1,767 research outputs found
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
Corporate social responsibility and HRD: Uneasy tensions and future directions
No full textThis chapter tackles the rhetoric of CSR, arguing that we might better treat this as a range of discourses than as an altruistic position or set of practices. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a subset of business responsibility has evolved into a highly heterogeneous and contested set of values and positions (Fenwick 2007, 2011). CSR is often understood as an ethical commitment by business to respond to a ‘triple bottom line’ of social and environmental concerns as well as economic goals of sustainability. The social in corporate SR refers to non-shareholding stakeholders that may include local or even global communities, government, customers, and interest groups ranging from environmental to religious, ethnic, and trade groups (Crowther and Rayman-Bacchus 2004). Practices associated with CSR may include transparent accountability, respecting ethical values, improving human quality of life in endeavors affected by the business, preserving natural environments, supporting local community endeavors (Fenwick 2007, Whitehouse 2006). One key tension, particularly evident in the uptake of CSR ideals in HRD practice, has been confusion between rhetoric and activities about the actual purposes for adopting CSR (Fenwick 2007). Exacerbating this has been the variety of ideologies and ethical perspectives called into play in the name of social responsibility (Whitehourse 2006). Another tension has been confusion about just where in the organisation, and with what accountabilities, CSR activity is supposed to happen (Fenwick and Bierema 2008). A third is the ubiquitous tension among the different stakeholders that CSR is meant to serve (Fenwick 2011). Recently, some have challenged CSR to go even further to foster global responsibility (Berthoin Antal and Sobczak 2004) and social justice, and debates now focus on the distinctions, and relative significance, of CSR and global responsibility as instances of business ethics and practices of sustainability (Bergsteiner & Avery 2010) In an age when some have charged there to be a crisis of responsibility in organisations ranging from banks and universities to food processing and oil extraction plants, these have become pressing issues for all those leading organisational development and change. For HRD in particular, the call is to create a clear model for its own practices with respect to CSR and global responsibility, and to develop specific approaches to foster learning about CSR practices within organisations as well as in curricula for HRD practitioners. This chapter draws from published studies of CSR practices to present an overview of the practices, positions and tensions of CSR with respect to HRD. The chapter offers principles and recommendations to help develop models for future practices in organisations and in HRD education
Succinct partial sums and fenwick trees
No full textWe consider the well-studied partial sums problem in succint space where one is to maintain an array of n k-bit integers subject to updates such that partial sums queries can be efficiently answered. We present two succint versions of the Fenwick Tree – which is known for its simplicity and practicality. Our results hold in the encoding model where one is allowed to reuse the space from the input data. Our main result is the first that only requires nk + o(n) bits of space while still supporting sum/update in O(logbn)/O(blogbn) time where 2 ≤ b ≤ log O(1)n. The second result shows how optimal time for sum/update can be achieved while only slightly increasing the space usage to nk + o(nk) bits. Beyond Fenwick Trees, the results are primarily based on bit-packing and sampling – making them very practical – and they also allow for simple optimal parallelization
Ringanui koonuiroa Fenwick, 2006, n. sp.
No full text<i>Ringanui koonuiroa</i> n. sp. <p>(Figs 1–5)</p> <p> <i>Calliope subterranea</i>.— Chilton, 1882b: 177 –179, pl. 9, figs 1–10 (part, male only).</p> <p> <i>Material examined</i></p> <p> <i>Holotype</i>: adult ɗ, 4.3 mm, NMNZ CR.10013 (wet, and 5 slides), Templeton, Canterbury 43º33.11´S, 172º26.38´E, coll. L. Sinton, 2 Sept 1982, taken in net from Well 10, 20 m deep. <i>Paratypes</i>: adult Ψ, 4.2 mm, NMNZ CR.10014 (wet and 6 slides), Templeton, Canterbury, 43º33.11´S, 172º26.38´E, coll. L. Sinton, 2 Sept 1982, taken in net from Well 10, 20 m deep. Templeton, Canterbury: 1 Ψ 4.1 mm long, 1 ɗ, 4.0 mm, 1 juvenile, 2.8 mm, NMNZ CR.10016, coll. G.D. Fenwick, 28 Jan 1986, from net sample in Well 10, 24 m depth; 2 females, 3.3, 5.2 mm, 1 ɗ, 3.6 mm long, 8 indet., 1.8–4.4 mm long, NMNZ CR.10015, coll. G.D. Fenwick, 12 Oct 1985, net sample, Well 10; 1 ɗ, NIWA 3441, P­1429 (wet), coll. G.D. Fenwick, 1 July 1986, among cages in Well 4; 1 Ψ, 5.0 mm, 2 males, 2.8, 4.0 mm, 1 indet., 2.8 mm long, AM P.68198 (wet), coll. G.D. Fenwick, 20 Dec 2001, net sample from Well 2, 18 m depth; Temuka (Gresham’s well), Canterbury, New Zealand (44º 14.5´S, 171º 17.9´E): 1 Ψ, NIWA 3442, P­1430 (wet), coll. M. Scarsbrook, 15 Sept 1998.</p> <p>Additional material: Templeton, Canterbury, New Zealand: 1 Ψ, coll. G.D. Fenwick, 22 July 1998, in net from Well 10, 20 m depth [NIWA GW 6­2]; 1 Ψ, coll. L. Sinton, 22 Sept 1982, taken in net from Well 3, 18 m depth [NIWA GW 7­1]; 1 Ψ, 1 ɗ, coll. L. Sinton, 20 Sept 1982, taken in net from Well 1, 18 m depth [NIWA GW 10­1]; 1 indet., coll. G.D. Fenwick, 10 Feb 1999, net sample from Well 8 [NIWA GW 91­6]; 1 ɗ, coll. G.D. Fenwick, 3 Feb 1999, net samples from wells upstream of disposal site, c. 20 m depth [NIWA GW 55­7]; 2 indet., coll. M. Scarsbrook, 12 May 2000, in Well 4, 20 m depth [NIWA GW 267­4]; 1 Ψ, coll. M. Scarsbrook, 1 May 2000, in Well 11, 23 m depth [NIWA GW 268­1]; Burnham, Canterbury, New Zealand: 1 ɗ, coll. L. Sinton, 5 Aug 1982, in net samples from Well 11, c. 20 m depth [NIWA GW 19­3]; Orari, Canterbury, New Zealand (44º07.7´S, 171º20.0´E): 1 ɗ, NZAC Ph 115­b, coll. G. Kuschel & J. McBurney, 22 March 1973, pumped from open well, 4.8 m deep, water temperate 13º C.</p> <p> <i>Diagnosis</i></p> <p>Small in size (<5.0 mm long); maxilla 1 inner plate with 4 large, plumose SS medially; maxilla 2 outer plate with few (<5) setules distolaterally; maxilliped outer plate extending well beyond distal end of palp article 1 and beyond midpoint of article 2; maxilliped palp article 1 lateral margin naked, article 2 lateral margin with 1 slender seta distolaterally, article 4 with 2 setules laterally and none medially; gnathopod 1 coxa 1 as long as wide, anterior margin straight, broadly rounded distally; gnathopod 1 article 6 posterior margin evenly convex, largest defining RS more than half as long as dactyl and longer than article 6 width; gnathopod 2 article 6 shorter than gnathopod 1 article 6, gnathopod 2 palm defined by 3–4 short RS; pereopod 5 coxa posterior lobe larger than anterior lobe; pereopod 6 coxa anterior lobe obsolescent; pereopods 6–7 article 2 with broad, evenly rounded lobe posterodistally; pereopods 5–7 dactyl posterior margins naked; pleopod rami subequal, of 7–9 articles; uropods 1–2 peduncles lacking RS laterally, outer rami conspicuously shorter than inner; uropod 3 peduncle subequal in length to rami; telson tapering distally, lobes subacute.</p> <p> <i>Description (holotype)</i></p> <p> Head and body colourless or unpigmented. <i>Head</i> with well developed rostrum; lateral cephalic lobes well developed, rounded; eyes absent. <i>Pereonites</i> dorsally smooth, naked; pleon dorsally naked; urosome dorsally naked.</p> <p> <i>Antenna 1</i> calceoli present on peduncle articles 2–3, and on proximal flagellum articles; peduncle 1–1.1 x flagellum length; article 1 1.3 x length of article 2; article 3 0.4 x length of article 2; accessory flagellum minute, shorter than primary flagellum article 1, 1­ articulate. <i>Antenna 2</i> 1 x as long as antenna 1; article 4 0.9– 1 x length of 5; <i>flagellum</i> 1 x length of peduncle articles 4–5; calceoli present on flagellum.</p> <p> <i>Upper lip</i> entire, broadly rounded. <i>Mandible</i> palp attached adjacent to molar, article 1 distinctly longer than wide, article 3 moderately curved, falciform, 0.8 x length of article 2, palp setal formula: 4 D2­setae, 6 D3­setae, 5 E3­setae; molar well developed, distinct triturating surface; incisor large, 7 strong cusps; lacinia mobilis well developed, toothed; strongly asymmetrical. <i>Lower lip</i> inner lobes lacking; outer lobes with dense fine setules. <i>Maxilla 1</i> palp extending beyond outer plate RS, article 2 2.5 x longer than wide, widened distally, 4 RS distally, 1 SS laterodistally; outer plate subrectangular, slightly longer than wide, distal margin transverse, bearing 10 dentate RS, outer margin naked, inner margin lacking SS, some setules; inner plate about half as long as outer, ovate, 1.4 x longer than wide, medial setae only, 4 plumose SS inserted submedially. <i>Maxilla 2</i> outer plate length 2–2.1 x width, lateral margin with setules grouped distally, distal margin oblique, armed with 10 large SS, medial margin naked; inner plate 1.7 x longer than wide, distal margin narrowly rounded, discontinuous with medial margin, bearing 7 simple SS,>20 marginal setules, and 3 plumose SS submarginally. <i>Maxilliped</i> inner plate distally subrectangular, 2 x longer than wide, extending to 0.5 of outer plate, distal margin armed with 2 RS and 4 SS, medial margin with 1 SS; outer plate reaching midpoint of palp article 2, outer margin broadly convex, mediodistal corner rounded, 1.6 x longer than wide, with a row of 4 RS, decreasing in length medially, changing to 1 simple RS medially, inner margin continuous with distal margin, with 1 SS and 2–3 RS; palp article 1 with 0 distolateral SS, 0 SS mediodistally, article 2 1.4 x longer than 1, moderately setose medially, 1 SS distolaterally, 0 setae along lateral margin, article 3 0.9 x length of article 2, 2 x longer than wide, article 4 inserted subterminally, 0.4 x length of article 3 (excluding distal nail or spine), 2 x longer than basal width, medial margin straight, with 1 SS, outer margin bearing 1 SS, nail present, 0.7 x article length.</p> <p> <i>Coxal gills</i> present on pereonites 2–6 or 7, pediculate, ovate, thick, opaque; surface unridged. <i>Accessory coxal gills</i> absent. <i>Sternal gills</i> absent. <i>Gnathopod 1</i> coxa widened distally, distal width 1.4 x proximal width, 0.9 x deeper than long, extending to 0.4 x length of article 2, anterior margin straight, anterodistal corner rounded, with marginal SS anteroventrally only, submarginal SS lacking; article 2 3.1 x longer than wide, markedly constricted proximally; article 3 0.2 x length of 2; article 4 1.4 x length of 3; article 5 short, 0.4 x length of article 2, subrectangular, 1 x as long as wide, with posterior lobe completely separating articles 4 and 6, anterodistal margin with 0 SS, posterodistal margin with 6 SS; article 6 very large, subovate, narrowed distally, 1.3 x length of article 2, 3.5 x length of article 5, 1.7–1.8 x longer than wide, posterior margin (proximal to palm) 0.15 x length of article length, naked; palm strongly oblique, 30 degrees to article 6 axis, convex, not excavate, irregular, palm defined by 3 RS, simple, longest defining spine 0.5 x article 6 length; dactyl slender, unconstricted, moderately curved, as long as palm, anterior margin lacking ornamentation, posterior margin evenly concave, with 0 posterior cusps or setules, 0 facial SS subterminally, lacking comb­like ridges, tip simple, pointed. <i>Gnathopod 2</i> subchelate, moderately developed, almost as long as, and as stout as gnathopod 1; coxa rounded, narrowed distally, distal width 0.7 x proximal width, anterodistal corner rounded, anterior margin convex, with marginal SS ventrally only, submarginal setae lacking; article 2 3.5 x longer than wide; article 3 normal length, 0.3 x length of 2, 0.6 x length of article 5; article 4 1.1 x length of 3; article 5 medium length, 0.6 x length of article 2, subtriangular, 1.8 x as long as wide, anteriodistal corner with 0 SS, with 15–20 SS posteriodistally; article 6 moderately developed, subovate, narrowed distally, 0.8 x length of article 2, 1.3 x length of article 5, 1.6 x longer than wide, posterior margin proximal to palm 0.3–0.4 x article length; palm oblique, 30 degrees to article axis, sinuous, not excavate, irregular, posterodistally unproduced, defined by 3 bifid RS, largest 0.05 x length of article 6; dactyl slender, moderately curved, tip simple, blunt, as long as palm, anterior margin lacking ornamentation, posterior margin evenly concave, with 0 setules or cusps, lacking any fine comb­like rows.</p> <p> <i>Pereopod 3</i> coxa distally subquadrate, length (depth) 1.7 x width; article 2 linear, 1 x as long as coxa, 4 SS posteriorly; article 3 0.2 x as long as article 2; article 4 0.5 x length of article 2, produced anterodistally; article 5 0.7 x length of article 4; articles 4–6 sparsely setose; article 6 1.3 x length of article 5, 1 RS, and 3 SS along posterior margin, 0 RS, and 2 SS anteriorly; dactyl slender, slightly curved, 0.4 x length of article 6, posterior margin simple, tip simple. <i>Pereopod 4</i> coxa subovate, as deep as coxa 3, 1.9 x depth of coxa 5, extending to 0.6 x length of article 2, 1.3 x deeper than wide, distal margin rounded, posterior margin concave, moderately excavate; articles 2–7 similar to pereopod 3 in proportions and setation of articles. <i>Pereopod 5</i> coxa 1.8–1.9 x wider than deep, anterior lobe as deep as posterior, posterior lobe as broad as anterior lobe, posterior lobe with sparse SS; article 2 inflated, 1.6–1.7 x longer than wide, tapering distally, posterior margin rounded, with sparse coarse teeth, posteriodistally produced into short, broadly rounded lobe, anterior margin with few slender and RS; article 4 0.5 x length of article 2, posterodistally produced to overhang article 5, for about 0.1–0.2 of its length; article 5 1–1.1 x as long as article 4; article 6 1.5–1.6 x length of article 5; articles 4–6 with sparse RS; dactyl posterior margin with 2 fine setules. <i>Pereopods 6–7</i> similar to pereopod 5 in article shape and setation; successively longer. <i>Pereopod 6</i> coxa posterior lobe reaching to about 0.3 of article 2, with 1 SS and 0 RS; article 2 expanded, width 0.7 x length, subovate, tapered distally, anterior margin with few RS, posterior margin rounded, serrate, with several SS, posterodistally produced to overhang article 3 for about 0.6 of its length, lobe broadly rounded. <i>Pereopod 7</i> coxa lacking anterior lobe, posterior lobe with 1 SS and 0 RS; article 2 expanded, width 0.7 x length, subovate or subquadrate, tapered distally, anterior margin with few RS, posterior margin rounded, serrate, with several SS, posterodistally produced to overhang article 3 for about 0.5–0.6 of its length, lobe broadly rounded.</p> <p> <i>Epimeron 1</i> ventral margin naked; posterior margin weakly convex, naked; posterodistal corner subquadrate; naked. <i>Epimeron 2</i> ventral margin naked; posterior margin straight, naked. <i>Epimeron 3</i> ventral margin naked; posterior margin convex, naked; posteroventral corner quadrate; lacking any cusps or teeth. <i>Pleopods</i> biramous, stout, rami multi­articulate, strongly setose. <i>Pleopod 1</i> peduncle 2 x longer than wide, with pair of coupling hooks only; inner ramus with 7–8 articles, article 1 2.6 x longer than wide, 2 simple SS medially, plus pair of distal plumose SS; outer ramus with 7 articles, article 1 1.8–1.9 x longer than wide, 1 plumose SS medially, lacking setae laterally other than distal plumose pair, outer ramus 0.8–0.9 x as long as inner, pleopods 2–3 similar in structure and size to pleopod 1. <i>Pleopod 2</i> outer ramus 8 articulate, 1 x as long as inner; inner ramus with 7–8 articles. <i>Pleopod 3</i> outer ramus 8 articulate, 0.9 x as long as inner; inner ramus with 9 articles.</p> <p> <i>Uropod 1</i> reaching to distal end of uropod 3 rami; peduncle lacking RS posteroventrally between rami, with 2 RS mediodorsally, 1 RS dorsolaterally, terminal dorsolateral RS larger than others; inner ramus 0.7 x length of peduncle, with 0 RS laterally, 3 medially, and 4 distally; outer ramus 0.7–0.8 x length of inner, with 2 RS laterally, 3 medially, and 2 distal RS. <i>Uropod 2</i> exceeding distal end of uropod 3 peduncle; peduncle slender, 3.4 x longer than wide, lacking RS posteroventrally between rami, with 3 RS mediodorsally, 1 RS dorsolaterally, terminal dorsolateral RS absent; inner ramus 0.8 x length of peduncle, with 0 RS laterally, 2 medially, and 2 distally; outer ramus 0.7 x length of inner, with 2 RS laterally, 0 medially, and 2 distal RS. <i>Uropod 3</i> extending as far as uropods 1–2, biramous, rami subequal; peduncle slender, 1.6 x longer than wide, with 3 RS mediodorsally, 0 RS dorsolaterally, terminal dorsolateral RS absent; inner ramus 1 x length of outer ramus, uniarticulate, with 1 RS laterally, and 2 medially, terminally slender, 2 subterminal SS and, 0 RS terminally; outer ramus 1.1 x length of peduncle, uniarticulate, with 2 RS laterally and 2 medially, terminally slender, naked; lateral and medial RS on both rami accompanied by long, plumose SS; rami tips naked and heavily scleritised.</p> <p> <i>Telson</i> subrectangular, tapered, lateral margins straight, 0.9 x as long as wide, emarginate, 0.25 of its length, lobes distally obtuse, with 1 setule, terminally on each lobe, and 0 SS laterally; thin, laminar in lateral view.</p> <p> <i>Female</i>: The only notable difference between the female and the holotype male was the presence of oostegites on coxae 2–5. These oostegites were fleshy and opaque, extending as far as the distal end of pereopods’ second articles, broadly subtriangular to subovate in shape, and naked except for a few (0–5) very short SS spaced around their margins.</p> <p> <i>Va r i a t i o n</i></p> <p> Examination of other specimens showed that gills tend to vary in size between individuals, perhaps due to differences in fixation and preservation of specimens, extending to the distal ends of pereopod second articles in many specimens. The telson also varies slightly in its length relative to width, appearing slightly more elongate than in the holotype in some specimens. Note that article 3 of the mandibular palp is invariably strongly tapered and strongly curved like that of <i>R. toonuiiti</i> described and illustrated below; the illustration of the holotype’s palp article 3 shows it in an oblique perspective.</p> <p> <i>Etymology</i></p> <p> The name <i>koonuiroa</i> is derived from Maori <i>koonui</i> (thumb) and <i>roa</i> (long) and refers to the very large robust seta defining the proximal end of the gnathopod 1 palm, which is characteristic of this species.</p> <p> <i>Distribution</i></p> <p>Canterbury: Templeton, Burnham, Temuka, Orari.</p> <p> <i>Remarks</i></p> <p> Chilton’s 1882b male differed appreciably from the 1894 male in the morphology of both gnathopods, suggesting the possibility of two species. However, most specimens with long­spined first gnathopods were smaller than those with the 1894­ type of gnathopod 1 (Fig. 6) and the two forms were often found in the same collection, suggesting that they might be juvenile and adult, as Chilton (1894) appeared to believe. Evidence from the material on hand enabled this to be investigated more carefully. First, specimens with the greatly enlarged gnathopod 1 palmar defining spine (robust seta) included both females with oostegites and males, and their body lengths overlapped with amphipods with the other gnathopod 1 type (i.e., the larger <i>R. toonuiiti</i>) (Fig. 6). Second, there was no evidence of a transitional form of gnathopod 1 (i.e. the large spine was consistently about as long as article 6 was wide). Third, the collection included one gravid female with long­spined first gnathopods. Fourth, the only other gravid female in the entire collection had short­spined gnathopods and her brood comprised three juveniles, all with first gnathopods very similar to their mother’s (see below). For these reasons, two species are clearly warranted.</p>Published as part of <i>Fenwick, Graham D., 2006, Ringanui, a new genus of stygobitic amphipod from New Zealand (Amphipoda: Gammaridea: Paraleptamphopidae), pp. 1-25 in Zootaxa 1148</i> on pages 5-14, DOI: <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/172105">10.5281/zenodo.172105</a>
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
Error Detection and Correction of DPCM Signals using a Walsh Hadamard Transform Technique
No full textScaled Fenwick Trees
No full textA novel data structure that enables the storage and retrieval of linear array numeric data with logarithmic time complexity updates, range sums, and rescaling is introduced and studied. Computing sums of ranges of arrays of numbers is a common computational problem encountered in data compression, coding, machine learning, computational vision, and finance, among other fields. Efficient data structures enabling updates of the underlying data (including range updates), queries of sums over ranges, and searches for ranges with a given sum have been extensively studied ( being the length of the array). Two solutions to this problem are well-known: Fenwick trees (also known as Binary Indexed Trees) and Segment Trees. The new data structure extends the capabilities for the first time to further enable multiplying (rescaling) ranges of the underlying data by a scalar as well in . Scaling by 0 can be enabled, with the effect that subsequent updates may take time. The new data structure introduced here consists of a pair of interacting Fenwick tree-like structures, one of which holds the unscaled values and the other of which holds the scalars. Experimental results demonstrating performance improvements for the multiplication operation on arrays from a few dozen to over 30 million data points are discussed. This research was done as part of Ajna Labs in the course of developing a decentralized finance protocol. It enables an efficient on-chain encoding and processing of an order book-like data structure used to manage lending, interest, and collateral
Elected Mayors: Leading Locally?
No full textThe directly elected executive mayor has been with us in England for more than a decade. Drawing inspiration from European and American experience (see Elcock and Fenwick, 2007) the elected mayor has appealed to both Labour and Conservative commentators in offering a solution to perceived problems of local leadership. For the Left, it offered a reinvigoration of local democracy, a champion for the locality who could stand up for the community: in one early pamphlet, a Labour councillor envisaged that an elected mayor could “...usher in a genuinely inclusive way of doing civic business as well as giving birth to an institution that encourages and values people” (Todd, 2000: 25). For the Right, it offered the opportunity to cut through the lengthy processes of local democratic institutions by providing streamlined high-profile leadership. Although inconsistent in their expectations of what the new role of executive mayor would bring, Left and Right shared a view that leadership of local areas was failing. Despite the very low turnout in referendums on whether to adopt the system, and the very small number of local areas that have done so, the prospect of more executive mayors, with enhanced powers, refuses to exit the policy arena
George Fenwick Jones. — The Ethos of the Song of Roland
No full textGyóry Jean. George Fenwick Jones. — The Ethos of the Song of Roland. In: Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, 7e année (n°25), Janvier-mars 1964. pp. 65-67
- …
