24 resultados para Structuralism: Lévi-Strauss and Victor Turner
Resumo:
The biography of Charles Bradford Hudson that follows this preface had its seeds about 1965 when I (VGS) was casually examining the extensive files of original illustrations of fishes stored in the Division of Fishes, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. I happened upon the unpublished illustration of a rainbow trout by Hudson and was greatly impressed with its quality. The thought occurred to me then that the artist must have gone on to do more than just illustrate fishes. During the next 20 years I occasionally pawed through those files, which contained the work of numerous artists, who had worked from 1838 to the present. In 1985, I happened to discuss the files with my supervisor, who urged me to produce a museum exhibit of original fish illustrations. This I did, selecting 200 of the illustrations representing 21 artists, including, of course, Hudson. As part of the text for the exhibit, Drawn from the Sea, Art in the Service of Ichthyology, I prepared short biographies of each of the artists. The exhibit, with an available poster, was shown in the Museum for six months, and a reduced version was exhibited in U.S. and Canadian museums during the next 3 years.
Resumo:
The northern quahog, Mercenaria mercenaria, ranges along the Atlantic Coast of North America from the Canadian Maritimes to Florida, while the southern quahog, M. campechiensis, ranges mostly from Florida to southern Mexico. The northern quahog was fished by native North Americans during prehistoric periods. They used the meats as food and the shells as scrapers and as utensils. The European colonists copied the Indians treading method, and they also used short rakes for harvesting quahogs. The Indians of southern New England and Long Island, N.Y., made wampum from quahog shells, used it for ornaments and sold it to the colonists, who, in turn, traded it to other Indians for furs. During the late 1600’s, 1700’s, and 1800’s, wampum was made in small factories for eventual trading with Indians farther west for furs. The quahoging industry has provided people in many coastal communities with a means of earning a livelihood and has given consumers a tasty, wholesome food whether eaten raw, steamed, cooked in chowders, or as stuffed quahogs. More than a dozen methods and types of gear have been used in the last two centuries for harvesting quahogs. They include treading and using various types of rakes and dredges, both of which have undergone continuous improvements in design. Modern dredges are equipped with hydraulic jets and one type has an escalator to bring the quahogs continuously to the boats. In the early 1900’s, most provinces and states established regulations to conserve and maximize yields of their quahog stocks. They include a minimum size, now almost universally a 38-mm shell width, and can include gear limitations and daily quotas. The United States produces far more quahogs than either Canada or Mexico. The leading producer in Canada is Prince Edward Island. In the United States, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island lead in quahog production in the north, while Virginia and North Carolina lead in the south. Connecticut and Florida were large producers in the 1990’s. The State of Tabasco leads in Mexican production. In the northeastern United States, the bays with large openings, and thus large exchanges of bay waters with ocean waters, have much larger stocks of quahogs and fisheries than bays with small openings and water exchanges. Quahog stocks in certified beds have been enhanced by transplanting stocks to them from stocks in uncertified waters and by planting seed grown in hatcheries, which grew in number from Massachusetts to Florida in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
Resumo:
The northern quahog, Mercenaria mercenaria, ranges along the Atlantic Coast of North America from the Canadian Maritimes to Florida, while the southern quahog, M. campechiensis, ranges mostly from Florida to southern Mexico. The northern quahog was fished by native North Americans during prehistoric periods. They used the meats as food and the shells as scrapers and as utensils. The European colonists copied the Indians treading method, and they also used short rakes for harvesting quahogs. The Indians of southern New England made wampum from quahog shells, used it for ornaments and sold it to the colonists, who, in turn, traded it to other Indians for furs. During the late 1600’s, 1700’s, and 1800’s, wampum was made in small factories for eventual trading with Indians farther west for furs. The quahoging industry has provided people in many coastal communities with a means of earning a livelihood and has provided consumers with a tasty, wholesome food whether eaten raw, steamed, cooked in chowders, or as stuffed quahogs. More than a dozen methods and types of gear have been used in the last two centuries for harvesting quahogs. They include treading and using various types of rakes and dredges, both of which have undergone continuous improvements in design. Modern dredges are equipped with hydraulic jets and one type has an escalator to bring the quahogs continuously to the boats. In the early 1900’s, most provinces and states established regulations to conserve and maximize yields of their quahog stocks. They include a minimum size, now almost universally a 38-mm shell width, and can include gear limitations and daily quotas. The United States produces far more quahogs than either Canada or Mexico. The leading producer in Canada is Prince Edward Island. In the United States, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island lead in quahog production in the north, while Virginia and North Carolina lead in the south. Connecticut and Florida were large producers in the 1990’s. The State of Campeche leads in Mexican production. In the northeastern United States, the bays with large openings, and thus large exchanges of bay waters with ocean waters, have much larger stocks of quahogs and fisheries than bays with small openings and water exchanges. Quahog stocks in certifi ed beds have been enhanced by transplanting stocks to them from stocks in uncertified waters and by planting seed grown in hatcheries, which grew in number from Massachusetts to Florida in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
Resumo:
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Cooperative Shark Tagging Program (CSTP) is part of continuing research directed to the study of the biology of large Atlantic sharks. The CSTP was initiated in 1962 at the Sandy Hook Laboratory in New Jersey under the Department of Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). During the late 1950's and early 1960's, sharks were considered a liability to the economy of resort communities, of little or no commercial value, and a detriment to fishermen in areas where sharks might damage expensive fishing gear or reduce catches of more commercially valuable species.
Resumo:
The overall goal of this assessment was to evaluate the effects of nutrient-source reductions that may be implemented in the Mississippi River Basin (MRB) to reduce the problem of low oxygen conditions (hypoxia) in the nearshore Gulf of Mexico. Such source reductions would affect the quality of surface waters—streams, rivers, and reservoirs—in the drainage basin itself, as well as nearshore Gulf waters. The task group’s work was divided into addressing the effects of nutrient-source reductions on: (1) surface waters in the MRB and (2) hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.
Resumo:
Extensive losses of coastal wetlands in the United States caused by sea-level rise, land subsidence, erosion, and coastal development have increased hterest in the creation of salt marshes within estuaries. Smooth cordgrass Spartina altemiflora is the species utilized most for salt marsh creation and restoration throughout the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the U.S., while S. foliosa and Salicomia virginica are often used in California. Salt marshes have many valuable functions such as protecting shorelines from erosion, stabilizing deposits of dredged material, dampening flood effects, trapping water-born sediments, serving as nutrient reservoirs, acting as tertiary water treatment systems to rid coastal waters of contaminants, serving as nurseries for many juvenile fish and shellfish species, and serving as habitat for various wildlife species (Kusler and Kentula 1989). The establishment of vegetation in itself is generally sufficient to provide the functions of erosion control, substrate stabilization, and sediment trapping. The development of other salt marsh functions, however, is more difficult to assess. For example, natural estuarine salt marshes support a wide variety of fish and shellfish, and the abundance of coastal marshes has been correlated with fisheries landings (Turner 1977, Boesch and Turner 1984). Marshes function for aquatic species by providing breeding areas, refuges from predation, and rich feeding grounds (Zimmerman and Minello 1984, Boesch and Turner 1984, Kneib 1984, 1987, Minello and Zimmerman 1991). However, the relative value of created marshes versus that of natural marshes for estuarine animals has been questioned (Carnmen 1976, Race and Christie 1982, Broome 1989, Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory 1990, LaSalle et al. 1991, Minello and Zimmerman 1992, Zedler 1993). Restoration of all salt marsh functions is necessary to prevent habitat creation and restoration activities from having a negative impact on coastal ecosystems.
Resumo:
This report outlines the approaches for estimating the carbon budget for the United States, a data rich subcontinental area, and presents an overview of problems encountered and preliminary results obtained.
Resumo:
Prior to introduction of non-native fish species into Lakes Victor i a, Kyoga and Nabugabo, the three lakes suppor ted diverse fish fauna representing 13 families consisting of six cichlid genera and fifteen non-cichlid genera. There were about 50 non-cichlid species and over 300 cichlids consisting of mainly haplochromines (Graham 1929, worthington 1929, Greenwood 1960). Many of the species were commercially and scientifically important and provided a rich variety of protein source to choose from. Following introduction of the Nile perch and several tilapiines species, most of the native species were drastically reduced and some have apparently disappeared. The few remaining species appear to be restricted in distribution due to the presence of the Nile perch. They are mainly confined to refugia such as marginal macrophytes, rocky outcrops and small satellite lakes which are separated from the areas of introduction by swamps