1,720,969 research outputs found
FIGURE 4 in The dog-faced water snakes, a revision of the genus Cerberus Cuvier, (Squamata, Serpentes, Homalopsidae), with the description of a new species
No full textFIGURE 4. The Australian Bockadam, Cerberus australis. Two color morphs from the Northern Territory, vicinity of Darwin. JCM.Published as part of Murphy, John C., Voris, Harold K. & Karns, Daryl R., 2012, The dog-faced water snakes, a revision of the genus Cerberus Cuvier, (Squamata, Serpentes, Homalopsidae), with the description of a new species, pp. 1-34 in Zootaxa 3484 on page 10, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.28237
FIGURE 2 in Phylogeny and biogeography of the Enhydris clade (Serpentes: Homalopsidae)
No full textFIGURE 2. Geographic distribution of the species of the Enhydris clade in South and Southeast Asia. Homalopsid snakes are generally found in lowland habitats at elevations of less than 200 m. These maps are based on a combination of verified published localities (Murphy 2007) and adjacent contiguous lowland (<200 m) topography. Note that due to the size of the maps some higher elevations in southern Myanmar, the Thai-Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Java, and Vietnam appear shaded on the Enhydris enhydris map even though these mountains are not inhabited by E. enhydris.Published as part of Karns, Daryl R., Lukoschek, Vimoksalehi, Osterhage, Jennifer, Murphy, John C. & Voris, Harold K., 2010, Phylogeny and biogeography of the Enhydris clade (Serpentes: Homalopsidae), pp. 18-30 in Zootaxa 2452 (1) on page 24, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2452.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/530691
Cerberus Cuvier 1829
No full textCerberus Cuvier 1829 Hydrus Schneider 1799 1: 233246 (in part). Enhydris Sonnini and Latreille 1801 (in part), 4: 202. Elaps Schneider, 1801 (in part), 2: 301. Coluber (non-Linneaus, 1766) Daudin, 7: 167. Python Merrem, 1820: 89. Daudin used the combination Python rhynchops. Cerberus Cuvier, 1829, 2, 2: 81. Type species Coluber cerberus = Hydrus rynchops Schneider. Note that Swainson (1839) spelled this Cerebus, a lapsus. Homalopsis Schlegel, 1837 (in part), 2: 332. Identification. Distinguishing Cerberus species on the basis of morphology alone can be difficult which in part accounts for the fact that C. rynchops has been described 11 separate times since 1799. Table 2 summarizes some of the morphological data discussed here that can be used to separate these taxa. The variable dorsal scale row counts within and between species, the fragmentation of head shields, and the relatively similar coloration and pattern, make these species somewhat cryptic. This can be highlighted by Loveridge’s (1948) confusion when he named the New Guinea population Cerberus rynchops novaeguineae instead of recognizing its morphology as more similar to australis; and Cogger et al. (1983) synonymizing Cerberus australis and Cerberus rynchops, two species that differ genetically by 6.4–9.5% (Alfaro et al. 2004). The five species recognized here are morphologically distinct, with the differences often subtle but consistent. Four of these species have been previously compared using mitochondrial and nuclear genes (Alfaro et al. 2004, 2008). Diagnosis. Cerberus can be distinguished from all other homalopsid snakes with nasal scales in contact by: keeled, striated dorsal scales; absence of rostral appendages; and parietal scales that are partially or completely fragmented. It differs from its sister, Homalopsis, in having fewer scale rows (21–31 at midbody in Cerberus, 33– 49 rows in Homalopsis) and fragmented parietal scales. Most specimens are less than one meter, and the maximum size for most species is less than 1.2 m. The tail is 16–29 % of the snout-vent length (SVL). Females are larger than males in the species where both sexes could be examined. Head plates (prefrontal, frontal, and parietals) show a strong tendency to fragment into smaller scales. One or more large posterior upper labials are horizontally divided. Subocular scales may or may not be present, even within a single population. Temporal scales are small and not plate-like. Dorsal scale rows at midbody range from 21–31; however most specimens of most species have 23, 25, or 29 rows at midbody. Dorsal scale ornamentation consists of a strongly striated surface with central keel when viewed with a binocular light microscope with 10 x magnification, and some individuals have tubercles on head scales. Ventral scales range from 134–172 and subcaudal scales range from 42–75. Anterior maxillary teeth number 12–19 and are followed by a diastema and a pair of deeply grooved fangs. Three pairs of chin shields are present and the first pair is usually the largest. Content: Here we recognize 5 species: C. australis (Gray, 1849); C. dunsoni sp. n.; C. microlepis Boulenger, 1896; C. rynchops (Schneider, 1799), and C. schneiderii (Schlegel, 1837) new combination.Published as part of Murphy, John C., Voris, Harold K. & Karns, Daryl R., 2012, The dog-faced water snakes, a revision of the genus Cerberus Cuvier, (Squamata, Serpentes, Homalopsidae), with the description of a new species, pp. 1-34 in Zootaxa 3484 on pages 7-8, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.28237
The Herpetofauna of Jefferson County: Analysis of an Amphibian and Reptile Community in Southeastern Indiana
No full text
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
No full textThe 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
No full text“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
No full textWe 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
No full textWe 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
- …
