1,720,966 research outputs found
Revision of the camel spider genus Eremocosta Roewer and a description of the female Eremocosta gigas Roewer (Arachnida, Solifugae)
Get PDFCushing, Paula E., Channiago, Felix, Brookhart, Jack O. (2018): Revision of the camel spider genus Eremocosta Roewer and a description of the female Eremocosta gigas Roewer (Arachnida, Solifugae). Zootaxa 4402 (3): 443-466, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4402.3.
Eremocosta robusta
No full textEremocosta robusta (Roewer 1934) nomen dubium Eremacantha robusta Roewer 1934: 571, figs. 320d, 320p, 324s. Eremorhax robustus (Roewer 1934): Muma 1976: 15. Eremocosta robusta (Roewer): Harvey 2002: 451. Type material. Immature holotype from Santiago, México, deposited at Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt Universität (ZMHU, no. 996). Recorded specimens: known from type only. Type not examined. Distribution. MÉXICO: Baja California Norte. Biome: Sonoran Desert. Discussion. Muma (1970) considered this nomen dubium after examining the type which proved to be a juvenile. We agree with this designation.Published as part of Cushing, Paula E., Channiago, Felix & Brookhart, Jack O., 2018, Revision of the camel spider genus Eremocosta Roewer and a description of the female Eremocosta gigas Roewer (Arachnida, Solifugae), pp. 443-466 in Zootaxa 4402 (3) on page 462, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4402.3.2, http://zenodo.org/record/120967
Eremobates hystrix Mello-Leitao 1942
No full textEremobates hystrix Mello-Leitão 1942) combination restored Eremoperna hystrix Mello-Leitão 1942: 307 –309, fig. 3. Eremobates hystrix (Mello-Leitão 1942): Muma (1970): 28. Eremocosta hystrix (Mello-Leitão 1942): Vázquez-Rojas et al. 2014: 1079 –1084, figs. 1–10. Type material. The male holotype was collected from the Distrito Federal, México and is deposited at the Museo Nacional Rio de Janeiro. Type not examined. Discussion. The presence of a well-defined flagellar groove and apical plumose bristle places the species in the genus Eremobates (Vasquez & Gavino Rojas 2000, fig. 2, p. 1081).Published as part of Cushing, Paula E., Channiago, Felix & Brookhart, Jack O., 2018, Revision of the camel spider genus Eremocosta Roewer and a description of the female Eremocosta gigas Roewer (Arachnida, Solifugae), pp. 443-466 in Zootaxa 4402 (3) on pages 463-464, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4402.3.2, http://zenodo.org/record/120967
Eremorhax fuscus
No full textEremorhax fuscus (Muma 1986) combination restored Eremorhax fuscus Muma 1986: 2 –3, figs. 1–7 Eremocosta fuscus (Muma 1986): Harvey 2002: 451. Type material. Male holotype from Tutla, Oaxaca, México. Collected 13 December 1948 by E.S. Ross. Deposited at CAS. Female paratype collected from 4 miles north Cuernavaca, Morelos, México, 8 December 1948, collected by E.S. Ross and also deposited in the collection of CAS. Photos of type examined. Discussion. The shape of the flagellar groove and lack of a VDC (Muma, 1986: fig. 2, p. 25) places this species in the genus Eremorhax. Presence of ctenidia also differentiate it from Eremocosta (see Muma, 1986: fig. 4, p. 25).Published as part of Cushing, Paula E., Channiago, Felix & Brookhart, Jack O., 2018, Revision of the camel spider genus Eremocosta Roewer and a description of the female Eremocosta gigas Roewer (Arachnida, Solifugae), pp. 443-466 in Zootaxa 4402 (3) on page 463, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4402.3.2, http://zenodo.org/record/120967
Eremobates acuitlapanensis Cushing & Channiago & Brookhart 2018, new combination
No full textEremobates acuitlapanensis (Vázquez & Gaviño-Rojas 2000) new combination Eremopus acuitlapanensis Vázquez & Gaviño-Rojas 2000: 227 –228, figs. 1–9 Eremoacosta acuitlapanensis (Vázquez & Gaviño-Rojas 2000): Harvey 2002: 451. Type material. Holotype male from México: Guerrero, Acuitlapan; collected 13 October 1976; collected by Melgar, Novelo, and Chavarría. Deposited at IBUNAM. One male, one female paratype from same locale, also deposited at IBUNAM. Type examined. Discussion. The shape of the flagellar groove (Vázquez & Gaviño-Rojas 2000, figs. 2–3, p. 229) and the presence of an apical plumose bristle places the species in the genus Eremobates. The molecular phylogeny of Cushing et al. (2015) supports the placement of this species outside the Eremocosta clade close to other species in EremobatesPublished as part of Cushing, Paula E., Channiago, Felix & Brookhart, Jack O., 2018, Revision of the camel spider genus Eremocosta Roewer and a description of the female Eremocosta gigas Roewer (Arachnida, Solifugae), pp. 443-466 in Zootaxa 4402 (3) on page 463, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4402.3.2, http://zenodo.org/record/120967
Eremocosta nigrimana
No full textEremocosta nigrimana (Pocock 1895) Gluvia nigrimanus Pocock 1895: 94 –95, fig. 10. Eremobates nigrimanus (Pocock 1895): Kraepelin 1901: 128. Eremorhax magnus (Hancock 1888): Muma 1970: 5 –6. Eremorhax nigrimanus (Pocock 1895): Brookhart & Muma 1987: 1. Eremocosta nigrimana (Pocock 1895): Harvey 2002: 451. Type material. Male holotype labeled “? Probably Meshed, Afghanistan, Afghan Delimitation commission” but the specimen may be mislabeled as suggested by the “?” on the label (also see Muma 1970, 1976). Recorded specimens: known from type only (BNHM #1952.10.17.20). We were able to view photographs of the type specimen. Discussion. The status of this species remains uncertain since no eremobatids are known from the Old World. The type specimen has the VDC diagnostic for the genus Eremocosta. Therefore, the placement in this genus seems to be correct. From the photos of the type, the specimen appears to have a VDC extending more than half the length of the fixed finger. The movable finger dentition can be described as MP-no MSM-MM; distinct MPL. If we are correct that the species belongs to Eremocosta, then it would be the only species lacking a MSM. Because the type has the VDC diagnostic for the genus, we leave it in Eremocosta; however, like Muma, we doubt the veracity of the locality. The “?” on the label also supports the uncertainty of the locale. It may represent a new species of Eremocosta. We leave the designation as is.Published as part of Cushing, Paula E., Channiago, Felix & Brookhart, Jack O., 2018, Revision of the camel spider genus Eremocosta Roewer and a description of the female Eremocosta gigas Roewer (Arachnida, Solifugae), pp. 443-466 in Zootaxa 4402 (3) on page 462, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4402.3.2, http://zenodo.org/record/120967
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe 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
Eremocosta Roewer 1934
No full textGenus Eremocosta Roewer 1934. Eremopus Roewer 1934: 561 [Junior homonym of Eremopus Brady 1910 (Crustacea, Copepoda)], Muma 1989: 4. Eremocosta Roewer 1934: 569 (synonymized by Muma 1951: 41). Eremocantha Roewer 1934: 571 (synonymized by Muma 1970: 9). Type species. Of Eremopus: Eremopus montezuma Roewer 1934, by original designation. Of Eremocosta: Eremocosta gigas Roewer 1934, by original designation. Of Eremocantha: Eremocantha robusta Roewer 1934, by original designation. Revised diagnosis. Eremocosta species are relatively large; ranging from 26 to 50 mm in length. Color patterns of the body and pedipalps are variable. The diagnostic synapomorphy of Eremocosta is the male fixed finger with a deep VDC (Figs. 1A–G). Neither Roewer (1934) nor Muma (1951, 1970) described the carina running inside this cavity that is evident in some species (Figs. 1B–F, arrows). The fixed finger of males lacks median dentition (Fig. 2). The movable finger of males has a large MP, one to two MSM, and one MM teeth (Fig. 2). The MP tooth is large and distinct. In E. gigas, E. gigasella, and E. striata the movable finger has what we here call a distal tooth of the movable finger (MD) (Figs. 2K, O & S, arrows). The fondal notch ranges from obscure to distinct (Fig. 2), and ordinarily has two to four RFA in the fondal notch and in some species one to three RFA on the ventral side of the fixed finger (Fig. 3). Pro- and retrolateral fondal teeth vary in gradation among the species (Fig. 3). The retrolateral IV is tiny in some species. Male cheliceral setal formation (sfc) consists of tubular setae dorsally, two rows of tubular setae prolaterally with the inner mesal row being plumose and extending dorsally to and sometimes above fondal tooth I. The prodorsal setae (mpd) consist of a proximal patch in all species except E. gigasella which has a linear row extending to MM. The proventral distal setae (pdp) consist of three robust setae and one proximal thin seta. The female chelicera fixed finger has a large FP, one to two FSM, a large FM, small FSD, and distinct FD (Fig. 2). The female movable finger has a large MP, one or two MSM, and one MM teeth. MPL tooth distinct on males and females (Fig. 2). Eremocosta females demonstrate typical eremobatid female cheliceral setal pattern with pvd and mpd setae forming a continuous plumose row from the FD to the MM teeth. The arms of the genital operculum of Eremocosta are alate and widely separated posteriorly (Fig. 4 and Muma 1989). The genital operculum is largely species-specific with some possessing thin arms with club like wings; others recurved, bent laterally at their posterior ends with no distinct external pits. No palpal papillae or ctenidia are present.Published as part of Cushing, Paula E., Channiago, Felix & Brookhart, Jack O., 2018, Revision of the camel spider genus Eremocosta Roewer and a description of the female Eremocosta gigas Roewer (Arachnida, Solifugae), pp. 443-466 in Zootaxa 4402 (3) on pages 445-446, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4402.3.2, http://zenodo.org/record/120967
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
- …
