7 resultados para Lazzarini, Gregorio, 1655-1730.
em Aquatic Commons
Resumo:
En 1987 publicamos una lista de los peces de agua dulce de la Argentina restringida a la información básica, por la que entendíamos los autores de géneros y especies con sus fecha, y las citas de los autores de trabajos que resultaban en modificaciones del catálogo de Ringuelet et al. (1967). A pesar de su modesta presentación (o quizá debido a ella), esa lista alcanzó una divulgación mucho más amplia que la esperada y fue evidente que los investigadores, docentes, funcionarios y alumnos, necesitan un esquema accesible del grupo que los alivie de la búsqueda permanente de las modificaciones taxonómicas, muchas de las cuales en los últimos tiempos han dejado de lado el saludable tono conservador del código de nomenclatura. Después de tres quinquenios la lista está bastante gastada y hemos recibido muchos pedidos de una nueva versión. Dos argumentos nos han decidido a rehacerla bastante en contra de nuestra disposición. La conciencia de que se trata de un trabajo de alguna utilidad como referencia y en temas aplicados, y la evidente circunstancia, curiosamente ignorada, de que las listas faunísticas constituyen la evaluación más inmediata y manejable de la biodiversidad. Esta es una observación que ofrecemos a los lectores y que es ciertamente paradójica; que se destinan enormes esfuerzos y gran cantidad de dinero a la organización de grupos de trabajo, simposios y jornadas sobre la diversidad, cuando ésta en general está a la vuelta de la esquina, en el permanente trabajo taxonómico y faunístico de decenas de investigadores que lo realizan habitualmente. A veces ni siquiera es necesario rastrearla en publicaciones dispersas, ya que parece estar en la naturaleza de los taxónomos preparar listas, catálogos y elencos, que habitualmente no son considerados relevantes como resultado de investigación. Queremos dejar en claro que esta lista, si bien está basada en las mejores fuentes accesibles, no es estrictamente un catálogo crítico, en el sentido que se hayan buscado todas las publicaciones originales, se hayan revisado materiales, o se haya llevado a cabo investigación original sobre todos los grupos. Cualquiera familiarizado con los peces, comprenderá que esa tarea no era posible en el nivel requerido por la taxonomía actual. Sin embargo, hemos buscado las publicaciones originales cuando las dudas excedían lo razonable y hemos revisado material original en nuestro trabajo personal con varios grupos. Las distribuciones se dan de una manera muy general, y se basan principalmente en Ringuelet et al. (1967), con el agregado de datos nuevos publicados que recogimos personalmente. En la consideración de las especies válidas, se han seguido los criterios de autores recientes y, cuando carecíamos de referencias particulares, se utilizaron el Catálogo de la Academia de ciencias de California (Esmeyer, 1998) y el Fish Data Base. Según Margalef, una de las funciones de la ciencia es proveer descripciones abreviadas de los fenómenos. Esta lista es una descripción abreviada de la diversidad de los peces continentales de la Argentina. Incluye todas las especies que se sabe que habitan el país, más unas cuantas que es posible qu4e lo hagan. Todos los cambios que han ocurrido desde la lista anterior están indicados con la referencia a los autores correspondientes. En muchos casos, hemos incluido nuestra opinión y en otros comentamos, con algún detalle, cual es el estado del conocimiento. Las disciplinas cambian, progresan y a veces también, retroceden. Rara vez son inmutables. Esta lista tampoco. (Lista PDF tiene 90 paginas; Indice Ordenes y Familias tiene 17 paginas.)
Resumo:
(4 p.)
Resumo:
This study aims to reconstruct the history of shore whaling in the southeastern United States, emphasizing statistics on the catch of right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, the preferred targets. The earliest record of whaling in North Carolina is of a proposed voyage from New York in 1667. Early settlers on the Outer Banks utilized whale strandings by trying out the blubber of carcasses that came ashore, and some whale oil was exported from the 1660s onward. New England whalemen whaled along the North Carolina coast during the 1720s, and possibly earlier. As some of the whalemen from the northern colonies moved to Nortb Carolina, a shore-based whale fishery developed. This activity apparently continued without interruption until the War of Independence in 1776, and continued or was reestablished after the war. The methods and techniques of the North Carolina shore whalers changed slowly: as late as the 1890s they used a drogue at the end of the harpoon line and refrained from staying fast to the harpooned whale, they seldom employed harpoon guns, and then only during the waning years of the fishery. The whaling season extended from late December to May, most successfully between February and May. Whalers believed they were intercepting whales migrating north along the coast. Although some whaling occurred as far north as Cape Hatteras, it centered on the outer coasts of Core, Shackleford, and Bogue banks, particularly near Cape Lookout. The capture of whales other than right whales was a rare event. The number of boat crews probably remained fairly stable during much of the 19th century, with some increase in effort in the late 1870s and early 1880s when numbers of boat crews reached 12 to 18. Then by the late 1880s and 1890s only about 6 crews were active. North Carolina whaling had become desultory by the early 1900s, and ended completely in 1917. Judging by export and tax records, some ocean-going vessels made good catches off this coast in about 1715-30, including an estimated 13 whales in 1719, 15 in one year during the early 1720s, 5-6 in a three-year period of the mid to late 1720s, 8 by one ship's crew in 1727, 17 by one group of whalers in 1728-29, and 8-9 by two boats working from Ocracoke prior to 1730. It is impossible to know how representative these fragmentary records are for the period as a whole. The Carolina coast declined in importance as a cruising ground for pelagic whalers by the 1740s or 1750s. Thereafter, shore whaling probably accounted for most of the (poorly documented) catch. Lifetime catches by individual whalemen on Shackleford Banks suggest that the average annual catch was at least one to two whales during 1830·80, perhaps about four during the late 1870s and early 1880s, and declining to about one by the late 1880s. Data are insufficient to estimate the hunting loss rate in the Outer Banks whale fishery. North Carolina is the only state south of New Jersey known to have had a long and well established shore whaling industry. Some whaling took place in Chesapeake Bay and along the coast of Virginia during the late 17th and early 18th centuries, but it is poorly documented. Most of the rigbt whales taken off South Carolina, Georgia, and northern Florida during the 19th century were killed by pelagic whalers. Florida is the only southeastern state with evidence of an aboriginal (pre-contact) whale fishery. Right whale calves may have been among the aboriginal whalers' principal targets. (PDF file contains 34 pages.)
Resumo:
Charles Darwin the research ship undertook an Oceanographic Cruise in 1986, CD 86/17 of the North Arabian Sea. Sediment cores were collected between 15° and 25°N. In this study sediment cores collected from deep Indus and Oman basins (CD 1715, CD 1730, CD 1738) have been analyzed for mineralogy, water content and porosity. In general, the cores are mainly composed of clay to silt sized terrigenous and biogenic constituents. Quartz, Chlorite and Illite are the common minerals of Arabian Sea sediments. Porosity determined by water content of sediments has been correlated with quartz/chlorite and quartz/illite peak ratios to show a relationship between mineral composition and physical properties.
Resumo:
Charles Darwin the research ship undertook an Oceanographic Cruise in 1986, CD 86/17 of the North Arabian Sea. Sediment cores were collected between 15° and 25°N. In this study sediment cores collected from deep Indus and Oman basins (CD 1715, CD 1730, CD 1738) have been analyzed for mineralogy, water content and porosity. In general, the cores are mainly composed of clay to silt sized terrigenous and biogenic constituents. Quartz, chlorite and illite are the common minerals of Arabian Sea sediments. Porosity determined by water content of sediments has been correlated with quartz/chlorite and quartz/illite peak ratios to show a relationship between mineral composition and physical properties.