1,720,960 research outputs found
Aztecolus Chamberlin 1943
No full textGenus Aztecolus Chamberlin, 1943 Aztecolus Chamberlin, 1943b:28. Hoffman and Keeton, 1960:9. Keeton, 1960a:33–35. Loomis, 1968a:92; 1968b:391. Jeekel, 1971:194. Hoffman, 1980a:76; 1999:37. Type-species. Spirobolus nigrior Chamberlin, 1941, by original designation. Diagnosis. Posterior gonopod telopodite subupright. Prefemoral process relatively long, extending beyond level of acropodital midlength. Anterior acropodital margin narrowing abruptly distad, terminating in spiniform or bifurcate projection. Components. Three nominal species: A. nigrior (Chamberlin, 1941); A. pablillo Chamberlin, 1947; and A. productus Loomis, 1968 (Keeton 1960a, Hoffman 1999, Bueno-Villegas et al. 2004). Distribution (Fig. 28, letter A). Aztecolus inhabits the Mexican tribal area where it is partly sympatric with Floridobolinae / Tylobolini / Hiltonius / H. carpinus. Aside from the minor overlap of Spirobolinae and Floridobolinae in Florida, this is the only region where the two subfamilies are sympatric. We believe they overlapped along the Pacific Coast of North America during the early Cretaceous, but only Floridobolinae / Tylobolini occur there today. Maximal dimensions of the area of Aztecolus are roughly 752 km (470 mi) north-south and 491 km (307 mi) east-west. The northernmost locality (Nuevo León, Cañon de las Anahuac) is only ~ 115 km (72 mi) south of the Rio Grande and Laredo, Webb Co., Texas, so Aztecolini / Aztecolus may inhabit this region of southernmost Texas, USA. Origin. Occurring in the subfamilial and tribal source area, Aztecolus is the same age as these taxa, <296 my.Published as part of Shelley, Rowland M. & Floyd, Samuel D., 2014, Expanded concept of the milliped family Spirobolidae Diplopoda: Spirobolida: Spirobolidea): Proposals of Aztecolini n. tribe and Floridobolinae / ini and Tylobolini n. stats.; (re) descriptions of Floridobolus and F. penneri, both Causey, 1957, and F. orini n. sp.; hypotheses on origins and affinities, pp. 1-50 in Insecta Mundi 2014 (357) on page 27, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.517912
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
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
Gobiulus Dzik 1975
No full textGenus Gobiulus Dzik, 1975 Gobiulus Dzik, 1975:17. Type- and only component species. G. sabulosus Dzik, 1975, by original designation. Diagnosis. Body with 40 rings including collum and epiproct. Hypostome and gula large, covering part of mentum. Ocellaria widely separated, containing around 30 ocelli. 2 nd pleurotergite extending below level of collum. Striae ventrolateral only. Paraprocts slightly re-entrant, without rims. Distribution. Mongolia, Ömnögovi Prov., Gobi Desert. Origin. The strata harboring these fossils derive from the late-Cretaceous Period, Mesozoic Era. They are thought to be from the Middle Campanian Stage, dating to 77 mya (Shear et al. 2009). Remarks. Thirteen specimens of G. sabulosus were retrieved plus one with a less deeply incised and more rounded frontoclypeal region that Dzik (1975) thought might represent a second species but did not name. The head of the holotype (Dzik 1975, fig. 1b) clearly shows the frontal groove that is indistinct in the unnamed specimen, so we agree that Spirobolida is the correct order (Shear et al. 2009, Shear and Edgecombe 2010). Primarily from the shape of the mentum and sterna, Dzik allied Gobiulus with Rhinocricidae and Atopetholidae but then excluded the former because of the absence of protergal scobinae. However, scobinae, if present, would normally be overhung by the caudal edges of the preceding metaterga, probably fossilize poorly if at all, and some rhinocricids lack them, so this perceived absence in a juliformian fossil is not diagnostic. Dzik also thought that the indistinct tergal divisions eliminated Gobiulus from Atopetholidae, and he excluded Spirobolidae because of the shape of the mentum and the triangular mandibular stipes. He tentatively assigned Gobiulus to the exclusively North American/ Mexican Atopetholidae, whose distribution he incorrectly reported as including Asia and North and South Africa (Chamberlin and Hoffman 1958; Hoffman and Orcutt 1960; Loomis 1968a; Hoffman 1980a, 1998b, 1999; Bueno-Villegas et al. 2004; Shear et al. 2009; Shear and Edgecombe 2010; Shelley and Golovatch 2011). From the published illustrations of Gobiulus, we note the slightly re-entrant paraprocts that lack rims (Dzik 1975, fig. 5a-c), which are consistent with both Atopetholidae and Tylobolini (Table 2, row 5; Keeton 1960a, pl. 3, fig. 21; Hoffman and Orcutt 1960); spiroboline paraprocts clearly possess rims and are not re-entrant. Additionally, the widely separated ocellaria, which lie dorsal to the antennal sockets and do not extend mediad, are also consistent with Tylobolini (Dzik 1975, fig. 1b, 6b; Keeton 1960a, pl. 1, fig. 6, pl. 2, fig. 11, 13); spiroboline ocellaria always extend mediad toward the epicranial suture and are closer together. With these anatomical similarities, we believe that Gobiulus is assignable to Spirobolidae / Floridobolinae / Tylobolini; Dzik’s illustrations lack scale lines, but the individuals appear juvenile to us. We would never base a formal nomenclatural change of fossils solely on illustrations because rarely can associations of impression fossils with modern genera be certain, but we nevertheless think Gobiulus may be a synonym of Tylobolus, which the fossils resemble more closely than Hiltonius. Admittedly, our statements contain a degree of conjecture, but we do confirm Dzik’s perception of affinity to North American rather than Asian spirobolidans, and the fossils are consistent with our concept of Spirobolidae. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not see Spirobolinae in Dzik’s figures; Gobiulus seems to represent a rare tylobolinine that dispersed onto the Asian part of “Asiamerica” in the Cretaceous, became fossilized, and was transported to Mongolia. Gobiulus seems to support our spirobolid, “Asiamerica” hypothesis, which also applies to other North American taxa.Published as part of Shelley, Rowland M. & Floyd, Samuel D., 2014, Expanded concept of the milliped family Spirobolidae Diplopoda: Spirobolida: Spirobolidea): Proposals of Aztecolini n. tribe and Floridobolinae / ini and Tylobolini n. stats.; (re) descriptions of Floridobolus and F. penneri, both Causey, 1957, and F. orini n. sp.; hypotheses on origins and affinities, pp. 1-50 in Insecta Mundi 2014 (357) on page 24, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.517912
Hiltonius Chamberlin 1918
No full textGenus <i>Hiltonius</i> Chamberlin, 1918 <p> <i>Julus</i> (<i>Julus</i>) (not Linnaeus) in part: Saussure, 1859:329; 1860:96.</p> <p> <i>Spirobolus</i> (not Brandt) in part: Saussure and Humbert, 1872:74–75, 175.</p> <p> <i>Hiltonius</i> Chamberlin, 1918b:166; 1943b:21; 1949:166. Loomis and Hoffman, 1951:51. Chamberlin and Hoffman, 1958:163. Hoffman and Keeton, 1960:15. Keeton, 1960a:97–99. Buckett, 1964:23. Loomis, 1966:25; 1968a:92; 1968b:392. Jeekel, 1971:199. Hoffman, 1980a:77; 1998b:64; 1999:41. Shelley, 2002a:98.</p> <p> <b>Type-species</b>. <i>H. pulchrus</i> Chamberlin, 1918, by original designation.</p> <p> <b>Diagnosis</b>. Generally stout, robust Tylobolini; paraprocts usually slightly re-entrant, with or without marginal rims. Posterior gonopod acropodite usually with two variably distinct distal lobes, only slightly prolonged if any, not curving strongly dorsad or decurved and not imparting uncinate appearance to overall appendage.</p> <p> <b>Components</b>. Ten nominal species, both extant and fossilized; one species is divided into two subspecies: <i>H. mexicanus</i> (Saussure, 1859); <i>H. hebes</i> (Bollman, 1887); <i>H. reptans</i> (Porat, 1888); <i>H. australis</i> (Grinnell, 1908); <i>H. fossulifer</i> (Pocock, 1908); <i>H. pulchrus</i> Chamberlin, 1918; <i>H. mimus</i> Chamberlin, 1941; <i>H. erythropygus</i> Chamberlin, 1943; <i>H. carpinus carpinus</i> Chamberlin, 1943, and <i>H. c. vulcan</i> (Chamberlin, 1952); and <i>H. flavocinctus</i> Loomis, 1968 (Keeton 1960a; Hoffman 1999; Shelley 2002 a, 2010).</p> <p> <b>Distribution</b> (Fig. 12, black lines). Four segregated areas: southern California and adjacent Baja California Norte; southeastern Arizona; from southern Durango, Coahuila, and Nuevo León to Guerrero, Mexico; and the Guatamalan point locality. The distributions of <i>Hiltonius</i> and <i>H. pulchrus</i> extend from Ft. Tejon and the Santa Monica Mountains, Kern/Los Angeles cos., in northern metropolitan Los Angeles, to northern Baja California Norte and eastward to the vicinities of San Bernardino and Riverside.</p> <p> <b>Origin</b>. Since <i>H. carpinus</i> occurs in southeastern Arizona, Guatemala, and the presumtive, central Mexican, familial source area, we believe it is the original, ancestral tylobolinine and arose <301 mya.</p> <p> <b>Remarks</b>. While <i>Hiltonius</i> was dispersing to California and Guatemala, divergences and evolution continued in the source area and Floridobolini were spreading northeastward.</p>Published as part of <i>Shelley, Rowland M. & Floyd, Samuel D., 2014, Expanded concept of the milliped family Spirobolidae Diplopoda: Spirobolida: Spirobolidea): Proposals of Aztecolini n. tribe and Floridobolinae / ini and Tylobolini n. stats.; (re) descriptions of Floridobolus and F. penneri, both Causey, 1957, and F. orini n. sp.; hypotheses on origins and affinities, pp. 1-50 in Insecta Mundi 2014 (357)</i> on page 23, DOI: <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/5179125">10.5281/zenodo.5179125</a>
Chicobolus Chamberlin 1947
No full textGenus Chicobolus Chamberlin, 1947 Chicobolus Chamberlin, 1947:46. Causey, 1955a:75–76. Chamberlin and Hoffman, 1958:162. Hoffman and Keeton, 1960:11. Keeton, 1960a:39–40. Jeekel, 1971:195. Hoffman, 1980a:76; 1999:37. Shelley, 2001a:244. Incobolus Chamberlin, 1955:7. Hoffman and Keeton, 1960:15. Jeekel, 1971:199. Type-species. Of Chicobolus, C. pilsbryi Chamberlin, 1947, by original designation; of Incobolus, I. thaumastus Chamberlin, 1955, by original designation. Diagnosis. Posterior gonopod telopodite leaning mediad. Prefemoral process relatively short, at most extending only to level of acropodital midlength. Anterior acropodital margin deeply incised distal to midlength, with adjacent spiniform projection. Component. Keeton’s (1960a) concept, that Chicobolus is monotypic, has been accepted by all subsequent authors (Hoffman 1980, 1999; Shelley 2001a). We continue this pattern, although the strikingly different color pattern of populations in the Keys and southernmost peninsula suggests that they should be re-examined for structural differences justifying specific recognition (the name, C. pilbryi Chamberlin, 1947, is available), as should the South Carolina population. Distribution (Fig. 28, letter C). Chicobolus and C. spinigerus are essentially restricted to the area in the four southeasternmost states that were completely inundated during the Cretaceous, and as noted in the tribal account, the taxa may already be gone from Alabama and western Florida. The northernmost locality is in Florence Co., South Carolina; the southernmost is on Big Pine Key, Monroe Co., Florida, where a thriving population apparently exists; and the westernmost is Pensacola, Escambia Co. Maximal dimensions are 1,110 km (694 mi), north-south, and 701 km (438 mi), east-west, but those for the continuous area with maximal abundance (Fig. 28, black line) are 760 km (475 mi), north-south, and 467 km (292 mi), east-west. We think the main population and that in coastal South Carolina, around 296 km (185 mi) to the north, will eventually be the only ones, with the latter subsequently disappearing leaving only the primary one, which will shrink to peninsular Florida and the Keys as Narceus ousts Chicobolus from Georgia and northern Florida. The area may continue shrinking, as Narceus spreads through the southernmost peninsula, and Chicobolus may eventually be restricted to the Keys, which are protected by marine barriers that the former cannot breach. However, rising sea levels coupled with the abundances of the introduced families Rhinocricidae and Trigoniulidae, which are overrunning the Keys and southernmost peninsula (Shelley and Edwards 2002, Shelley et al. 2005), may eliminate Chicobolus from these refugia. Origin. We do not know exactly when in the Cretaceous the generically distinct US aztecolinine actually arose. It could have been anytime during aztecolinine dispersion, but separate generic status was finalized when the Western Interior Seaway severed the last strand of genetic continuity. We therefore arbitrarily select <104 mya, the mid-Cretaceous when we place all dispersions in Appalachia, as the origination date of Chicobolus. Remarks. Again, Keeton (1960a) was remarkably prescient in regarding Chicobolus as deriving from an Aztecolus -like ancestor that lacked distal modifications of the posterior gonopod telopodite, which is essentially also our conclusion.Published as part of Shelley, Rowland M. & Floyd, Samuel D., 2014, Expanded concept of the milliped family Spirobolidae Diplopoda: Spirobolida: Spirobolidea): Proposals of Aztecolini n. tribe and Floridobolinae / ini and Tylobolini n. stats.; (re) descriptions of Floridobolus and F. penneri, both Causey, 1957, and F. orini n. sp.; hypotheses on origins and affinities, pp. 1-50 in Insecta Mundi 2014 (357) on pages 27-28, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.517912
- …
