1,720,963 research outputs found
FIGURE 5 in Ringanui, a new genus of stygobitic amphipod from New Zealand (Amphipoda: Gammaridea: Paraleptamphopidae)
No full textFIGURE 5. Ringanui koonuiroa holotype ♂, 4.3 mm long: pleopods 1–3, uropods 1–3, telson.Published as part of Fenwick, Graham D., 2006, Ringanui, a new genus of stygobitic amphipod from New Zealand (Amphipoda: Gammaridea: Paraleptamphopidae), pp. 1-25 in Zootaxa 1148 on page 13, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17210
FIGURE 9 in Ringanui, a new genus of stygobitic amphipod from New Zealand (Amphipoda: Gammaridea: Paraleptamphopidae)
No full textFIGURE 9. Ringanui toonuiiti holotype Ψ, 13.2 mm long: gnathopods 1, 2.Published as part of Fenwick, Graham D., 2006, Ringanui, a new genus of stygobitic amphipod from New Zealand (Amphipoda: Gammaridea: Paraleptamphopidae), pp. 1-25 in Zootaxa 1148 on page 20, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17210
FIGURE 4 in Epimeria schiaparelli sp. nov., an amphipod crustacean (family Epimeriidae) from the Ross Sea, Antarctica, with molecular characterisation of the species complex
No full textFIGURE 4. Epimeria schiaparelli sp. nov. Holotype, 29.9 mm, NIWA 18174. A, gnathopod 1; B, detail of gnathopod 1; C, gnathopod 2; D, detail of gnathopod 2.Published as part of Maas, Anne-Nina Lörz Elizabeth W., Linse, Katrin & Fenwick, Graham D., 2007, Epimeria schiaparelli sp. nov., an amphipod crustacean (family Epimeriidae) from the Ross Sea, Antarctica, with molecular characterisation of the species complex, pp. 23-37 in Zootaxa 1402 on page 28, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17545
Ringanui Fenwick, 2006, n. gen.
No full textRinganui n. gen. Calliope.— Chilton, 1882 b: 177 –179, pl. 9, figs 1–10 (part, male only). Calliopius.— Chilton, 1884: 89; Chilton, 1894: 234 –244, pl. 22 figs 1–16, pl. 23, figs 1–9 (part, male only). Paraleptamphopus.— Chilton, 1924: 273; Bousfield, 1982: 272–273; Barnard & Barnard, 1983: 50, 52, 164–165, 712 – 713 (part, male only). Type species: Ringanui koonuiroa n. sp., here designated. Species composition: Ringanui koonuiroa n. sp.; Ringanui toonuiiti n. sp. Diagnosis Antenna 1 peduncle article 2 or articles 2–3 and primary flagellum calceolate in both sexes; accessory flagellum 1 articulate, less than length of primary flagellum article 1. Antenna 2 flagellum calceolate in both sexes. Lower lip well developed, inner lobes poorly developed. Mandible palp with E 2, B 3, E 3 setae, molar triturative. Maxilla 1 inner plate medial margin with 4–5 plumose SS. Maxilliped inner plate quadrate mediodistally, not exceeding midpoint of palp article 2. Gills present on pereonites 2–6 or 7. Oostegites large, fleshy, with 3–5 few short SS on distal margin. Coxae 1–4 about as deep as wide, coxa 1 widened distally into rounded anterodistal lobe; coxa 4 postero–proximally excavate; coxa 5 anterior and posterior lobes developed subequally; coxa 6 anterior lobe reduced; coxa 7 anterior lobe absent. Gnathopod 1 very large; articles 3–4 short, subequal in length; article 5 short, 0.5 x article length, defined by one or more large RS; dactyl large, curved. Gnathopod 2 moderately large, subdominant and different structure to gnathopod 1; article 3 c. 0.3 x length of article 2, subequal in length to article 4; article 5 triangular,> 0.5 x as long as article 6, posterior margin forming a broadly rounded, setose lobe; article 6 ovate, palm 45 °, defined by RS. Pereopods 5–7 article 2 expanded posteroproximally, tapered distally, with posterodistal lobes variously developed; dactyls with 3–5 setules along posterior margins. Epimera 1–3 ventral margins naked. Pleopods 1–3 well developed, biramous; peduncles stout, lacking setae other than coupling hooks; rami well developed, 7–15 articulate, strongly setose; outer ramus shorter than or equal to inner. Uropods 1–2 peduncles longer than rami, spinose; rami spinose, with apical RS; outer ramus slightly to conspicuously shorter than inner; uropod 2 not extending posteriorly as far as uropods 1 or 3, just exceeding uropod 3 peduncle. Uropod 3 peduncle stout, shorter than or equal to rami in length; rami conical in shape, margins spinose, RS paired or paired with 1 large plumose SS, apices bereft of RS, with 0–2 subterminal setules. Telson thin, laminar (lateral aspect), subrectangular to tapering, distally slightly to conspicuously emarginate, lacking RS. Etymology The name Ringanui is derived from the Maori words ringa (hand) and nui (big) in reference to the very large gnathopod 1 characteristic of this genus. Remarks The genus Paraleptamphopus has caused severe confusion among taxonomists. This confusion arose because Chilton (1882 b) presumed that his female P. subterraneus was conspecific with those he regarded as males, because they cooccurred in some wells and differed in few characters: his presumed male was larger, rarer, possessed calceoli (“sensory capsules”) on both antennae, and both gnathopods were larger and different in morphology to those of his presumed female. By the time he wrote his 1894 redescription of the species, Chilton appeared to be having some difficulties with his understanding of the species, noting that the male appeared to differ very markedly from the female. He admitted (1894: 236) that he had “seen only about half a dozen males altogether, while I must have seen hundreds of specimens of the female”. He was puzzled by the absence of any specimens intermediate in form between the female and presumed male, although he described a few characteristics of one. Chilton concluded from this second set of studies that “there is very great dissimilarity between the two sexes, chiefly in the gnathopoda, both of these in the male differing considerably from those in the female”, whereas this was not the norm in other amphipods. He also noted that the observed differences in mouthpart characters between his sexes were as great as those often used to distinguish genera. A more explicit element of doubt was expressed in his thoughts on coxal gills where he noted (1894: 240) “two plates attached to the coxa, both in the second gnathopod and in the first and second peraeopoda, in the male specimen dissected, I have not found them in the female specimens, and am not sure that the second plate is a gillplate”, before stating “It differs in appearance from the true gillplate, and might be considered a broodplate, but it bears no setae on the margin, and I am practically certain that the specimen is a male”. Comparison of the “males” illustrated in Chilton’s 1882 b and 1894 papers show several significant differences in their gnathopods. Gnathopod 1 differs most conspicuously in the size of robust seta defining the palm. The length of the large spine in the 1882 “male” equals the width of article 6, whereas the largest spine in the 1894 “male” was <0.3 x the width of article 6. The shapes of article 6 differ appreciably between specimens. Similar differences are apparent in comparing second gnathopods. Articles 5–6 were stouter in the 1882 “male” compared with the 1894 “male” and these articles also differed considerably in shape. By 1894, available evidence indicated that up to three taxa may be confused with P.subterraneus, although Chilton continued adhering to his single species thesis. Stebbing (1899) was not convinced that the species was monospecific: in erecting the genus Paraleptamphopus, he stated (p. 210): “In this genus I place Calliope subterranea, Chilton, and Pherusa caerulea, G.M. Thomson; but the form which Dr. Chilton regards as the adult male of his Calliopius subterraneus I leave at present unclassified”. It is notable that Stebbing (1899) was unequivocal in designating Paraleptamphopus subterraneus (Chilton, 1882) as the type species, but his preceding comment also makes it clear that the type species is Chilton’s (1882 b) female, not the male. The genus Ringanui, therefore, is erected to accommodate Chilton’s 1882 b and 1894 males.Published as part of Fenwick, Graham D., 2006, Ringanui, a new genus of stygobitic amphipod from New Zealand (Amphipoda: Gammaridea: Paraleptamphopidae), pp. 1-25 in Zootaxa 1148 on pages 3-5, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17210
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
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
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Ringanui toonuiiti Fenwick, 2006, n. sp.
No full textRinganui toonuiiti n. sp. (Figs 7–11) Calliopius subterraneus.—? Chilton, 1884: 89; Chilton, 1894: 234 –242, pl. 22, figs 1–16, pl. 23, figs 1–9 (part, male only). Paraleptamphopus subterraneus.— Chilton, 1924: 276 (part, male only). Material examined Holotype: adult Ψ, 13.2 mm long, NMNZ CR. 10010 (wet and 7 slides); Burnham, Canterbury, 43 º 37.17´S, 172 º 18.86´E, coll. G.D. Fenwick, 3 Feb 1999, taken in net from Well 1, 18 m depth. Allotype: ɗ 10.7 mm long, NMNZ CR. 10011 (wet), Templeton, Canterbury, 43 º 33.11´S, 172 º 26.38´E, coll. G.D. Fenwick, 28 Jan 1986, among cages in well. Paratypes: Templeton, Canterbury, 43 º 33.11´S, 172 º 26.38´E: 1 ɗ, NMNZ CR. 10012, coll. G.D. Fenwick, 28 Jan 1986, taken in net, c. 20 m depth; 1 Ψ, 12.6 mm long, AM P. 68199 (wet), coll. L. Sinton, 19 Aug. 1982, net sample from Well 2; 2 females, 10.8, 11.7 mm long, NIWA 3443, P 1431, coll. L. Sinton, 5 Aug. 1982, net sample from Well 11, 20 m depth; 1 Ψ, NMNZ CR 7724, coll. G.D. Fenwick, 12 Mar. 1986, among cages in Well 11; Bailey’s Rd, East Eyreton, Canterbury, 43 º 23.93´S, 172 º 34.14´E: 1 Ψ, 11.0 mm long, NZAC Ph 133 (wet & 1 slide), coll. J. McBurney & L. Brown, 24 May 1973, pump sample from open well, 5.1 m deep, temperature 13.5 ºC. Additional material: Templeton, Canterbury, 43 º 33.11´S, 172 º 26.38´E: 1 indet., coll. L. Sinton, 3 Sept 1982, in Well 11, c. 20 m depth [NIWA GW 15 2]; 1 indet., coll. G.D. Fenwick, 17 Sept 1986, among cages in Well 2 [NIWA GW 29 4]. Burnham, Canterbury, 43 º 37.17´S, 172 º 18.86´E: 1 Ψ, 3 juveniles, coll. L. Sinton, 19 July 1982, net sample from Well 12 [NIWA GW 21 1]; 1 Ψ, coll. L. Sinton, 5 Aug 1982, taken in net from Well 10, 20 m depth [NIWA GW 41 2]; 1 Ψ, 3 juveniles, coll. L. Sinton, 5 Aug. 1982, in net from Well 13 [NIWA GW 42 1]; 1 ɗ, coll. G.D. Fenwick, 3 Feb. 1999, net sample from Well 1, 18 m depth [NIWA GW 51 1]; 1 Ψ, 1 ɗ, coll. G.D. Fenwick, 3 Feb 1999, in net samples from Well 2, c. 20 m depth [NIWA GW 53 1]; 1 indet., coll. G.D. Fenwick, 9 Feb 1999, taken in net from well in forest, 18 m depth [NIWA GW 95 1]; Harewood, Canterbury, 43 º 28.4´S, 172 º 32.6´E: 1 indet. (poor condition), NZAC Ph 57, coll. G. Kuschel, 4 July 1972, in pump sample from well 10.4 m deep; Orari, Canterbury, 44 º07.7´S, 171 º20.0´E: 1 Ψ, NZAC Ph 115 a, coll. G. Kuschel & J. McBurney, 22 March 1973, pumped from open well, 4.8 m deep, water temperate 13 º C. Diagnosis Size up to 13.2 mm long; maxilla 1 inner plate with 5–6 large, plumose SS medially; maxilla 2 outer plate with several (<10) setules distolaterally; maxilliped outer plate just exceeding distal end of palp article 1 and not reaching midpoint of article 2; maxilliped palp article 1 lateral margin with 2–5 SS, article 2 lateral margin with 3–4 SS distolaterally, article 4 with 2–3 setules laterally and 4–6 medially; gnathopod 1 coxa 1 broader than deep, anterior margin weakly concave, straight distally; gnathopod 1 article 6 posterior margin discontinuous with palm, largest defining RS less than half as long as dactyl and shorter than article 6 width; gnathopod 2 article 6 subequal in length to gnathopod 1 article 6, gnathopod 2 palm defined by 4–6 RS, 1–2 of which are long; pereopod 5 coxa posterior lobe subequal to anterior lobe; pereopod 6 coxa anterior lobe distinct, but reduced; pereopods 6–7 article 2 tapered to obtuse, subquadrate lobe posterodistally; pereopods 5–7 dactyl posterior margins with 2–5 setules; pleopod rami subequal in length, of 12–15 articles; uropod 1 peduncle with 4 RS proximolaterally, outer ramus just shorter than inner; uropod 2 with 2 RS laterally; uropod 3 rami 1.5 times longer than peduncle, margins with paired RS; telson untapered distally, weakly emarginate, lobes rounded. Description (holotype) The same as R. koonuiroa except for the following characters. Head lateral cephalic lobes subrectangular. Pleon dorsally with sparse short SS; urosome dorsally with sparse, short SS. Antenna 1 calceoli present on peduncle article 2; peduncle 0.4 x flagellum length. Antenna 2 0.7 x as long as antenna 1; peduncle article 4 1.2 x length of 5; flagellum 1.4 x length of peduncle articles 4–5. Mandible palp article 1 short, wider than long, article 3 strongly curved and falciform, 0.8–0.9 x length of article 2, palp setal formula: 10 D 2 setae, 25 D 3 setae, 3 E 3 setae; incisor large, 6 strong cusps; lacinia mobilis well developed, toothed. Lower lip inner lobes weakly developed. Maxilla 1 palp article 2 3 x longer than wide, linear, 4 RS distally, 2 SS laterodistally; outer plate distal margin bearing 11 dentate RS, inner margin with group of SS distally; inner plate subovate, 1.3 x longer than wide, 4 plumose SS, inserted medially. Maxilla 2 outer plate length 2 x width, distal margin oblique, armed with 9 large SS, medial margin with long setules; inner plate 2 x longer than wide, distal margin oblique, discontinuous with medial margin, bearing 15 simple SS, inner margin with 3 marginal setae, and 1 simple SS submarginally. Maxilliped inner plate distal margin with 3 RS and 2 SS, medial margin with 3 SS; outer plate not reaching mid point of palp article 2, mediodistal corner quadrate, 1.6–1.7 x longer than wide, with a row of 4 RS, decreasing in length medially, changing to 2 palmate RS medially, inner margin discontinuous with distal margin, with 8 SS and 2 RS; palp article 1 5 distolateral SS, 0 SS mediodistally, article 2 1.3 x longer than 1, 0 SS distolaterally, 4 setae along lateral margin, article 3 2 x longer than wide, article 4 0.6 x length of article 3 (excluding distal nail or spine), 3.5 x longer than basal width, medial margin straight, with 6 SS, outer margin bearing 3 SS, nail present, 0.2–0.3 x article length. Coxal gills present on pereonites 2–7; surface weakly ridged. Oostegites present on pereonites 2–5, subtriangular, 1.3– 2 x longer than wide, most extending extending to end of second articles or extending beyond second articles, with 2–5, very short SS; on margins. Gnathopod 1 coxa 0.8 x deeper than long, extending to 0.3 x length of article 2, anterior margin concave, anterodistal corner produced into broad lobe, with marginal SS posteroventrally only; article 2 4 x longer than wide, slightly constricted proximally; article 3 0.2–0.3 x length of 2; article 4 0.8 x length of 3; article 5 short, 0.3–0.4 x length of article 2, subtriangular, 1.3 x as long as wide, posterodistal margin with 8–10 SS; article 6 very large, 1.2 x length of article 2, 3.4 x length of article 5, 1.7 x longer than wide, posterior margin (proximal to palm) 0.2–0.3 x length of article length, bearing several SS; palm strongly oblique, 25 degrees to article 6 axis, straight or convex, finely ridged, palm defined by 12 RS, simple, longest defining spine 0.2 x article 6 length; dactyl with 13 posterior setules. Gnathopod 2 subchelate, large, as long as, and as stout as gnathopod 1; coxa anterior margin straight; article 2 3.8–3.9 x longer than wide; article 3 elongate, 0.4 x length of 2, 0.6 x length of article 5; article 4 1 x length of 3; article 5 elongate, 0.6 x length of article 2, subtriangular, 2.5 x as long as wide, anteriodistal corner with 1 SS, with 30–40 SS posteriodistally; article 6 large, subovate, narrowed distally, 0.9 x length of article 2, 1.5 x length of article 5, 2 x longer than wide; palm strongly oblique, 25 degrees to article axis, convex, finely corrugated, defined by 5 bifid RS, largest 0.2 x length of article 6; dactyl slender pointed, posterior margin with 8 setules, 0 facial setules subterminally. Pereopod 3 coxa length (depth) 1.9 x width; article 2 0.9– 1 x as long as coxa, 5 SS posteriorly; article 3 0.1 x as long as article 2; article 4 0.6 x length of article 2; article 5 0.6–0.7 x length of article 4; articles 4–6 moderately setose; article 6 1.3 x length of article 5, 6 RS, and 1 SS along posterior margin, 0 RS, and 8 SS anteriorly; dactyl stout, slightly curved, 0.3 x length of article 6, posterior margin simple, tip simple. Pereopod 4 coxa 1.8 x depth of coxa 5, extending to 0.5 x length of article 2, 1.4–1.5 x deeper than wide, posterior margin weakly excavate proximally; articles 2–7 similar to pereopod 3 in proportions and setation of articles. Pereopod 5 coxa 1.5 x wider than deep; article 2 expanded, 1.5 longer than wide, posterior margin finely toothed, posteriodistally produced into short, angular obtuse lobe, anterior margin with several RS; article 4 0.5–0.6 x length of article 2; article 5 1.2 x as long as article 4; article 6 1.3 x length of article 5; articles 4–6 with numerous RS; dactyl posterior margin with 4–5 fine setules. Pereopods 6–7 similar to pereopod 5 in article shape and setation; successively longer. Pereopod 6 coxa posterior lobe with 8 SS and 0 RS; article 2 anterior margin with many RS, posterior margin almost straight, serrate, posterodistally produced to overhang article 3 for about 0.4 of its length, lobe angular, obtuse. Pereopod 7 coxa posterior lobe naked; article 2 subovate, anterior margin with many RS, posterodistally produced to overhang article 3 for about 0.6 of its length, lobe angular, obtuse. Epimeron 1 posterior margin convex, naked; posterodistal corner subquadrate or acute; naked. Epimeron 2 posterior margin weakly convex, naked. Epimeron 3 posterior margin weakly convex, naked; posteroventral corner subquadrate. Pleopod 1 peduncle 1.6–1.7 x longer than wide, with pair of coupling hooks only; inner ramus with 15 articles, article 1 1.6 x longer than wide, 3 simple SS medially, plus pair of distal plumose SS; outer ramus with 14 articles, article 1 1.4 x longer than wide, 3 simple SS, mediodistally, and 9 plumose SS laterally, plus pair of plumose SS distally, outer ramus 0.7–0.8 x as long as inner. Pleopods 2–3 similar in structure and size to pleopod 1. Pleopod 2 outer ramus 15 articulate, 0.8 x as long as inner; inner ramus with 14 articles. Pleopod 3 outer ramus 14 articulate, 0.8 x as long as inner; inner ramus with 12 articles. Uropod 1 peduncle with 3 RS mediodorsally, 4 RS dorsolaterally, terminal dorsolateral RS smaller in size than others; inner ramus 0.8 x length of peduncle, with 4 RS laterally, 4 medially, and 4 distally; outer ramus 0.7 x length of inner, with 5 RS laterally, 5 medially, and 4 distal RS. Uropod 2 peduncle slender, 2.5 x longer than wide, with 6 RS mediodorsally, 3 RS dorsolaterally; inner ramus 0.8–0.9 x length of peduncle, with 3 RS laterally, 1 medially, and 4 distally; outer ramus 0.7 x length of inner, with 2 RS laterally, 3 medially, and 3 distal RS. Uropod 3 extending as far as uropods 1–2; peduncle stout, 1.4 x longer than wide, with 3 RS mediodorsally, 1 RS dorsolaterally; inner ramus 1.2 x length of outer ramus with 7 RS laterally, and 6 medially, terminally stout, 2 subterminal SS and, 0 RS terminally; outer ramus 1.4 x length of peduncle, with 5 RS laterally and 4 medially, 1 subterminal slender seta and 0 RS terminally. Telson subrectangular, untapered, lateral margins straight, 1 x as long as wide, emarginate, 0.1 of its length, lobes distally rounded, with 1 setules subterminally on each lobe, and 2–3 setules laterally. Va r i a t i o n A few additional characters not included in the above description merit noting. Calceoli occur on peduncle articles 2–3 of antenna 1 in all specimens examined, although they were not apparent on article 3 in the holotype. Each calceolus arises from a raised hump on the peduncle articles. The upper lip is ovate (distal half only illustrated for holotype) and there is no division between labium and epistome. Some asymmetry is apparent in the mandibles with the left incisor having 6 cusps and the right 5. Similar asymmetry occurs on the lacinia mobili, which have 4 cusps on the left and 3 on the right. Chilton (1894) showed a distinct medial notch in one of the outer lobes of the lower lip and a similar notch was apparent in one of the specimens examined here. Very little asymmetry was apparent in maxilla 1 other than slight differences in palp article 2 width and the stoutness of apical robust setae. The inner plate of maxilla 2 has an oblique, submarginal row of 5–6 plumose setae in all specimens, although these were not readily visible in the holotype. Gnathopod 1 article 2 is consistently kinked proximally. The dactyl tips of both gnathopods close into craterlike depressions surrounded by robust setae at the proximal ends of their respective palms. Also, the palm is complex with an apparently fine, crenulated knifeedge structure opposing the dactyl along much of the palm. Just proximal to the palm, article 6 is produced into a massive, blunt cusplike structure (see Chilton 1984: pl. 23, figs 1, 2), but this, like the fine palmar cutting edge, is not apparent in some perspectives. Examination of the few juveniles of this species in collections showed that shape of article 6 and the length of largest defining spines changes little with development. A small gill was found on coxa 7 in several specimens, but was absent from others. It is not known whether this gill is always present, but was dislodged in some specimens, or whether this small gill is variable in its presence. The lateral margin of the uropod 3 inner ramus had robust setae paired with long, plumose slender setae in some specimens, but this, also, appeared to be a variable character. The telson also seems to vary between specimens, with the emargination slightly deeper than that illustrated for some specimens. Etymology The name toonuiiti is derived from Maori toonui (thumb) and iti (little) and refers to the smaller robust seta defining the proximal end of the gnathopod 1 palm, which is characteristic of this species. Distribution Canterbury: Eyreton, Harewood, Templeton, Burnham, Orari. Remarks As noted above, Chilton’s 1882 b “male” differed appreciably from the 1894 male in the morphology of both gnathopods, suggesting the possibility of two species. New material collected since 1972 enabled this to be investigated more carefully, as outlined above, and produced clear evidence that Chilton’s 1882 b “male” Calliope subterranea belongs to a different species to his 1894 “male” Calliopius subterraneus. Chilton (1894) appeared to place substantial weight on the structure of gnathopod 1, believing that the 1882 “male” was a juvenile of the 1894 type. Reasons for this are unclear, but he certainly had very few specimens (1894: 236 “I have seen only about half a dozen males altogether”) of Ringanui, with perhaps no more than one specimen of his 1882 b “male” (R. koonuiroa).Published as part of Fenwick, Graham D., 2006, Ringanui, a new genus of stygobitic amphipod from New Zealand (Amphipoda: Gammaridea: Paraleptamphopidae), pp. 1-25 in Zootaxa 1148 on pages 15-23, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17210
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe 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
- …
