The species of<i>Saemundssonia</i>(Insecta: Phthiraptera: Philopteridae) from skuas (Aves: Stercorariidae)

Palma, Ricardo L.

doi:10.1080/03014223.2000.9518217

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(1997); note that for Stercorarius parasiticus and Stercorarius longicaudus , Andersson's character states conflict with the Cohen et al. data, but agree with, e.g., Malcomson (1960) and Palma (2000). In a third analysis we added both the seven plumage characters and the eight ectoparasite characters.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 73%

Skeletal morphology and the phylogeny of skuas (Aves: Charadriiformes, Stercorariidae)

Chu¹,

Eisenschenk²,

Zhu³

2009

Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The skuas (Aves: Charadriiformes, Stercorariidae) consist of two assemblages. On the basis of size, plumage, and distributional similarities, each of the two assemblages has long been considered monophyletic, and this traditional hypothesis has commonly been manifested in the recognition of two genera, Stercorarius and Catharacta; conversely, more recently collected molecular and ectoparasite evidence yields an alternative hypothesis, in which one member of Stercorarius, Stercorarius pomarinus, is more closely related to the forms in Catharacta than to the other Stercorarius sp. In this study we used skeletal morphology to test the competing hypotheses of skua phylogeny. Cladistic analysis of 141 osteological characters provided strong support for the molecular/ectoparasite hypothesis. However, those skeletal data did not support a sister-taxon relationship between S. pomarinus and Catharacta skua, as inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequence data; instead, they resolved pomarinus as the sister of a monophyletic Catharacta. Additionally, our skeletal evidence did not support a sister-group relationship between skuas and auks, as constraining skua/auk monophyly increased the tree length by nearly 5%.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 73%

Skeletal morphology and the phylogeny of skuas (Aves: Charadriiformes, Stercorariidae)

Chu¹,

Eisenschenk²,

Zhu³

2009

Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Species identifications of lice were confirmed by Ricardo L. Palma. Two taxa of louse (Hafneria grandis (Piaget) and Saemundssonia) were chosen for this study due to their breadth of distribution across skua taxa. Hafneria grandis (HG) parasitizes the larger (Catharacta) skuas while Saemundssonia (SS) parasitizes all skuas (Palma, 2000). Only well preserved lice (with all of the characters required for measurement) were used in morphometric analysis.…”

Section: Collection and Measurement Ofectoparasitejmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphological variation of chewing lice (Insecta: Phthiraptera) from different skua taxa

Ramli

Cusack

Curry

et al. 2000

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The licc, Haffneria grandis and Saemundssonia were extracted from their hosts, skuas (Aves: Stercorariidae). Lice werr extracted from dead birds by combing feathers, while lice from live birds were extracted using a delousing chamber containing chloroform vapour. Lice were measured and the data analyscd by canonical discriminant analysis. Lice show variation in morphology that is useful in identifying some of these hosts. This variation is presumably due to micro-environmental pressure providcd by each host. O u r interpretation is that these chewing lice have evolved to be adapted to rach skua taxon; different sizes and morphologies of skua taxa result in dif€erent sizes and morphologies of Hafieria grandis and Saemundssonia. 0 20110 Thr Linnran Socictv of London ADDIlIONAL KEY WORDS:-parasite host interactionsskuas ~ coevolution ~ morphological variationtaxonomic indicator ~ ecophenotypic variation ~ host specific ~ morphomctric analysis.

show abstract

“…Loss of nesting habitat, predation on land and fisheries bycatch are tangible immediate threats. The roles of pathogens (Hocken 2000a) and parasites (Palma 2000) on population processes are only now being investigated, and there are no data on what, if any, influence they might have on population dynamics. The effects of cultural harvesting and commercial fishing on the abundance of seabird prey have not been documented.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent debate and review of the taxonomy of even a comparatively well-studied group, the large albatrosses (Robertson & Nunn 1998), illustrates the point further. The taxonomy of seabird parasites is still being described (e.g., Palma 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The importance of seabird research for New Zealand

Møller

Frampton²,

Hocken³

et al. 2000

New Zealand Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The species ofSaemundssonia(Insecta: Phthiraptera: Philopteridae) from skuas (Aves: Stercorariidae)

Abstract: Abstract

Cited by 6 publications

References 8 publications

Skeletal morphology and the phylogeny of skuas (Aves: Charadriiformes, Stercorariidae)

Skeletal morphology and the phylogeny of skuas (Aves: Charadriiformes, Stercorariidae)

Morphological variation of chewing lice (Insecta: Phthiraptera) from different skua taxa

The importance of seabird research for New Zealand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About