1803, (see Avdeev 1979a; Williams et al. 2000; Rameshkumar et al. 2013d) and bluespotted cornetfish Fistularia commersonii Rüppell, 1838 (Williams et al. 2000).Published as part of Ravichandran, S., Vigneshwaran, P. & Rameshkumar, G., 2019, A taxonomic review of the fish parasitic isopod family Cymothoidae Leach, 1818 (Crustacea: Isopoda: Cymothooidea) of India, pp. 1-99 in Zootaxa 4622 (1) on pages 18-19, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4622.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/337989
Cymothoa parupenei Avdeev 1979
No full textCymothoa parupenei Avdeev, 1979 (Fig. 2 d–f) Cymothoa parupenei Avdeev, 1979a: 228, pl. 4, 5.— Trilles, 1994: 147.— Kensley, 2001: 233.— Bruce, Lew Ton & Poore, 2002: 175.— Trilles & Bariche, 2006: 228.— Rameshkumar, Ravichandran, Sivasubramanian & Trilles, 2013d: 42, fig. 1a.— Martin, Bruce & Nowak, 2016: 29–32, figs 16, 17. Type and type locality. The holotype Cymothoa parupenei (TINRO AGK 75026) were collected from northwestern Australia (Avdeev 1979a) from Parupeneus spilurus (Bleeker, 1854) but the specimen could not be located. Material examined. 2 ovig. females (22, 27 mm), Nagapattinam, 23 April 2013, from Upeneus sulphureus Cuvier, 1829, coll. G. Rameshkumar (CAS / MBRM C- 101– C- 102). 1 ovig. female (25 mm), Parangipettai, 29 July 2017, from Upeneus sulphureus, coll. S. Ravichandran (ZSI / MBRC D1-533). All localities from the state of Tamil Nadu, southeast coast of India. Remarks. Martin et al. (2016) redescribed and diagnosed C. parupenei from the female paratype (TINRO АPK 75027). Cymothoa parupenei can be recognized by the subrectangular body; wide anterolateral margins on pereonite 1 extending beyond the anterior margins of cephalon; semi-circular cephalon anterior margin, frontal margin rounded to form blunt rostrum; pleonite 1 almost entirely overlapped by pereonite 7; uropods reaching posterior margin of the pleotelson; Pleotelson 0.5 times as long as anterior width, anterior margin not trisinuate, lateral margin weakly concaved, posterior margin subtruncate and irregular, without median point. pereopod 7 basis with smooth and moderately raised carina, ischium inferior distal margin with slight bulbous projection. Figures given by Martin et al. (2016) of the male showed a coxae 2–7 with rounded posteroventral margins; pleonites posterior margin moderately irregular; pleonites 3–5 progressively wider; pereopods 3–5 similar to pereopod 2, gradually increasing in size, without robust or simple setae; exopod extending past endopod, 3.6 times as long as greatest width, apically rounded, lateral margin straight, terminating without setae, mesial margin weakly straight. The ovig. female pleopod 1(illustrated by Avdeev 1979a) has rami of subequal size with the endopod mesial margin deeply oblique and distally straight, lateral margins deeply convex, with proximal margins extending beyond peduncle. Cymothoa parupenei can be distinguished from C. indica in having weakly developed or undeveloped amphicephalic processes of pereonite 1. Cymothoa parupenei is host specific to Mullidae and has an Indo–Pacific distribution, whereas C. indica is known from a variety of fishes and has a Pacific and Indian Ocean distribution (Martin et al. 2016). Martin et al. (2016) reported that the C. parupenei resembles Cymothoa oestrum (Linnaeus, 1758) in the semi-circular cephalon, pereonites 1–6 posterior margin smooth and pleonites 3–5 becoming progressively wider. Colour. Light brown in ethanol (Martin et al. 2016), ivory white in live specimen. Size. Ovig. females: 22–27 mm. Distribution. Cymothoa parupenei distributed in northwestern Australia (Avdeev 1979a; Kensley 2001; Martin et al. 2016) and India (Rameshkumar et al. 2013d). Hosts. Known from family Mullidae: Parupeneus spilurus (Avdeev 1979a) and sulphur goatfish Upeneus sulphureus (Rameshkumar et al. 2013d).Published as part of Ravichandran, S., Vigneshwaran, P. & Rameshkumar, G., 2019, A taxonomic review of the fish parasitic isopod family Cymothoidae Leach, 1818 (Crustacea: Isopoda: Cymothooidea) of India, pp. 1-99 in Zootaxa 4622 (1) on pages 23-24, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4622.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/337989
O(ALPHA-ALPHA(S)(2)) CORRECTION TO THE ELECTROWEAK RHO-PARAMETER
No full textAVDEEV L, Fleischer J, MIKHAILOV S, TARASOV O. O(ALPHA-ALPHA(S)(2)) CORRECTION TO THE ELECTROWEAK RHO-PARAMETER. PHYSICS LETTERS B. 1994;336(3-4):560-566.The three-loop QCD contributions to the vacuum polarization functions of the Z and W bosons at zero momentum are calculated. The top quark is considered to be massive and the other quarks massless. Using these results, we calculate the correction to the electroweak rho parameter. All computations are done in the framework of dimensional regularization as well as regularization by dimensional reduction. We use recurrence relations obtained by the method of integration by parts to reduce all integrals to a small set of master integrals. A comparison of the two-loop and three-loop QCD corrections to the rho parameter is performed
Cymothoa propria Avdeev 1979
No full text<i>Cymothoa propria</i> Avdeev, 1979 <p>Figures 18–21</p> <p> <i>Cymothoa propria</i> Avdeev, 1979b: 50, pl. 1, 2. <i>—</i> Trilles, 1994: 147. <i>—</i> Bruce, Lew Ton & Poore, 2002: 176. <i>—</i> Trilles & Bariche, 2006: 228.</p> <p> <b>Material examined.</b> <i>Paratypes</i>: 2 ovig. ♀ (15, 20 mm), collected from northern Australia, on yellow-stripe scad <i>Selaroides leptolepis</i> (Cuvier, 1833) (TINRO АPK 75002–75005).</p> <p>Note: The female holotype (TINRO AGK 75001) and male paratypes (TINRO APK 75006–75008) could not be located, and our illustrations are based on female paratypes.</p> <p> <b>Ovigerous female</b> Length 20 mm width 8 mm (paratype).</p> <p> <i>Body</i> rhomboid, 2.1 times as long as greatest width, dorsal surface smooth, widest at pereonite 5 and 6. <i>Cephalon</i> subtriangular, 1.1 times longer than wide, slightly visible from dorsal view, not immersed in pereonite 1.</p> <p> <i>Frontal margin</i> rounded to form blunt rostrum, ventrally folded. <i>Eyes</i> partially distinct. <i>Pereonite 1</i> anterolateral margins minute, reaching posterior margins of eyes; posterior margins of pereonites 3–6 irregular; pereonites 5–7 subequal in length, posterolateral margins arched. <i>Coxae</i> 2–7 posteroventral margins rounded. <i>Pleonites</i> subequal in width, visible in dorsal view, pleonites posterior margins irregular. <i>Pleotelson</i> 0.5 times as long as anterior width, anterior margin irregular, lateral margins weakly concave, posterior margin subtruncate, without median point.</p> <p> <i>Antennula</i> comprised of 8 articles; peduncle articles 1 and 2 distinct and articulated; article 2 1.3 times as long as article 1; article 3 0.8 times as long as combined lengths of articles 1 and 2, 1.2 times as long as wide. <i>Antenna</i> comprised of 7 articles, peduncle article 3 1.4 times as long as article 2, 1.8 times as long as wide; article 4 1.2 times as long as wide; article 5 0.9 times as long as article 4, terminal article without setae, not extending to posterior of pereonite 1.</p> <p> <i>Pereopod 1</i> basis 1.1 times as long as greatest width, superior proximal margin smooth, with moderately raised carina; ischium 0.6 times as long as basis; merus proximal margin without bulbous protrusion; carpus with straight proximal margin; propodus 1.0 times as long as wide; dactylus narrow, 1.6 times as long as propodus, 2.4 times as long as basal width. <i>Pereopod 2</i> basis 1.4 times as long as greatest width, superior proximal margin smooth, without raised carina; propodus 1.3 times as long as wide; dactylus 1.5 times as long as propodus. <i>Pereopods</i> 3–5 similar to pereopod 2, gradually increasing in size, without robust or simple setae. <i>Pereopod 6</i> basis 1.0 times as long as greatest width, superior proximal margin smooth, without raised carina; ischium 0.7 times as long as basis, inferior distal margin with slight protrusion; propodus 0.9 times as long as wide, dactylus 2.0 times as long as propodus. <i>Pereopod 7</i> basis 0.9 times as long as greatest width, superior proximal margin smooth, with raised carina; ischium 0.7 times as long as basis, with bulbous protrusion; merus proximal margin with slight bulbous protrusion, 2.9 times as long as ischium, 2.0 times as long as wide; carpus 0.2 times as long as ischium, with slight bulbous protrusion, 0.4 times as long as wide; propodus 0.5 times as long as ischium, 1.0 times as long as wide; dactylus stout, 2.0 times as long as propodus, 2.5 times as long as basal width.</p> <p> <i>Uropod</i> not extending beyond posterior margin of pleotelson; peduncle 2.2 times as long as greatest width, 0.7 times as long as exopod, lateral margin without setae, marginal setae absent, lateral margin straight, mesial margin straight. <i>Exopod</i> extending past endopod, 6.0 times as long as greatest width, apically rounded, lateral margin straight, terminating without setae, mesial margin weakly straight. <i>Endopod</i> 2.8 times as long as greatest width, apices narrowly acute, lateral margin weakly convex, terminating without setae, mesial margin straight.</p> <p> <b>Colour.</b> Chestnut brown.</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> <i>Cymothoa propria</i> has a rhomboid body that is widest at pereonites 5 and 6, pereonites 5–7 subequal in length; cephalon subtriangular and weakly immersed in pereonite 1; anterolateral margins on pereonite 1 minute; pleonites subequal in width; pleotelson posterior margin subtruncate, 2.2 times wider than long; uropodal rami reaching posterior margin of pleotelson; pereopod 7 ischium inferior distal margin with bulbous protrusion and superior proximal basis of pereopod 7 with raised carina. Avdeev’s (1979b) illustration of the female holotype included a simple maxillula, with 3 terminal setae; maxilla with 8 and 3 recurved setae on mesial lobe and lateral lobe respectively; maxilliped weakly segmented, terminal article 3 with five recurved setae; pleopod 1 exopod and endopod subequal in size; endopod mesial and distal margin straight, with deeply convex lateral margins, and proximal margins not extending beyond peduncle. Avdeev’s (1979b) male illustration differs from the female by having visible eyes, subequal pereonite length, minute anterolateral margins of pereonite 1, rounded posterior margin of pleotelson and appendix masculina present on pleopod 2.</p> <p> <i>Cymothoa propria</i> resembles <i>C. indica</i> and <i>C. plebeia</i> Schioedte & Meinert, 1884 in the subtriangular cephalon and pleonites subequal in width. <i>Cymothoa propria</i> differs from both of those species in having a highly raised carina on pereopod 7 basis, 1.1 times wider than long (compared to the 0.9 times wider than long basis in <i>C. indica</i> and <i>C. plebeia</i>); pereopod 7 dactylus extending almost to the distal margin of carpus (compared to dactylus of <i>C. indica</i> and <i>C. plebeia</i> that does not extend to distal margin of carpus) and the ventrally folded frontal lamina, appearing to immerse the paired antennae.</p> <p> <b>Distribution.</b> Northern Australia (Avdeev 1979b).</p> <p> <b>Hosts.</b> Only known from Carangidae: <i>Selaroides leptolepis</i> (see Avdeev 1979b).</p>Published as part of <i>Martin, Melissa B., Bruce, Niel L. & Nowak, Barbara F., 2016, Review of the fish-parasitic genus Cymothoa Fabricius, 1793 (Crustacea: Isopoda: Cymothoidae) from Australia, pp. 1-72 in Zootaxa 4119 (1)</i> on pages 32-36, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4119.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/258507">http://zenodo.org/record/258507</a>
Diffusive author(s), cohesive author: Analysis of S/N (1994)
No full textThis study indicates the ways in which various aspects of the author(s) are brought forth in Dumb type’s performance art, the S/N production. Previous research has suggested a non-hierarchical organization of Dumb type and the absence of a “privileged author” in Dumb type’s collaborative work, S/N. However, the results that I have investigated from member’s interviews on the creative process of S/N along with my analysis of the recorded images of S/N, indicate a different aspect of the author(s). First, S/N was created through, so to speak, the collective ideas of the members of Dumb type. Further, S/N has at least nine quotations from previous performances, installations, and printed writings, besides the work-in-progress technique. Explicating one of the “author functions” as given by Michel Foucault, each text has plural subjects of the author. However, it has been revealed from members’ interviews that Teiji Furuhashi had a decision-making role in selecting the members’ ideas within the performance. Since then, S/N has had plural subjects of creation; however, Furuhashi is one of the subjects of creation along with the “privileged author.” S/N has plural authors (diffusive authors) yet at the same time, it has a “privileged author,” Teiji Furuhashi (cohesive author)
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
No full textThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
No full textWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
Author's address:
No full textCan archives of audiovisual TV interviews be used to make authors more visible to students, and thereby reduce the learning gap between native and non-native language speakers in college classes? We examined students in a college course who learned about one scholar's ideas through watching an audiovisual TV interview (i.e., visible author format) and about another scholar's ideas through reading a formal text description (i.e., invisible author format). For the invisible author, native language speakers scored significantly higher than the non-native language speakers on a corresponding exam question (i.e., a cognitive measure), generated more words on the exam question (i.e., a motivational measure), and mentioned the author's name more often in answering the exam question (i.e., an affective measure). For the visible author, the groups did not differ on any of these measures. These findings provide evidence for the idea that making the author visible through audiovisual TV interviews can eliminate the learning gap between native and non-native language speakers. 3 Universities around the world serve students who are non-native speakers of th
The vanishing author in computer-generated works: a critical analysis of recent Australian case law
No full textAbstract
The use of software is ubiquitous in the creation of many copyright works, yet the requirement in copyright law that every work have a human author who engages in independent intellectual effort means that its use may prevent copyright subsistence. Several recent Australian cases have refocused attention on authorship as an essential criterion of copyright subsistence, and these cases suggest that much computer-produced output may be authorless and thus lack copyright protection. This article, the first in a two-part series, analyses how each case deals with the question of authorship of computer-produced works and why the use of software diminishes copyright protection for a significant number of computer-generated works. The article critiques the application of conventional notions of human authorship developed in the pre-computer age to modern productions and suggests alternative approaches to authorship that satisfy both the major objectives of copyright policy and the need to adapt to the computer age. The article argues that, without a broader judicial approach to authorship of computer-generated works, Parliament must remedy the lacuna in protection for these ‘authorless’ works. Possible solutions for reform are suggested. In a forthcoming article, the author comprehensively examines those reform proposals
- …
