1,304 research outputs found
Samuel Johnson and the vocation of the author
No full textMuch has been written about Samuel Johnson as a Christian, and much about him as an author; this study is about where the two meet, in the idea of the literary vocation. Though Johnson only uses the word âvocationâ a handful of times, it holds both the quotidian sense of a job and the more exalted notion of a divine call, a tension which informs Johnsonâs thinking.
I begin with Johnsonâs development as a religious writer, influenced by William Lawâs contention that any form of life can be devout and holy, and by Bernard Mandevilleâs unsentimental candour. Johnsonâs writing bears the marks of both. He revised Irene, for instance, to make it less overtly Christian: a reminder that Johnsonâs religious convictions bring an invisible pressure to bear on apparently secular works. In his early years on the Gentlemanâs Magazine Johnson develops the principle that authorship, being a public act, carries great responsibilities.
It is, in fact, a vocation, and unpacking this concept takes up Chapter 2. Johnson sees writing as a potential form of public service, adding that a solitary writer ânaturally sinks from omission to forgetfulness of social dutiesâ. Too few commentators have grasped that Johnson sees morality in social terms â as a matter of answering the needs of others, according to oneâs place in an order overseen by divine providence. But again and again he refers to the human need âto seek from one another assistance and supportâ (Rambler 104). Instances of mutual help âby frequent reciprocations of beneficence unite mankind in society and friendshipâ. Johnsonâs well-known emphasis on friendship is only one expression of this deeper sense that society is held together by trust; and therefore, by the truth. Writersâ communication of truth defines their own social duties.
While Johnson can sound close to Shaftesbury when he writes of mankindâs sociability, there is really a significant gap between them, because Johnsonâs view of human nature is more jaded. He expects people to hurt each other for the same reasons they help each other; and he recognises a strong tendency towards pride and superiority â especially among writers, who are tempted to cut themselves off from society.
Chapter 3 deals in more depth with a writerâs social role, which is simply expressed as the ability to put the truth memorably. Borrowing from a tradition which stretches back to Seneca at least, Johnson believes that a writer becomes a âbenefactor of mankindâ by putting the useful, but readily forgotten, principles of the good life into memorable forms. Drawing on Lockeâs account of the memory, and deviating from Lockeâs account of moral action, he suggests that literature has a power to move the reason and the passions at once â hence his demand that poetry be both true and pleasurable. While this resembles the Horatian formula of dulce et utile, Johnson added to it a sense of writersâ and readersâ experience of the text: how âimpressionsâ are transferred from the world, via the writer, to the text, and so to the reader. Learning how to persuade the audience, however, necessitates first-hand acquaintance with the world.
Hence the subjects of Chapters 4 and 5, which are pride and humility respectively. Pride separates the author from the social world, making them ineffectual and unable to communicate truth. The âLivesâ of Swift and Milton establish this partly through their ridicule of the two subjects: though Johnson did not think ridicule established truth, it did restore a balance upset by an authorâs singularity.
âSingularityâ is the word Johnson uses to encapsulate Swiftâs faults: he was âfond of singularity, and desirous to make a mode of happiness for himself, different from the general course of things and order of Providenceâ. Milton, too, is condemned for his arrogance â but even more in order to correct the idolatry of his admirers. Johnson believes that Milton is being written about with absurd reverence, and so puts him back in his place â as just another member of society, with a role to fulfil.
Accepting that place involves a measure of humility. The question of the âdignity of literatureâ, a contested point during the nineteenth century, was alive in Johnsonâs time, and through his associations with what he himself called âGrub Streetâ, he lived and worked among many writers who might be thought undignified. Yet in the obscurity of the hacks Johnson found something to praise â an industrious, humble service opposed to the âletterâd arroganceâ of self-satisfied authors. â[T]he humble author of journals and gazettes must be considered as a liberal dispenser of beneficial knowledgeâ (Rambler 145). By stooping to be merely useful, journalists become great. Particularly in the Journey to the Western Islands, Johnson divests himself of authorial dignity, drawing attention to his own mistakes and omissions.
Such a humdrum view of the writerâs role, which placed the emphasis on the reader, put Johnson at odds with most of the prominent Romantics â and the scale of their revulsion from Johnson needs two chapters to be dealt with. Chapter 6 argues that their critique, especially that of Hazlitt and Coleridge, was above all about the question of the writerâs vocation: and for that reason, Shakespeare was the most contested ground â for Coleridge, Johnsonâs Shakespeare criticism was impertinent âfilthâ aimed at âthe greatest man that ever put on and put off mortalityâ. But that was exactly the kind of idolatrous view of authorship â what Hazlitt called approvingly âoverstrained enthusiasmâ â which Johnson wanted to challenge.
However, many of the Romanticsâ criticisms misrepresented Johnson; he was a more flexible thinker than they realised. In a final chapter, I look at the aftermath of the Romantics: how their accusation that Johnson was too narrow and bigoted to understand Shakespeare is echoed in Macaulay, and even in sympathetic readers like Matthew Arnold, and has dogged Johnson all the way to the present day. And I point out that the Romantic exaltation of the author has faced its own backlash, in ways that suggest Johnson might have seen more clearly than the Romantics thought.</p
Curriculum Studies as an international conversation: cosmopolitanism in a Latin American key
No full textMy work addresses the field of Curriculum Studies as a worldwide interdisciplinary field, its difficulties, complications, and possibilities. It primarily focuses on the relations between the Anglo-Saxon field of Curriculum Studies and the Latin American educational tradition. Looking at these relations from the 1960s to the current moment, I seek to unpack the complexities involved in understanding Curriculum Studies as an international field. Although there are historical and current power dynamics complicating this endeavor, I suggest a possible cosmopolitan project informed by intercultural dialogue.
I develop my understanding of curriculum as currere (Pinar, 1976a, 1976b; Grumet 1976a, 1976b) to inform my dissertation both conceptually and methodologically. I accept Pinar’s conceptualization of the field of Curriculum Studies as a complicated conversation. I situate my joining the conversation in that field from an international point of view, from my Latin American self. It is my own biography that brings this particular conversation into being, with the intention of making life educative. I situate my own educational experience at the center of this inquiry, trying to understand my biographical situation as a Latin American history teacher earning a Ph.d. in Curriculum and Instruction in an American University,a context where my biography intertwines with the field’s history. I move from biography to history in a conversation where personal troubles become public issues, biography and history intertwine, and the struggle for a better life emerges with ethical urgency.
Methodologically, I suggest a variant of the regressive-progressive-analytical-synthetical method currere. I tie each of these four moments of currere to a specific decade in my life and in the history of the field in the United States and Latin America. The regressive moment, the time of the given, is tied to the 1960s, when the field of curriculum arrived and was in tension with the progressive moment, which is tied to the 1990s and the problem of ‘the other’ that emerged around the commemoration of 1492. The analytical is the 2000s, in which the decision to devote myself to the field of education was put into tension with the synthetical, which refers to the current moment, the 2010s, when I advocate the study of Curriculum Studies. From there, I propose my version of a cosmopolitan project in Curriculum Studies, a cosmopolitanism that I can only sing in a Latin American key.Submission published under a 24 month embargo labeled 'Closed Access', the embargo will last until 2018-12-01The student, Daniel Johnson Mardones, accepted the attached license on 2016-11-15 at 13:53.The student, Daniel Johnson Mardones, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2016-11-15 at 14:07.This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2016-11-17 at 14:59.DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #10249 on 2017-02-28 at 14:41:33Made available in DSpace on 2017-03-01T17:01:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2
JOHNSONMARDONES-DISSERTATION-2016.pdf: 1705763 bytes, checksum: 8058c0c85a8a626b3568cd725068a791 (MD5)
LICENSE.txt: 4220 bytes, checksum: aae1cbe904a25c149ed400ecefccbfce (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2016-11-17Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 98687
Lift date: 2019-03-01T17:02:22Z
Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD systemEmbargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 98687
Lift date: 2019-03-01T17:03:32Z
Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD systemEmbargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 98687
Lift date: 2019-03-01T17:05:02Z
Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD systemEmbargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 98687
Lift date: 2019-03-01T17:06:55Z
Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD systemLimited Restriction Lifted for Item 98687 on 2019-03-02T10:15:08Z
Book Review: The Panzer Killers: The Untold Story of a Fighting General and His Spearhead Tank Division’s Charge into the Third Reich
No full textAuthor: Daniel P. Bolger
Reviewed by Rev. Dr. Wylie W. Johnson, US Army War College class of 2010
The Panzer Killers follows the story of World War II Major General Maurice Rose, chronicling his humble beginnings through his rise to being a decorated and accomplished Army commander who led by example.https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters_bookshelf/1008/thumbnail.jp
Selected topics in interventional radiology: a compendium of student honors papers on the Interventional radiology elective
No full textThis book is a collaborative effort with medical students from the Rutgers/Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, previously Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. The students contributed chapters written as honors papers,while on their Interventional Radiology elective. This publication is not meant to completely cover the ever expanding realm of interventional radiology but includes topics of interest to the students while on their elective. It has been rewarding to work with these amazing students, many of whom have elected to practice diagnostic and interventional radiology. This work was supported by a small grant from the Rutgers Library to create affordable books. As it is self published please overlook minor flaws.
The newest area of interventional radiology, interventional oncology, will be covered in subsequent chapters as they are written. As with other dynamic fields of medicine some material becomes outdated soon after it is written. As this is an electronic publication we will strive to update chapters as required.Central venous access in interventional radiology / Daniel Haddad, Mary-Katherine Lynch
Image -guided percutaneous needle biopsy / Ross Cadman
Image -guided percutaneous
abscess drainage of abdominal and pelvic abscess / Zaeem Billah, Dhaval Mehta
Interventional radiology approaches for the treatment of refractory ascites / Travis R. Quinoa
Radial artery access in interventional radiology / Lauren A. Huntress
Segmental arterial mediolysis / Julian Sison
Hemodialysis vascular access, complications, and interventional treatment / Pierre Saad
Non-operative management of splenic injury / Ulyana Trytko
Management of splenic artery aneurysm with coil embolization / Henal Patel
The use of arterial embolization in pelvic trauma / Henal Patel, Rima Patel
Management of massive hemoptysis with bronchial artery embolization / Shreya Amin
Minimally invasive approach
to treating renal angiomyolipoma / Adam Zybulewski
Pulmonary arteriovenous malformations / Ripal Patel, Michael Chevinsky
Radiologic and endoscopic percutaneous gastrostomy: a review of the literature / Fernando D. Arias
Treatment of benign bile duct strictures by balloon dilitation and stent placement / Jason Feinman
Transjugular liver biopsy / Oluwatoyin Dada
Point shear/wave liver elastography / Eric Wei
Renal artery stenosis: medical management vs. percutaneous revascularization / Adjoa Boateng, Gregg Khodorov
Minimally invasive treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma / Jaclyn N. Portelli Tremont
Vena cava filters
and the treatment of pulmonary embolism / Anushree Doshi
Interventional treatment of pulmonary embolism / Matthew Deek
Percutaneous access for nephrostomy and nephro-lithotomy / Prasann Vachhani
Portal vein embolization and hepatic hypertrophy / Kristin Maletsky
THe role of interventional radiology in upper GI and colonic hemorrhage
contemporary management and outcomes / Slavamir Sokalaw
Small intestinal bleeding / Oren Johnson
Gastrointestinal hemorrhage aorto-enteric fistula / Hansol Kim
Management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis / Vikram Rajpurohit
Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt / Na Eun Kim
Review and analysis of balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO ) vs. transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt (TIPS) procedures as a treatment for gastric varices / Iqra Farooqi , Kiersten Frenchu
The value of multi-detector helical CT (MDCT) scans in evaluating acute gastro-intestinal bleeding"September 2020
Ethnic identity, political identity and ethnic conflict: simulating the effect of congruence between the two identities on ethnic violence and conflict
No full textThis thesis outlines and presents an alternative hypothetical process to the emergence of ethnic conflict. Ethnic conflicts, rather than being dependent upon pre-existing 'ancient hatreds', are instead the result of a congruence between ethnic and political identity which grants individuals the ability to use ethnicity to identify and eliminate political threats. This hypothesis is formed by the examination of three case studies of ethnic conflict: Lebanon, Northern Ireland and Croatia. This hypothesis is then formalised and tested using an agent based simulation in which agent interactions are dependent upon ethnic and political identity and the congruence between the two. As predicted there was a strong positive correlation between how accurately ethnic identity reflected political identity and the level of ethnically motivated violence in the simulation, although the relationship was not linear. Furthermore the effect of a shift in congruence was found to be roughly comparable to the effect of initialising agents with a moderate level of pre-existing ethnic antagonism
iPod people: experiencing music with new music technology
No full textThe decade of the 2000s has witnessed the rise of the iPod, a well-marketed mp3 player whose massive storage capacity and ever-shrinking size has extended the boundaries of personal music players to previously unthinkable proportions. And as digital music has expanded its own boundaries, it has spilled over several others, allowing us the opportunity to reconsider many of our musical assumptions.
Specifically, I examine the iPod in relation to production and marketing techniques, human-technological hybridity, music hermeneutics, genre distinctions, male music collecting stereotypes, and the urban experience in New York City. The major assumption from which this work proceeds is that the iPod's relationship to culture is dynamic; the iPod doesn't wholly shape culture, nor is it wholly shaped by culture. Rather, each influences and alters the other, as culture and product evolve alongside one another.
The primary theme that runs through this study is the listener's relationship to a listening device. How does a music medium affect the way we hear music, and how do our listening habits dictate the functions of an mp3 player? By keeping these questions in the foreground, I privilege contemporary listening habits in order to best understand not only the iPod, but also broader popular music culture in the early twenty-first century.Ph.D.Includes bibliographical references (p. 170-176)by Justin Daniel Burto
Orconectes palmeri subsp. longimanus
No full textNotes on <i>Orconectes palmeri longimanus</i> <p> The first known collection of <i>O. p. longimanus</i> at the type locality (Red River near Arthur City, Lamar County, Texas), was made sometime prior to its description in 1898 (Faxon, 1898). It was again collected in</p> <p> 1. Now considered <i>O. maletae</i></p> <p> 2. This specimen almost certainly is <i>O. texanus</i>, described herein the area in 1951 (USNM 133183). Up until this point of time, no other <i>Orconectes</i> species were reported from the locality. Between 2000 and 2002, Sterling K. and Nathan K. Johnson (pers. comm.), collected the taxon together with what they identified as <i>O. difficilis</i> (described as <i>O. cyanodigitus</i> herein) near the locality. They also found <i>O. p. longimanus</i> in the Red River drainage (not including the Sulphur River) in Red River and Fannin counties, which are adjacent to Lamar county. In 2007 and 2008 the author collected <i>O. cyanodigitus</i> at seven sites along a 160 km stretch of the Red River and its tributaries in Lamar, Red River and Bowie Counties, Texas and Little River County, Arkansas, including 94 specimens within 3 km of the <i>O. p. longimanus</i> type locality; but failed to find <i>O. p. longimanus</i>. From this evidence, it is apparent that <i>O. p. longimanus</i> has been extirpated from its type locality (or is on the verge thereof), and likely as a result of <i>O. cyanodigitus</i> displacing it. This displacement may be the result of environmental changes, with <i>O. cyanodigitus</i> previously occurring in much lower numbers or more restricted in range within the Red River system. The species may have alternatively been introduced from another watershed. If this is the case, the Canadian River system would be the most likely source, given that the two most closely related species, <i>O. deanae</i> and <i>O. difficilis</i>, occur in that watershed.</p> <p> For comparative analysis with <i>O. p. longimanus</i>, a large number of specimens collected in the Sulphur River basin, a tributary of the Red River, was used. It would have been preferable to compare specimens from the type locality, but the only known form I male specimens are that of the very small 1898 type series (2 males), which were not borrowed due to their presumed value. Photographs of specimens collected near the type locality (Johnson and Johnson, 2008) and from the Sulphur River show essentially identical color patterns. That, along with the close proximity to the type locality (as small as 60 km) and the Sulphur River being a tributary of the Red River, indicates they are likely the same crayfish and use of the Sulphur River collections for comparative analysis is reasonable.</p>Published as part of <i>Johnson, Daniel P., 2010, Four new crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) of the genus Orconectes from Texas, pp. 1-45 in Zootaxa 2626</i> on pages 2-3, DOI: <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/276049">10.5281/zenodo.276049</a>
Fear of fiction: the authorial response to realism in selected works by Swift, Defoe, and Richardson
No full textIf Mrs. Whitehouse produced a pornographic play, it would arouse enormous interest, mainly because of Mrs. Whitehouse’s well known views on pornography. It is an ancient fact of English Literature that two of the best known pioneers of the English realistic novel, Daniel Defoe and Samuel Richardson, were Puritans. And there is an almost equally ancient critical tradition which traces the easy path of Puritan literature, in combination with other cultural forces, towards the production of realistic fiction. The central argument of this thesis is that there was no such easy path. Puritan autobiography was unrealistic in its very nature, while Puritan feeling towards fiction was hostile, with realistic, or verisimilar fiction provoking most hostility because the most deceitful. Thus the writing of a realistic novel was a radical departure for the Puritan, and one that was fraught with tension. It is this tension, or fear of fiction, and its effects on work of the two Puritan novelists, and that odd Anglican Jonathan Swift, that is the subject of this thesis. Swift joins Defoe and Richardson as an author with a special relationship with Defoe, and himself closer to a fearful anti- mimetic "tradition" than the comic tradition in which he is usually placed alongside Fielding and Sterne. Selected works of the three authors reveal their struggle with the intense problems that realism created for them, and their eventual 'solutions'. Hence by the time that Dr. Johnson made his famous critical statement against the fearful potential of realism in his fourth Rambler [31 March 1750), he was actually formalising material that had been well examined in the fiction under discussion, rather than beating an original critical path in response to Fielding's supposedly 'new' verisimilar form
Fallicambarus (F.) wallsi Johnson, 2011, new species
No full textFallicambarus (F.) wallsi, new species <p>SABINE BURROWING CRAYFISH Figs 1–6, Tables 1–2</p> <p> <b>Diagnosis.</b> Body pigmented, eyes well developed. Rostrum of adults devoid of marginal spines. Antennal scale approximately 2.1 times as long as broad. Areola width 2.1 to 5.2 (mean 3.9±1.0) percent of length. Branchiostegal spine present. Cheliped without sufflamen; ventral surface of merus with mesial and lateral rows of tubercles; length of carpus less than width of palm of chela. Chela ungaping, lateral margin subserrate, ventrolateral surface lacking arched row of prominent setiferous punctations; opposable margin of dactyl lacking distinct excision in basal half, mesial margin with tubercles along proximal half; “dactyl/palm mesial margin” length ratio ranges from 1.45 to 1.57, mean 1.51±0.04; proximal margin of palm oriented distomesially mesial to condyle. Mesial surface of palm of chela of second pereiopod lacking conspicuous tufts of plumose setae. First pleopod with proximomesial spur, without cephalic process or with vestigial one; central projection strongly arched, inclined laterally at base, its tip directed proximally and never crossing that of corresponding pleopod when in situ. Hooks on ischia of third and fourth pereiopods. Boss on coxa of fourth pereiopod moderately strong and compressed. Mesial ramus of uropod with distolateral and premarginal distomedian spines and with obtuse distal margin. Telson divided with two spines on anterolateral flank of suture.</p> <p> <b>Holotypic male, form I</b>. Body (Fig. 1)1 suboval, weakly compressed dorsoventrally. Abdomen distinctly narrower than cephalothorax (11.8 and 14.5 mm, respectively). Greatest width of carapace distinctly posterior to caudodorsal extremity of cervical groove and slightly greater than height (14.5 and 13.6 mm, respectively). Areola width 4.5 percent of length, latter constituting 36.5 percent entire length of carapace and 40.9 percent postorbital carapace length.</p> <p>Rostrum with convergent, thickened margins contracting anteriorly, forming short, poorly delimited, triangular acumen, apex of which corneous, distinctly upturned, and extending to proximal margin of ultimate podomere of antennular peduncle. Dorsal surface of rostrum concave, especially in cephalic half, with marginal punctations and scattered ones in between. Subrostral ridge weak, but evident in dorsal aspect to base of acumen. Postorbital ridge weak and slightly swollen caudally. Cervical spine or tubercle absent. Branchiostegal spine present. Suborbital angle absent. Carapace punctate dorsally and very weakly and sparsely granulate laterally; extreme anteroventral</p> <p>1. If viewing in electronic form, figures may be zoomed in for more detail, as the images are high resolution.</p> <p>branchiostegal region inflated, with row of 7 closely-set tubercles on ventral flank of cervical groove, and 3 nearly indiscernible ones on dorsal flank.</p> <p>Abdomen slightly shorter than carapace (29.0 and 30.1 mm, respectively); pleura moderately deep and broadly rounded ventrally with fifth and sixth weakly angled on caudoventral margin; pleuron of first abdominal segment clearly overlapped by that of second. Telson distinctly divided, left caudolateral angle of cephalic section with two spines (one on right due to damage). Proximal podomere of uropod with both lobes bearing distal spines, spine on mesial lobe much stronger than that of lateral lobe. Mesial ramus with distolateral and premarginal distomedian spines.</p> <p>Cephalomedian lobe of epistome (Fig. 2 g) broadly triangular with elevated margins; central area subplanar with sparse minute punctations; main body of epistome with broad depression, but lacking distinct fovea. Ventral surface of proximal podomere of antennule with spine slightly distal to midlength. Antennal peduncle with spine on lateral surface of basis at proximal base of antennal scale, flagellum reaching first abdominal tergum. Antennal scale (Fig. 2 h) 2.1 times as long as broad with blade distinctly wider than thickened lateral part, widest distal to midlength and distomesial margin broadly rounded. Ventral surface of ischium of third maxilliped with fine, short setal tufts on lateral margin and two irregular bands of long stiff setae on mesial half.</p> <p>Right chela (Figs 2 a–d) 2.3 times as long as broad, not strongly depressed; length of dactyl 1.51 times length of palm mesial margin; proximal margin of palm mesial to condyle oriented distomesially; width of palm 1.2 times length of mesial margin, latter bearing row of 7 tubercles subtended dorsolaterally by row of six smaller ones; dorsal surface of palm and basal part of fingers studded with squamous tubercles; those along lateral margin forming subserrate row extending from near proximal extremity to midlength of fixed finger; ventral surface of palm weakly tuberculate; ventral surface of fingers punctate laterally and mesially; tubercle present on distoventral ridge opposite dactyl. Opposable margin of fixed finger with dorsally situated row of five tubercles (4th from base largest) in proximal half and another more ventrally positioned row of two (one on left) in distal third; minute denticles present between tubercles along entire length. Opposable margin of dactyl with row of 6 tubercles in proximal twothirds (basal three larger than others, third from base marking end of prominent excision present in most other congeners); mesial margin of dactyl with tubercles forming subserrate row along proximal three-fifths. Dorsal surface of both fingers with moderately defined longitudinal ridges.</p> <p>Carpus of cheliped 1.6 times as long as broad and longer than palm mesial margin, but slightly shorter than width of palm. Dorsal surface punctate and with prominent, oblique, longitudinal furrow; dorsomesial angle with row of 5 tubercles (9 on left); mesial surface with longitudinal row of 3 prominent subspiniform tubercles, two subspiniform tubercles on ventrodistal margin and additional scattered smaller ones; ventral and lateral surfaces punctate. Merus (Fig. 2 e) with single dorsal row of 8 tubercles, increasing in size distally; lateral surface punctate on distal third and along proximal, dorsal and ventral margins; mesial surface with few scattered, small punctations distally; ventral surface with mesial row of 11 (13 on left) tubercles; lateral row of 10 (7 on left); and distal marginal row of 4 (3 on left). Basioischial podomere with row of 4 (3 on left) tubercles along ventral margin. Second pereiopod with row of long stiff setae extending along dorsal margin from distal extremity of merus to tip of dactyl and along ventral margin from midlength of merus to tip of fixed finger (that of carpus and merus sparse); mesial surface of carpus and merus lacking tufts of plumose setae.</p> <p>Ischia of third and fourth pereiopods (Fig. 2 f) with simple hooks, neither of which overreaches basioischial articulation and neither opposed by tubercle on corresponding basis. Coxa of fourth pereiopod with prominent compressed caudomesial boss approximately disposed along longitudinal axis of body, mesial surface with dense setae and lateral surface with sparse setae. Coxa of fifth pereiopod with small, lamellate, laterally disposed boss; ventral membrane nearly without setae.</p> <p>First pleopods (Figs. 3 a–c) almost reaching coxae of third pereiopod when abdomen flexed and concealed by setae extending from ventral margin of sternum and from coxae of third and fourth pereiopods. Proximomesial spur well developed. Distal half of shaft only slightly bent caudally. Distomesial shaft with setae along proximal half not obscuring two terminal elements: mesial process noncorneous, strongly tapered from broad base, distal two-fifths lamellate, disposed proximocaudally; central projection corneous, tapering, bladelike structure with tip disposed proximally.</p> <p> <b>Allotypic female</b>. Differing from holotype in other than secondary sexual characteristics as follows: Both caudolateral angles of cephalic section of telson with two spines. Flagellum of antenna reaching midlength of areola. Right chela of similar shape, but proportionately slightly shorter. Mesial margin of palm with row of 5 tubercles subtending main row. Opposable margin of fixed finger with dorsally situated row of 6 tubercles (7 on left) with 3rd from base largest in proximal three-fourths and single more ventrally positioned tubercle at base of distal third. Opposable margin of left dactyl with 7 tubercles. Carpus of cheliped slightly longer than width of palm; dorsomesial angle with row of 6 tubercles (8 on left); mesial surface with one subspiniform tubercle on ventrodistal margin. Merus with dorsal row of 12 tubercles (10 on left); mesial surface with few scattered, small tubercles distally; ventral surface with mesial row of 9 (11 on left) tubercles and lateral row of 8 (7 on left).</p> <p>Annulus ventralis (Figs. 3 g–h) distinctly raised, firmly fused to sternum cephalically, 1.8 times as broad as long, lateral margins obtusely angled. Cephalosinistral sector excavate. C-shaped sinus originating at midline of caudal margin and terminating in caudomesial margin of excavation, where it forms a small fossa evident in cephaloventral aspect. Postannular sclerite 1.9 times as broad as long, subrectangular, 0.5 times as wide as annulus; ventral extremity excavate in caudal view.</p> <p> <b>Morphotypic male, form II</b>. Differing from holotype as follows: Areola width 5.2 percent of length. Both caudolateral angles of cephalic section of telson with two spines. Right chela similar in shape, but proportionately slightly shorter. Opposable margin of fixed finger with dorsally situated row of 6 tubercles in proximal threefourths and a single more ventrally positioned tubercle at base of distal third. Opposable margin of left dactyl with row of 7 tubercles (basal four larger than others). Carpus of cheliped slightly longer than width of palm, dorsomesial angle with row of 8 tubercles. Ventral surface of merus with mesial row of 13 (11 on left) tubercles, lateral row of 7 (8 on left), and distal marginal row of 2. Basioischial podomere with row of 3 (2 on left) tubercles along ventral margin. Hooks on ischia of third and fourth pereiopods and bosses on coxae of fourth and fifth pereiopods evident, but reduced compared to holotype.</p> <p>First pleopod (Figs. 3 d–e) reaching coxa of third pereiopod when abdomen flexed, lacking proximomesial spur; both processes noncorneous; central projection much more robust, less distinctly separated from mesial process and less recurved (tip directed proximocaudally) compared to holotype.</p> <p> <b>Color notes</b>. Color patterns in <i>F. (F.) w a l l s i</i>, <i>F. (F.) macneesei</i> (Black, 1967), <i>F. (F.) kountzeae</i> and <i>F. (F.) houstonensis</i> are apparently indistinguishable and all exhibit the same polymorphism with striped and unstriped phases. Of 41 specimens of <i>F. (F.) w a l l s i</i> where color notes were made, 38 (93%) were striped phase, with the remaining 3 solid phase. This ratio is much more skewed than that noted for the other aforementioned species.</p> <p>Holotype (striped phase, Fig. 1): Basic coloration tan-brown. Cephalic section of carapace anterior to caudal gastric region indistinctly mottled with dark brown and orange-tan, middorsal orange-tan triangle (which anterior section of discontinuous dorsal light stripe) with base at midlength and apex at cephalic margin of caudal gastric region; lateral margins of triangle darkened. Obscure laterally oriented dark band cephalic to triangle connecting dull burgundy spots situated caudal to the caudal extremities of the postorbital ridges. Caudal gastric region dark brown with numerous very fine and distinct tan maculations. Ventral hepatic region burgundy with light flecks; mandibular and antennal regions cream; rostral margins and postorbital ridges olive, latter bordered ventrally by orange-tan; eye stalks burgundy with light distal margins. Antennal scale cream mesially and gray laterally. Flagellum of antenna brown. Mesial flagellum of antennule burgundy basally grading to gray distally; lateral flagellum gray-burgundy. Cervical groove gray ordered by olive. Areola brown grading to orange-brown caudally and cephalically, branchiocardiac grooves light. Light orange-brown band laterally borders branchiocardiac grooves and extends ventrally along caudal margin of cervical groove half way to ventral margin. Aforementioned band in turn bordered laterally by broad dark brown band heavily flecked in the interior with lighter brown. This in turn bordered ventrally by a mid-branchiostegal region of complex mottling of dark gray, cream and burgundy. Ventral third of branchiostegite dull cream and simple. Abdomen with narrow orange middorsal stripe, which expanded on 1st tergum; bordered by broad darker stripe with obscure lighter maculations, which in turn bordered by obscure orange brown stripe which abuts junction of terga and pleura. Pleura dark brown dorsally and caudally, grayish cephaloventrally, with dull burgundy caudally margins and scattered light flecks. Tail fan translucent gray, with olive ridges and orange-brown caudal margins of telson and uropods. Cheliped with merus cream proximally and tan to brown distally with bluish or greenish tubercles; carpus tan with white spines along mesial margin; propodus dull burgundy on mesial half grading to tan on lateral half, tubercles on mesial margin and dorsal surface dull bluegreen to dark gray. Dactyl tan with dull blue-green tubercles on mesial margin. Pereiopods 2-5 cream with small amounts of blue and red at articulations. Ventor cream.</p> <p> <b>Size.</b> The largest specimen examined is a first form male from San Augustine county, with a carapace length of 32.7 (postorbital carapace length 28.1) mm. The smallest first form male has a carapace length of 29.0 (postorbital carapace length 25.0) mm. The largest female examined is the allotype, with a carapace length of 30.6 (postorbital carapace length 27.0) mm. Sizes of ovigerous females or ones carrying young are unavailable, as none have been found.</p> <p> <b>Type locality.</b> Roadside ditch and culvert pool, Rt. 1 3.5 km (2.2 miles) south intersection with Rt. 184, Sabine County, Texas (31.32498, -93.97711). Surrounding area is gently rolling young pine woods. Holotype, allotype, morphotype and two paratypes were collected from burrows situated relatively high in relation to ditch and with simple subvertical shafts from 0.75 to 1.0 m depth; upper 0.3 meters soft loam with deeper levels very hard.</p> <p> <b>Disposition of types.</b> The holotype, allotype and morphotype (Nos. 1154633, 1154634 and 1154635, respectively) are deposited in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. The paratypes remain in the author's collection, but will ultimately be deposited at this same location.</p> <p> County Latitude/Longitude Collection date County Latitude/Longitude Collection date <b>Range and specimens examined.</b> One hundred specimens, including 9 3 I, 8 3 II, 6 Ƥ and 77 juveniles were examined. All were collected by the author from 16 sites in Sabine and San Augustine counties, Texas (Fig. 6, Table 2). The type series consists of 2 3 I, 1 3 II and 2 Ƥ. All first form males were raised to that stage in captivity, the holotype and paratype from adult second form and the others from small (ca 18 mm total length) juveniles.</p> <p> <b>Variations.</b> The cephalolateral margins of the cephalomedian lobe of the epistome may be straight or convex. The length/width ratio of the uropod's mesial ramus varies from 1.39 to 1.57 (mean 1.47 ± 0.07). The number of tubercles in the row on the mesial margin of the chela ranges from 5 to 7. Among first form males, no trace of a cephalic process can be found in 8 of 9 specimens (Figs. 3 b, 4a–d, f–h), but in the remaining specimen a vestigial one is present (Fig. 4 e). The mesial process tip is disposed anywhere between 135 and 180 degrees to the shaft axis; in 78% of specimens, the distal half is serrate with 2–4 acute lobes, which can be most readily viewed in caudodistal aspect (Fig. 3 f). The mesial process caudal extent may be distinctly less than to distinctly greater than the caudal extent of the central projection.</p> <p> <b>Relationships.</b> The similarity in spination, pereiopod hooks, lack of cheliped sufflamen, indistinguishable color patterns and geographic proximity attest to the close relationship of <i>Fallicambarus (F.) wallsi</i> and its presumed closest relative, <i>F. (F.) kountzeae</i>. <i>F. (F.) w a l l s i</i> may be distinguished from it by the following characters (1 through 3 refer to the cheliped): 1) The proximal margin of the palm (Figs. 5 a–d, 2a, note arrow) is oriented distomesially mesial to the condyle; in <i>F. (F.) kountzeae</i> it is orientated proximomesially (Figs. 5 e–h). 2) The “dactyl/ palm mesial margin” length ratio ranges from 1.45 to 1.57, mean 1.51 ± 0.04 (1.84 to 2.09, mean 1.98 ± 0.09 in <i>F. (F.) kountzeae</i>). This difference is readily apparent in Fig. 5. 3) The dactyl is not distinctly excavated on the proximal half of the opposable margin. 4) The antennal scale (Fig. 2 h) is proportionately wider, with a length/width ratio of approximately 2.1 (2.8 in <i>F. (F.) kountzeae</i>, Fig. 2 i) and with the lamellated mesial part distinctly wider than the thickened lateral part. 5) The areola width/length ratio ranges from 2.1 to 5.2 (mean 3.9 ± 1.0) percent (0.0 to 2.6 [mean 1.6 ± 0.9] percent in <i>F. (F.) kountzeae</i>). 6) The uropod's mesial ramus is proportionately wider, with a length/ width ratio of 1.39 to 1.57 (mean 1.47 ± 0.07) (1.56 to 1.76 [mean 1.7 ± 0.08] in <i>F. (F.) kountzeae</i>). 7) Of the nine first form males available (Figs. 3 b, 4a–h), eight lack any trace of a cephalic process on the first pleopod and one has a vestigial one (Fig. 4 e), whereas a cephalic process is always present in <i>F. (F.) kountzeae</i> (Figs. 4 i–p). 8) The mesial process in mesial view is more strongly tapered on average. 9) Branchiostegal spines are always present, but present only in 15% of adult <i>F. (F.) kountzeae</i> specimens (it is possible this difference is due to greater degree of abrasion in the mostly non-captive raised <i>F. (F.) kountzeae</i> specimens).</p> <p> <i>Fallicambarus (F.) houstonensis</i> and <i>F. (F.) m a c n e e s e i</i> may be readily distinguished from <i>F. (F.) wallsi</i> by their cheliped's sufflamen and well-defined cephalic processes. <i>F. (F.) macneesei</i> may be further distinguished by the distinctive distomedian spine of the uropod's mesial ramus, which extends beyond the margin.</p> <p> <i>F. (F.) dissitus</i> (Penn, 1955) and <i>F. (F.) petilicarpus</i> (Hobbs and Robison, 1989) may both be distinguished from <i>F. (F.) wallsi</i> by their proximomesially disposed first pleopod central projections which are frequently crossing when in situ.</p> <p> Although <i>F. (F.) devastator</i> (Hobbs and Whiteman, 1987) is the geographically closest consubgener of <i>F. (F.) wallsi</i> with a distributional gap of only 25 km between the ranges of the two and with no substantial geographical barrier to gene flow, the former is clearly not closely related to the latter. Among the many differences are very different color pattern and very different morphology of the cheliped, antennal scale, first pleopod, annulus ventralis and tail fan.</p> <p> <b>Etymology.</b> This crayfish is named in honor of Jerry G. Walls of Louisiana State University and author of “Crawfishes of Louisiana”, for his many contributions to the study of crayfish of the south central United States.</p> <p> <b>Crayfish associates.</b> Found with <i>Fallicambarus (F.) wallsi</i> were the following crayfishes, in order of decreasing frequency: <i>Procambarus (Girardiella) kensleyi</i>, <i>F. (Creaserinus) fodiens</i>, <i>P. (Ortmannicus) acutus</i> and <i>Faxonella beyeri</i>.</p>Published as part of <i>Johnson, Daniel P., 2011, Fallicambarus (F.) wallsi (Decapoda: Cambaridae), a new burrowing crayfish from eastern Texas, pp. 59-68 in Zootaxa 2939</i> on pages 59-67, DOI: <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/278147">10.5281/zenodo.278147</a>
Procambarus (Ortmannicus) luxus Johnson, 2011, new species
No full textProcambarus (Ortmannicus) luxus, new species Corpus Christi Crayfish Figs 1–6, Tables 1–2 Diagnosis. Body pigmented, eyes well developed. Rostrum with or without minute marginal tubercle but usually lacking median carina. Carapace with cervical tubercle slightly larger than neighboring tubercles. Areola 12.5 to 21.2 (mean 17.7 ± 2.9) times as long as wide, constituting 32.2 to 36.7 (mean 34.7 ± 1.6) percent carapace length and 41.5 to 46.2 (mean 44.8 ± 1.6) percent postorbital length. Suborbital angle obtuse and weak; postorbital ridge with minute cephalic tubercle; hepatic area tuberculate; brancheostegal spine acute and small. Antennal scale approximately twice as long as wide, widest at midlength. Ischia of third and fourth pereiopods bearing hooks, hook of third pereiopod overreaching basioischial articulation and lacking opposing tubercle on basis. Coxa of fourth pereiopod with large caudomesial boss, that of fifth smaller and flattened. First pleopods reaching coxae of third pereiopods when abdomen flexed, asymmetrical, proximally separated by gap, and tapering distally; cephalomesial margin lacking prominent hump. Terminal elements all corneous and consisting of: (1) slender acute, tapering mesial process directed caudodistally and slightly laterally with apex lying mesial to central projection; (2) cephalic process somewhat obscuring central projection in cephalic aspect, inclined mesially, tapering from broad base, apex acute, directed caudally and slightly laterally, apex lying mesial to central projection; (3) acute, tapering caudal process inclined mesially, apex lying lateral to central projection and directed caudodistally; (4) central projection largest of elements, inclined mesially, apex directed caudally and slightly laterally. Setiferous caudal knob situated at lateral aspect of cephalic process base. Annulus ventralis twice as broad as long, prominent caudomedian tonguelike prominence directed ventrally, sinus originating slightly dextral to median, extending under slightly raised cephalodextral wall, curving sinistrally across midline and then dextrally before terminating on aforementioned tonguelike prominence; sternum immediately cephalic to annulus with modest tuberculation and slightly or not overhanging annulus. Unadorned postannular sclerite campanulate to triangular and more that half as broad as annulus. Female with first pleopods. Holotypic male, form I. Cephalothorax (Fig. 1, 2 a, b) 1 ovate in section, slightly depressed. Abdomen narrower than cephalothorax (18.5 and 22.2 mm, respectively). Greatest width of carapace slightly more than height at caudodorsal margin of cervical groove. Areola 20.6 times as long as wide with single row of punctations at narrowest part. Cephalic section of carapace 2.0 times as long as areola, length of latter comprising 33.5 % of entire length of carapace (46.1 % of postorbital carapace length). Surface of carapace punctate dorsally, granulate laterally. Rostrum slightly deflected ventrally with converging slender margins, acute apex of very short acumen nearly reaching distal margin of ultimate segment of antennular peduncle; base of acumen marked by small indentations but lacking marginal tubercles; dorsal surface concave with hint of median carina and with punctations restricted to lateral margins and caudal fourth. Postorbital ridge well developed, grooved laterally and bearing small tubercle at cephalic extremity. Suborbital angle weak and obtuse. Branchiostegal spine small. Cervical tubercle twice the size of neighboring ones on caudolateral flank of cervical groove. Abdomen slightly shorter than carapace (46.0 and 49.3 mm, respectively). Pleura of third through fifth segments subtruncate with subangular caudoventral extremities. Cephalic section of telson (Fig. 2 i) with two spines in 1. If viewing in electronic form, figures may be zoomed in for more detail as the images are high resolution. caudolateral corner; caudal section with shallow median excavation on caudal margin. Cephalic lobe of epistome elliptical; central area subplanar and minutely punctate; margins raised and slightly irregular cephalically; distinct median longitudinal groove on main body. Ventral surface of proximal podomere of antennular peduncle with spine at midlength. Antenna with small spiniform tubercles on basis and ischium; flagellum reaching slightly beyond caudal margin of telson. Antennal scale (Fig. 2 j) 2.1 times as long as wide, widest at midlength; lamellar area much wider than thickened lateral part. Third maxilliped extending cephalically to level of ultimate podomere of antennule; ventral surface densely covered with plumose setae. Right chela (left in Figs. 2 c–f) distinctly elongate, subovate in cross section, weakly depressed. Mesial margin with row of 8 tubercles subtended by more squamous ones dorsally and ventrally; tubercles present over all except ventrolateral part of palm and also present on basal parts of both fingers. Dorsal and ventral longitudinal ridges not obvious on either finger. Opposable surface of fixed finger with dorsally situated row of 10 (12 on left) tubercles along proximal third and lower row of 7, one of which much larger than other tubercles on finger; broad band of minute denticles situated between rows of tubercles extends entire length to base of corneous tip of finger; except for proximolateral squamous tubercles, finger is covered by scattered weak to moderate punctations. Opposable margin of dactyl with row of 8 (9 on left) tubercles on proximal fourth; broad band of minute denticles present on distal 4 / 5 ths; mesial surface with row of 3 (4 on left) tubercles on proximal fourth followed distally by punctations; dorsal and ventral surfaces weakly punctate. Carpus of cheliped longer than broad with distinct oblique furrow dorsally, tuberculate mesially, dorsomesially and ventromesially; mesial surface with 2 tubercles larger than others, one near midlength and one distomesially; ventral surface with usual 2 tubercles on distal margin. Merus with few weak tubercles dorsally, except for two larger ones distally; mesial surface with tubercles on distal fourth, otherwise punctate; lateral surface punctate; ventral surface (Fig. 2 g) with mesial row of 17 (18 on left) tubercles and lateral row of 11 (13 on left). Ischium with ventromesial row of 4 tubercles (6 on left). Hooks on ischia of third and fourth pereiopods (Fig. 2 h) simple, that on third overreaching basioischial articulation, that on fourth not overreaching articulation and not opposed by tubercle on corresponding basis. Coxa of fourth pereiopod with prominent subvertically oriented caudomesial boss; that of fifth with smaller one strongly compressed longitudinally. Sternum between third through fifth pereiopods moderately deep and bearing fringe of ventromesially directed plumose setae on ventrolateral margins. First pleopods (Figs. 3 a–h, 4 a) as described in diagnosis. Uropod (Fig. 2 i) with both lobes of basal podomere bearing single acute spines; mesial ramus with well developed median carina terminating in distinctly premarginal spine and weak distolateral spine. Allotypic female. Differing from holotype, except in secondary sexual characters, as follows: Areola 18.1 times as long as wide with no punctations at narrowest part. Cephalic section of carapace 1.8 times as long as areola, length of latter comprising 35.3 % of entire length of carapace (44.9 % of postorbital carapace length). Acumen with apex reaching distal margin of ultimate segment of antennular peduncle, base with weak marginal tubercles. Rostrum without hint of median carina. Abdomen slightly longer than carapace (44.0 and 41.1 mm, respectively). Main body of epistome with less distinct longitudinal groove, cephalic end approaching form of fovea. Both flagella broken, missing distal extremities. Antennal scale 1.9 times as long as wide. Right chela less distinctly elongate and somewhat more depressed; mesial margin of palm with row of 6 tubercles; opposable surface of fixed finger with dorsally situated row of 7 (5 on left) tubercles along proximal third (one larger than rest) and single large tubercle corresponding to lower row in holotype; opposable margin of dactyl with row of 11 (12 on left) tubercles on proximal half. Merus with few weak tubercles distomesially; ventral surface with mesial row of 11 (12 on left) tubercles and lateral row of 6 (11 on left). Ischium with ventromesial row of 4 tubercles (5 on left). Annulus ventralis and adjacent sternal region (Figs. 5 a, b) as described in "Diagnosis". Morphotypic male, form II. Differing from holotype in following respects: Cephalothorax slightly raised. Areola 14.5 times as long as wide. Cephalic section of carapace 2.1 times as long as areola, length of latter 32.2 % of entire length of carapace (41.5 % of postorbital carapace length). Rostrum with more distinct indentations at base of acumen, dorsal surface without hint of median carina and with punctations restricted to lateral margins. Cervical spine present. Abdomen slightly longer than carapace (37.8 and 36.0 mm, respectively). Cephalic lobe of epistome apunctate. Flagellum of antenna nearly reaching caudal margin of telson. Antennal scale 2.4 times as long as wide. Right chela mesial margin with row of 6 tubercles; opposable surface of fixed finger with dorsally situated row of 6 tubercles and lower row represented by single large tubercle at midlength; opposable margin of dactyl with row of 10 (11 on left) tubercles on proximal third. Ventral surface of merus with mesial row of 13 (15 on left) tubercles and lateral row of 11 (7 on left). Ischium with ventromesial row of 4 tubercles. Hooks on ischia of third and fourth pereiopods and bosses on fourth and fifth much reduced. First pleopods (Figs. 4 b, c) with all terminal elements evident, but noncorneous and reduced compared to holotype; cephalic process and central projection directed at about 80 degrees to axis of shaft; subapical setae present; juvenile oblique suture clearly visible on shaft. County Latitude/Longitude Collection date County Latitude/Longitude Collection date Bee 28.21715 –97.64654 24 Apr 2010 Nueces (cont.) 27.73967 –97.76309 8 Oct 2010 Color notes. Holotype (Fig. 1): Predominant coloration of body brick red with tan pereiopods. Carapace brick red with ventral fifth cream, caudal gastric region brown; dorsolateral weak tubercles of carapace tan to greenish tan; stronger lateral and ventrolateral tubercles white. Cervical groove olive dorsally, white mid laterally, and olivetan ventrally. Branchiocardiac groove tan. Caudal ridge, postorbital ridge and margin of orbit olive-tan. Rostral margin tan. Abdomen with broad, charcoal, dorsal stripe terminating on cephalic margin of fifth tergum, slightly broken by tan caudal margins of terga; another narrower charcoal stripe at junction of terga and pleura on 2 nd through 5 th segments; small white spots at cephalolateral regions of terga 1 through 5. Telson and uropods with scattered dark spots and spines white. Oblique white stripes near cephalic margin of telson. Flagella of antenna and antennule gray-tan and white, respectively. Cheliped tan dorsally and light tan ventrally; spines white with occasional corneous tip; tubercles on dorsal surface of palm charcoal, those of carpus and merus olive; tubercles on ventral surface of palm and carpus white; articular condyles brick red. Type locality. Canal and roadside ditch near Interstate 37 and County Road 17, San Patricio County, Texas (28.09435, - 97.80987). Site is bordered by a large highway and cropland. At time of collection, the ditch contained water one foot deep and 12 feet wide, but appeared temporary as the bottom contained non-hydrophilic vegetation. The canal was unvegetated and unflowing with water to one meter deep. Disposition of types. The holotype, allotype, and morphotype (Nos. 1154636, 1154637 and 1154638) are deposited in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. The paratypes remain in the author's collection, but will ultimately be deposited at the same location. Size. The largest specimen examined is a female with a carapace length of 64.0 mm (postorbital carapace length of 49.9 mm). The largest male is second form and has a carapace length of 60.0 mm (postorbital carapace length of 45.7 mm). The smallest first form male has a carapace length of 35.2 mm (postorbital carapace length of 26.6 mm). Sizes of ovigerous females and females carrying young are not available as none have been found. Range and specimens examined. Two hundred and eight specimens have been examined, including 24 3 I, 8 3 II, 38 Ƥ, 85 j 3 and 53 jƤ. All were collected by the author at 53 sites (Table 2) in the following seven counties (number of sites in parentheses): Bee (4), Brooks (3), Jim Wells (15), Kleberg (4), Nueces (16), Refugio (3) and San Patricio (8). Variations. The palm width of the cheliped of most first form males is proportionately wider than in the holotype, indicating the holotype's chelipeds could possibly have been regenerated from a young age; although its tuberculation is not significantly different from that of other first form males. The number of tubercles on the opposable margin of the fixed finger varies from 4 to 12; while the number for the opposable margin of dactyl varies from 8 to 12. The gap between the proximal extremities of the first pleopods of first form males is always present, but varies in width from 1.5 % to 7.6 % of the pleopod length. A large majority of specimens show no hint of a rostral median carina; however, one paratype has a pronounced one and the holotype has a hint of one. In small juveniles with carapace lengths from 7 to 17 mm, the marginal spine at the base of the acumen is well developed; the spine is occasional present in medium sized individuals; in adults the spine is missing or reduced to a barely discernible tubercle, a marginal indentation is always present however. Cervical and branchiostegal spines are comparatively more pronounced in younger specimens. In small females, the caudomedian tongue-like prominence of annulus ventralis is less pronounced than in adults. Relationships. Procambarus (Ortmannicus) luxus has its closest affinities with P. (O.) texanus (Hobbs, 1971). More distant affinities exist with (in order of decreasing affinity) P. (O.) zonangulus, P. (O.) nueces, P. (O.) acutus and P. (O.) nechesae. P. (O.) l u x u s may be distinguished from all by the first pleopod's more strongly recurved cephalic process, central projection and caudal process with the tips of the cephalic process and central projection directed 90 degrees to the pleopod's axis (close in P. (O.) texanus). The processes of its first pleopod are proportionately shorter than those of all except P. (O.) texanus. Its strongly corneous, narrower, less laterally deflected mesial process is distinct from all except that of P. (O.) nueces, which is similar in lateral deflection but is much more robust and only slightly corneous. The caudomedian tongue-like prominence of the annulus ventralis is much more pronounced than in all except P. (O.) nechesae. The gap between the proximal extremities of the first pleopods is very distinct from all except P. (O.) nueces which is weakly differentiated by a smaller gap. P. (O.) l ux u s is further distinguished from P. (O.) texanus, P. (O.) zonangulus and P. (O.) nueces by much more strongly asymmetrical first pleopods; from P. (O.) acutus and P. (O.) nueces by a more strongly tapered first pleopod; from P. (O.) zonangulus by a lack of a distinct caudomesial hump on the first pleopod proximal to the terminal processes; from P. (O.) texanus by an annulus ventralis that is less strongly overhung by a less tuberculate sternum; from P. (O.) acutus, P. (O.) nueces and P. (O.) zonangulus by the lack of a distinctly raised dextral side of the annulus ventralis; and from P. (O.) nechesae by the much narrower caudal process of the first pleopod. Further supporting Procambarus (O.) luxus as a valid species is its geographic isolation from other members of the subgenus. Its range is separated from that of the geographically closest "member", the zonangulus - texanus complex (defined in "Introduction"), by 80 km and from that of P. (O.) nueces by 110 km, while the ranges of P. (O.) acutus and P. (O.) nechesae are far removed. Ecological notes. Specimens were collected in roadside ditches, culvert pools, streams and ponds bordering cropland, hay fields, cattle ranches and urban areas. At one site, two females were collected from separate burrows on a stream bank; both had simple, subvertical shafts to 80 cm depth and were plugged. The remaining specimens were collected from open water with a dip net. One site had brackish water with distinctly salty taste and an abundance of ghost and hermit crabs, while all other sites contained fresh water. Etymology. Luxus (L.) = dislocated, alluding to the prominent gap separating the proximal extremities of the first pleopods of first form males. Crayfish associates. Found with P. (O.) l u x u s were the following crayfishes, in order of decreasing frequency; Cambarellus (Pandicambarus) ninae, P. (Girardiella) cf regiomontanus, Fallicambarus (Creaserinus) fodiens and P. (Scapulicambarus) clarkii.Published as part of Johnson, Daniel P., 2011, Procambarus (Ortmannicus) luxus (Decapoda: Cambaridae), a new crayfish from southern Texas, pp. 59-68 in Zootaxa 2972 on pages 59-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.27825
- …
