1,720,979 research outputs found
Megaxyela fulvago Stephan M. Blank & Katja Kramp & David R. Smith & Yuri N. Sundukov & Meicai Wei & Akihiko Shinohara 2017, sp. nov.
No full textMegaxyela fulvago Blank, Shinohara & Wei sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:DF04584F-B33D-42A7-836D-E758A66F4081 Figs 4A–G, 11B, 12B–C, 13B Megaxyela gigantea – Takeuchi 1940: 484 (misidentification). ― Maa 1949: 30 (misidentification). Megaxyela sp. 2 – Shinohara et al. 2017: fig. 15 (phylogenetic analysis). — Blank et al. 2017: 115. Diagnosis The red brown head, prothorax and mesothorax are unique to this species. Etymology The Latin noun fulvago indicates the predominantly pale brown color of this species. Type material Holotype CHINA: ♂: “[CHINA: Hunan] Mt. Yunshan 1250 m [alt.] 26°39′ N, 110°37′ E nr. Wugang 12.IV.2012 [leg.] A. Shinohara ”; “ DEI-GISHym 5236 ”; [red:] “Holotype Megaxyela fulvago det. SMBlank & AShinohara 2015” (CSCS). Paratypes (6 ♀♀, 6 ♂♂) CHINA: 1 ♀, 5 ♂♂, same collecting data as holotype, DEI-GISHym 5235, 5237–5239, 5751–5752 (5237, 5239, 5751–5752 used for barcoding) (SDEI, NSMT); 1 ♀, Jiangsu Sheng, Nanjing, 32.06° N, 118.78° E, 1 May 1985, Jinniang leg. (CSCS); 2 ♀♀, 1 ♂, Jiangsu Sheng [“Prov. Kiangsu”], Zhenjiang [“Chinkiang”], 32.20° N, 119.43° E, 24 Apr.–1 May 1918 (IZCAS) (Takeuchi 1940; Maa 1949; images for re-identification provided by Yang Ganyan); 1 ♀, Zhejiang Province, Kaishan Laodian, Tianmushan, Lin’an, 30.343° N, 119.435° E, 1140 m alt., 10 Apr. 2014, Liu Ting and Yu Xinjie leg., CSCS14012, DEI- GISHym 30882 (specimen used for barcoding) (CSCS); 1 ♀, same locality, 1110 m alt., 14 Apr. 2016, Li Zejian, Liu Mengmeng and Chen Zhiwei leg., CSCS16143, DEI-GISHym 30883 (specimen used for barcoding) (CSCS). Description Female COLOR. Body red brown with black-and-white pattern, black parts partly with bronze tinge (Fig. 4A). Head and thorax red brown (specimen 30882 with diffuse transverse stripe on vertex – artifact?), posterior half of metanotum and ventral half of metepisternum infuscate. Scape red brown, pedicel black, flagellum dark brown. Abdomen in dorsal view black with continuous white bands laterally on terga 2–4, each 0.15–0.20 × as wide as tergal width, tergum 8 with narrower lateral white band, ventral portions of terga 2–4 and 8 completely white, terga 5–6 narrowly and tergum 7 broadly white along ventral margin, terga 9+10 brown with small dark spot dorsolaterally. Sterna white. Valvifer 2 and valvula 3 red brown, membrane between valvifer 2 and valvula 3 pale (Fig. 11B). Fore and mid legs pale red brown. On hind leg, coxa red brown, infuscated laterally in middle and dorsally, trochanter and trochantellus pale red brown, femur brown dorsally and red brown ventrally, tibia and tarsus brown. Wings weakly yellow stained, venation and pterostigma yellow brown. MORPHOLOGY. Body 11.4–13.0 mm, fore wing 14.9–15.4 mm long. POL: OOL: OCL = 1.0: 2.2–2.4: 2.2–2.3. Interantennal distance 1.0–1.1 × as wide as distance between torulus and eye margin, malar space 0.4–0.5 × as wide as interantennal distance. Eye 1.3–1.4 × as long as wide, frons at dorsal edge of antennal toruli 1.7–1.8 × as wide as maximum diameter of eye. Synantennomere 3 4.5–4.9 mm, filament 1.1 mm, with 8–9 articles.Article 3 of maxillary palp 0.5–0.6 mm long. Ovipositor sheath 3.30–3.50 mm long, valvula 3 1.9–2.3 × as long as wide. On hind leg, femur 4.9–5.0 mm, tibia 5.6–6.0 mm, tarsus 4.1–4.3 mm, tarsomere 1 4.5–5.1 × as long as wide, longer distal spur of tibia 0.70 × as long as tarsomere 1, subapical tooth of claw stout and little shorter than apical tooth (Fig. 4B; similar to Shinohara 1992: fig. 4D). Face and vertex with areolate surface microsculpture, dull, interantennal area and frons above antennal toruli with scattered, shallow, 50 µm large pits (similar to Fig. 4G), gena weakly coriarious, shining. Mesoscutum and mesoscutellum homogeneously areolate. Mesepisternum weakly coriarious and shining, with scattered pits. Metatarsomere 1 dorsally and dorsolaterally very sparsely setose, ventrally and ventrolaterally densely setose, setae 150–200 µm long ventrally (Fig. 4B). Pulvilli absent on article 1 of metatarsus, present on articles 3–4, presence ambiguous for article 2, on article 4 pulvillus 50 µm long. Basal and medial sections of valvula 3 of ovipositor sheath convex dorsally, almost straight ventrally, preapical section concave on dorsal and ventral edge, medial to preapical section of dorsal margin with setae up to 200 µm long, ventral margin with setae up to 100 μm long (Fig. 11B). Ovipositor about 2.4 mm long, weakly curved ventrally, valvula 1 and valvula 2 with bulbous areas in middle, without ctenidia (Fig. 12B–C). Valvula 1 in distal 0.7 with very narrowly spaced, subparallel, straight, vertical annuli, ventral margin in distal 0.3 bearing small serrulae. Valvula 2 in distal 0.6 with narrowly spaced annuli, distal 0.3 of dorsal edge of valvula 1 with small denticles. Male COLOR. Similar to female (Fig. 4E–G). Metepimeron red brown or predominantly infuscate. Ventral portions of terga 5–7 predominantly white. Subgenital plate and genitalia red brown. On hind leg, coxa sometimes completely black laterally, trochanter and trochantellus red brown, femur black dorsally and medially, dark red brown ventrally and laterally, tibia and tarsus black (Fig. 4C–D). MORPHOLOGY. Body 8.8–10.7 mm, fore wing 11.3–12.8 mm long. POL: OOL: OCL = 1.0: 1.6–1.7(– 1.9): 1.7–1.9(–2.0). Interantennal distance 0.9–1.1 × as long as distance between torulus and eye margin, malar space 0.5 × as wide as interantennal distance. Eye 1.3–1.4 × as long as wide, frons at dorsal edge of antennal toruli 1.6–1.8 × as wide as maximum diameter of eye. Synantennomere 3 (3.6–)4.0– 4.6 mm, filament 1.0– 1.1 mm and with 8–9 articles (one male with left filament 0.8 mm long, 6 articles, right filament 1.0 mm long, 8 articles). Article 3 of maxillary palp 0.4–0.5 μm long. On hind leg, femur 3.7–4.2 mm, tibia 4.5–5.2 mm, tarsus (3.8–) 4.1–4.4 mm, tarsomere 1 4.9–5.5 × as long as wide, longer distal spur of tibia 0.60 × as long as tarsomere 1. Claws and microsculpture similar to female (Fig. 4D). Subgenital plate bluntly pointed at apex. Valviceps of penis valve distally parabolically rounded, basal 0.3 of upper side expanded to a round lobe coiled laterally, medial 0.3–0.8 of upper edge shallowly convex, with numerous small teeth. Distal 0.7 of valviceps with long setae, most dense in medial lower portion of valviceps (Fig. 13B). Remarks Megaxyela fulvago sp. nov. is most similar to M. gigantea regarding color and structure. In both species, terga 2–4 are extensively white on the dorsolateral and ventral portion. This pattern is absent in M. euchroma sp. nov. and in most of the Nearctic species. White is present on the dorsal side of only terga 2–3 in M. parki, M. pulchra sp. nov. and M. togashii, as well as in the Nearctic M. major. Megaxyela fulvago sp. nov. and M. gigantea share the dull, minutely areolate and shallowly pitted face. A rugose surface structure is absent from the frons, which has been observed in the other East Asian species. Megaxyela fulvago sp. nov. and M. gigantea are primarily discriminated by color: head, prothorax and mesothorax are completely red brown in M. fulvago sp. nov., but these parts bear an extensive dark brown to black pattern in M. gigantea. The antennal filament of females is longer in M. fulvago sp. nov. (1.1 mm) than in M. gigantea (0.8 mm), and sometimes it is subdivided into fewer articles in M. fulvago sp. nov. (♀: 8–9; ♂: usually 8–9) than in M. gigantea (♀: 9; ♂: 9–10). The relative distance of POL: OOL: OCL differs weakly in males (1.0: 1.6–1.7[–1.9]: 1.7–1.9[–2.0] and 1.0: 1.8–2.0: 2.0–2.2, respectively). The metatarsomere 1 of males is 4.9–5.5 × as long as wide in M. fulvago sp. nov. but 4.6–5.0 × in M. gigantea. The female of M. fulvago sp. nov. falls into the range of variability of M. gigantea regarding these two characters. The COI sequences group the specimens identified as M. fulvago sp. nov. by morphology into a clade which is supported by a bootstrap of 97%. This clade additionally includes a specimen of M. gigantea. Supposedly this placement is an artefact caused by the short sequence length (261 bp) of this specimen. The maximum intraspecific variation within M. fulvago sp. nov. is 0.8%. Megaxyela togashii is placed at a minimum pairwise distance of 7.6% (Fig. 2). The specimens from Mount Yunshan were collected on a sunny day flying around birch trees with lots of catkins shedding pollen. Pollen feeding of adults is well known for Xyela species, which bear distally modified and usually extended maxillary palps (Burdick 1961). A similar behavior is unknown for adult Macroxyelinae. Although M. major has been caught from catkins of willow (Bridwell 1906) and pollen has been identified from the intestine of two fossil Macroxyelinae species (Krasilov & Rasnitsyn 1982), Megaxyela is not specialized in pollen feeding but is facultatively palynivorous, because the labiomaxillar complex exhibits no particular modifications for the uptake of pollen as in Xyelinae. Takeuchi (1940) and Maa (1949) referred to the specimens of M. gigantea collected in “Chinkiang [= Zhenjiang], Prov. Kiangsu [= Jangsu Sheng]” deposited in the collection of the Musée Heude, Shanghai at that time. Major parts of this collection have been incorporated into IZCAS, Beijing (Yang Ganyan, personal communication). The two females and one male collected in “Chinkiang” in 1918 could be identified as M. fulvago sp. nov. with help of photos kindly provided by Yang Ganyan. An additional female from “Chinkian” (3 May 1936, E. Suenson leg.), which we identified as M. gigantea prior to the recognition of M. fulvago sp. nov., is kept at INHS.Published as part of Stephan M. Blank, Katja Kramp, David R. Smith, Yuri N. Sundukov, Meicai Wei & Akihiko Shinohara, 2017, Big and beautiful: the Megaxyela species (Hymenoptera, Xyelidae) of East Asia and North America, pp. 1-46 in European Journal of Taxonomy 348 on pages 13-16, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2017.348, http://zenodo.org/record/104266
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Megaxyela Ashmead in Dyar 1898
No full textMegaxyela Ashmead, 1898 Megaxyela Ashmead in Dyar, 1898a [May]: 214 (nec Ashmead in Dyar 1898b [July]: 174), type species: Xyela major Cresson, 1880 (now Megaxyela major), by original designation. Odontophyes Konow, 1899: 42, type species: Pleroneura avingrata Konow, 1899 (unjustified emendation and homonym of Pleuroneura [sic!] aviingrata Dyar, 1898; now Megaxyela aviingrata), by monotypy. Megaloxyela Schulz, 1906: 88, unjustified emendation of Megaxyela Ashmead, 1898. Paraxyela MacGillivray, 1912: 294, type species: Xyela tricolor Norton, 1862 (now Megaxyela tricolor), by original designation. Odontophyes – Ross 1932: 161 (synonymy with Megaxyela). Paraxyela – Ross 1932: 161 (synonymy with Megaxyela). Megaloxyela – Smith 1978: 24 (listed in synonymy with Megaxyela). Remarks Megaxyela species differ from other extant xyelids by the following characters: carina along inner orbit present (e.g., Figs 3F–G, 4G), sometimes obscured by other surface sculpture (e.g., Figs 6C, 8F); vein Sc2 of fore wing joining R at 0.25–0.50 of distance between separation of Rs from R and pterostigma (Fig. 1A–B); hind legs extended, about 1.5–2.0 × as long as body (e.g., Fig. 3A–B, 3D–E). The taxonomic recognition of Megaxyela from other extant Xyelidae is possible with the keys of Ross (1937), Benson (1945) and Blank (2002).Published as part of Stephan M. Blank, Katja Kramp, David R. Smith, Yuri N. Sundukov, Meicai Wei & Akihiko Shinohara, 2017, Big and beautiful: the Megaxyela species (Hymenoptera, Xyelidae) of East Asia and North America, pp. 1-46 in European Journal of Taxonomy 348 on page 9, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2017.348, http://zenodo.org/record/104266
Megaxyela tricolor
No full textMegaxyela tricolor (Norton, 1862) Xyela tricolor Norton, 1862: 144 (♂, type locality: USA, Kansas). Megaxyela tricolor – Ross 1932: 162–163 (combination, description, key, distribution). ― Smith & Schiff 1998: 638–639 (key), 648 (description, distribution, references), figs 11, 22–25, 35. Material examined USA: 1 ♀, West Virginia, Upshur County, Ruraldale, 12 Apr. 2014, photographed by S. Cresswell (Cresswell 2014). Supplementary description See Smith & Schiff (1998). Female. Antenna black. Metafemur orange with extreme apex on outer surface black (1 ♀ studied by Smith & Schiff 1998) or distal 0.4 black (Cresswell 2014). Remarks This is the first state record for West Virginia. The species has been found in Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri and in Ontario (Smith & Schiff 1998).Published as part of Stephan M. Blank, Katja Kramp, David R. Smith, Yuri N. Sundukov, Meicai Wei & Akihiko Shinohara, 2017, Big and beautiful: the Megaxyela species (Hymenoptera, Xyelidae) of East Asia and North America, pp. 1-46 in European Journal of Taxonomy 348 on page 33, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2017.348, http://zenodo.org/record/104266
Fig. 1. Megaxyela Ashmead, 1898, morphological terminology. A. M in Big and beautiful: the Megaxyela species (Hymenoptera, Xyelidae) of East Asia and North America
No full textFig. 1. Megaxyela Ashmead, 1898, morphological terminology. A. M. major (Cresson, 1880) (♀, paralectotype, DEI-GISHym 30823, ANSP), wings. B. M. parki Shinohara, 1992 (♀, 18509, NSMT), section of fore wing. C. M. euchroma Blank, Shinohara & Wei sp. nov. (♂, paratype, 22513, NSMT), penis valve. D. M. parki (♂, 710, NSMT), antenna. E. M. gigantea Mocsáry, 1909 (♀, holotype of M. mikado Sato, 1930, 22350, NSMT), ovipositor and ovipositor sheath, with indication of measurement of length of valvifer 2 (blue), valvula 3 (white), and width of valvula 3 (yellow). F. M. euchroma sp. nov. (♀, paratype, 22558, CSCS), section of ovipositor, white arrow heads indicating teeth of ctenidia on valvulae 1 and 2.Published as part of Stephan M. Blank, Katja Kramp, David R. Smith, Yuri N. Sundukov, Meicai Wei & Akihiko Shinohara, 2017, Big and beautiful: the Megaxyela species (Hymenoptera, Xyelidae) of East Asia and North America, pp. 1-46 in European Journal of Taxonomy 348 on page 3, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2017.348, http://zenodo.org/record/104266
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
