269 research outputs found
A learning hierarchy for classification and regression
No full textThesis: M. Eng., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 2016.This electronic version was submitted by the student author. The certified thesis is available in the Institute Archives and Special Collections.Cataloged from student-submitted PDF version of thesis.Includes bibliographical references (pages 51-53).This thesis explores the problems of learning analysis of variance (ANOVA) decompositions over GF(2) and R, as well as a general regression setup. For the problem of learning ANOVA decompositions, we obtain fundamental limits in the case of GF(2) under both sparsity and degree structures. We show how the degree or sparsity level is a useful measure of the complexity of such models, and in particular how the statistical complexity ranges from linear to exponential in the dimension, thus forming a "learning hierarchy". Furthermore, we discuss the problem in both an "adaptive" as well as a "one-shot" setting, where in the adaptive case query choice can depend on the entire past history. Somewhat surprisingly, we show that the "adaptive" setting does not yield significant statistical gains. In the case of R, under query access, we demonstrate an approach that achieves a similar hierarchy of complexity with respect to the dimension. For the general regression setting, we outline a viewpoint that captures a variety of popular methods based on locality and partitioning of some kind. We demonstrate how "data independent" partitioning may still yield statistically consistent estimators, and illustrate this by a lattice based partitioning approach.by Ganesh Ajjanagadde.M. Eng
"More Societal than Generational": Examining the Construction and Resistance of Generational Messages in the Workplace
No full textAuthor email: [email protected] Millennial generation, those born between 1980-2000, have drawn vast, sometimes fanatical, criticism in popular media. Slated as narcissistic praise hounds, they are cast as demanding graduate divas who are about to attack the workplace and everything ‘you hold sacred’ (Clark, 2008; Safer, 2007). The abundance of such messages about this generation in formats ‘tailored, targeted, and consumed’ by the public is problematic given that generational constructs are by many perceived as sacrosanct (Myers et al, 2010).
The proliferation of such criticism is by no means innocuous given the very likely impact that they will have on Millennial work opportunities. For many scholars the field of Millennial research suffers from a lack of empirical and cross sectional data to establish more calculated and careful generational constructs, – instead relying on or reacting to popular negative stereotypes. While some Millennial scholarship has begun to move beyond criticisms of popular media, Millennial research is by many considered contradictory at best and confusing at worst (Kowske et al, 2010). Additional difficulties arise when the scramble to publish more research-based work has led to methodologies which are inherently flawed because they reinforce the very same monolithic generational categories they are supposed to assess.
This study, undertaken in New Zealand, explores critical approaches as a means of examining the construction of generational messages and the establishment of generational difference. As a starting point, this small-scale examination analyses the very way in which generational messages are constructed and resisted within the workplace through an analysis of interviews undertaken with 26 employees of a Small to Medium Enterprise (SME) in the information technology sector.
Unlike many generational studies, this project did not seek to draw conclusions by framing differences and measuring responses across generational lines, but rather took a bottom-up approach to understand how participants themselves constructed and resisted messages about generational difference. The project asked two research questions: First, how are generational messages constructed in the context of the workplace? And second, how are generational messages resisted in the workplace? Through axial coding this research categorized five themes under which participants constructed generational difference. These five themes are Technology, Voice, Fairness, Informality, and Stimulus. Broadly speaking, these themes were underpinned by a belief that Millennials have a great demand for respect, democratic process, and the reduction of power distances.
Given the critical approach, the study also observed resistance as a component of the discursive process. As such this research outlines the partiality of resistance and outlines strategies of resistance employed by employees. In line with the idea that construction and resistance are mutually implicated as negotiation, participants were frequently observed simultaneously constructing and resisting generational difference, both synchronically and diachronically. Through axial coding this study also categorized three strategies of resistance. These three strategies are established as Dismissal, the Third Person Effect, and the Decline Metaphor.
This research highlights the usefulness of adopting critical approaches by illustrating the way in which generational meaning is perpetually produced, reproduced, negotiated, and resisted by participants (Murphy, 1998). While there are several factors which are indicative of the Millennial generation, this thesis establishes the hegemonic character of most constructions of generational difference. Given the fragmented and complex state of society, this thesis posits that the usefulness of the monolithic birth-cohort generation has long since passed and we should instead look to understanding generations in terms of their consumption of similar cultural capital
Boiga nuchalis
No full textBoiga nuchalis (Günther, 1875) (Tables 3–4; Fig. 6, Fig. 9D) Dipsas nuchalis Günther, 1875 Dipsas ceylonensis (non Dipsadomorphus ceylonensis Günther, 1858)— Boulenger (1890) part Boiga ceylonensis (non Dipsadomorphus ceylonensis Günther, 1858)— Smith (1943) part; Hutton (1949) part; Hutton & David (2009) part Boiga nuchalis (non Dipsadomorphus nuchalis –Wall, 1911)— Günther (1875); Inger et al. 1984 Boiga ceylonensis dakhunensis Deraniyagala, 1955 Specimens examined. Males (n=10). Syntypes. Males: India. BMNH 74.4.29.935, BMNH 74.4.29.933, 36; Females: BMNH 74.4.29.934, 37 and BMNH 74.4.29.967, all collected by R.H. Beddome from the “ West Coast Forests ”[of India]. Additional Specimens: India. Tamil Nadu. MNHN 1946.69 and MNHN 1948.301 both Yercaud, Salem; BNHS 1891 Benhope, Nilgiris. Kerala. FMNH 217700 Trivandrum; BNHS 1842 Palagapandy, Palghat; BNHS 1890 Travancore; BNHS 1887 Kartikolam, Mananthavadi, Waynad District. Females (n=8). India. Tamil Nadu. CAS 17248 Anama Kays [Anaimalais] Madras [Presidency]. BNHS 1893 Anamallai hills, 3000 ft. Kerala. BMNH 1924.10.13.19 Kattayam [Kottayam], Travancore; BNHS 1843 Nilambur; BNHS 1845 Nelliampathy, Palghat. Taxonomic history. Boiga nuchalis was described by Günther (1875), as Dipsas nuchalis, from the “the forests of the West Coast [of India]”. It was later synonymised with Boiga ceylonensis by Boulenger (1890). Wall (1909) recognized it again as a valid species after having revised the Boiga ceylonensis -group and described two more species, B. beddomei and B. andamanensis. Smith (1943) once again synonymised B. nuchalis with B. ceylonensis. Inger et al. (1984) considered B. nuchalis as a valid species and this view was followed by most of the recent authors (Das 2002; Ganesh & Arumugam 2016; Ganesh et al. 2018). Nomenclatural notes. Deraniyagala (1955) misunderstood the fact that Wall (1909; 1911) had wrongly attributed the authorship of the taxon Dipsas nuchalis Günther to Beddome. It should be noted that this authorship credited to Beddome is purely a lapsus as we could not trace any mention of Dipsas nuchalis by this latter author. Nevertheless, believing B. nuchalis Beddome sensu Wall was a distinct, valid taxon on its own, Deraniyagala created an unnecessary new taxon, with the status of a nomen novum, Boiga ceylonensis dakhunensis Deraniyagala, 1955. But Wall’s cursorial mistake in attributing B. nuchalis to Beddome cannot be considered to be the description of an available taxon on its own and therefore it does not enter into homonymy. There cannot be any doubt that the authorship and date of the nomen Dipsas nuchalis is Günther, 1875 (also see Vogel & Ganesh 2013; Wallach et al. 2014; Aengals et al. 2018). Günther (1875) only mentioned Beddome as the collector of the types (see Günther 1875: 233). Deraniyagala stated, erroneously, that “Günther’s name nuchalis cannot be utilized for the latter [south Indian population], since it was employed by Beddome for another species (see Wall 1909: 153). The name dakhunensis is proposed for the Indian subspecies of B. ceylonensis.” He was expressly intending to create this as a nomen novum (or replacement name) for Indian populations (see Art. 13.1.3 ICZN 1999). Deraniyagala was obviously erroneous in this interpretation as, whatever may have been written by Wall (1909), Dipsas nuchalis Günther, 1875 would have had priority over any “ Boiga nuchalis Beddome ”. So Deraniyagala should have had considered this “ Dipsas nuchalis Beddome ” to be a primary homonym of Günther’s taxon, and thus permanently invalid. Deraniyagala (1955) embraced an obsolete concept of B. ceylonensis in Indian Peninsula that included supposedly synonymous taxa like B. beddomei, B. nuchalis and B. andamanensis. As he wrote, his replacement name at the subspecific level was correctly based on the types of Dipsias nuchalis (sic, for Dipsas nuchalis). This is in accordance with Art. 72.7 of ICZN (1999). Because Deraniyagala mentioned characters diagnosing (Recommendation 13A, ICZN, 1999) the taxa of the Boiga ceylonensis group between Western Ghats and Sri Lanka, and because he included Dipsas nuchalis in the synonymy of his Boiga ceylonensis account, this is an available name. Deraniyagala was in error in mentioning a single type, as Günther’s original description was based on five syntypes (Günther 1875; Wallach et al. 2014). Therefore, by virtue of Deraniyagala’s typification and of the definition of a nomen novum, Boiga ceylonensis dakhuensis Deraniyagala, 1955 is deemed to be an objective junior synonym of Dipsas nuchalis Günther, 1875 as per Art. 72.7 of ICZN (1999). Contrary to Deraniyagala’s misconception (also see Sharma 2004; Wallach et al. 2014) Deraniyagala’s nomen is not a subspecies of Dipsadomorphus ceylonensis Günther, 1858. Etymology. Named after its typical collar band on the nuchal region. Diagnosis (redefined herein). A species of Boiga endemic to southwestern India, characterised by the following combination of characters: 21–23 midbody scale rows (vs. 19 in B. ceylonensis, B. thackerayi, B. beddomei, B. flaviviridis); vertebral scales strongly enlarged (vs. mildly enlarged in B. barnesii); venter brownish-grey and not yellowish in life (vs. yellowish-brown in B. thackerayi, B. flaviviridis; variable in B. andamanensis; dorsum predominantly brown (vs. green in B. flaviviridis; variable in B. andamanensis); bars brown or reddish-brown (vs. bars black in B. thackerayi, B. beddomei); ventrolateral pattern with a series of spots on both tips of each ventral scale (vs. with alternate white and black blotches in B. barnesii, B. thackerayi; without any pattern in B. andamanensis, B. flaviviridis); temporal larger than coastal body scale (vs. subequal to coastal body scale in B. dightoni). Redescription of an adult male syntype (BMNH 74.4.29.935). A medium-sized specimen reaching 900 mm total length, with slender habitus, thin neck, wide head; long tail (relative tail length 22 %); dorsal scale rows 21:21:15; rostral visible from above; preocular 1, subequal in size to loreal; postoculars 2; loreal 1; supralabials 8, with 3 rd– 5 th / 4 th– 6 th ones touching eye; infralabials 11, with 1–5 touching chin shields; temporals 13/14; preventral 1; ventrals 242, angulate laterally; cloacal 1; 105 subcaudals pairs. Dorsal colour brownish-grey, with 66 brownish crossbars on body; crossbars covering 2–4 scales in size, extending either sides up to 3–4 scale rows across; interspaces often with sparse dark dots; crown without any markings on top (rarely some dark shades present); a distinct postocular stripe up to the jaw angle; labials, chin and venter ashy brown, finely spotted with darker shade; venter bordered by a series of brown spots, covering both the terminal ends of every ventral scale. Variation shown by other syntypes and referred material. Other specimens agreeing with the above syn- type in most aspects; showing the following intraspecific variations: snout to vent length 408–904 mm (excluding juveniles); tail length 94–257 mm; relative tail length: 18.7–22.5 %; (18)21/23–21/23–15(14) scale rows; temporals 10–15; ventrals 228–255; subcaudals 94–109 pairs; number of cross bars 45–89 on body, 7–36 on tail. Distribution and natural history. This is perhaps the most common species of the genus Boiga in the wet forests of southwestern India. Often regarded as a rare and little-known species (Das 2002), it occurs at quite a widespread and sometimes disjunct range in southwestern India. This species has been recorded throughout the Western Ghats (Wall 1919; Inger et al. 1984; Hutton & David 2009 part; Chandramouli & Ganesh 2010; Ganesh et al. 2013) and even in Southern Eastern Ghats (Ganesh & Arumugam 2016; Ganesh et al. 2018). It has been precisely reported from Agasthyamalai (Inger et al. 1984; Chandramouli & Ganesh 2010), Meghamalai and Anaiamalai (Hutton & David 2009 part), Nilgiri-Wayanad (Wall 1919), Malnad and Canara hills (Ganesh et al. 2013) in the Western Ghats. In the Eastern Ghats, this species has been recorded from Shevaroys, Bilgiri, Melagiri, Kolli and Sirumalai hills (Ganesh & Arumugam 2016; Ganesh et al. 2018). We have observed it in Ponmudi, Karian Shola and Agumbe in Western Ghats and in Bilgiri, Melagiri, Shevaroys, Kolli and Sirumalai in the Eastern Ghats (Fig. 13). However, we refute its purported (historical) distribution in Himalayan foothills and parts of Northern Eastern Ghats (Wallach et al. 2014). We suggest that this species is absent from North India (also see Mohapatra et al. 2010; Das et al. 2010).Published as part of Ganesh, S. R., Achyuthan, N. S., Chandramouli, S. R. & Vogel, Gernot, 2020, Taxonomic revision of the Boiga ceylonensis group (Serpentes: Colubridae): reexamination of type specimens, redefinition of nominate taxa and an updated key, pp. 301-332 in Zootaxa 4779 (3) on pages 311-314, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4779.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/383535
Prevention in Healthcare: An Explainable AI Approach
No full textIntrusion prevention is a critical aspect of maintaining the security of healthcare systems, especially in the context of sensitive patient data. Explainable AI can provide a way to improve the effectiveness of intrusion prevention by using machine learning algorithms to detect and prevent security breaches in healthcare systems. This approach not only helps ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of patient data but also supports regulatory compliance. By providing clear and interpretable explanations for its decisions, explainable AI can enable healthcare professionals to understand the reasoning behind the intrusion detection system's alerts and take appropriate action. This paper explores the application of explainable AI for intrusion prevention in healthcare and its potential benefits for maintaining the security of healthcare systems
Bibliographics for the 983 eprints in the live archives of E-LIS : trends and status report up to 7th July 2004, based on author-self-archiving metadata
No full textThe priority for ideas and philosophy related to "Network Theory" have been traced back and documented by Braun(2004),and credit goes to Karinthy(1929).The IT has empowered to realise it, as the most practical phenomena and it is no more a humour. The OAI (Open Archives Initiatives)and ACIS (Academic Contributor Information System)are progressive in the direction ,which may lead to realise the "Collective Genius" at global level. Focus of present study is on Author-Self-Archiving (A-S-A)Metadata of the 983 Eprints in the Live Archives of the E-LIS (EPrints of Library and Information Science),which were approved till 7th July 2004.The A-S-A Metadata was used for librametric analysis. Self-explanatory bibliographics are illustrated.The highlights include: Conference papers (34%); highest approval, June 2004 (28%); published archives (76%);not refereed (52%); not in public domain (60%); highest self-archiving-author (De Robbio, Antonella).The Nos. of EPrints having single JITA domain specifications were: Theoretical and general aspects of libraries and information(27); Information use and sociology of information(80);Users,literacy and reading(13);Libraries as physical collections(30);Publishing and legal issues(57);Management(13);Industry, profession and education(36);Information sources, supports, channels(113) ; Information treatment for information services, Information functions and techniques (101); Technical services libraries, archives and museums(25); Housing technologies(1); Information technology and library technology(92); and Inter-domainery (395) i.e. having specifications of two or more than two JITA classes
Mathematical Model of Security Framework for Routing Layer Protocol in Wireless Sensor Networks
No full textAbstractMost of the environmental and non-attended applications of Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN's) need mobile sensor nodes. However, mobility of sensor nodes increases security issues in WSNs and it's also vulnerable to various kinds of attacks. Dynamic WSN emerges two most common issues related to the authentication of moving sensor nodes and security in communication and key distribution. After possible movement of sensor node requires authenticating again and again from the base station or some other trusted nodes. Similarly, confidentiality in communication and key distribution is an important factor against man-in-middle type of attacks. Till the day most of the WSN's security researchers concentrate on the static environment. Though there schemes are secure and efficient but not sufficient to secure mobile WSN's environment. In this paper we have proposed a novel protocol framework and related mathematical model for secure routing layer communication and key distribution in mobile WSN's. After that we apply this model for performance evaluation on the basis of static as well as dynamic scenario for different number of nodes which shows that our framework is satisfactorily suitable for dynamic WSNs applications
Hemidactylus mahonyi Adhikari & Achyuthan & Kumar & Khot & Shreeram & Ganesh 2022, sp. nov.
No full textHemidactylus mahonyi sp. nov. (Figs. 3‒6; Table 3) Hemidactylus treutleri — Lajmi et al. 2016, 2019 part Holotype. BNHS 2598, adult male, collected by Omkar Adhikari, Ranjit Manakadan, and Vithoba Hegde on 21 March 2019 from Sandur Hills (in Joga Village; 15.229°N, 76.538°E; 440 m asl), Sandur Taluk, Bellary District, Karnataka State, India. Paratypes (n=2). BNHS 2597, adult male and BNHS 2601, sub-adult male, same collection information as the holotype. Etymology. Patronym named in genitive singular case, honouring Dr. Stephen Mahony, an Irish herpetologist and a decade-long friend and colleague of the last author, for his significant research contributions on Tropical Asian herpetofauna and, in particular, on the H. brookii group. Suggested English name. Mahony’s Rock Gecko. Diagnosis. A medium-sized (SVL 51.3–56.1 mm, n=2) species of Hemidactylus inhabiting the Sandur Hills. Dorsal pholidosis composed of sub-circular, flattened granular scales interspersed with enlarged, strongly keeled tubercles that are heterogeneous in size and shape, smallest on the neck gradually increasing in size posteriorly and laterally where they are up to 3–4 times the size of surrounding granular scales, fairly regularly arranged in 13–14 longitudinal rows at mid-body; 24–27 tubercles in paravertebral rows. VS 29–35 scale rows. Digits with enlarged scansors, lamellae in straight transverse series, all divided except the apical and a few basal that are undivided; lamellae beneath digit I: 5–6 (both manus and pes), digit IV: 8–9 (manus) and 8–10 (pes). Males with 7–9 precloacal-femoral pores on each thigh separated by six pore-less pre-cloacal scales. Dorsum yellow to brown ocher in color with numerous scattered dark and light blotches. Two or three post-cloacal spurs; tail dorso-laterally depressed; scales on dorsal aspect of tail heterogeneous, slightly larger than granular scales on dorsum, intermixed with a series of 6–8 enlarged, strongly keeled, pointed tubercles on each whorl. Comparison. Hemidactylus mahonyi sp. nov. can be easily distinguished from members of the murrayi group based on the following non-overlapping characters (note: comparison with the new species H. srikanthani sp. nov. will follow that species’ description): male with 7–9 PCFP and six SBFP (versus 12–13 PCFP and single SBFP in H. brookii; 12–13 PCFP and single SBFP in H. cf. gleadowi; 10–11 PCFP and two or three SBFP in H. cf. kushmorensis; 10–14 PCFP and one to three SBFP in H. malcolmsmithi; 11–17 PCFP and one to three SBFP in H. parvimaculatus; 10–12 PCFP and nine or ten SBFP in H. rishivalleyensis; 15 PCFP and four SBFP in H. sankariensis; 11–15 PCFP and three SBFP in H. sahgali; 17 or 18 PCFP and five SBFP in H. siva; 15 or 16 PCFP and single SBFP in H. xericolus; 15–17 PCFP and one or two SBFP in H. flavicaudus; 16–17 PCFP and seven SBFP in H. srikanthani sp. nov. and 7 or 8 PCFP. 13–14 DTR in Hemidactylus mahonyi sp. nov. (versus 17–18 in H. gleadowi, 19–20 in H. kushmorensis, 16–20 in H. murrayi, 6–8 in H. xericolous, 15 in H. chikhaldaraensis, 15–16 in H. chipkali, 15–20 in H. malcolmsmithi, 15–17 in H. sankariensis, 15 or 16 in H. rishivalleyensis, 16 in H. siva, 15–16 in H. treutleri, 17 or 18 in H. varadgirii, 15 or 16 in H. sahgali, 16 or 17 in H. whitakeri. 19–20 in H. triedrus. Sub-digital lamellae beneath digit I of manus 5–6 in H. mahonyi sp. nov. (versus 7 in H. srikanthani sp. nov.); lamellae beneath digit I of pes 8–10 H. mahonyi sp. nov. (11 lamellae in H. chikhaldaraensis, and 6 in H. sankariensis). Sub-digital lamellae beneath digit IV of manus 8–9 H. mahonyi sp. nov. (11 in H. chikhaldaraensis); lamellae beneath digit IV of pes 8 in H. mahonyi sp. nov. (versus 11 in H. chikhaldaraensis, and 9 or 10 in H. rishivalleyensis). The moderate size (up to 56.1 mm SVL, n=2) of Hemidactylus mahonyi sp. nov. easily distinguishes it from other large sized peninsular Indian congeners: 108 mm in H. acanthopholis; 111 mm in H. graniticolus; 95 mm in H. kangerensis; 80 mm in H. kolliensis; 78 mm in H. sahgali; 95 mm in H. sirumalaiensis; 105 mm in H. siva and H. sushilduttai; 126 mm in H. tamhiniensis; 107 mm in H. easai; 76 mm in H. triedrus; 112 mm in H. vanam; 124.4 in H. paaragowli. Additionally, in having a dorsal scalation that is intermixed with large, trihedral, keeled tubercles, H. mahonyi sp. nov. instantly differs from the following species that lack it: H. frenatus, H. leschenaultii, H. giganteus, H. yajurvedi, H. hemchandrai, H. scabriceps, H. reticulatus, H. gracilis, H. sataraensis, H. albofasciatus, H. xericolus and H. flavicaudus. Description of holotype (Figs. 3, 4). The holotype specimen is in good condition, moderately flat beneath, distinct ventrolateral folds on both sides of the trunk, distal half of the tail curved towards the right, hemipenis partially everted on both sides. An adult male; head short (HL 13.3% of SVL); slightly broad (HW 60.1% of HL); slightly depressed (HD 36.4% of HL), distinct from neck. Loreal region slightly inflated, interorbital region slightly concave, canthus rostralis rounded; snout relatively long (E-S 14.2% of SVL), longer than horizontal eye diameter (HED 43.6% of E-S). Scales on snout, forehead, canthus rostralis and inter-orbital region rounded, smooth, convex scales on snout larger than those on occipital region; scales on occipital region small, mostly granular, intermixed with comparatively larger, keeled scales. Eyes rounded, small (HED 18% of HL); pupil vertically elliptical with crenulated margins; supraciliaries small, few slightly elongate on anterior of top half of orbit, gradually decreasing in size posteriorly. Ear opening deep, roughly oval (EL 17.9% of E-N); lacking enlarged lobules; E-E1.6 times greater than horizontal diameter of eye. SL, 10/10 (left/right), 8 th SL in mid-orbital position on right side, roughly rectangular in shape, dorsal edge slightly convex; separated from orbit by single row of scales. Rostral rectangular, much wider than deep, partially divided dorsally by a weakly developed rostral groove. Nostril oval shaped; oriented dorsally, touching 1 st SL on either side; two supranasals, slightly larger compared to surrounding scales, separated from each other by a much smaller scale; three post nasals on either side, smaller than supranasal, lower postnasal contacting 1 st SL. IL, 8/8 (left/right); 1 st and 2 nd slightly larger in size, rectangular in shape; 3 rd –8 th IL decreases in size posteriorly and the lower edge are bordered with two rows of enlarged elongated scales. Mental triangular (MW 94.6% ML); two pairs of well-developed postmentals; primary pair in contact with each other (PPMenL 91.9% of ML), bordered by smooth, rounded scales, contacting 1 st and 2 nd IL on both sides; secondary pair comparatively smaller in size to primary pair (SPMenL 93.3% PPMenL and 86.4% of ML) not contacting each other, rounded posteriorly. Tongue narrowly elongate, with a weak median cleft. Body slightly elongated (A-G 40.9% of SVL), dorsally depressed, stout, distinct ventrolateral folds on both sides. Dorsal pholidosis composed of sub-circular, flattened granular scales interspersed with enlarged, strongly keeled tubercles that are heterogeneous in size and shape, smallest on the neck gradually increasing in size posteriorly and laterally where they are up to 3–4 times the size of surrounding granular scales, fairly regularly arranged in 13–14 almost longitudinal rows at mid-body, extending from posterior part of head to groin; 24 or 25 tubercles in paravertebral scale rows. Ventral scales imbricate, larger than dorsal granular scales, VS 34 or 35; gular region covered in small granular scales about equal in size to dorsal granules, gradually increasing in size posteriorly; forelimbs and hindlimbs covered with enlarged granular scales which are subequal to ventral granular scales; scales on dorsal surface of thighs and shanks are interspersed with enlarged tubercles; largest tubercles being equal in size to mid-dorsal tubercles; pre-anal groove absent; pre-anal depression absent; PCFP, 8/7 (left/right) in number, SBFP, 6; pore-bearing scales are enlarged in size and rhomboidal in shape relative to adjacent scales; SBFP are equivalent to the adjacent scales in size and shape. Fore and hind limbs relatively short, slender, ventral surfaces of limbs covered with uniform, flattened, subimbricate scales; forearm short, (HUL 17.3% of SVL, RUL (14.6% of SVL); thigh stout, (THL 22.0% of SVL; CL 21.1% of SVL); digits moderately short, flattened, a small curved claw on all digital tips; interdigital webbing absent; distal phalanges elevated; each digit with enlarged scansors, lamellae in straight transverse series, all divided except those on the apical portion of the digit, the distal most scansor and a few basal lamellae that are undivided LRM 5-7-8-8-7, and LRP 5-8-9-8-7; digit lengths (measurements in parentheses): TOLRM III (3.9)> II (3.8)> IV (3.7)> V (3.1)> I (2.9); TOLRP III (5.0)> IV (4.9)> V (3.6)> II (3.2)> I (2.1). Tail original, complete, TL 58.9 mm; dorso-laterally depressed, oval in cross section; (TL/SVL: 1.2) with somewhat rounded tail tip in dorsal aspect. Post-cloacal hemipeneal bulge distinct; three pairs of post-cloacal spurs, proximal two pairs sub-equal in size, close to the cloaca, three times smaller than the distal most spur pair, each spur comprising of one raised, rounded, dorso-ventrally flattened scale. Scales on dorsal aspect of tail smooth, rounded, slightly larger than granules on dorsum, with a series of eight enlarged, pointed tubercles on the 1 st whorl and six in the rest; tubercles on the 1 st to 6 th whorls keeled, strongly pointed; tubercles on the 7 th to 10 th whorls weakly keeled or smooth, pointed. Ventral scales on post-cloacal region and at proximal part of tail base larger than on rest of dorsal portion of tail, sub-caudal scales smooth traverse the entire tail width on distal two thirds of tail length. Coloration in life. Overall dorsal body coloration yellow to brown ocher; head, limbs and tail yellow to brown ochre; dorsum of head, body, limbs and tail with dark brown and off-white blotches; anterior snout region including interorbital region more yellowish with light to dark colored scales; labials yellowish to pale brown mottled with finer brownish or blackish spots; entire ventral surface of the body and tail is off-white or soft beige colored; lateral edge of the belly, gular region and tail, ventral surface of the forearms speckled with very fine blackish spots; ventral surface of the hind limb speckled with few and finer blackish spots (Fig. 3). Coloration in ethanol. Dorsum of body lightened to grayish brown coloration; head coloration marginally darker than body dorsum; coloration on anterior snout and interorbital region with slight dark brown blotches; all markings on dorsal and lateral sides of the body and the head are slightly decolorized but distinctly visible; labials whitish or greyish mottled with brownish speckles; supraorbital region with light black or brown blotch; dorsal side of each toe of manus and pes with one or two pale greyish or whitish patches or bands; lamellae under each digit beige colored. Ventral surface of the head, body and tail off-white, specked with very fine blackish spots extending from mental, post mental scales to lateral edge of gular region, ventral surface of the forearms, ventrolateral edge of the body as well as tail (Fig. 4: A‒F). Variation based on paratypes (n=2; Fig. 5). The intraspecific variation in mensural and meristic characters is presented in Table 3. Paratype BNHS 2597 has digit II of right manus damaged; tail regenerated, showing vertical discontinuous black steaks on the regenerated portion; tail length marginally shorter than body (TL/SVL 0.9). Paratype BNHS 2601 is an immature male specimen with a dark brown head and dorsum of body; a small vertical incision on the venter 7.1 mm made to extract liver tissue; series of femoral scales that are enlarged and rhomboidal in shape relative to adjacent scales, without bearing any pore; SBFP that are equivalent to the adjacent scales in size and shape; tail detached near the tail base, tail was lost during the collection of specimens. Distribution and Natural History (Figs. 1, 6). Hemidactylus mahonyi sp. nov. is known to occur only from the hillocks in and around the type locality Sandur Hills near Joga village, Bellary District, Karnataka, India, at an elevation of ca. 440‒500 m asl. The species was encountered only on the rocky boulders. The species appears to be nocturnal and locally abundant as we encountered>20 active individuals from the dusk through the night (18:00–22:00 hrs) and at dawn (05:00–07:30 hrs) in the winter season. During the day, a few individuals were seen inactive, sheltered under rocks or in crevices. Sympatric geckos encountered during night at the type locality include Hemidactylus siva Srinivasulu, Srinivasulu & Kumar, H. cf. reticulatus, H. cf. giganteus Stoliczka and Cnemaspis adii Srinivasulu, Kumar & Srinivasulu. Other lizards such as Calotes vultuosus (Harlan), Psammophilus cf. dorsalis (Gray), Eutropis cf. carinata (Schneider) and, Ophisops cf. jerdoni Blyth and O. leschenaulti (Milne-Edwards) were observed sharing the same rocky habitat during the day. Habitat at the type locality consists of dry evergreen forests, with moist patches near the summit, and thorny scrub hillocks at the foothills (Madiwalar & Wodeyar 1993).Published as part of Adhikari, Omkar D., Achyuthan, N. S., Kumar, G. Chethan, Khot, Rahul V., Shreeram, M. V. & Ganesh, S. R., 2022, Two new species of Hemidactylus Goldfuss, 1820 (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from the rocky outcrops of the Deccan plateau, peninsular India, pp. 227-249 in Zootaxa 5129 (2) on pages 234-238, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5129.2.4, http://zenodo.org/record/650088
Discussion of “Analysis of passive earth pressure modification due to seepage flow effects”
No full textThe paper by Hu et al. (2018) attempted to quantify the potential impact of seepage flow in the cohesionless backfill on the development of passive earth pressure behind vertical retaining wall. The writer likes to show his gratitude to authors for presenting such interesting results in this paper which would be very much useful for the practicing geotechnical community. While reading this paper with great interest, the writer has left with certain doubts on the methodology and basic assumptions on which the entire analysis has been carried out.The accepted manuscript in pdf format is listed with the files at the bottom of this page. The presentation of the authors' names and (or) special characters in the title of the manuscript may differ slightly between what is listed on this page and what is listed in the pdf file of the accepted manuscript; that in the pdf file of the accepted manuscript is what was submitted by the author
Hemidactylus srikanthani Adhikari & Achyuthan & Kumar & Khot & Shreeram & Ganesh 2022, sp. nov.
No full text<i>Hemidactylus srikanthani sp. nov.</i> <p>(Figs. 7‒10; Table 3)</p> <p> <b>Holotype.</b> BNHS 2640, adult male, collected by N. S. Achyuthan and M. V. Shreeram on 21 July 2018, from Devarayana Durga Hills (13.371°N, 77.210°E; 1,060 m asl) in Tumkur district, Karnataka, India.</p> <p> <b>Paratype.</b> BNHS 2641, subadult female, same collection information as the holotype.</p> <p> <b>Etymology.</b> Patronym named in genitive singular case honouring Mr. Srikanthan Vijayraghvan, the father of the second author, for inspiring and supporting the author’s interests in nature conservation and herpetology; and financially supporting the team of authors for herpetological research projects. <b>Suggested English name.</b> Srikanthan’s Rock Gecko.</p> <p> <b>Diagnosis.</b> A medium-sized (adult SVL 66.6 mm; n=1) species of <i>Hemidactylus</i> inhabiting the Tumkur Hills. Dorsal pholidosis composed of sub-circular, flattened, granular scales interspersed with enlarged, strongly keeled tubercles that are heterogeneous in size and shape, fairly regularly arranged in 14 or 15 longitudinal rows at midbody; 29 or 30 tubercles in paravertebral rows. VS 37 or 38 scale rows. Digits with enlarged scansors, lamellae in straight transverse series, all divided except those on the apical portion of the digit, the distal most scansor and a few basal lamellae that are undivided; lamellae beneath digit I: 7 (manus) and 7 (pes), digit IV: 9–10 (manus) and 10 (pes). Males with 16–17 precloacal-femoral pores on each thigh separated by seven pore-less scales. Three postcloacal spurs on each side; tail depressed, scales on dorsal aspect of tail heterogeneous, slightly larger than granular scales on dorsum, intermixed with a series of 6 enlarged, strongly pointed, keeled tubercles on each whorl.</p> <p> <b>Comparison.</b> <i>Hemidactylus srikanthani</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> can be easily distinguished from its peninsular Indian congeners based on the following non-overlapping characters (note: comparison with a new species <i>H. mahonyi</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> will follow its present description): male with 16–17 PCFP and seven SBFP (<i>versus</i> 12–13 PCFP and single SBFP in <i>H. brookii</i>; 7 PCFP and eight SBFP in <i>H. chipkali</i>; 12–13 PCFP and single SBFP in <i>H. gleadowi</i>; 10–11 PCFP and two or three SBFP in <i>H. kushmorensis</i>; 10–14 PCFP and one to three SBFP in <i>H. malcolmsmithi</i>; 10–12 PCFP and nine or ten SBFP in <i>H. rishivalleyensis</i>; 15 PCFP and four SBFP in <i>H. sankariensis</i>; 11–15 PCFP and three SBFP in <i>H. sahgali</i>; 9 or 10 PCFP and four or five SBFP in <i>H. varadgirii</i>; 7–9 FP and 1–3 SBFP in <i>H. triedrus</i>; 7 or 8 PCFP and three SBFP in <i>H. whitakeri</i>; 7–9 PCFP and six SBFP in <i>H. mahonyi</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> and 7 or 8 PCFP and seven SBFP in <i>H. treutleri</i>). 14–15 DTR in <i>Hemidactylus srikanthani</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> (<i>versus</i> 17–18 in <i>H. gleadowi</i>, 19–20 in <i>H. kushmorensis</i>, 16–20 in <i>H. murrayi</i>, 6–8 in <i>H. xericolous</i>, 16 in <i>H. siva</i>, 17 or 18 in <i>H. varadgirii</i>, 16 or 17 in <i>H. whitakeri.</i> 19–20 in <i>H. triedrus</i>). Sub-digital lamellae beneath digit I of manus 7 in <i>H. srikanthani</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> (<i>versus</i> 6 lamellae in <i>H. chikhaldaraensis</i> and <i>H. sankariensis</i>, 5–6 in <i>H. parvimaculatus</i> and <i>H. mahonyi</i> <b>sp. nov.</b>); lamellae beneath digit I of pes 9–10 <i>H. srikanthani</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> (11 lamellae in <i>H. chikhaldaraensis</i>, and 6 in <i>H. sankariensis</i>). Sub-digital lamellae beneath digit IV of manus 9 or 10 in <i>H. srikanthani</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> (<i>versus</i> 11 in <i>H. chikhaldaraensis</i>, and 8 in <i>H. sankariensis</i>); lamellae beneath digit IV of pes 10 in <i>H. srikanthani</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> (<i>versus</i> 11 in <i>H. chikhaldaraensis</i>, and 7–9 in <i>H. sankariensis</i>). The moderate size (up to 66.6 mm SVL, n=2) of <i>Hemidactylus srikanthani</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> easily distinguishes it from other large sized Peninsular Indian congeners: 108 mm in <i>H. acanthopholis</i>; 111 mm in <i>H. graniticolus</i>; 95 mm in <i>H. kangerensis</i>; 80 mm in <i>H. kolliensis</i>; 78 mm in <i>H. sahgali</i>; 95 mm in <i>H. sirumalaiensis</i>; 105 mm in <i>H. siva</i> and <i>H. sushilduttai</i>; 126 mm in <i>H. tamhiniensis</i>; 107 mm in <i>H. easai</i>; 76 mm in <i>H. triedrus</i>; 112 mm in <i>H. vanam</i>; 124.4 in <i>H. paaragowli</i>. Additionally, in having a dorsal scalation that is intermixed with large, trihedral, keeled tubercles, <i>H. srikanthani</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> instantly differs from the following species that lack it: <i>H. frenatus, H. leschenaultii, H. giganteus, H. yajurvedi, H. hemchandrai, H. scabriceps, H. reticulatus, H. gracilis, H. sataraensis, H. albofasciatus, H. xericolus</i> and <i>H. flavicaudus</i>.</p> <p> <b>Description of holotype (Figs. 7, 8).</b> The holotype specimen is in good condition except for a small vertical inscision on the venter 11.2 mm made to extract liver tissue, forms strong ventrolateral folds on both sides of the trunk, distal half of the tail curved towards the left; hemipenis partially everted on both sides—all artefacts of preservation. An adult male; head comparatively shorter than SVL, (HL 31.0% of SVL); slightly broad, (HW 61.8% of HL); slightly depressed, (HD 36.2% of HL), distinct from neck. Loreal region slightly inflated; interorbital region and forehead fairly concave; canthus rostralis rounded; snout comparatively longer, (E-S 12.9% of SVL), longer than horizontal eye diameter (HED 53.4% of E-S). Scales on snout, forehead, canthus rostralis, and inter-orbital region rounded, smooth, convex scales on snout larger than those on occipital region; scales on occipital region small, mostly granular, intermixed with comparatively larger, keeled scales. Eyes rounded, small (HED 22.2% of HL); pupil vertically elliptical with crenulated margins; supraciliaries small, few slightly elongate on anterior of top half of orbit, gradually decreasing in size posteriorly. Ear opening deep, roughly oval, (EL 19.1% of E-N); lacking enlarged lobules; E-E 1.2 times greater than horizontal diameter of eyes. SL 10/9 (left/right), 8 th SL in mid-orbital position on right side, rectangular, slightly convex above; separated from orbit by one or two rows of scales. Rostral rectangular, partially divided dorsally by a weakly developed rostral groove. Nostril oval shaped, oriented dorsally, contacting with rostral anteriorly; two supranasals, slightly larger compared to surrounding scales, separated from each other by a smaller scale; three post nasals on either side, smaller than supranasal, lower postnasal not in contact with 1 st SL. IL 9/8 (left/right); 1 st and 2 nd slightly larger in size, rectangular in shape; 3 rd –8 th /9 th IL decreases in size posteriorly and the lower edge are bordered with four or five rows of enlarged elongated scales. Mental triangular (MW 90.5% ML); three pairs of well-developed postmentals; primary pair in contact with each other (PPMenL 95.2% of ML), touches 1 st and 2 nd IL; secondary pair marginally smaller to primary pair (SPMenL 95.0% PPMenL and 90.5% of ML), not contacting each other, touches 2 nd IL; outermost pair smaller than both primary and secondary pair, rounded posteriorly; separated from 3 rd IL by single smooth, elongated scale. Tongue narrowly elongate, with a weak median cleft.</p> <p>Body elongated, (A-G 38.7% of SVL); dorsally depressed, stout. Dorsal pholidosis composed of sub-circular, flattened granular scales that are heterogeneous in size, interspersed enlarged, strongly keeled tubercles that are heterogeneous size and shape, fairly regularly arranged in 14 or 15 longitudinal rows at mid-body extending from posterior part of head to groin; 29–30 tubercles on the paravertebral rows. Ventral scales imbricate, larger than dorsal granular scales, VS 37; gular region covered in small granular scales about equal in size to dorsal granules, gradually increasing in size posteriorly. Forelimbs and hindlimbs covered with enlarged granular scales which are subequal to ventral granular scales; scales on dorsal surface of thighs and shanks are interspersed with enlarged tubercles; largest tubercles being equal in size to mid-dorsal tubercles; pre-anal groove absent; pre-anal depression absent; PCFP 17/16 (left/right); SBFP 7; pore-bearing scales are enlarged in size and rhomboidal in shape relative to adjacent scales; SBFP that are equivalent to the adjacent scales in size and shape.</p> <p>Fore and hind limbs relatively short, slender, ventral surfaces of limbs covered with uniform, flattened, subimbricate scales; HUL slightly longer than RUL (HUL 18.3% of SVL, RUL 15.8% of SVL); thigh stout; THL and CL sub-equal, (THL 19.2% of SVL, CL 19.4 % SVL); digits moderately short, flattened, a small curved claw on all digital tips; interdigital webbing absent; distal phalanges elevated; each digit with enlarged scansors, lamellae in straight transverse series, all divided except those on the apical portion of the digit, the distal most scansor and a few basal lamellae that are undivided; LRM 7-9-9-9-9, and LRP 6-9-10-10-10; toe lengths (measurements in parentheses): TOLRM III (5.1)> IV (4.9)> II (4.7)> V (4.4)> I (1.9); TOLRP IV (5.7)> V (5.1)> III (4.5)> II (4.3)> I (2.2).</p> <p> Tail original, complete; not regenerated, oval in cross section; TL 1.2 times longer than SVL with rounded tip. Post-cloacal hemipeneal bulge distinct; three pairs of post-cloacal spurs, proximal most pairs sub-equal in size, close to the cloaca, three times smaller than the distal most spur pair, each spur comprising of one raised, rounded, dorso-ventrally flattened scale. Scales on dorsal aspect of tail smooth, rounded, slightly larger than granules on dorsum, with a series of six enlarged, pointed tubercles on the 1 st whorl and six in next four whorls; tubercles on the 1 st to 5 th whorls keeled, strongly pointed; four weakly keeled, pointed tubercles on 6 th to 9 th whorls and remaining whorls with three small, weakly keeled or smooth, pointed tubercles. Ventral scales on post-cloacal region and at proximal part of tail base larger than on rest of dorsal portion of tail, with a median row of transversely enlarged, smooth sub-caudals covering almost entire tail width on the distal two thirds of the tail length.</p> <p> <b>Coloration in life.</b> Overall dorsal body coloration light cream to light brown; head, limbs and tail light cream to light brown; dorsum of head, body, limbs and tail with dark brown/ black and off-white blotches; dorsum with a series of saddles forming vague ‘X’ shaped dark brown markings periodically interspaced with white ‘I’ shaped markings. anterior snout region including interorbital region more pinkish with light to dark colored scales; labials pinkish to pale brown mottled with finer brownish or blackish spots; entire ventral surface of the body and tail is off-white or beige colored; lateral edge of the belly, gular region and the tail region banded with dotted dark brown to black markings ventral surface of the forearms speckled with very fine blackish spots; ventral surface of the hind limbs speckled with few and finer dark brown to blackish dots (Fig. 6).</p> <p> <b>Coloration in ethanol.</b> Dorsum of body lightened to a pale grayish-brown to beige coloration; all markings on dorsal and lateral sides of the body and the head are slightly decolorized but distinctly visible; labials whitish mottled with greyish speckles and blotches; dorsal side of each toe of manus and pes are darker with lighten in color marked with dark brown or blackish patches or bands; lamellae under each digit beige to whitish that are edged with beige colored. Ventral surface of the head, body and tail off-white, specked with very fine blackish spots only on the lateral edges (Fig. 7: A‒F).</p> <p> <b>Variation based on paratype (Fig. 9).</b> The intraspecific variation of mensural and meristic characters is presented in Table 3.</p> <p> <b>Distribution and natural history (Figs. 1, 10).</b> Commonly found on granite rock formations, neighboring human habitations and houses in villages surrounding the type locality, Devarayana Durga Hills (~ 800‒1000 m asl) of Tumkur District, Karnataka State, in Peninsular India. <i>Hemidactylus srikanthani</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> is nocturnal and found alongside <i>H.</i> cf. <i>giganteus</i>. When inactive they often hide in deep rock crevices. The type locality, Devarayana Durga Hills is covered with tropical dry evergreen forests, with a few moist patches at the peak and rocky scrub at the foothills (Bhaskar & Kushalappa 1995).</p>Published as part of <i>Adhikari, Omkar D., Achyuthan, N. S., Kumar, G. Chethan, Khot, Rahul V., Shreeram, M. V. & Ganesh, S. R., 2022, Two new species of Hemidactylus Goldfuss, 1820 (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from the rocky outcrops of the Deccan plateau, peninsular India, pp. 227-249 in Zootaxa 5129 (2)</i> on pages 240-244, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5129.2.4, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/6500887">http://zenodo.org/record/6500887</a>
- …
