Whale Meat in the Japanese Diet

Junghans (Letters, 4 Apr., p. 6) points out several errors in Beary’s letter (14 December 1979, p. 1260) regarding the high concentrations of mercury in whale meat eaten by the Japanese. We would like to call attention to some additional errors in Beary’s letter.

Revision of Hawaiian, Australasian, Oriental, and Japanese Parandrinae (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae)

A comprehensive revision of the Subfamily Parandrinae (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) from the Hawaiian, Australasian, Oriental, and Japanese regions is presented. Seven (7) new genera are described: Komiyandra, Melanesiandra, Papuandra, Storeyandra, Hawaiiandra, Caledonandra, and Malukandra. All known, indigenous species from these regions are assigned to new genera resulting in the following new combinations: Komiyandra janus (Bates, 1875), K. shibatai (Hayashi, 1963), K. formosana (Miwa and Mitono, 1939), K. lanyuana (Hayashi, 1981), Melanesiandra striatifrons (Fairmaire, 1879), M. solomonensis (Arigony, 1983), Caledonandra austrocaledonica (Montrouzier, 1861), C. passandroides (Thomson, 1867), Hawaiiandra puncticeps (Sharp, 1878), Malukandra heterostyla (Lameere, 1902), Storeyandra frenchi (Blackburn, 1895), and Papuandra araucariae (Gressitt, 1959). Thirty-one (31) new species are described: Komiyandra javana, K. nayani, K. ohbayashii, K. luzonica, K. philippinensis, K. mindanao, K. mehli, K. vivesi, K. lombokia, K. sulawesiana, K. irianjayana, K. menieri, K. sangihe, K. mindoro, K. niisatoi, K. drumonti, K. cabigasi, K. koni, K. johkii, K. poggii, K. uenoi, Melanesiandra bougainvillensis, M. birai, Papuandra gressitti, P. weigeli, P. queenslandensis, P. norfolkensis, P. rothschildi, P. oberthueri, Malukandra jayawijayana and M. hornabrooki. A lectotype is designated for Parandra janus Bates, 1875. Komiyandra janus (Bates, 1875) is excluded from nearly all previously reported locations, even one location given in the original description, and is now only known from Sulawesi. A paralectotype of Parandra janus Bates, 1875, is designated as a paratype for Komiyandra menieri, new species. Komiyandra formosana is excluded from the Japanese (Ryukyu Is.) fauna. Parandra vitiensis Nonfried, 1894, is again placed in synonymy with P. striatifrons Fairmaire (now Melanesiandra striatifrons). A neotype is designated for Parandra austrocaledonica Montrouzier, 1861. A lectotype is designated for Parandra janus Bates, 1875. The lectotype of Parandra gabonica Thomson, 1858, designated by Quentin and Villiers (1975) is considered invalid. Papuandra araucariae (Gressitt, 1959) is excluded from the fauna of Norfolk Island. The African species Stenandra kolbei (Lameere, 1903) is reported for the first time from Asia (N. Vietnam). Keys are presented to separate worldwide genera of Parandrini and all species within the study regions. Illustrations are provided for all species including many special characters to differentiate genera and species.

Dinner Prelude to the Nebraska Great Gardens Symposium

It’s a pleasure to welcome you to the University of Nebraska here in Lincoln. I’m delighted to be asked to join you for this dinner prelude to your Nebraska Great Gardens Symposium tomorrow. I’m also pleased to be able to welcome you to East Campus tonight, and to the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and I understand you’ll be meeting at the City Campus Union tomorrow. I am glad you have the opportunity to visit both campuses, and I hope you will come back when they are in bloom. As a newcomer to Nebraska myself – my wife Virginia and I arrived on a cold, snowy day last December, and I began my position here January 2 – I’m certainly looking forward to the arrival of spring. I have been told what a joy it is to be on this campus when plants and trees are in bloom, and when that special sense of spring renewal surrounds us.

Japanese Ag Training Program Closing Ceremony

What a pleasure it is to be here with you tonight for this year’s closing ceremony for the Japanese Ag Training Program. We have been so delighted to have those of you enrolled in the program studying with us for the past three months. You join the nearly 1,400 Japanese Ag Training Program trainees who have received animal science production, management, and agribusiness training from our faculty since the program began here in 1966, and we are so pleased to have had this opportunity to know and to work with you.

Distribution of Rain Gardens in Lincoln Nebraska: Are Rain Gardens more Likely to be Built Near Bodies of Water

Abstract Rain gardens are an important tool in reducing the amount of stormwater runoff and accompanying pollutants from entering the city’s streams and lakes, and reducing their water quality. This thesis project analyzed the number of rain gardens installed through the City of Lincoln Nebraska Watershed Management’s Rain Garden Water Quality Project in distance intervals of one-eighth mile from streams and lakes. This data shows the distribution of these rain gardens in relation to streams and lakes and attempts to determine if proximity to streams and lakes is a factor in homeowners installing rain gardens. ArcGIS was used to create a map with layers to determine the number of houses with rain gardens in 1/8 mile distance increments from the city’s streams and lakes and their distances from a stream or lake. The total area, number of house parcels, and the type and location of each parcel type were also determined for comparison between the distance interval increments. The study revealed that fifty-eight percent of rain gardens were installed within a quarter mile of a stream or lake (an area covering 60% of the city and including 58.5% of the city’s house parcels), and that eighty percent of rain gardens were installed within three-eighth mile of streams or lakes (an area covering 75% of the city and 78.5% of the city’s house parcels). All parcels in the city are within 1 mile of a stream or lake. Alone the number of project houses per distance intervals suggested that proximity to a stream or lake was a factor in people’s decisions to install rain gardens. However, when compared to the number of house parcels available, proximity disappears as a factor in project participation.