Preface to the Princeton Landmarks in Biology Edition vii Preface xi Symbols Used xiii 1. The Importance of Islands 3 2. Area and Number of Speicies 8 3. Further Explanations of the Area-Diversity Pattern 19 4. The Strategy of Colonization 68 5. Invasibility and the Variable Niche 94 6. Stepping Stones and Biotic Exchange 123 7. Evolutionary Changes Following Colonization 145 8. Prospect 181 Glossary 185 References 193 Index 201

The Theory of Island Biogeography

We redescribe the only previously known species of Myrsidea from bulbuls, M. pycnonoti Eichler. Sixteen new species are described; they and their type hosts are: M. phillipsi ex Pycnonotus goiavier goiavier (Scopoli), M. gieferi ex P. goiavier suluensis Mearns, M. kulpai ex P. flavescens Blyth, M. finlaysoni ex P. finlaysoni Strickland, M. kathleenae ex P. cafer (L.), M. warwicki ex Ixos philippinus (J. R. Forster), M. mcclurei ex Microscelis amaurotis (Temminck), M. zeylanici ex P. zeylanicus (Gmelin), M. plumosi ex P. plumosus Blyth, M. eutiloti ex P. eutilotus (Jardine and Selby), M. adamsae ex P. urostictus (Salvadori), M. ochracei ex Criniger ochraceus F. Moore, M. borbonici ex Hypsipetes borbonicus (J. R. Forster), M. johnsoni ex P. atriceps (Temminck), M. palmai ex C. ochraceus, and M. claytoni ex P. eutilotus. A key is provided for the identification of these 17 species.

A new species

Can sexual dimorphism evolve because of ecological differences between the sexes? Although several examples of this phenomenon are well known from studies on birds, the idea has often been dismissed as lacking general applicability. This dismissal does not stem from contradictory data so much as from the difficulties inherent in testing the hypothesis, and its apparent lack of parsimony, in comparison to the alternative explanation of sexual selection. The only unequivocal evidence for the evolution of sexual dimorphism through intersexual niche partitioning would be disproportionate dimorphism in trophic structures (e.g., mouthparts). This criterion offers a minimum estimate of the importance of ecological causes for dimorphism, because it may fail to identify most cases. A review of published literature reveals examples of sexually dimorphic trophic structures in most animal phyla. Many of these examples seem to be attributable to sexual selection, but others reflect adaptations for niche divergence between the sexes. For example, dwarf non-feeding males without functional mouthparts have evolved independently in many taxa. In other cases, males and females differ in trophic structures apparently because of differences in diets. Such divergence may often reflect specific nutritional requirements for reproduction in females, or extreme (sexually selected?) differences between males and females in habitats or body sizes. Ecological competition between the sexes may be responsible for intersexual niche divergence in some cases, but the independent evolution of foraging specializations by each sex may be of more general importance. If ecological causation for dimorphism can be demonstrated in so many cases, despite the inadequacies of the available criteria, the degree of sexual size dimorphism in many other animal species may well also have been influenced by ecological factors. Hence, it may be premature to dismiss this hypothesis, despite the difficulty of testing it.

Ecological Causes for the Evolution of Sexual Dimorphism: A Review of the Evidence

It is clear that the above can lead to confusion when scientists of different countries are trying to communicate with each other. Another example is the burrowing rodent called a gopher found throughout the western United States. In the southeastern United States the term gopher refers to a burrowing turtle very similar to the desert tortoise found in the American southwest. One final example; two North American mammals known as the elk and the caribou are known in Europe as the reindeer and the elk. We never sing “Rudolph the Red-nosed elk”! Confused? This was the reason for creating an internationally recognized system of naming organisms. To avoid confusion, living organisms are assigned a scientific name based on Latin or Latinized words. The English sparrow is Passer domesticus or Passer domesticus (italics or underlining these two names is the official written representation of a scientific name). Using a uniform naming system allows scientists from all over the world to recognize exactly which life form a scientist is referring to. The naming process is called the binomial system of nomenclature. Passer is comparable to a surname and is called the genus, while domesticus is the specific or species name (like your given name) of the English sparrow. Now scientists can give all sparrow-like birds the genus Passer but the species name will vary. All similar genera (plural for genus) can be grouped into another, “higher” category (see below). Study the following for a more through understanding of taxonomy. Taxonomy Analogy Kingdom: Animalia Country

Diversity of life

In the 12 years since Dudgeon et al. (2006) reviewed major pressures on freshwater ecosystems, the biodiversity crisis in
the world’s lakes, reservoirs, rivers, streams and wetlands has deepened. While lakes, reservoirs and rivers cover only
2.3% of the Earth’s surface, these ecosystems host at least 9.5% of the Earth’s described animal species. Furthermore,
using the World Wide Fund for Nature’s Living Planet Index, freshwater population declines (83% between 1970 and
2014) continue to outpace contemporaneous declines in marine or terrestrial systems. The Anthropocene has brought
multiple new and varied threats that disproportionately impact freshwater systems. We document 12 emerging threats
to freshwater biodiversity that are either entirely new since 2006 or have since intensified: (i) changing climates; (ii)
e-commerce and invasions; (iii) infectious diseases; (iv) harmful algal blooms; (v) expanding hydropower; (vi) emerging
contaminants; (vii) engineered nanomaterials; (viii) microplastic pollution; (ix) light and noise; (x) freshwater salinisation;
(xi) declining calcium; and (xii) cumulative stressors. Effects are evidenced for amphibians, fishes, invertebrates, microbes,
plants, turtles and waterbirds, with potential for ecosystem-level changes through bottom-up and top-down processes.
In our highly uncertain future, the net effects of these threats raise serious concerns for freshwater ecosystems. However,
we also highlight opportunities for conservation gains as a result of novel management tools (e.g. environmental flows,
environmental DNA) and specific conservation-oriented actions (e.g. dam removal, habitat protection policies,managed
relocation of species) that have been met with varying levels of success.Moving forward, we advocate hybrid approaches
that manage fresh waters as crucial ecosystems for human life support as well as essential hotspots of biodiversity and
ecological function. Efforts to reverse global trends in freshwater degradation now depend on bridging an immense gap
between the aspirations of conservation biologists and the accelerating rate of species endangerment.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/brv.12480

Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity

https://bioone.org/journals/Copeia/volume-2008/issue-3/OT-08-098a.1/Handbook-of-European-Freshwater-Fishes/10.1643/OT-08-098a.1.pdf

Lawrence M. Page

Papers

Handbook of European Freshwater Fishes

A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes: North America, North of Mexico

Handbook of Darters

Improving Food Webs

A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North America North of Mexico