Suchergebnisse

A checklist of world species of Microgastrinae parasitoid wasps (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) is provided. A total of 81 genera and 2,999 extant species are recognized as valid, including 36 nominal species that are currently considered as species inquirendae. Two genera are synonymized under Apanteles. Nine lectotypes are designated. A total of 318 new combinations, three new replacement names, three species name amendments, and seven species status revised are proposed. Additionally, three species names are treated as nomina dubia, and 52 species names are considered as unavailable names (including 14 as nomina nuda). A total of three extinct genera and 12 extinct species are also listed. Unlike in many previous treatments of the subfamily, tribal concepts are judged to be inadequate, so genera are listed alphabetically. Brief diagnoses of all Microgastrinae genera, as understood in this paper, are presented. Illustrations of all extant genera (at least one species per genus, usually more) are included to showcase morphological diversity. Primary types of Microgastrinae are deposited in 108 institutions worldwide, although 76% are concentrated in 17 collections. Localities of primary types, in 138 countries, are reported. Recorded species distributions are listed by biogeographical region and by country. Microgastrine wasps are recorded from all continents except Antarctica; specimens can be found in all major terrestrial ecosystems, from 82°N to 55°S, and from sea level up to at least 4,500 m a.s.l. The Oriental (46) and Neotropical (43) regions have the largest number of genera recorded, whereas the Palaearctic region (28) is the least diverse. Currently, the highest species richness is in the Palearctic region (827), due to more historical study there, followed by the Neotropical (768) and Oriental (752) regions, which are expected to be the most species rich. Based on ratios of Lepidoptera and Microgastrinae species from several areas, the actual world diversity of Microgastrinae is expected to be between 30,000–50,000 species; although these ratios were mostly based on data from temperate areas and thus must be treated with caution, the single tropical area included had a similar ratio to the temperate ones. Almost 45,000 specimens of Microgastrinae from 67 different genera (83% of microgastrine genera) have complete or partial DNA barcode sequences deposited in the Barcode of Life Data System; the DNA barcodes represent 3,545 putative species or Barcode Index Numbers (BINs), as estimated from the molecular data. Information on the number of sequences and BINs per genus are detailed in the checklist. Microgastrinae hosts are here considered to be restricted to Eulepidoptera, i.e., most of the Lepidoptera except for the four most basal superfamilies (Micropterigoidea, Eriocranioidea, Hepialoidea and Nepticuloidea), with all previous literature records of other insect orders and those primitive Lepidoptera lineages being considered incorrect. The following nomenclatural acts are proposed: 1) Two genera are synonymyzed under Apanteles: Cecidobracon Kieffer & Jörgensen, 1910, new synonym and Holcapanteles Cameron, 1905, new synonym; 2) Nine lectotype designations are made for Alphomelon disputabile (Ashmead, 1900), Alphomelon nigriceps (Ashmead, 1900), Cotesia salebrosa (Marshall, 1885), Diolcogaster xanthaspis (Ashmead, 1900), Dolichogenidea ononidis (Marshall, 1889), Glyptapanteles acraeae (Wilkinson, 1932), Glyptapanteles guyanensis (Cameron, 1911), Glyptapanteles militaris (Walsh, 1861), and Pseudapanteles annulicornis Ashmead, 1900; 3) Three new replacement names are a) Diolcogaster aurangabadensis Fernandez-Triana, replacing Diolcogaster indicus (Rao & Chalikwar, 1970) [nec Diolcogaster indicus (Wilkinson, 1927)], b) Dolichogenidea incystatae Fernandez-Triana, replacing Dolichogenidea lobesia Liu & Chen, 2019 [nec Dolichogenidea lobesia Fagan-Jeffries & Austin, 2019], and c) Microplitis vitobiasi Fernandez-Triana, replacing Microplitis variicolor Tobias, 1964 [nec Microplitis varicolor Viereck, 1917]; 4) Three names amended are Apanteles irenecarrilloae Fernandez-Triana, 2014, Cotesia ayerzai (Brèthes, 1920), and Cotesia riverai (Porter, 1916); 5) Seven species have their status revised: Cotesia arctica (Thomson, 1895), Cotesia okamotoi (Watanabe, 1921), Cotesia ukrainica (Tobias, 1986), Dolichogenidea appellator (Telenga, 1949), Dolichogenidea murinanae (Capek & Zwölfer, 1957), Hypomicrogaster acarnas Nixon, 1965, and Nyereria nigricoxis (Wilkinson, 1932); 6) New combinations are given for 318 species: Alloplitis congensis, Alloplitis detractus, Apanteles asphondyliae, Apanteles braziliensis, Apanteles sulciscutis, Choeras aper, Choeras apollion, Choeras daphne, Choeras fomes, Choeras gerontius, Choeras helle, Choeras irates, Choeras libanius, Choeras longiterebrus, Choeras loretta, Choeras recusans, Choeras sordidus, Choeras stenoterga, Choeras superbus, Choeras sylleptae, Choeras vacillatrix, Choeras vacillatropsis, Choeras venilia, Cotesia asavari, Cotesia bactriana, Cotesia bambeytripla, Cotesia berberidis, Cotesia bhairavi, Cotesia biezankoi, Cotesia bifida, Cotesia caligophagus, Cotesia cheesmanae, Cotesia compressithorax, Cotesia delphinensis, Cotesia effrena, Cotesia euphobetri, Cotesia elaeodes, Cotesia endii, Cotesia euthaliae, Cotesia exelastisae, Cotesia hiberniae, Cotesia hyperion, Cotesia hypopygialis, Cotesia hypsipylae, Cotesia jujubae, Cotesia lesbiae, Cotesia levigaster, Cotesia lizeri, Cotesia malevola, Cotesia malshri, Cotesia menezesi, Cotesia muzaffarensis, Cotesia neptisis, Cotesia nycteus, Cotesia oeceticola, Cotesia oppidicola, Cotesia opsiphanis, Cotesia pachkuriae, Cotesia paludicolae, Cotesia parbhanii, Cotesia parvicornis, Cotesia pratapae, Cotesia prozorovi, Cotesia pterophoriphagus, Cotesia radiarytensis, Cotesia rangii, Cotesia riverai, Cotesia ruficoxis, Cotesia senegalensis, Cotesia seyali, Cotesia sphenarchi, Cotesia sphingivora, Cotesia transuta, Cotesia turkestanica, Diolcogaster abengouroui, Diolcogaster agama, Diolcogaster ambositrensis, Diolcogaster anandra, Diolcogaster annulata, Diolcogaster bambeyi, Diolcogaster bicolorina, Diolcogaster cariniger, Diolcogaster cincticornis, Diolcogaster cingulata, Diolcogaster coronata, Diolcogaster coxalis, Diolcogaster dipika, Diolcogaster earina, Diolcogaster epectina, Diolcogaster epectinopsis, Diolcogaster grangeri, Diolcogaster heterocera, Diolcogaster homocera, Diolcogaster indica, Diolcogaster insularis, Diolcogaster kivuana, Diolcogaster mediosulcata, Diolcogaster megaulax, Diolcogaster neglecta, Diolcogaster nigromacula, Diolcogaster palpicolor, Diolcogaster persimilis, Diolcogaster plecopterae, Diolcogaster plutocongoensis, Diolcogaster psilocnema, Diolcogaster rufithorax, Diolcogaster semirufa, Diolcogaster seyrigi, Diolcogaster subtorquata, Diolcogaster sulcata, Diolcogaster torquatiger, Diolcogaster tristiculus, Diolcogaster turneri, Diolcogaster vulcana, Diolcogaster wittei, Distatrix anthedon, Distatrix cerales, Distatrix cuspidalis, Distatrix euproctidis, Distatrix flava, Distatrix geometrivora, Distatrix maia, Distatrix tookei, Distatrix termina, Distatrix simulissima, Dolichogenidea agamedes, Dolichogenidea aluella, Dolichogenidea argiope, Dolichogenidea atreus, Dolichogenidea bakeri, Dolichogenidea basiflava, Dolichogenidea bersa, Dolichogenidea biplagae, Dolichogenidea bisulcata, Dolichogenidea catonix, Dolichogenidea chrysis, Dolichogenidea coffea, Dolichogenidea coretas, Dolichogenidea cyane, Dolichogenidea diaphantus, Dolichogenidea diparopsidis, Dolichogenidea dryas, Dolichogenidea earterus, Dolichogenidea ensiger, Dolichogenidea eros, Dolichogenidea evadne, Dolichogenidea falcator, Dolichogenidea gelechiidivoris, Dolichogenidea gobica, Dolichogenidea hyalinis, Dolichogenidea iriarte, Dolichogenidea lakhaensis, Dolichogenidea lampe, Dolichogenidea laspeyresiella, Dolichogenidea latistigma, Dolichogenidea lebene, Dolichogenidea lucidinervis, Dolichogenidea malacosomae, Dolichogenidea maro, Dolichogenidea mendosae, Dolichogenidea monticola, Dolichogenidea nigra, Dolichogenidea olivierellae, Dolichogenidea parallelis, Dolichogenidea pelopea, Dolichogenidea pelops, Dolichogenidea phaenna, Dolichogenidea pisenor, Dolichogenidea roepkei, Dolichogenidea scabra, Dolichogenidea statius, Dolichogenidea stenotelas, Dolichogenidea striata, Dolichogenidea wittei, Exoryza asotae, Exoryza belippicola, Exoryza hylas, Exoryza megagaster, Exoryza oryzae, Glyptapanteles aggestus, Glyptapanteles agynus, Glyptapanteles aithos, Glyptapanteles amenophis, Glyptapanteles antarctiae, Glyptapanteles anubis, Glyptapanteles arginae, Glyptapanteles argus, Glyptapanteles atylana, Glyptapanteles badgleyi, Glyptapanteles bataviensis, Glyptapanteles bistonis, Glyptapanteles borocerae, Glyptapanteles cacao, Glyptapanteles cadei, Glyptapanteles cinyras, Glyptapanteles eryphanidis, Glyptapanteles euproctisiphagus, Glyptapanteles eutelus, Glyptapanteles fabiae, Glyptapanteles fulvigaster, Glyptapanteles fuscinervis, Glyptapanteles gahinga, Glyptapanteles globatus, Glyptapanteles glyphodes, Glyptapanteles guierae, Glyptapanteles horus, Glyptapanteles intricatus, Glyptapanteles lamprosemae, Glyptapanteles lefevrei, Glyptapanteles leucotretae, Glyptapanteles lissopleurus, Glyptapanteles madecassus, Glyptapanteles marquesi, Glyptapanteles melanotus, Glyptapanteles melissus, Glyptapanteles merope, Glyptapanteles naromae, Glyptapanteles nepitae, Glyptapanteles nigrescens, Glyptapanteles ninus, Glyptapanteles nkuli, Glyptapanteles parasundanus, Glyptapanteles penelope, Glyptapanteles penthocratus, Glyptapanteles philippinensis, Glyptapanteles philocampus, Glyptapanteles phoebe, Glyptapanteles phytometraduplus, Glyptapanteles propylae, Glyptapanteles puera, Glyptapanteles seydeli, Glyptapanteles siderion, Glyptapanteles simus, Glyptapanteles speciosissimus, Glyptapanteles spilosomae, Glyptapanteles subpunctatus, Glyptapanteles thespis, Glyptapanteles thoseae, Glyptapanteles venustus, Glyptapanteles wilkinsoni, Hypomicrogaster samarshalli, Iconella cajani, Iconella detrectans, Iconella jason, Iconella lynceus, Iconella pyrene, Iconella tedanius, Illidops azamgarhensis, Illidops lamprosemae, Illidops trabea, Keylimepie striatus, Microplitis adisurae, Microplitis mexicanus, Neoclarkinella ariadne, Neoclarkinella curvinervus, Neoclarkinella sundana, Nyereria ituriensis, Nyereria nioro, Nyereria proagynus, Nyereria taoi, Nyereria vallatae, Parapanteles aethiopicus, Parapanteles alternatus, Parapanteles aso, Parapanteles atellae, Parapanteles bagicha, Parapanteles cleo, Parapanteles cyclorhaphus, Parapanteles demades, Parapanteles endymion, Parapanteles epiplemicidus, Parapanteles expulsus, Parapanteles fallax, Parapanteles folia, Parapanteles furax, Parapanteles hemitheae, Parapanteles hyposidrae, Parapanteles indicus, Parapanteles javensis, Parapanteles jhaverii, Parapanteles maculipalpis, Parapanteles maynei, Parapanteles neocajani, Parapanteles neohyblaeae, Parapanteles nydia, Parapanteles prosper, Parapanteles prosymna, Parapanteles punctatissimus, Parapanteles regalis, Parapanteles sarpedon, Parapanteles sartamus, Parapanteles scultena, Parapanteles transvaalensis, Parapanteles turri, Parapanteles xanthopholis, Pholetesor acutus, Pholetesor brevivalvatus, Pholetesor extentus, Pholetesor ingenuoides, Pholetesor kuwayamai, Promicrogaster apidanus, Promicrogaster briareus, Promicrogaster conopiae, Promicrogaster emesa, Promicrogaster grandicula, Promicrogaster orsedice, Promicrogaster repleta, Promicrogaster typhon, Sathon bekilyensis, Sathon flavofacialis, Sathon laurae, Sathon mikeno, Sathon ruandanus, Sathon rufotestaceus, Venanides astydamia, Venanides demeter, Venanides parmula, and Venanides symmysta.

A checklist of world species of Microgastrinae parasitoid wasps (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) is provided. A total of 81 genera and 2,999 extant species are recognized as valid, including 36 nominal species that are currently considered as species inquirendae. Two genera are synonymized under Apanteles. Nine lectotypes are designated. A total of 318 new combinations, three new replacement names, three species name amendments, and seven species status revised are proposed. Additionally, three species names are treated as nomina dubia, and 52 species names are considered as unavailable names (including 14 as nomina nuda). A total of three extinct genera and 12 extinct species are also listed. Unlike in many previous treatments of the subfamily, tribal concepts are judged to be inadequate, so genera are listed alphabetically. Brief diagnoses of all Microgastrinae genera, as understood in this paper, are presented. Illustrations of all extant genera (at least one species per genus, usually more) are included to showcase morphological diversity. Primary types of Microgastrinae are deposited in 108 institutions worldwide, although 76% are concentrated in 17 collections. Localities of primary types, in 138 countries, are reported. Recorded species distributions are listed by biogeographical region and by country. Microgastrine wasps are recorded from all continents except Antarctica; specimens can be found in all major terrestrial ecosystems, from 82°N to 55°S, and from sea level up to at least 4,500 m a.s.l. The Oriental (46) and Neotropical (43) regions have the largest number of genera recorded, whereas the Palaearctic region (28) is the least diverse. Currently, the highest species richness is in the Palearctic region (827), due to more historical study there, followed by the Neotropical (768) and Oriental (752) regions, which are expected to be the most species rich. Based on ratios of Lepidoptera and Microgastrinae species from several areas, the actual world diversity of Microgastrinae is expected to be between 30,000–50,000 species; although these ratios were mostly based on data from temperate areas and thus must be treated with caution, the single tropical area included had a similar ratio to the temperate ones. Almost 45,000 specimens of Microgastrinae from 67 different genera (83% of microgastrine genera) have complete or partial DNA barcode sequences deposited in the Barcode of Life Data System; the DNA barcodes represent 3,545 putative species or Barcode Index Numbers (BINs), as estimated from the molecular data. Information on the number of sequences and BINs per genus are detailed in the checklist. Microgastrinae hosts are here considered to be restricted to Eulepidoptera, i.e., most of the Lepidoptera except for the four most basal superfamilies (Micropterigoidea, Eriocranioidea, Hepialoidea and Nepticuloidea), with all previous literature records of other insect orders and those primitive Lepidoptera lineages being considered incorrect. The following nomenclatural acts are proposed: 1) Two genera are synonymyzed under Apanteles: Cecidobracon Kieffer & Jörgensen, 1910, new synonym and Holcapanteles Cameron, 1905, new synonym; 2) Nine lectotype designations are made for Alphomelon disputabile (Ashmead, 1900), Alphomelon nigriceps (Ashmead, 1900), Cotesia salebrosa (Marshall, 1885), Diolcogaster xanthaspis (Ashmead, 1900), Dolichogenidea ononidis (Marshall, 1889), Glyptapanteles acraeae (Wilkinson, 1932), Glyptapanteles guyanensis (Cameron, 1911), Glyptapanteles militaris (Walsh, 1861), and Pseudapanteles annulicornis Ashmead, 1900; 3) Three new replacement names are a) Diolcogaster aurangabadensis Fernandez-Triana, replacing Diolcogaster indicus (Rao & Chalikwar, 1970) [nec Diolcogaster indicus (Wilkinson, 1927)], b) Dolichogenidea incystatae Fernandez-Triana, replacing Dolichogenidea lobesia Liu & Chen, 2019 [nec Dolichogenidea lobesia Fagan-Jeffries & Austin, 2019], and c) Microplitis vitobiasi Fernandez-Triana, replacing Microplitis variicolor Tobias, 1964 [nec Microplitis varicolor Viereck, 1917]; 4) Three names amended are Apanteles irenecarrilloae Fernandez-Triana, 2014, Cotesia ayerzai (Brèthes, 1920), and Cotesia riverai (Porter, 1916); 5) Seven species have their status revised: Cotesia arctica (Thomson, 1895), Cotesia okamotoi (Watanabe, 1921), Cotesia ukrainica (Tobias, 1986), Dolichogenidea appellator (Telenga, 1949), Dolichogenidea murinanae (Capek & Zwölfer, 1957), Hypomicrogaster acarnas Nixon, 1965, and Nyereria nigricoxis (Wilkinson, 1932); 6) New combinations are given for 318 species: Alloplitis congensis, Alloplitis detractus, Apanteles asphondyliae, Apanteles braziliensis, Apanteles sulciscutis, Choeras aper, Choeras apollion, Choeras daphne, Choeras fomes, Choeras gerontius, Choeras helle, Choeras irates, Choeras libanius, Choeras longiterebrus, Choeras loretta, Choeras recusans, Choeras sordidus, Choeras stenoterga, Choeras superbus, Choeras sylleptae, Choeras vacillatrix, Choeras vacillatropsis, Choeras venilia, Cotesia asavari, Cotesia bactriana, Cotesia bambeytripla, Cotesia berberidis, Cotesia bhairavi, Cotesia biezankoi, Cotesia bifida, Cotesia caligophagus, Cotesia cheesmanae, Cotesia compressithorax, Cotesia delphinensis, Cotesia effrena, Cotesia euphobetri, Cotesia elaeodes, Cotesia endii, Cotesia euthaliae, Cotesia exelastisae, Cotesia hiberniae, Cotesia hyperion, Cotesia hypopygialis, Cotesia hypsipylae, Cotesia jujubae, Cotesia lesbiae, Cotesia levigaster, Cotesia lizeri, Cotesia malevola, Cotesia malshri, Cotesia menezesi, Cotesia muzaffarensis, Cotesia neptisis, Cotesia nycteus, Cotesia oeceticola, Cotesia oppidicola, Cotesia opsiphanis, Cotesia pachkuriae, Cotesia paludicolae, Cotesia parbhanii, Cotesia parvicornis, Cotesia pratapae, Cotesia prozorovi, Cotesia pterophoriphagus, Cotesia radiarytensis, Cotesia rangii, Cotesia riverai, Cotesia ruficoxis, Cotesia senegalensis, Cotesia seyali, Cotesia sphenarchi, Cotesia sphingivora, Cotesia transuta, Cotesia turkestanica, Diolcogaster abengouroui, Diolcogaster agama, Diolcogaster ambositrensis, Diolcogaster anandra, Diolcogaster annulata, Diolcogaster bambeyi, Diolcogaster bicolorina, Diolcogaster cariniger, Diolcogaster cincticornis, Diolcogaster cingulata, Diolcogaster coronata, Diolcogaster coxalis, Diolcogaster dipika, Diolcogaster earina, Diolcogaster epectina, Diolcogaster epectinopsis, Diolcogaster grangeri, Diolcogaster heterocera, Diolcogaster homocera, Diolcogaster indica, Diolcogaster insularis, Diolcogaster kivuana, Diolcogaster mediosulcata, Diolcogaster megaulax, Diolcogaster neglecta, Diolcogaster nigromacula, Diolcogaster palpicolor, Diolcogaster persimilis, Diolcogaster plecopterae, Diolcogaster plutocongoensis, Diolcogaster psilocnema, Diolcogaster rufithorax, Diolcogaster semirufa, Diolcogaster seyrigi, Diolcogaster subtorquata, Diolcogaster sulcata, Diolcogaster torquatiger, Diolcogaster tristiculus, Diolcogaster turneri, Diolcogaster vulcana, Diolcogaster wittei, Distatrix anthedon, Distatrix cerales, Distatrix cuspidalis, Distatrix euproctidis, Distatrix flava, Distatrix geometrivora, Distatrix maia, Distatrix tookei, Distatrix termina, Distatrix simulissima, Dolichogenidea agamedes, Dolichogenidea aluella, Dolichogenidea argiope, Dolichogenidea atreus, Dolichogenidea bakeri, Dolichogenidea basiflava, Dolichogenidea bersa, Dolichogenidea biplagae, Dolichogenidea bisulcata, Dolichogenidea catonix, Dolichogenidea chrysis, Dolichogenidea coffea, Dolichogenidea coretas, Dolichogenidea cyane, Dolichogenidea diaphantus, Dolichogenidea diparopsidis, Dolichogenidea dryas, Dolichogenidea earterus, Dolichogenidea ensiger, Dolichogenidea eros, Dolichogenidea evadne, Dolichogenidea falcator, Dolichogenidea gelechiidivoris, Dolichogenidea gobica, Dolichogenidea hyalinis, Dolichogenidea iriarte, Dolichogenidea lakhaensis, Dolichogenidea lampe, Dolichogenidea laspeyresiella, Dolichogenidea latistigma, Dolichogenidea lebene, Dolichogenidea lucidinervis, Dolichogenidea malacosomae, Dolichogenidea maro, Dolichogenidea mendosae, Dolichogenidea monticola, Dolichogenidea nigra, Dolichogenidea olivierellae, Dolichogenidea parallelis, Dolichogenidea pelopea, Dolichogenidea pelops, Dolichogenidea phaenna, Dolichogenidea pisenor, Dolichogenidea roepkei, Dolichogenidea scabra, Dolichogenidea statius, Dolichogenidea stenotelas, Dolichogenidea striata, Dolichogenidea wittei, Exoryza asotae, Exoryza belippicola, Exoryza hylas, Exoryza megagaster, Exoryza oryzae, Glyptapanteles aggestus, Glyptapanteles agynus, Glyptapanteles aithos, Glyptapanteles amenophis, Glyptapanteles antarctiae, Glyptapanteles anubis, Glyptapanteles arginae, Glyptapanteles argus, Glyptapanteles atylana, Glyptapanteles badgleyi, Glyptapanteles bataviensis, Glyptapanteles bistonis, Glyptapanteles borocerae, Glyptapanteles cacao, Glyptapanteles cadei, Glyptapanteles cinyras, Glyptapanteles eryphanidis, Glyptapanteles euproctisiphagus, Glyptapanteles eutelus, Glyptapanteles fabiae, Glyptapanteles fulvigaster, Glyptapanteles fuscinervis, Glyptapanteles gahinga, Glyptapanteles globatus, Glyptapanteles glyphodes, Glyptapanteles guierae, Glyptapanteles horus, Glyptapanteles intricatus, Glyptapanteles lamprosemae, Glyptapanteles lefevrei, Glyptapanteles leucotretae, Glyptapanteles lissopleurus, Glyptapanteles madecassus, Glyptapanteles marquesi, Glyptapanteles melanotus, Glyptapanteles melissus, Glyptapanteles merope, Glyptapanteles naromae, Glyptapanteles nepitae, Glyptapanteles nigrescens, Glyptapanteles ninus, Glyptapanteles nkuli, Glyptapanteles parasundanus, Glyptapanteles penelope, Glyptapanteles penthocratus, Glyptapanteles philippinensis, Glyptapanteles philocampus, Glyptapanteles phoebe, Glyptapanteles phytometraduplus, Glyptapanteles propylae, Glyptapanteles puera, Glyptapanteles seydeli, Glyptapanteles siderion, Glyptapanteles simus, Glyptapanteles speciosissimus, Glyptapanteles spilosomae, Glyptapanteles subpunctatus, Glyptapanteles thespis, Glyptapanteles thoseae, Glyptapanteles venustus, Glyptapanteles wilkinsoni, Hypomicrogaster samarshalli, Iconella cajani, Iconella detrectans, Iconella jason, Iconella lynceus, Iconella pyrene, Iconella tedanius, Illidops azamgarhensis, Illidops lamprosemae, Illidops trabea, Keylimepie striatus, Microplitis adisurae, Microplitis mexicanus, Neoclarkinella ariadne, Neoclarkinella curvinervus, Neoclarkinella sundana, Nyereria ituriensis, Nyereria nioro, Nyereria proagynus, Nyereria taoi, Nyereria vallatae, Parapanteles aethiopicus, Parapanteles alternatus, Parapanteles aso, Parapanteles atellae, Parapanteles bagicha, Parapanteles cleo, Parapanteles cyclorhaphus, Parapanteles demades, Parapanteles endymion, Parapanteles epiplemicidus, Parapanteles expulsus, Parapanteles fallax, Parapanteles folia, Parapanteles furax, Parapanteles hemitheae, Parapanteles hyposidrae, Parapanteles indicus, Parapanteles javensis, Parapanteles jhaverii, Parapanteles maculipalpis, Parapanteles maynei, Parapanteles neocajani, Parapanteles neohyblaeae, Parapanteles nydia, Parapanteles prosper, Parapanteles prosymna, Parapanteles punctatissimus, Parapanteles regalis, Parapanteles sarpedon, Parapanteles sartamus, Parapanteles scultena, Parapanteles transvaalensis, Parapanteles turri, Parapanteles xanthopholis, Pholetesor acutus, Pholetesor brevivalvatus, Pholetesor extentus, Pholetesor ingenuoides, Pholetesor kuwayamai, Promicrogaster apidanus, Promicrogaster briareus, Promicrogaster conopiae, Promicrogaster emesa, Promicrogaster grandicula, Promicrogaster orsedice, Promicrogaster repleta, Promicrogaster typhon, Sathon bekilyensis, Sathon flavofacialis, Sathon laurae, Sathon mikeno, Sathon ruandanus, Sathon rufotestaceus, Venanides astydamia, Venanides demeter, Venanides parmula, and Venanides symmysta. ; This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC0 Public Domain Dedication. The attached file is the published pdf.

A checklist of world species of Microgastrinae parasitoid wasps (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) is provided. A total of 81 genera and 2,999 extant species are recognized as valid, including 36 nominal species that are currently considered as species inquirendae. Two genera are synonymized under Apanteles. Nine lectotypes are designated. A total of 318 new combinations, three new replacement names, three species name amendments, and seven species status revised are proposed. Additionally, three species names are treated as nomina dubia, and 52 species names are considered as unavailable names (including 14 as nomina nuda). A total of three extinct genera and 12 extinct species are also listed. Unlike in many previous treatments of the subfamily, tribal concepts are judged to be inadequate, so genera are listed alphabetically. Brief diagnoses of all Microgastrinae genera, as understood in this paper, are presented. Illustrations of all extant genera (at least one species per genus, usually more) are included to showcase morphological diversity. Primary types of Microgastrinae are deposited in 108 institutions worldwide, although 76% are concentrated in 17 collections. Localities of primary types, in 138 countries, are reported. Recorded species distributions are listed by biogeographical region and by country. Microgastrine wasps are recorded from all continents except Antarctica; specimens can be found in all major terrestrial ecosystems, from 82°N to 55°S, and from sea level up to at least 4,500 m a.s.l. The Oriental (46) and Neotropical (43) regions have the largest number of genera recorded, whereas the Palaearctic region (28) is the least diverse. Currently, the highest species richness is in the Palearctic region (827), due to more historical study there, followed by the Neotropical (768) and Oriental (752) regions, which are expected to be the most species rich. Based on ratios of Lepidoptera and Microgastrinae species from several areas, the actual world diversity of Microgastrinae is expected to be between 30,000–50,000 species; although these ratios were mostly based on data from temperate areas and thus must be treated with caution, the single tropical area included had a similar ratio to the temperate ones. Almost 45,000 specimens of Microgastrinae from 67 different genera (83% of microgastrine genera) have complete or partial DNA barcode sequences deposited in the Barcode of Life Data System; the DNA barcodes represent 3,545 putative species or Barcode Index Numbers (BINs), as estimated from the molecular data. Information on the number of sequences and BINs per genus are detailed in the checklist. Microgastrinae hosts are here considered to be restricted to Eulepidoptera, i.e., most of the Lepidoptera except for the four most basal superfamilies (Micropterigoidea, Eriocranioidea, Hepialoidea and Nepticuloidea), with all previous literature records of other insect orders and those primitive Lepidoptera lineages being considered incorrect. The following nomenclatural acts are proposed: 1) Two genera are synonymyzed under Apanteles: Cecidobracon Kieffer & Jörgensen, 1910, new synonym and Holcapanteles Cameron, 1905, new synonym; 2) Nine lectotype designations are made for Alphomelon disputabile (Ashmead, 1900), Alphomelon nigriceps (Ashmead, 1900), Cotesia salebrosa (Marshall, 1885), Diolcogaster xanthaspis (Ashmead, 1900), Dolichogenidea ononidis (Marshall, 1889), Glyptapanteles acraeae (Wilkinson, 1932), Glyptapanteles guyanensis (Cameron, 1911), Glyptapanteles militaris (Walsh, 1861), and Pseudapanteles annulicornis Ashmead, 1900; 3) Three new replacement names are a) Diolcogaster aurangabadensis Fernandez-Triana, replacing Diolcogaster indicus (Rao & Chalikwar, 1970) [nec Diolcogaster indicus (Wilkinson, 1927)], b) Dolichogenidea incystatae Fernandez-Triana, replacing Dolichogenidea lobesia Liu & Chen, 2019 [nec Dolichogenidea lobesia Fagan-Jeffries & Austin, 2019], and c) Microplitis vitobiasi Fernandez-Triana, replacing Microplitis variicolor Tobias, 1964 [nec Microplitis varicolor Viereck, 1917]; 4) Three names amended are Apanteles irenecarrilloae Fernandez-Triana, 2014, Cotesia ayerzai (Brèthes, 1920), and Cotesia riverai (Porter, 1916); 5) Seven species have their status revised: Cotesia arctica (Thomson, 1895), Cotesia okamotoi (Watanabe, 1921), Cotesia ukrainica (Tobias, 1986), Dolichogenidea appellator (Telenga, 1949), Dolichogenidea murinanae (Capek & Zwölfer, 1957), Hypomicrogaster acarnas Nixon, 1965, and Nyereria nigricoxis (Wilkinson, 1932); 6) New combinations are given for 318 species: Alloplitis congensis, Alloplitis detractus, Apanteles asphondyliae, Apanteles braziliensis, Apanteles sulciscutis, Choeras aper, Choeras apollion, Choeras daphne, Choeras fomes, Choeras gerontius, Choeras helle, Choeras irates, Choeras libanius, Choeras longiterebrus, Choeras loretta, Choeras recusans, Choeras sordidus, Choeras stenoterga, Choeras superbus, Choeras sylleptae, Choeras vacillatrix, Choeras vacillatropsis, Choeras venilia, Cotesia asavari, Cotesia bactriana, Cotesia bambeytripla, Cotesia berberidis, Cotesia bhairavi, Cotesia biezankoi, Cotesia bifida, Cotesia caligophagus, Cotesia cheesmanae, Cotesia compressithorax, Cotesia delphinensis, Cotesia effrena, Cotesia euphobetri, Cotesia elaeodes, Cotesia endii, Cotesia euthaliae, Cotesia exelastisae, Cotesia hiberniae, Cotesia hyperion, Cotesia hypopygialis, Cotesia hypsipylae, Cotesia jujubae, Cotesia lesbiae, Cotesia levigaster, Cotesia lizeri, Cotesia malevola, Cotesia malshri, Cotesia menezesi, Cotesia muzaffarensis, Cotesia neptisis, Cotesia nycteus, Cotesia oeceticola, Cotesia oppidicola, Cotesia opsiphanis, Cotesia pachkuriae, Cotesia paludicolae, Cotesia parbhanii, Cotesia parvicornis, Cotesia pratapae, Cotesia prozorovi, Cotesia pterophoriphagus, Cotesia radiarytensis, Cotesia rangii, Cotesia riverai, Cotesia ruficoxis, Cotesia senegalensis, Cotesia seyali, Cotesia sphenarchi, Cotesia sphingivora, Cotesia transuta, Cotesia turkestanica, Diolcogaster abengouroui, Diolcogaster agama, Diolcogaster ambositrensis, Diolcogaster anandra, Diolcogaster annulata, Diolcogaster bambeyi, Diolcogaster bicolorina, Diolcogaster cariniger, Diolcogaster cincticornis, Diolcogaster cingulata, Diolcogaster coronata, Diolcogaster coxalis, Diolcogaster dipika, Diolcogaster earina, Diolcogaster epectina, Diolcogaster epectinopsis, Diolcogaster grangeri, Diolcogaster heterocera, Diolcogaster homocera, Diolcogaster indica, Diolcogaster insularis, Diolcogaster kivuana, Diolcogaster mediosulcata, Diolcogaster megaulax, Diolcogaster neglecta, Diolcogaster nigromacula, Diolcogaster palpicolor, Diolcogaster persimilis, Diolcogaster plecopterae, Diolcogaster plutocongoensis, Diolcogaster psilocnema, Diolcogaster rufithorax, Diolcogaster semirufa, Diolcogaster seyrigi, Diolcogaster subtorquata, Diolcogaster sulcata, Diolcogaster torquatiger, Diolcogaster tristiculus, Diolcogaster turneri, Diolcogaster vulcana, Diolcogaster wittei, Distatrix anthedon, Distatrix cerales, Distatrix cuspidalis, Distatrix euproctidis, Distatrix flava, Distatrix geometrivora, Distatrix maia, Distatrix tookei, Distatrix termina, Distatrix simulissima, Dolichogenidea agamedes, Dolichogenidea aluella, Dolichogenidea argiope, Dolichogenidea atreus, Dolichogenidea bakeri, Dolichogenidea basiflava, Dolichogenidea bersa, Dolichogenidea biplagae, Dolichogenidea bisulcata, Dolichogenidea catonix, Dolichogenidea chrysis, Dolichogenidea coffea, Dolichogenidea coretas, Dolichogenidea cyane, Dolichogenidea diaphantus, Dolichogenidea diparopsidis, Dolichogenidea dryas, Dolichogenidea earterus, Dolichogenidea ensiger, Dolichogenidea eros, Dolichogenidea evadne, Dolichogenidea falcator, Dolichogenidea gelechiidivoris, Dolichogenidea gobica, Dolichogenidea hyalinis, Dolichogenidea iriarte, Dolichogenidea lakhaensis, Dolichogenidea lampe, Dolichogenidea laspeyresiella, Dolichogenidea latistigma, Dolichogenidea lebene, Dolichogenidea lucidinervis, Dolichogenidea malacosomae, Dolichogenidea maro, Dolichogenidea mendosae, Dolichogenidea monticola, Dolichogenidea nigra, Dolichogenidea olivierellae, Dolichogenidea parallelis, Dolichogenidea pelopea, Dolichogenidea pelops, Dolichogenidea phaenna, Dolichogenidea pisenor, Dolichogenidea roepkei, Dolichogenidea scabra, Dolichogenidea statius, Dolichogenidea stenotelas, Dolichogenidea striata, Dolichogenidea wittei, Exoryza asotae, Exoryza belippicola, Exoryza hylas, Exoryza megagaster, Exoryza oryzae, Glyptapanteles aggestus, Glyptapanteles agynus, Glyptapanteles aithos, Glyptapanteles amenophis, Glyptapanteles antarctiae, Glyptapanteles anubis, Glyptapanteles arginae, Glyptapanteles argus, Glyptapanteles atylana, Glyptapanteles badgleyi, Glyptapanteles bataviensis, Glyptapanteles bistonis, Glyptapanteles borocerae, Glyptapanteles cacao, Glyptapanteles cadei, Glyptapanteles cinyras, Glyptapanteles eryphanidis, Glyptapanteles euproctisiphagus, Glyptapanteles eutelus, Glyptapanteles fabiae, Glyptapanteles fulvigaster, Glyptapanteles fuscinervis, Glyptapanteles gahinga, Glyptapanteles globatus, Glyptapanteles glyphodes, Glyptapanteles guierae, Glyptapanteles horus, Glyptapanteles intricatus, Glyptapanteles lamprosemae, Glyptapanteles lefevrei, Glyptapanteles leucotretae, Glyptapanteles lissopleurus, Glyptapanteles madecassus, Glyptapanteles marquesi, Glyptapanteles melanotus, Glyptapanteles melissus, Glyptapanteles merope, Glyptapanteles naromae, Glyptapanteles nepitae, Glyptapanteles nigrescens, Glyptapanteles ninus, Glyptapanteles nkuli, Glyptapanteles parasundanus, Glyptapanteles penelope, Glyptapanteles penthocratus, Glyptapanteles philippinensis, Glyptapanteles philocampus, Glyptapanteles phoebe, Glyptapanteles phytometraduplus, Glyptapanteles propylae, Glyptapanteles puera, Glyptapanteles seydeli, Glyptapanteles siderion, Glyptapanteles simus, Glyptapanteles speciosissimus, Glyptapanteles spilosomae, Glyptapanteles subpunctatus, Glyptapanteles thespis, Glyptapanteles thoseae, Glyptapanteles venustus, Glyptapanteles wilkinsoni, Hypomicrogaster samarshalli, Iconella cajani, Iconella detrectans, Iconella jason, Iconella lynceus, Iconella pyrene, Iconella tedanius, Illidops azamgarhensis, Illidops lamprosemae, Illidops trabea, Keylimepie striatus, Microplitis adisurae, Microplitis mexicanus, Neoclarkinella ariadne, Neoclarkinella curvinervus, Neoclarkinella sundana, Nyereria ituriensis, Nyereria nioro, Nyereria proagynus, Nyereria taoi, Nyereria vallatae, Parapanteles aethiopicus, Parapanteles alternatus, Parapanteles aso, Parapanteles atellae, Parapanteles bagicha, Parapanteles cleo, Parapanteles cyclorhaphus, Parapanteles demades, Parapanteles endymion, Parapanteles epiplemicidus, Parapanteles expulsus, Parapanteles fallax, Parapanteles folia, Parapanteles furax, Parapanteles hemitheae, Parapanteles hyposidrae, Parapanteles indicus, Parapanteles javensis, Parapanteles jhaverii, Parapanteles maculipalpis, Parapanteles maynei, Parapanteles neocajani, Parapanteles neohyblaeae, Parapanteles nydia, Parapanteles prosper, Parapanteles prosymna, Parapanteles punctatissimus, Parapanteles regalis, Parapanteles sarpedon, Parapanteles sartamus, Parapanteles scultena, Parapanteles transvaalensis, Parapanteles turri, Parapanteles xanthopholis, Pholetesor acutus, Pholetesor brevivalvatus, Pholetesor extentus, Pholetesor ingenuoides, Pholetesor kuwayamai, Promicrogaster apidanus, Promicrogaster briareus, Promicrogaster conopiae, Promicrogaster emesa, Promicrogaster grandicula, Promicrogaster orsedice, Promicrogaster repleta, Promicrogaster typhon, Sathon bekilyensis, Sathon flavofacialis, Sathon laurae, Sathon mikeno, Sathon ruandanus, Sathon rufotestaceus, Venanides astydamia, Venanides demeter, Venanides parmula, and Venanides symmysta.

Human actions, motivated by social and economic driving forces, generate various pressures on biodiversity, such as habitat loss and fragmentation, climate change, land use related disturbance patterns, or species invasions that have an impact on biodiversity from the genetic to the ecosystem level. Each of these factors acts at characteristic scales, and the scales of social and economic demands, of environmental pressures, of biodiversity impacts, of scientific analysis, and of governmental responses do not necessarily match. However, management of the living world will be effective only if we understand how problems and solutions change with scale. SCALES (http://www.scales-project.net), a research project lasting for five years from May 2009 to July 2014, was seeking for ways to build the issue of scale into policy and decision-making and biodiversity management. It has greatly advanced our knowledge of how anthropogenic and natural processes interact across scales and affect biodiversity and it has evaluated in a very practical way how this knowledge can be used to improve the scale-sensitivity and effectiveness of policy instruments for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. During the project we have especially emphasized approaches that utilize existing biodiversity databases as they are the most widely available information in applied biodiversity conservation. We also tried to integrate the most appropriate assessment tools and policy instruments into a coherent framework to support biodiversity conservation across spatial and temporal scales. While the guidelines, practical solutions and special tools are presented as a special web based portal at a central place, the SCALETOOL (http://scales.ckff.si/scaletool/), the scientific outcome is widely spread over the scientific literature in regional and international journals. With the SCALES book we want to bundle the main results of SCALES in a comprehensive manner and present it in a way that is usable not only for pure scientists but also for people making decisions in administration, management, policy or even business and NGOs; to people who are more interested in the "practical" side of this issue. Yrjö Haila, Tampere

Vertebrates and Invertebrates of European Cities: Selected Non-Avian Fauna is the first known account of the vertebrate and invertebrate fauna of several cities in Europe and throughout the rest of the world. It excludes birds, which are described in a companion volume. The book contains eleven chapters about nine cities distributed throughout Europe. The chapters start with the history of the cities, which is followed by a description of the abiotic features such as geology, climate, air and water quality and then a brief account of the habitats. The vertebrate chapters describe the fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals that are known to occur in each city together with their status and the habitats in which they occur, for example housing, industrial areas, parks, transport routes and rivers. The invertebrate chapters contain an account of the presence, status and habitats occupied by 6 - 8 of the major invertebrate groups including butterflies, dragonflies and damselflies, crickets and grasshoppers, beetles, molluscs, spiders, mites and springtails. This volume has been written and edited to be accessible to a wide range of interests and expertise including academic biologists, urban ecologists, landscape architects, planners, urban designers, undergraduates, other students and people with a general interest in natural history (especially cities) - not only in Europe but throughout the world

Animals play an important role in the communication of wisdom. In songs, proverbs, aphorisms, riddles and other oral modes of communication, animals sometimes play the roles of human beings. Homeric similes, Hesiodic and Aesopic fables, and numerous oral figures of speech in Greek lyric poetry often incorporate animals in their figurative language. Likewise, Kalanga folktales, proverbs, and other didactic modes attest to the importance of animals within this culture as vehicles to teach moral lessons. This tendency is visible among many cultures across the world. As such, the broad concerns of this thesis are to compare the way Archaic Greek and Kalanga wisdom literatures resort to animal imagery in the dissemination of moral lessons. The study evaluates the way animals are deployed as metaphors to signify and express human actions and human attitudes in oral thought. In a narrow sense, I study the deployment of animals insofar as they shed light upon the human attributes of cleverness and stupidity; the use of animals' characters in political commentary; as well as in the economic and erotic didactics in Archaic Greek and Kalanga oral wisdom literatures. Judging from the frequency of their appearance, it seems that animals are one of the preferred ways through which people offer insights into themselves. Commenting on the human habit of integrating animals into one's religious and moral views, Peter Lum says 'The animal world seems to the mind of primitive man to be only a very short step from the human.' This dissertation seeks to arrive at answers to a number of questions through a comparative study of selections from the two traditions. What are the premises and presuppositions behind the deployment of each animal in such literature? What are the bases for building a human character on an animal? How do we compare and contrast the human and animal natures? And, what makes an animal assume a specific role, and not another, in folklore? What ecological and ethical concerns can be observed in this type of literature? Most importantly, what similarities are there between Greek and Kalanga oral modes of expression? By revealing similarities in animal imagery between two diverse wisdom traditions, this work explores what may be described as a natural, cross-cultural basic component of didactic poetry: a common denominator that gets to the root of archaic wisdom. Furthermore, as a poetic element seemingly rooted in the realities of agrarian society, such symbolism leads us to consider whether the moral authority it represents is purely poetic or whether it actually holds cultural capital. This exercise entails using the dynamics of a living tradition to understand more about one we access through texts and commentaries.

Abstract: Protection of flora and fauna is of major concern these days. With decreasing natural forest spaces which is actually "home" for them increases the risk for their existence. It is well known that many of the local communities plays important role in the protection and conservation of natural resources including flora and fauna. In many parts of world, they act as main conservators. Nowadays government officials also take help of these communities for protection and give special space to them in their programs. India has many of these communities, approximately 227 ethnic groups and more than 500 tribal communities like bishnois, mundas and many others. This review tries to highlight and summarize their precious role in conservation of plants and animals.

Neste artigo, analisamos expressões da fauna marajoara, seus usos locais e as interações com homens e uma mulher de ciência do século XIX, descritos em narrativas dos viajantes Louis e Elizabeth Agassiz, Henry Bates, Alfred Russel Wallace e Príncipe Adalberto da Prússia. Pelos escritos, apreendemos uma multiplicidade de formas de narrar a fauna da região, destacando-se três distintas práticas: as caçadas; as descrições científicas e as descrições da paisagem, que evidenciam diferentes posições adotadas por estes viajantes na relação humano e não-humano. Ainda que atravessados pelo olhar científico do século XIX e a ânsia por classificar animais aos padrões ocidentais, os narradores contaminaram-se com o simbolismo dos modos de ser e viver no mundo marajoara, tornando-se agentes históricos de mediação e tradução cultural. Com isso, contribuíram para a elaboração de um modo de ver, sentir e pensar a região, disseminado em escala planetária. Palavras Chave: Amazônia Marajoara. Literatura de Viagem. Fauna.The Fauna Marajoara in narratives of travelers of the nineteenth centuryAbstractIn this article, we analyze expressions of the fauna of Marajós, their local uses and interactions with men and a woman science of the nineteenth century, described in narratives of the travelers Louis and Elizabeth Agassiz, Henry Bates, Alfred Russel Wallace and Prince Adalbert of Prussia. Through the writings, we apprehended a multitude ways of narrate the fauna of the region, highlighting three distinct practices: the hunts; the scientific descriptions and the descriptions of the landscape, which show different positions adopted by these travelers in human and nonhuman relationship. Despite crossed by the scientific view of the nineteenth century and the eagerness to classify animals to Western standards, the narrators got contaminated with the symbolism of the ways of being and living in marajoara world, becoming historical agents of mediation and cultural translation. And so, they contributed to the development of a way of seeing, feeling and thinking the region, spread on a global scale.Keywords: Marajoara Amazon. Travel Literature. Fauna.

Based on a review of the available literature, the state of the art and a checklist of the fauna of the Apidae family of Tunisia is presented. The first list of the species of the family is given. 184 species and subspecies belonging to 19 genera, 12 tribes and three subfamilies were listed. Distribution of recorded taxa from Tunisia and from the world is provided. Apinae is the subfamily with the highest species richness with 89 species. Nomada has the highest number of species represented by 62 taxa. The Tunisian East center is the least species-diversified regions with only 16 species and subspecies reported so far. Five species are endemic to Tunisian fauna. Eight Nomada and one Anthophora species were collected from Tunisia, but their identity should be re-confirmed. The presence of Thyreomelecta sibirica (Radoszkowski, 1893) in Tunisia is doubtful and a re-examination and confirmation are needed.

Apresentação em painel ; Since the Atlantic Islands and the coast of West Africa have been discovered that scientists studied their parasitological fauna, mainly the one associated to serious diseases in man and farm animals, which were unknown in Europe. The Cape Verde Islands and Guinea-Bissau were used as "arrival and departure points" during the portuguese discoveries, which promoted the introduction of parasites from other geographical areas or the opposite. On the other hand, as they have been related during several centuries by historical, religious, geographical and political reasons, the spread out of parasitical agents to the previously uninhabitated islands was the most probable occurrence. Based on available references and on the results obtained from parasitological studies in domestic animals performed during 1991 and 1999, at the Cape Verde Islands and Guinea-Bissau, 65 parasitic species were listed, included in PLATYHELMINTHES (TREMATODA and CESTODA), NEMATODA, INSECTA, ARACHNIDA and PENTASTOMIDA PHYLLA. The parasitological diversity was higher at Guinea-Bissau, with 55 species, than at Cape Verde Islands, with 30, from which six species were not found at Guinea-Bissau. Considering the overall species identified, 22 (33,84%) are of afrotropical origin and all the remaining are cosmopolite (61,54%) and pantropical (4,62%), revealing the scarcity of afrotropical species in the islands, only 4 (6,15%). As the majority of species were of cosmopolitan origin, they could have been introduced by domestic animal migrations connected to species evolution or more recently by maritime traffic from all over the world. On the other hand, the obtained differences express the dissimilarity in bio and climatic conditions between a continental area with a regular rainy season and an insular area where the irregularity of the rainy season restricts the diversity of the parasitological fauna.

Context. World-wide, primary forest is in decline. This places increasing importance on understanding the use by biodiversity of regrowth (secondary) forest, and on the management of such regrowth. Aims. This study aimed to compare the terrestrial vertebrate assemblages in tropical eucalypt forests, regrowth in these forests (following clearing for pastoral intensification) and cleared land without regrowth, to provide evidence for developing management guidelines for regrowth vegetation in a region (the Daly catchment of the Northern Territory) subject to increasing demands for land-use intensification. Methods. The terrestrial vertebrate fauna was surveyed consistently at 43 quadrats sampling forest, 38 sampling regrowth and 19 sampling cleared land (formerly forest), and the faunal composition was compared with ordination and analysis of variance. Further analysis used generalised linear modelling to include consideration of the relative importance of disturbance (condition) of quadrats. Key results. Faunal assemblages in regrowth vegetation were found to be intermediate between cleared land and intact forest, and converged towards the faunal assemblage typical of intact forest with increase in the canopy height of the regrowth. However, even the tallest regrowth quadrats that were sampled supported relatively few hollow-associated species. The management of fire, weeds and grazing pressure substantially affected the faunal assemblages of the set of regrowth and intact forest quadrats, in many cases being a more important determinant of faunal attributes than was whether or not the quadrat had been cleared. Conclusions. In this region, regrowth vegetation has value as habitat for fauna, with this value increasing as the regrowth structure increases. The convergence of the faunal composition of regrowth vegetation to that of intact forest may be substantially affected by post-clearing management factors (including fire regime and level of grazing pressure and weed infestation). Implications. Regrowth vegetation should be afforded appropriate regulatory protection, with the level of protection increasing as the regrowth increases in stature.

194 páginas ; Trabajo Fin de Máster Propio. Directores: Alejandro Lago Candeira, Carlos Ibero Solana ; Tutor: Alejandro Lago Candeira. Following the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), commerce of species, subspecies, or populations must not be detrimental to their survival; but it does not no mention the potential damage that trade might cause to each individual of the species or populations concerning animal welfare. Besides preventing trade from jeopardizing or being inconsistent with the conservation of biological diversity, this work analyzes to which extent CITES takes into account the protection of animals individually considered as sentient beings and if it would be necessary to propose new instruments that might improve outcomes concerning this issue, either by adding new requirements and/or reinforcing the existing ones. With this purpose, the precedents contained in agreements, conventions, and international standards and their correlations and synergies with CITES have been examined, as well as the appearance in the international scene of the "compassionate conservation" movement, the current references to the protection of animals in CITES and their implementation, the presence of NGOs and of their influential power, and the unacceptable and conflictive situations; and consultations have taken place with the World Customs Organization, the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime and UNEP´s World Conservation Monitoring Centre. It follows from all of this, and in particular from the analysis of the existing texts of the CITES "universe" (Convention, Strategic Vision, Memoranda of Understanding, Resolutions, Decisions, and Notifications to Parties), and of the CITES bodies (Conference of the Parties, Animals Committee, Standing Committee and Secretariat and the cooperation instruments with other international regimes), as well as from the European Union regulations, that, being true that a variety of aspects related to animal welfare and protection exists, gaps have been detected in the scope of the mentioned protection, besides a generalized lack of attention to the implementation of those requirements. For this reason, this work recommends the improvement of the current standards and practices concerning animal protection, the strengthening of its implementation and compliance, the taking into consideration of the impacts of illegal trade in the protection of individual animals, an increase in the cooperation with other international institutions, and the incorporation of new elements and tools that may help prevent weak animal welfare, such as training and education, or to reach a total level of protection through the search of alternatives to the trade of animals and their parts. ; Según la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres (CITES), el comercio de las especies, subespecies o poblaciones, debe ser no perjudicial para su supervivencia, pero no hace mención al potencial perjuicio que causa el comercio en términos de bienestar animal de cada individuo que conforman dichas especies. Además de evitar que el comercio ponga en peligro o sea incompatible con la conservación de la diversidad biológica, en este trabajo se estudia en qué medida CITES toma en consideración la protección de los animales considerados individualmente como seres sentientes y si resulta necesario proponer nuevos instrumentos de mejora en este campo, ya sea añadiendo nuevos requisitos y/o reforzando la aplicación de los existentes. Para ello, se han examinado los precedentes contenidos en los acuerdos, convenios y estándares internacionales y su correlación y sinergia con CITES, la aparición en la escena internacional del movimiento de "la conservación compasiva", las referencias actuales sobre protección de los animales en CITES y su aplicación, la presencia de ONG y su capacidad de influencia, las situaciones consideradas inaceptables así como las conflictivas, y se ha consultado adicionalmente a la Organización Mundial de Aduanas, al Consorcio Internacional para combatir los delitos contra la vida silvestre y al Centro de Monitoreo para la Conservación de la Biodiversidad del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente. De todo ello, y especialmente del análisis de los textos existentes del "universo" CITES (Convención, Visión Estratégica, Memorandos de Entendimiento, Resoluciones, Decisiones y Notificaciones a las Partes) y de la actividad de los organismos de CITES (Conferencia de las Partes, Comité de Fauna, Comité Permanente y Secretaría y la cooperación con otros organismos internacionales), así como de la Reglamentación de la Unión Europea, se desprende que si bien existen numerosos aspectos relacionados con la protección y el bienestar de los animales, se han detectado vacíos en el alcance de dicha protección, así como una falta de atención generalizada en el cumplimiento de estos requerimientos. Por este motivo, este trabajo recomienda la mejora de los estándares y prácticas actuales con repercusión en la protección de los animales, un fortalecimiento de la aplicación, observancia y cumplimiento, la toma en consideración de las repercusiones del comercio ilegal en la protección de los individuos, una mayor cooperación con otros organismos internacionales y la incorporación de nuevos elementos y herramientas que contribuyan a impedir un pobre bienestar, como la formación y educación, o conseguir una total protección mediante la búsqueda de alternativas al comercio de animales y sus partes.

Phong Nha Ke Bang-Hin Nam No Region (PNKB-HNN Region) is one of the world largest limestone conservation landscapes which contains the universal outstanding values on biodiversity and high diversity of flora and fauna. This paper reviews results of mammal biodiversity surveys conducted from 1970s to 2017 in PNKB-HNN region to give more comprehensive evaluation of the fauna diversity and conservation significance. The review shows that up to date, 150 mammal species from 32 families and 11 orders have been recorded in PNKN-HNN region. The highest diversity is order Chiroptera (54 species), then follow orders Rodentia (35 species), Carnivora (30 species), Primates (11 species), Artiodactyla (8 species), Soricomorpha (4 species). Other orders (Pholidota, Erinaceomorpha, Lagomorpha, Scandentia and Dermoptera) have only 1–2 species each. PNKB NP alone contains 143 species belonging to 32 families and 11 orders while HNN NCA contains 75 species belonging to 32 families and 11 orders. PNKB-HNN region is the home of 56 mammal species of conservation priority including 41 species enlisted in 2017 IUCN Red List, 46 species enlisted in 2007 Vietnam Red Data Book. Out of 41 species enlisted in 2017 IUCN Red List, 3 species are at Critically Endangered category (CR), 9 species at Endangered category (EN), 16 species at Vulnerable category (VU), 10 species are at Near Threatened category (NT) and 3 species are of Deficient Data (DD). Out of 46 species enlisted in Vietnam Red Data Book, 3 species are at CR, 19 species at EN, 21 species at VU, 2 species at LR and 1 Species of DD.PNKB NP alone harbors 54 species of conservation priority including 40 globally threatened species, 45 nationally threatened species, 40 species under Governmental Decree No. 32/2006/ND-CP and 24 species under Governmental Decree No. 160/2013/ND-CP. HNN NCA contains 39 species of conservation priority including 32 species enlisted in 2017 IUCN Red List and 34 species enlisted in 2007 Vietnam Red Data Book. The most notable conservation priority species in PNKB-HNN are Ha Tinh Langur Trachypithecus hatinhensis, Red-shanked Douc Pygathrix nemaeus, Laotian Black Langur Trachypithecus laotum, Southern White-cheeked Gibbon Nomascus siki, Malaysian Bear Helarctos malayanus, Sun Bear Ursus thibetanus, Chinese Serow Capricornis milneedwardsii, Annamite Striped Rabbit Nesolagus timminsii and Laotian Rock Rat Laonastes aenigmamus. Moreover, PNKB-HNN region is the only home of Laotian Rock Rat Laonastes aenigmamus and Lao Limestone Rat Saxatilomys paulinae.

Excess use of ecosystem and natural resources have contributed to climate change which has not only affected the humans but also animals and plants . Over the years thousand of animals and birds have become extinct because of continue burning of fossil fuel , air pollution and water pollution which have killed many . Deforestation has made millions of animals and plants species homeless along with tribal community . The government have introduced many policies in India and have been part of many of the International convention to preserve wildlife and biodiversity . It is the biodiversity and afforestation which can reduce the impact of climate change in this world ,planting more trees with reduce natural disaster , recharge groundwater and prevent soil erosion which will reduce the problem of water crisis and food security in the world and in particularly India . Climate change has affected marine life with excess industrial waste and plastic waste being thrown into the river and oceans , million of tonnes of waste is thrown into the rivers which is eaten by the marine life leading to death and ultimate in the name of fish we are consuming plastic these days .