Bibliografía argentina de peces de agua dulce.

Espanol: En la presente lista bibliográfica fueron recopiladas las referencias sobre los peces continentales de la Argentina, del período comprendido entre mediados del siglo XVIII y fines del año 2005. Incluye las listas bibliográficas publicadas durante los años 1981 a 2004, y las citas no mencionadas en ellas. Se incluyeron el ISSN o ISBN según correspondiera, la abreviatura oficial y el lugar de origen de las publicaciones. En algunos casos, los ISSN, las abreviaturas de los nombres de las publicaciones o su procedencia, mencionados en los catálogos, no coinciden con los de la home page de la publicación. Una bibliografía puede ser muy rica y aún estar incompleta. Requiere de sus lectores algún interés histórico, y aún un interés profundo por su tema. Ante una bibliografía, muchos investigadores preferirían no encontrar algunas referencias, y de hecho, muchas son oportunamente olvidadas. Por no saber como hacerlo, o por menosprecio, estas listas raramente son citadas en los trabajos, aunque sobre algunos temas en particular, sería realmente difícil formarse una idea si las bibliografías no existieran. Aún desde el comienzo es complicado precisar un criterio de inclusiones. Por ejemplo, gran parte de la ictiofauna Argentina se encuentra también en Brasil. ¿Justifica esto incluir informes perdidos sobre artes de pesca en una cuenca distante? ¿Deben los clásicos, que todo el mundo conoce y el que se inicia encontrará sin dificultad, ser incluidos? Aún a un grupo que se dedicara full time a este trabajo, le sería difícil verificar la precisión de las citas antiguas, en las que fechas y autoría cambian según la investigación histórica. En una bibliografía más o menos general, la perfección atenta contra la publicación. Sin embargo, pensamos que es conveniente hacerlas. Una mirada a este volumen, muestra la enorme cantidad de desarrollos en muchos temas, y la regla que uno de nosotros ha mencionado desde hace tiempo: siempre hay más publicado sobre un tema de lo que uno cree. La sospecha de que con sólo mirar lo que está hecho, muchos subsidios podrían utilizarse para algo más útil que algunas evaluaciones repetidas de recursos o biodiversidad, es un poco pesimista y no haremos perder trabajos insistiendo en eso. Cada generación elige sus metas, su propia base epistemológica, sus trabajos preferidos y los que desecha. Aún en trabajos perdidos o de mala calidad, es posible encontrar datos valiosos. Ningún proyecto, por mejor diseñado que esté, podrá mostrar en el presente los organismos que vivían en el pasado en un lugar en el que las condiciones han cambiado, o lo hará en términos de otra disciplina. En los temas aplicados la información del pasado puede ser importantísima. Aún en una disciplina tan conservadora como la nomenclatura, los cambios pueden ser exasperantes; no pueden serlo menos en las que intrínsecamente, como la ecología, es lo que estudian. Para dar una idea más precisa del desarrollo de la ictiología en la Argentina, esta lista podría ir acompañada de una apreciación crítica. Entendemos que una tarea así exige un trabajo diferente, de cierta magnitud y con no pocos elementos históricos. Aunque tiene deficiencias, la ictiología argentina constituye una acumulación de conocimientos de considerable calidad y pertinencia para la historia natural de América del Sur. Dejamos a los lectores que cada uno haga la suya. English: For the present list, references on freshwater fishes of Argentina were compiled from the period between middle XVIII Century and the end of the year 2005. It includes previous lists published during 1981 to 2004, and references not mentioned therein. The ISSN o ISBN numbers were included, as well as the official abbreviations and the place of origin of the periodicals. In some cases, these data as quoted in catalogs, do not agree with those in the home page of the publication. A bibliography may be very rich and anyway never complete. It requires from its readers some historic interest and indeed a deep interest on his (her) subject. Browsing a bibliography, many researchers would prefer not to find some references, and in fact, sometimes they forget some of them. Not imagining how to do it, or because people do not concede importance to them, bibliographic lists are rarely quoted in papers, though some subjects would be rather difficult to understand if list of publications would not exist. Even from the beginning, it is difficult to precise a criterion of inclusions. For example, many Argentine fishes occur also in Brazil. Does this justify the inclusion of grey reports on a distant basin? Should classic works, that everybody knows and are easily found, be included? Is near impossible, even for a group dedicated full time to this work, to verify the precision of old citations, whose dates and authorship change according to authorities and historical research. In a more or less general bibliography, completeness is against publication. Nevertheless, we think that is convenient to prepare these lists. A look at this volume shows the enormous developments in many subjects, and the rule that one of us mentioned long ago: there are always more papers on any subject than one suspects. Looking at what has already been done raises the suspicion that many grants could be used for something more useful than repeated evaluations of biodiversity or resources. This is a bit pessimistic, and we do not want to erase working opportunities. Each generation chooses its targets, its own epistemological base, its preferred papers and those that rejects. Even in lost or bad quality papers, the possibility of finding valuable information exists. No project, whatever the appropriateness of its design, could show at present which organisms lived in the past in a place where environmental conditions have changed, or it will do it in terms of another discipline. In applied subjects, information from the past can be very important. Even in a conservative discipline as nomenclature, changes can be exasperating. They are not lesser in those like ecology, where change itself is studied. To provide a more precise idea of the development of ichthyology in Argentina, this list could be accompanied by a critical appreciation. We understood that such an aim requires a different work, with no few historical elements and of certain magnitude. In spite of some deficiencies, Argentine ichthyology, resulting from collaboration of both local and foreign people, constitutes a bulk of knowledge of considerable quality and pertinence for the natural history of South America. We leave each reader to make his (or her) own evaluation. (Texto en Espanol. PDF tiene cien setenta paginas.)

Management and Promotion of Digitization Projects: Geologic Atlas of the US

The Geologic Atlas of the United States was digitized and stored in the Texas A&M University institutional repository. Extensive metadata was created which emphasized the geographic and geologic aspects of the material. The map sheets were also convered into kml files for Google Earth and ESRI shape files for use in GIS. A Yahoo!Map interface allows for visualization of the locations of each folio and user friendly browsing across the collection. Details of the project will be discussed, including the selection, digitization methods and standards, preservation, metadata, web presence and staffing. Its storage in DSpace, assortment of publicity outlets, and its inclusion in targeted clearinghouses expand its potential use to national and international audiences.

The food habits of four kelp-bed rockfishes (Scorpaenidae, Sebastes) off Santa Barbara, California

The diets of four common rockfishes from the kelp beds near Santa Barbara, California, were determined by gut contents analysis, and related to feeding strategies. The guts of one hundred specimens of each species were examined, and the importance of prey evaluated by their frequency of occurrence, numbers, and volumes. The volumes of stomach contents were standardized for the size of specimen. Estimates of overlap in diet between the species were made. Sebastes atrovirens fed primarily on small animals from the kelp canopy, and may have employed a browsing rather than pursuing strategy of feeding. It showed low overlap in diet with the three bottom-dwelling species, S. carnatus, S. chrysomelas, and S. vexillaris, all of which preferred larger types of prey and seemed more like pursuers. The closely related S. carnatus and S. chrysomelas were quite similar in diet, eating primarily medium sized demersal invertebrates, especially crabs and shrimp. S. vexillaris ate fewer crabs and shrimp but more large-sized fish and octopus than the latter two species. Its more active life style indicates that it may react to prey at greater distances and have a larger home range than these species, as has been predicted for pursuers feeding on larger (and rarer) prey.

Natural diet of penaeid prawns in the coastal waters of Mumbai

Foregut contents of eight commercially important species of penaied prawns namely Penaeus merguiensis, Metapenaeus affinis, M. monoceros, M. brevicornis, Parapenaeopsis stylifera, P. hardwickii, P. sculptilis and Solenocera crassicornis were investigated from inshore, nearshore and offshore fishing grounds of Mumbai. Feeding intensity and index of preponderance (IP) of the dietary items were compared statistically for the species, sexes, fishing areas and maturity condition of females. All the species except M. monoceros and P. sculptilis showed that females were better fed than males. The feeding intensity in the three depth-zones was different for M. affinis, M. brevicornis, M. monoceros, P. hardwickii and S. crassicornis, and uniform for P. merguiensis, P. stylifera and P. sculptilis. Acetes spp., prawn remains, polychaetes, benthic crustaceans, foraminifers and fish remains were the important food items of the prawns. Dietary comparison between the two sexes of the species did not show any difference, but mature females of M. monoceros and P. sculptilis had different diets. Comparison of food items for all the species together showed significant difference between the three areas. Crustacean diet was the favorite in the inshore and nearshore, and polychaetes in the offshore waters. All the species except P. hardwickii showed difference in their dietary composition in the three depth-zones. It is concluded that these coexisting species are primarily carnivorous and exhibit diverse food preferences in different depth-zones by browsing on interstitial organisms, chasing epipelagic prey, raptorial predation, scavenging on dead organisms or adopting different temporal abundance to avoid inter-specific competition for food.