259 research outputs found
After the Invasion: Invasive Exotic Plants Present Critical Ecological Restoration Issues
No full textAuthor Institution (Rodewald, Bouchard and Arvai): School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University; Author Institution (Miriti): Department of Evolution, Ecology and Organismal Biology, The Ohio State Universit
Macrophthalmus (Chaenostoma) lisae Poupin & Bouchard, 2010, sp. nov.
No full textMacrophthalmus (Chaenostoma) lisae sp. nov. (Figs 1 a–c, 2 a–o) Type material. Mayotte. Holotype: 1 male 3.75 × 4.9 mm, stn 26, 12° 45 ’ 15.60 ”S, 45 °02’ 49.86 ”E, upper intertidal beach on Mliha, “Platier de Mutsumbatsou”, coll. J.-M. Bouchard, R. Cléva, J. Poupin, J. Dumas, V. Dinhut, KUW fieldwork 16.xi. 2009 (MNHN B 32254). Paratypes: same data as holotype, 1 female ov. 3.85 × 5.1 mm (MNHN B 32362); 1 male 4.1 × 5.4 mm, 3 females ov. 3.1 × 4.1 – 3.95 × 5.3 mm, 3 females 2.6 × 3.3– 3.7 × 4.9 mm, 1 female juvenile broken (MNHN B 32071); 1 female ov. 3.75 × 5.01 mm, stn 13 b, 12 ° 55 ’ 22.08 ”S, 45 °09’ 22.08 ”E, Malamani mangrove, intertidal, coll. J.-M Bouchard, 08.x. 2008 (MNHN B 32072). Comparison material: Macrophthalmus (Chaenostoma) boscii Audouin, 1826 Mayotte. 1 female 7.5 × 9.1 mm, stn 1, 12° 43 ’ 50.45 ”S, 45 ° 11 ’ 39.66 ”E, intertidal beach of Trévani, coll. J. Delmas, J. Poupin, R. Cléva, 01.xi. 2009 (MNHN B 32073); 1 male 3.6 × 4.6 mm, 1 juvenile, stn 31, low intertidal Brandélé, Musicale beach, 12 ° 55 ’01.60”S, 45 ° 11 ’ 12.43 ”E, coll. J. Poupin, R. Cléva, 19.xi. 2009 (MNHN B 32074). Diagnosis. Small-size species with carapace breadth less than 6 mm, greatest breath occurs at tip of first anterolateral teeth (external orbital angle); carapace subrectangular, 1.3 wider than long; front broad, 0.2–0.3 distance between external orbital angles, not constricted between bases of ocular peduncles. Dorsal surface of carapace smooth. Anterolateral margin with 3 teeth, including external orbital angle; first two teeth separated by a V-shaped incision, last tooth feebly marked. Ocular peduncles short and stout, not projecting significantly beyond lateral carapace margin. Upper and lower orbital border with small granules; males without stridulating mechanism. Central region of posterior border of epistome straight. Ischium of third maxilliped 1.2–1.3 times merus length. Male chela with palm inflated, 1.1 times as high as long, furnished with mat of setae on inner face; fingers short 1.0– 1.2 times as long as palm, cutting margins with sets of small triangular teeth, without differentiated larger teeth. Female chela with thinner palm, 0.9 as high as long, whithout mat of setae on inner face; fingers 1.0– 1.2 as long as palm with smooth cutting margins; telson 3.4 times as wide as long, with lateral margins straight to feebly convex. Description. Carapace subrectangular, 1.3 wider than long (Figs. 1 b, c; 2 a). Anterolateral margin with three teeth (Fig. 2 b), widest being between tips of first teeth. Outer orbital tooth, made by external orbital angle, broad, directed outwards; anterior and posterior margins minutely serrated. Second tooth smaller, separated from first one by V-shaped incision, with margins minutely serrated. Third tooth reduced, indistinct, separated from second tooth by minute incision. Dorsal surface of carapace smooth with sparse tufts of short setae, regions poorly defined; branchial regions with few scattered setae and few low tubercles. Lateral margins with row of long setae. Front deflexed with smooth margins, broad, width 0.2–0.3 the distance between external orbital angles, not constricted between bases of ocular peduncles; anterior margin forming somewhat large open V in frontal view (Fig. 2 c); upper face smooth, with median furrow filled with short setae. Upper orbital border curved with minutely granular margin. Lower orbital border with regular tubercles along whole length; pterygostomian region with line of granules sub-parallel to lower orbital border; granules very small not forming stridulating ridge with large tubercles. Ocular peduncles short, stout, reaching outer orbital tooth but not projecting significantly beyond carapace margin; diameter of cornea about 0.3 times length of peduncle. Posteromedian margin of epistome straight; central region of anterior buccal cavity without median ridge (Fig. 2 c). Ischium of third maxilliped 1.2–1.3 times length of merus; carpus inserted at distolateral angle of merus (Fig. 2 d). Dorsal surface of merus of male cheliped separated from lateral, mesial surfaces by finely tuberculated edges; mesial surface smooth, without horny ridge; ventral margin with fringe of long setae (Fig. 2 e). Carpus with few indistinct tubercles on dorsal surface, without spine, with long setae on disto-mesial angle. Chela with palm inflated, 1.1 times as high as long, furnished with mat of setae on inner surface, not extending on inner surface of fingers; upper margin rounded with small tubercles, lower margin rounded and smooth (Figs. 2 f, g). Fingers 1.0– 1.2 times as long as palm, cutting margins with sets of small triangular teeth but without differentiated tooth. Immovable finger undeflexed, outer surface smooth, with median longitudinal ridge, extending on distal half of outer surface of palm; inner surface smooth, with median longitudinal ridge not extending on inner surface of palm. Movable finger slightly curved; outer surface smooth with longitudinal ridge parallel to upper margin in proximal half; inner surface smooth. Merus and carpus of female cheliped similar to that of male in terms of tubercules and setae. Chela more elongated than in male, without mat of setae on inner surface of palm. Palm 0.9 as high as long, outer surface slightly convex, not inflated; upper margin slightly curved, weakly tuberculated, lower margin almost straight, smooth (Fig. 2 m). Fingers 1.0– 1.2 as long as palm, cutting margins smooth, distal thirds as corneous tips; immovable finger with median, sharp longitudinal ridge, extending onto distal half of palm. Second to fifth pereopods stout, setose on dorsal, ventral margins, P 3 –P 4 the longest (Figs. 2 h, i). Upper and lower margins of P 3 merus granular with scattered setae, 2.4 (female) to 2.6 (male) times as long as high, distodorsal angle with small spine; carpus, propodus and dactyl unarmed, with smooth upper and lower margins, dactyl slightly longer than propodus. P 4 merus granular on upper, lower margins, 2.2 (female) to 2.4 (male) times as long as high, distodorsal angle with small spine; carpus unarmed with few granules on distoventral margin, distal part of upper margin; propodus faintly granulated on upper, lower margins; dactyl unarmed slightly longer than propodus. Male abdomen narrow, somite 3 without transverse ridge, somite 6 the highest; telson with regularly convex lateral margins, 1.6 times as wide as long (Fig. 2 j). Male first pleopod moderately compressed, slightly curved; lateral margin with long spaced setae, mesial margin with scattered short setae; terminal lobe with rounded horny apex, rows of stiffs bristles (Figs. 2 k, l). Female abdomen wide, third somite without transverse ridge, somite 5 the highest; telson 3.4 times as wide as long, distolateral margins straight to feebly convex, basal margin feebly concave, as wide as distal margin of sixth somite (Fig. 2 n). Female vulvae situated medially posterior to suture between sternites of fifth and sixth thoracic sternites, operculum situated postero-mesially, aperture oriented antero-laterally (Fig. 2 o). Size. Males 3.75 × 4.94 mm and 4.06 × 5.44 mm; females 2.61 × 3.33–3.7 × 4.9 mm; ovigerous females 3.14 × 4.14 – 3.95 × 5.26 mm. Live coloration. Dorsal surface of carapace and appendages white-cream scattered with brownish patches (Figs. 1 b, c). Coloration acts as camouflage, and the crabs were hardly noticeable on the substrate, when collected. Distribution. So far known only from the island of Mayotte, western Indian Ocean. Potentially also in neighbouring islands with similar biotopes (Madagascar, Comoros, Glorieuses, Seychelles) where the small size of the species may have made individuals difficult to detect. Habitat. Macrophthalmus lisae sp. nov. digs burrows on sandy mudflats. Entrances of burrows are located on the upper part of the intertidal area (Fig. 1 a); they are only few millimetres in diameter and can remained unnoticed during sampling. Etymology. This new species is named after Lisa, ten-year old daughter of the second author, for enthusiastically participating in the collections.Published as part of Poupin, Joseph & Bouchard, Jean-Marie, 2010, A new dwarf sentinel crab from Mayotte Island, western Indian Ocean (Decapoda: Brachyura: Macrophthalmidae), pp. 61-67 in Zootaxa 2501 on pages 62-65, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.29410
ORCID, ResearcherID, Scopus Author ID, IdHAL... enjeux et perspectives des identifiants chercheurs
No full textORCID, ResearcherID, Scopus Author ID, IdHAL…, les identifiants chercheurs font désormais partie des outils importants de la science ouverte. Fondés sur le principe d\u27un identifiant univoque pour chaque auteur, indépendamment de l\u27homonymie ou des changements de nom et d\u27affiliation, ces identifiants deviennent des clés pour une meilleure attribution des publications et assurer une meilleure visibilité du chercheur. A l’heure où des institutions et les acteurs de la communication scientifique, notamment en France, rendent ce genre d’outils d’identité numérique de plus en plus nécessaires, quelle est l’offre actuelle et quels en sont les enjeux au niveau individuel et au niveau institutionnel
Catalogue of Tenebrionidae (Coleoptera) of North America
No full textThis catalogue includes all valid family-group (8 subfamilies, 52 tribes, 14 subtribes), genus-group (349 genera, 86 subgenera), and species-group names (2825 species, 215 subspecies) of darkling beetles (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) known to occur in North America1 and their available synonyms. Data on extant, subfossil and fossil taxa are given. For each name the author and year and page number of the description are provided, with additional information (e.g., type species for genus-group names, author of synonymies for invalid taxa) depending on the taxon rank.
Several new nomenclatural acts are included. One new genus, Lepidocnemeplatia Bousquet and Bouchard, is described. Spelaebiosis Bousquet and Bouchard [for Ardoinia Özdikmen, 2004], Blapstinus marcuzzii Aalbu [for Blapstinus kulzeri Marcuzzi, 1977], and Hymenorus campbelli Bouchard [for Hymenorus oculatus Doyen and Poinar, 1994] are proposed as new replacement names. Supporting evidence is provided for the conservation of usage of Tarpela micans (Fabricius, 1798) nomen protectum over Tarpela vittata (Olivier, 1793) nomen oblitum. The generic names Psilomera Motschulsky, 1870 [= Stenomorpha Solier, 1836], Steneleodes Blaisdell, 1909 [= Xysta Eschscholtz, 1829], Ooconibius Casey, 1895 and Euconibius Casey, 1895 [= Conibius LeConte, 1851] are new synonyms (valid names in square brackets)
Designing a graphical interface for creativity support tools for designers: a case study
No full textThis study proposes a co-designing, iterative methodology to design graphical user interface for creativity support tools for designers. Given the high level of expectation from designers, the interface quality was one of the most challenging aspects of the work, in conjunction with the utility of the functionalities. An iterative design and evaluation process was used to create the icon-based interface, during which the needs of the designers and the functionalities of the system were integrated until a complete operational prototype emerged. This process provided three sequential prototypes. In order to achieve this, we derived qualitative and quantitative results from various methods: creative sessions, semantic and emotional evaluations, questionnaires, semidirective interviews, subjective performance assessments, longitudinal tests, and focus group assessments. Finally, our iterative design and evaluation process can be considered to be a very efficient means of integrating end users’ spontaneous feedback about icon redesigns in the early phases of development. The design outcome enabled the end users to ensure that key features of the creativity support tool were both usable and appealing
Review of genus-group names in the family tenebrionidae (Insecta, Coleoptera)
No full textA review of genus-group names for darkling beetles in the family Tenebrionidae (Insecta: Coleoptera) is presented. A catalogue of 4122 nomenclaturally available genus-group names, representing 2307 valid genera (33 of which are extinct) and 761 valid subgenera, is given. For each name the author, date, page number, gender, type species, type fixation, current status, and first synonymy (when the name is a syno-nym) are provided. Genus-group names in this family are also recorded in a classification framework, along with data on the distribution of valid genera and subgenera within major biogeographical realms. A list of 535 unavailable genus-group names (e.g., incorrect subsequent spellings) is included. Notes on the date of publication of references cited herein are given, when known.The following genera and subgenera are made available for the first time: Anemiadena Bouchard & Bous-quet, subgen. nov. (in Cheirodes Gené, 1839), Armigena Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Nesogena Mäklin, 1863), Debeauxiella Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Hyperops Eschscholtz, 1831), Hyper-opsis Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Hyperops Eschscholtz, 1831), Linio Bouchard & Bousquet,
subgen. nov. (in Nilio Latreille, 1802), Matthewsotys Bouchard & Bousquet, gen. nov., Neosolenopistoma Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Eurynotus W. Kirby, 1819), Paragena Bouchard & Bousquet, sub-gen. nov. (in Nesogena Mäklin, 1863), Paulianaria Bouchard & Bousquet, gen. nov., Phyllechus Bouchard & Bousquet, gen. nov., Prorhytinota Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Rhytinota Eschscholtz, 1831), Pseudorozonia Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Rozonia Fairmaire, 1888), Pseudothinobatis Bouchard & Bousquet, gen. nov., Rhytinopsis Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Thalpophilodes Strand, 1942), Rhytistena Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Rhytinota Eschscholtz, 1831), Spinosdara Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Osdara Walker, 1858), Spongesmia Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Adesmia Fischer, 1822), and Zambesmia Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Adesmia Fischer, 1822).The names Adeps Gistel, 1857 and Adepsion Strand, 1917 syn. nov. [= Tetraphyllus Laporte & Brullé, 1831], Asyrmatus Canzoneri, 1959 syn. nov. [= Pystelops Gozis, 1910], Euzadenos Koch, 1956 syn. nov. [=
Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834], Gondwanodilamus Kaszab, 1969 syn. nov. [= Conibius J.L. LeConte, 1851],
Gyrinodes Fauvel, 1897 syn. nov. [= Nesotes Allard, 1876], Helopondrus Reitter, 1922 syn. nov. [= Horis-telops Gozis, 1910], Hybonotus Dejean, 1834 syn. nov. [= Damatris Laporte, 1840], Iphthimera Reitter, 1916 syn. nov. [= Metriopus Solier, 1835], Lagriomima Pic, 1950 syn. nov. [= Neogria Borchmann, 1911],
Orphelops Gozis, 1910 syn. nov. [= Nalassus Mulsant, 1854], Phymatium Billberg, 1820 syn. nov. [=
Cryptochile Latreille, 1828], Prosoblapsia Skopin & Kaszab, 1978 syn. nov. [= Genoblaps Bauer, 1921], and
Pseudopimelia Gebler, 1859 syn. nov. [= Lasiostola Dejean, 1834] are established as new synonyms (valid
names in square brackets). Anachayus Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. is proposed as a replacement name for Chatanayus Ardoin, 1957, Genateropa Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. as a replacement name for Apterogena Ardoin, 1962, Hemipristula Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. as a replacement name for
Hemipristis Kolbe, 1903, Kochotella Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. as a replacement name for Millo-tella Koch, 1962, Medvedevoblaps Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. as a replacement name for Protoblaps G.S. Medvedev, 1998, and Subpterocoma Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. is proposed as a replacement name for Pseudopimelia Motschulsky, 1860. Neoeutrapela Bousquet & Bouchard, 2013 is downgraded to a subgenus (stat. nov.) of Impressosora Pic, 1952. Anchomma J.L. LeConte, 1858 is placed in Stenosini: Dichillina (previously in Pimeliinae: Anepsiini); Entypodera Gerstaecker, 1871, Impressosora Pic, 1952 and Xanthalia Fairmaire, 1894 are placed in Lagriinae: Lagriini: Statirina (previously in Lagriinae: Lagriini: Lagriina); Loxostethus Triplehorn, 1962 is placed in Diaperinae: Diaperini: Diaperina (pre-viously in Diaperinae: Diaperini: Adelinina); Periphanodes Gebien, 1943 is placed in Stenochiinae: Cnodalonini (previously in Tenebrioninae: Helopini); Zadenos Laporte, 1840 is downgraded to a subgenus (stat. nov.) of the older name Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834.The type species [placed in square brackets] of the following available genus-group names are des-ignated for the first time: Allostrongylium Kolbe, 1896 [Allostrongylium silvestre Kolbe, 1896], Auristira Borchmann, 1916 [Auristira octocostata Borchmann, 1916], Blapidocampsia Pic, 1919 [Campsia pallidipes Pic, 1918], Cerostena Solier, 1836 [Cerostena deplanata Solier, 1836], Coracostira Fairmaire, 1899 [Cora-costira armipes Fairmaire, 1899], Dischidus Kolbe, 1886 [Helops sinuatus Fabricius, 1801], Eccoptostoma Gebien, 1913 [Taraxides ruficrus Fairmaire, 1894], Ellaemus Pascoe, 1866 [Emcephalus submaculatus Brême, 1842], Epeurycaulus Kolbe, 1902 [Epeurycaulus aldabricus Kolbe, 1902], Euschatia Solier, 1851 [Euschatia proxima Solier, 1851], Heliocaes Bedel, 1906 [Blaps emarginata Fabricius, 1792], Hemipris-tis Kolbe, 1903 [Hemipristis ukamia Kolbe, 1903], Iphthimera Reitter, 1916 [Stenocara ruficornis Solier, 1835], Isopedus Stein, 1877 [Helops tenebrioides Germar, 1813], Malacova Fairmaire, 1898 [Malacova bi-color Fairmaire, 1898], Modicodisema Pic, 1917 [Disema subopaca Pic, 1912], Peltadesmia Kuntzen, 1916 [Metriopus platynotus Gerstaecker, 1854], Phymatium Billberg, 1820 [Pimelia maculata Fabricius, 1781], Podoces Péringuey, 1886 [Podoces granosula Péringuey, 1886], Pseuduroplatopsis Pic, 1913 [Borchmannia ja-vana Pic, 1913], Pteraulus Solier, 1848 [Pteraulus sulcatipennis Solier, 1848], Sciaca Solier, 1835 [Hylithus disctinctus Solier, 1835], Sterces Champion, 1891 [Sterces violaceipennis Champion, 1891] and Teremenes Carter, 1914 [Tenebrio longipennis Hope, 1843].Evidence suggests that some type species were misidentified. In these instances, information on the misidentification is provided and, in the following cases, the taxonomic species actually involved is fixed as the type species [placed in square brackets] following requirements in Article 70.3 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Accanthopus Dejean, 1821 [Tenebrio velikensis Piller & Mitterpacher, 1783], Becvaramarygmus Masumoto, 1999 [Dietysus nodicornis Gravely, 1915], Heterophaga Dejean, 1834 [Opatrum laevigatum Fabricius, 1781], Laena Dejean, 1821, [Scaurus viennensis Sturm, 1807], Margus De-jean, 1834 [Colydium castaneum Herbst, 1797], Pachycera Eschscholtz, 1831 [Tenebrio buprestoides Fab-ricius, 1781], Saragus Erichson, 1842 [Celibe costata Solier, 1848], Stene Stephens, 1829 [Colydium cas-taneum Herbst, 1797], Stenosis Herbst, 1799 [Tagenia intermedia Solier, 1838] and Tentyriopsis Gebien, 1928 [Tentyriopsis pertyi Gebien, 1940].The following First Reviser actions are proposed to fix the precedence of names or nomenclatural acts (rejected name or act in square brackets): Stenosis ciliaris Gebien, 1920 as the type species for Afrono-sis G.S. Medvedev, 1995 [Stenosis leontjevi G.S. Medvedev, 1995], Alienoplonyx Bremer, 2019 [Alienol-onyx], Amblypteraca Mas-Peinado, Buckley, Ruiz & García-París, 2018 [Amplypteraca], Caenocrypticoides Kaszab, 1969 [Caenocripticoides], Deriles Motschulsky, 1872 [Derilis], Eccoptostira Borchmann, 1936 [Ecoptostira], †Eodromus Haupt, 1950 [†Edromus], Eutelus Solier, 1843 [Lutelus], Euthriptera Reitter, 1893 [Enthriptera], Meglyphus Motschulsky, 1872 [Megliphus], Microtelopsis Koch, 1940 [Extetranosis Koch, 1940, Hypermicrotelopsis Koch, 1940], Neandrosus Pic, 1921 [Neoandrosus], Nodosogylium Pic, 1951 [Nodosogilium], Notiolesthus Motschulsky, 1872 [Notiolosthus], Pseudeucyrtus Pic, 1916 [Pseudo-cyrtus], Pseudotrichoplatyscelis Kaszab, 1960 [Pseudotrichoplatynoscelis and Pseudotrichoplatycelis], Rhy-dimorpha Koch, 1943 [Rhytimorpha], Rhophobas Motschulsky, 1872 [Rophobas], Rhyssochiton Gray, 1831 [Ryssocheton and Ryssochiton], Sphaerotidius Kaszab, 1941 [Spaerotidius], Stira Agassiz, 1846 (Mollusca) [Stira Agassiz, 1846 (Coleoptera)], Sulpiusoma Ferrer, 2006 [Sulpiosoma] and Taenobates Motschulsky, 1872 [Taeniobates].Supporting evidence is provided for the conservation of usage of Cyphaleus Westwood, 1841 nomen protectum over Chrysobalus Boisduval, 1835 nomen oblitum.Peer reviewe
Chironomus gelhausi Bouchard 2022, sp. nov.
No full textChironomus gelhausi Bouchard sp. nov. Type material. Holotype: MONGOLIA, Hovsgol Aimag, Moron Soum, Tunamal Nuur, 5.5 km west of Arbulag, N 49.89920, E 99.39433, 1871 m, 7.vii.2006, leg. J.K. Gelhaus, 1 male (UMSP). Allotype: MONGOLIA, Hovsgol Aimag, Moron Soum, Tunamal Nuur, 5.5 km west of Arbulag, N 49.89920, E 99.39433, 1871 m, 7.vii.2006, leg. J.K. Gelhaus, 1 female (UMSP). Paratypes: MONGOLIA, Hovsgol Aimag, Moron Soum, Tunamal Nuur, 5.5 km west of Arbulag, N 49.89920, E 99.39433, 1871 m, 7.vii.2006, leg. J.K. Gelhaus, 14 males, 2 females (UMSP [10 males, 1 female], ANSP [4 males, 1 female]). Etymology. Named for Jon K. Gelhaus, the collector of the material used for this study and a friend and colleague of the authors. Jon Gelhaus was also influential in setting the first author (RWB) on the path of studying insects and Diptera in particular. Diagnostic characters. Males can be separated from other Chironomini by the combination of the following: fused antepronotal lobes; pulvilli present; antenna with 11 flagellomeres; well-developed inferior and superior volsellae; setae on the base of the superior volsella; inferior volsella distally and dorsoventrally broadened, but not greatly expanded as in most Kiefferulus; and lack of median setae on anal tergite. More specifically, males can be separated from other species of Chironomus s. lat. (see treatment of taxonomy in “Remarks” section) by the combination of the following: large, conical frontal tubercles; antennae lacking typical plume; an apical truncation of the wing; AR 1.27–1.70; shortened palps; mid and hind tarsi reduced; long inferior volsellae extending well beyond gonostylus; parallel-sided anal point which rapidly constricts distally into a small point; setae present on ventral side of extension of superior volsellae; and lack of median setae on anal tergite. Females can by separated from other Chironomini by the following: squama with setae; antenna with 5 flagellomeres; palps with 5 segments; pulvilli present; front tibia with low, rounded scale; mid and hind tibia with 2 spurs; gonocoxapodeme rounded and not joined mesally; lack of setae on gonocoxite IX; gonapophyses VIII divided into dorsomesal lobe and well-developed ventrolateral lobe; cerci large; and segment X expanded forming a collar around basal half of cerci although not as well developed as in Fleuria. More specifically, females can be separated from other species of Chironomus s. lat. by the combination of the following: large, conical, frontal tubercles; reduced palps; an apical truncation of the wing; mid and hind tarsi reduced; gonocoxite IX without seta; apodeme lobe weak, without microtrichia; and segment X with more than 20 setae. Description Male imago (n=15, unless otherwise stated). Total length 8.40–13.47, 9.80 mm (n=14). Wing length 3.79–4.32, 4.15 mm. Total length/wing length 1.98–3.21, 2.36 (n=14). Wing length/length of profemur 3.99–6.09, 4.48 (n=14). Coloration brown to pale brown (alcohol preserved specimens), wings hyaline and without markings. Antenna (n=6) (Fig. 1A). Antennae missing from most specimens. Antenna with 11 segments and antennal plume reduced; AR 1.27–1.70, 1.54. Ultimate flagellomere 629–815, 737 μm long. Longest antennal seta 183–363, 275 μm long (n=4), most setae missing in some specimens. Head (Fig. 1B). Temporal setae 17–35, 28 μm; including 3–8, 5 inner verticals, 6–14, 10 outer verticals, and 7–16, 13 postorbitals. Clypeus with 5–22, 16 setae. Frontal tubercle 88–153, 114 μm high, 105–170, 139 μm wide, well developed and conical shaped with apical end constricted (Fi. 1B). Frons covered in dense microtrichia with microtrichia longest on frontal tubercles. Tentorium, stipes and cibarial pump as in Figure 1C. Tentorium 230–325, 281 μm long; 55–84, 68 μm wide at sieve plate and 40–70, 55 μm wide at tentorial pit. Stipes 175–294, 267 μm long; 10–17, 14 μm wide. Palp segment lengths (n=12): 75–124, 92; 60–90, 75; 198–278, 235; 51–270, 141; 116–153, 131. Third palpomere (Fig. 1D; n =14) with 11–19, 15 sensilla, longest 10–24, 16 μm long. Thorax. Tubercle well developed. Antepronotum with no setae. Dorsocentrals 10–19, 15, all short and decumbent; acrostichals 6 (n=1), all short and decumbent, starting midway between antepronotum and tubercle, typically not visible when laterally mounted although two setal scars were apparent on tubercle on one specimen; prealars 7–11, 9. Scutellum with 6–15, 10 setae. Wing (Fig. 2A). Apical tip of wing truncated; VR 1.02–1.11, 1.07. Brachiolum with 3–5, 4 setae; R 18–27, 24; R 1 with 0 setae; R 4+5 with 2–8, 4 setae; other veins and cells bare. Squama with 13–26, 18 setae. Legs (Figs, 2B, C). Mid and hind legs reduced in length (Fig 2B). Scale of fore tibia 24–60, 43 μm long (Fig 2C); spur of mid tibia 29–53, 41 μm long; spur of hind tibia 30–59, 43 μm long (Fig 2C) although hind tibia spur reduced or missing on some specimens. Comb on mid tibia 18–31, 24 μm long, with width of combs on mid tibia similar; comb on hind tibia 18–38, 25 μm long, one comb on hind tibia much wider than the other (Fig 2C). Width at apex of fore tibia 145–175, 161 μm; width at apex of mid tibia 120–189, 170 μm; width at apex of hind tibia 160–213, 193 μm. Lengths and proportions of legs as in Table 1. Hypopygium (Fig. 3). Rotated up to 180º in all specimens examined. Tergite IX covered with microtrichia, with no median setae anterior of the anal point and 39–61, 50 setae on each side of base of anal point (Fig. 3E); anal tergite bands forming a shallow “U” and not reaching the base of anal point (Fig. 3A). Laterosternite IX with 0 setae. Anal point broad, parallel-sided and rapidly constricting to a small point, 92–115, 104 μm long, 40–78, 65 μm wide at base, 59–78, 69 μm wide medially, 5–15, 11 μm wide near apex; T-shaped in cross section. Transverse sternapodeme 390–525, 468 μm long, nearly straight (Fig. 3B). Phallapodeme 445–636, 556 μm long. Superior volsella and 280–380, 340 μm long, 76–125, 101 μm wide at base, 24–54, 40 μm wide at apex, with 27–38, 31 setae on the ventral side and extending to approximately the midpoint of the medially directed extension; dorsal side of the superior volsella with microtrichia only present on base and ventral side with microtrichia extending approximately 2/3 of the superior volsellae (Fig. 3C). Median volsella absent. Inferior volsella extending beyond apex of gonostylus 662–1118, 902 μm long, 48–145, 70 μm wide at base, 66–194, 115 μm wide at apex, dorsoventrally expanded distally, and covered with numerous simple, stout setae (Fig. 3D). Gonocoxite 403–732, 558 μm long. Gonostylus 414–690, 538 μm long, robust, dorsoventrally expanded, and with numerous stout setae, especially on the inner margin (Fig. 3D). HR 0.79–1.22, 1.04. HV (n=14) 1.42–2.65, 1.87. Female imago (n=3, unless otherwise stated). Total length 8.53–9.24, 8.79 mm. Wing length 5.02–5.24, 5.11 mm. Total length/wing length 1.64–1.84, 1.72. Wing length/length of profemur 4.32–5.07, 4.63. Coloration as in male. Antenna (Fig. X). AR 0.51–0.67, 0.57. Flagellomere lengths (in μm): 234–264, 245; 123–130, 127; 114–121, 117; 128–143, 133; 303–400, 353. Longest antennal seta 129–170, 150 μm long. Head (Fig. X). Well-developed conical frontal tubercles, frontal tubercle 59–86, 76 μm high, 91–100, 96 μm wide, with conspicuous microtrichia. Frons as in male. Temporal setae 22–25, 24; including 3–4, 3 inner verticals, 9–11, 10 outer verticals, and 8–13, 10 postorbitals. Scapus setae 0–8, 5. Clypeus with 22–33, 28 setae. Tentorium 275–311, 292 μm long; 49–85, 64 μm wide at sieve plate and 31–50, 40 μm wide at tentorial pit. Stipes 270–296, 283 μm long; 10–16, 13 μm wide. Palp segment lengths (n=2; in μm): 79–104, 92; 55–80, 68; 226–275, 251; 128– 130, 129; 136–173, 155. Third palpomere (n=2) with 19–26, 23 sensilla, longest 11–15, 13 μm long. Thorax. Tubercle well developed. Antepronotum with no setae. Dorsocentrals 13–19, 15, all short and decumbent; apparently 0 acrostichals, although they may not be visible in laterally mounted specimens as in the male; prealars 7–9, 8. Scutellum with 7–16, 11 setae, uniserial. Wing. Apical tip of wing truncated as in male; VR 1.08–1.13, 1.10. Brachiolum with 3–4, 4 setae; R with 29–35, 32 setae; R 1 with 1–11, 5 setae; R 4+5 with 13–24, 18 setae; other veins and cells bare. Squama with 14–17, 16 setae. Legs. Mid and hind legs reduced in length. Scale of fore tibia 33–45, 37 μm long; spur of mid tibia 40–44, 41 μm long; spur of hind tibia 31–34, 33 μm long (n=2). Comb on mid tibia 20–25, 23 μm long, with width of combs on mid tibia similar; comb on hind tibia 22–23, 23 μm long (n=2), one comb on hind tibia much wider than the other. Width at apex of fore tibia 125–135, 130 μm; of mid tibia 154–165, 158 μm; of hind tibia 179–187, 182 μm. Lengths and proportions of legs as in Table 2. Abdomen. Tergite VIII with 32–37, 34 setae. Sternite VIII with 122–179, 149 setae and no lateral setae. Genitalia (Fig. 4). Gonocoxite IX without setae. Tergite IX with 51–56, 53 setae. Gonocoxapodeme rounded and not joined mesally. Segment X expanded forming a collar around basal half of cerci with 64-78, 71 setae. Cercus large, expanded anteriorly and irregularly shaped, 355–424, 393 μm long. Seminal capsule 273–346, 320 μm long and 194–241, 217 μm wide. Notum 367–383, 376 μm long. Gonapophyses VIII divided into a dorsomesal lobe and well-developed ventrolateral lobe; apodeme lobe weak, without microtrichia. Pupa: unknown Larvae: unknown Remarks. Currently, we lack consensus regarding the placement and status of Chironomus subgenera and closely related genera (Cranston et al. 1989, Martin et al. 2007, Epler et al. 2013) which complicates placement of C. gelhausi. Cranston et al. (1989) recognized several subgenera (i.e., Camptochironomus, Lobochironomus, Chaetolabis, and Chironomus s. str.). Fleuria and Baeotendipes are included as separate genera in Cranston et al. (1989), but this publication also noted that these two genera are probably subordinate within Chironomus. Epler et al. (2013) treats Baeotendipes and Fleuria as part of Chironomus s. lat. although it is also noted that inclusion of Fleuria with Chironomus does not imply synonymy. In addition, Epler et al. (2013) indicated that Camptochironomus should be synonymized with Chironomus s. str which is supported by molecular studies of phylogenic relationships within the genus (Guryev et al. 2001, Martin et al. 2007). Although a fuller description of the status of Chironomus and closely related genera is beyond the scope of this paper, it is relevant to the generic placement of C. gelhausi. Here we follow the classification of Martin et al. (2007) and Epler et al. (2013) where Chironomus s. lat. consists of the subgenera Chironomus s. str., Chaetolabis, and Lobochironomus (including Einfeldia Group C). The genus Chironomus s. lat. also includes “ Baeotendipes ” which may be part of Chironomus s. str. or a separate subgenus. The taxa Fleuria and Benthalia (Einfeldia species group B) are considered to likely be distinct genera closely related to Chironomus. In addition to our lack of consensus regarding the placement and status of Chironomus subgenera and closely related genera, the placement of C. gelhausi is complicated by several morphological characteristics which are apparently unusual due to its surface-mating habit. It has been demonstrated that in other surface mating Chironomidae taxa with highly specialized morphology, placement into a genus using only morphology can be problematic (e.g., Andersen et al. 2016, Qi et al. 2018). However, the morphology in C. gelhausi is not so specialized for surface mating to make generic placement ambiguous, particularly within the broader concept of Chironomus s. lat. (sensu Epler et al. 2013). As such, C. gelhausi fits reasonably well within the diagnosis for the genus Chironomus. The following characters for C. gelhausi are consistent with the adult male diagnosis for Chironomus s. lat. in Cranston et al. (1989): 11 flagellomeres; fused antepronotal lobes; pulvilli present; well-developed inferior and superior volsellae; and setae on the base of the superior volsellae. This species differs from the Chironomus s. str. diagnosis in Cranston et al. (1989) in that setae are present on the ventral side of the extension of the superior volsella which is bare in other Chironomus s. str. species. Although superior volsellae differ in shape between C. gelhausi and Chironomus (Chaetolabis), both taxa possess setae on the ventral side of the superior volsellae indicating that this character occurs within Chironomus s. lat. In addition, median anal tergite setae are absent in C. gelhausi which is unusual in Chironomus s. lat.; however, these setae are also absent in some surface-mating Chironomus s. str. species (e.g., Chironomus pallidivittatus Malloch and Chironomus tepperi Skuse) (Cranston et al. 1989, Martin 2022). The mean antennal ratio for males of C. gelhausi was only 1.54 which differed from the diagnostic antennal ratios for Chironomus s. lat. (greater than 2.0; Cranston et al 1989) and “ Baeotendipes ” (approximately 2.0; Cranston et al. 1989). However, the lower antennal ratio is also observed in other surfacing mating taxa (e.g., Fleuria antennal ratio = 0.64; Song et al. 2017). Thus, there is no discrepancy placing C. gelhausi in Chironomus s. lat. if the lower antennal ratio in C. gelhausi can be attributed to its surface-mating habit. Similarly, C. gelhausi differs from the diagnoses for most other Chironomus species (Cranston et al. 1989) by possessing reduced palps, reduced mid and hind legs, and a robust gonostylus densely covered with setae on the inner margin. However, some or all of these characters are also observed in some Chironomus s. str. and “ Baeotendipes ” species and can presumably be attributed to surface mating. The species C. gelhausi shares several morphological characteristics with Fleuria including truncated wings, large and conical frontal tubercles, reduced palps and mid and hind legs, lack of median anal tergite setae, and robust gonostylus densely covered with setae on the inner margin. However, these characters are likely to be homoplastic and related to the shared surface-mating habit of these taxa. In addition, the hypopygia of these two taxa are very different with Fleuria possessing a globular hypopygium with short, wide superior and inferior volsellae and a short, kidney-shaped gonostylus (Cranston et al. 1989). However, the distinctive hypopygial characters in Fleuria may represent strongly modified morphology associated with surface-mating and therefore is possibly autapomorphic within the species. Another species which may represent a second species of Fleuria with a more typical hypopygium, Chironomus natchitocheae Sublette (Cranston et al. 1989), also does not have hypopygial characters which would indicate affiliation with C. gelhausi. Placement of C. natchitocheae within Benthalia (Einfeldia Group B) has also been suggested (J. Martin pers. com., Epler 2019) based on the presence of a longitudinal row of median setae on the anal tergite. However, C. gelhausi lacks median anal tergite setae which indicates that it does not belong within Benthalia. The species C. gelhausi shares some characters with Kiefferulus including the presence of setae on the ventral side of the extension of the superior volsella and the lack of median setae on the anal tergite in some species. However, in males of C. gelhausi, the inferior volsella is not as strongly expanded distally and in the female there are no apically pointed scales on the dorsomesal lobe (Cranston et al. 1990). Overall, morphological characters do not indicate that C. gelhausi should be placed in Fleuria, Benthalia, or Kiefferulus. The female of C. gelhausi also fits within Chironomus s. lat. although some characters are not consistent with the diagnosis in Saether (1977). For example, the apodeme lobe in C. gelhausi does not appear to bear microtrichia although this may be consistent with some Chironomus. For example, microtrichia are not shown on the illustration of the apodeme lobe Chironomus aprilinus Meigen (as Chironomus halophilus Kieffer) in Saether (1977). Segment X also has large extensions which bear more than 20 setae on each side in C. gelhausi. However, in C. gelhausi the apodeme lobe is not fused with the dorsomesal lobe and the extensions on segment X are not expanded to the extent observed in Fleuria. The expanded segment X and the lack of setae on gonocoxite IX could be associated with surface mating although we are not aware of previous discussions regarding how these genitalic characters may be advantageous for surface-mating species. In general, additional comparative analyses of the females between Chironomus and related genera is needed. Although C. gelhausi fits reasonably well into the genus Chironomus, it may not key out correctly in existing keys for adult males and females (e.g., Cranston et al. 1989, Saether 1977) due the apically truncated wing, reduced palps, reduced mid and hind tarsi, and other characters associated with surface mating. In both Cranston et al. (1989) and Saether (1977), C. gelhausi will likely key out as Fleuria, although for both the male and female, these couplets do not match all of the characters used in the couplets for Fleuria. As a solution, we suggest, the following amendment to the dichotomous key in Cranston et al. (1989): 2. Wing apically with angled truncation and antenna with fewer than 10 flagellomeres (Fig. 10.22).......... Fleuria (p. 379) - Wing apically rounded. Antenna with 11–13 flagellomeres (Acalcarella exceptionally has 9 flagellomeres). If wing apically with angled truncation then antenna with 11 flagellomeres..................................................... 3 For the female, the dichotomous key in Saether (1977) would need to be amended in several locations and we do not suggest those here. An update to the key in Saether (1977) including the addition of taxa and to reflect changes in taxonomy would be an opportunity to incorporate amended characters in Chironomus. Despite some characters which differ from the diagnosis, C. gelhausi fits best within Chironomus s. lat. and atypical characteristics can be attributed to its surface-mating habit as in some other Chironomus s. str. species (Hein & Schmulbach 1971) and possibly “ Baeotendipes ”. Due to uncertainty regarding the relationship and status of Chironomus subgenera and closely related taxa, we opt not to propose subgeneric placement for C. gelhausi. In general, additional study, including examination of the larva and pupa as well as cytological and molecular evidence will be needed to determine relationships between this species and other species of Chironomus s. lat. Distribution and ecology. The habitat from which C. gelhausi was collected is used here to describe its ecological requirements and possible distribution for this species. Chironomus gelhausi is known from a single lake in Mongolia, Tunamal Nuur (nuur = lake; Fig. 5A). Interestingly, another surface-mating species was collected at this locality, a skating trichopteran, Agrypnia hayfordae Morse & Chuluunbat (Morse & Chuluunbat 2007). This lake is small, approximately 8 hectares, with a muddy and rocky shoreline, and is surrounded by steppe (Fig. 5). At the time of sampling, this lake lacked emergent vegetation and floating algae (Fig. 6) and had black, anoxic sediments indicating high levels of nutrient enrichment. Many species of Chironomus occur in and are in fact characteristic of eutrophic and hypereutrophic lakes. Based on physical descriptions of this lake, C. gelhausi occupies a habitat which is characteristic of many species in this genus. Some species of Chironomus are also tolerant of elevated salinity (Cranston et al. 1989) and many lakes in western Mongolia are considered subsaline, hyposaline, mesohaline, and hypersaline (Bouchard et al. in press). However, salinity measurements for Tunamal Nuur were not available and we cannot determine at this time if this species is halophilic. Although this species is known from a single lake, it is possible that this species occurs in other lakes in the region given that lakes are relatively common within the Great Lakes region of Mongolia. Unfortunately, it is possible that habitat for this species is shrinking because lakes in this region face threats from overgrazing and climate change which is decreasing lake sizes and degrading water quality (Laurie et al. 2010, Hilker et al. 2014, Tao et al. 2015). We use observations of the behavior of C. gelhausi in the field and morphological characteristics to describe possible strategies used by this species to exploit the harsh environment in which they occur. During collection of this species, individuals were observed aggregating on exposed rocks near the shore in groups largely consisting of males. Some individuals were observed skating using their wings for propulsion on the water’s surface. Active adults were observed skating out toward the middle of the lake, but no aggregations on the water’s surface were observed. Although copulation was not observed in the field, the hypopygium was inverted up to 180º in all preserved male specimens examined for this study. This indicates that these individuals had mated and that the hypopygium remained in the inverted position following mating. This attribute can be used to provide insight into the mating behavior of C. gelhausi. Torsion of the male abdomen (i.e., hypopygium inversum) has been observed in several surface-mating dipterans including chironomids (e.g., Chironomus tepperi Skuse, Fleuria Kieffer, Oliveridia hugginsi Ferringto
Poetry Winners, Dalby, Tate, and Geuder
No full text(l. to r.) Lyle Tate, coordinator of the 2007 Cotton District Literary Festival; Sanitra Lawrence, second-place Poetry Competition winner; Robert Dalby, special guest speaker and Oxford, MS, author; Jonte Bouchard, first-place Poetry Competition winner; Cimmeion Patty, third-place Poetry Competition winner; and Maridith Geuder, director of MSU Media Relations pose for a photograph after the Literary Festival in the John Grisham Room
Toxicokinetic model of the pyrethroid pesticide lambda-cyhalothrin, main exposure route and dose reconstruction predictions in agricultural workers
No full textA toxicokinetic model of the pyrethroid insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin (LCT) was developed to relate absorbed doses to urinary cis-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-en-1-yl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylic acid (CFMP) metabolite levels used as a biomarker of exposure. The model then served to reconstruct absorbed doses in agricultural workers and their probability of exceeding the EFSA Acceptable occupational Exposure Level (AOEL). The toxicokinetic model was able to reproduce the temporal profiles of CFMP in the urine of operators spraying pesticides using the optimized model parameters (adjusted to human volunteer data). Modeling also showed that simulation of an inadvertent oral exposure mainly was the exposure scenario giving the best fit to CFMP urinary time-course data in applicators. With the dermal model parameters optimized from data in volunteers, simulation of a dermal exposure in applicators did not allow to reproduce the observed peak excretions and urinary metabolite levels; extremely high applied dermal doses would be required but still simulated dermal penetration rate would remain too slow. Simulation of an inhalation exposure allowed to reproduce the observed time-courses, but with unrealistic air concentrations. For applicators with the highest urinary concentrations, there was a probability of exceeding the AOEL at some points during the biomonitoring period [\u3e50% probability of exceeding for 27% of 24-h samples]; for non-applicator workers the probability of exceeding the AOEL value was very low [corresponding value of 5%]. Furthermore, the median [95% CI] estimates of 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations led to a biological reference value corresponding to the AOEL of 116 [113–119] ng/kg bw/d and 7.5 [7.3–7.7] μg/L. Overall, 7% of applicators and 1% of workers performing weeding and strawberry picking had a probability of exceeding this biological reference value. As a next step, it would be interesting to apply these methods to multiple exposure to various contaminants. Copyright: © 2024 Côté, Bouchard. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited
Les Débuts de l\u27imprimerie en Langue Grecque au Québec
No full textWhile the Greek-language journalistic press is linked with Greek immigration to Québec, the earliest publication of books in Greek was undertaken by French-language educational institutions. The first volume to be printed entirely in Greek was an anonymous text-book entitled Eklekta Mythistorias (Mythological Excerpts), published in Montreal in 1837. It was followed later that year by a grammar of classical Greek for use of the Collège de Montréal. The author of these two volumes, an Irish Sulpician named John Larkin, most probably had some knowledge of Modern Greek. These two texts occupy an important place in the history of Greek studies in Québec; they helped lay the groundwork for a favourable public perception of Greek immigration.While the Greek-language journalistic press is linked with Greek immigration to Québec, the earliest publication of books in Greek was undertaken by French-language educational institutions. The first volume to be printed entirely in Greek was an anonymous text-book entitled Eklekta Mythistorias (Mythological Excerpts), published in Montreal in 1837. It was followed later that year by a grammar of classical Greek for use of the Collège de Montréal. The author of these two volumes, an Irish Sulpician named John Larkin, most probably had some knowledge of Modern Greek. These two texts occupy an important place in the history of Greek studies in Québec; they helped lay the groundwork for a favourable public perception of Greek immigration.Alors que la presse journalistique de langue grecque est reliée à l’évolution de l’immigration hellénophone au Québec, l’apparition du livre grec fut d’abord le fait des maisons d’enseignement francophones. Le premier livre totalement imprimé en grec fut un manuel scolaire anonyme intitulé: Eklekta Mythistorias (Morceaux choisis de mythologie), Montréal, 1837. Il fut suivi d’une Grammaire grecque, à l’usage du Collège de Montréal, Montréal, 1837. Il appert que l’auteur des deux livres, un sulpicien irlandais du nom de John Larkin (1801-1858), n’ignorait pas le grec moderne. Ces deux manuels ont une place privilégiée dans l’histoire des études grecques au Québec; celles-ci ont préparé favorablement les mentalités à la réception de l’immigration grecque au Québec
- …
