Revision of the superfamily Acrotheloidea (Brachiopoda,class Linguliformea,order Lingulida) from the Lower and Middle Cambrian of the Siberian Platform

This paper continues our revision of Yu.L. Pelman’s collection of the superfamily Acrotheloidea (phosphatic brachiopods) and of our own material from the Early–Middle Cambrian of the Siberian Platform. The following representatives of the superfamily Acrotheloidea (order Lingulida, class Linguliformea) are restudied and revised based on new techniques: the genus Botsfordia (family Botsfordiidae Schindewolf, 1955) and the genera Acrothele, Eothele, and Orbithele (family Acrothelidae), which are widespread on the Siberian Platform. Only one out of the three Acrothele species described by Pelman is recognized as a valid species, and one new species of this genus that comprises some part of the brachiopods that Pelman figured and placed in another taxon is described. All these species are described using data on shell microsculpture and microstructure. In addition, the genera Eothele and Orbithele are described for the first time from the Siberian Platform.     

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, 1955

Tomlinson, D. N. S. 1974. Studies of the Purple Heron, Part 1: Heronry structure, nesting habits and reproductive success. Ostrich 45: 175–181.

At Lake McIlwaine, Rhodesia, Ardea purpurea nests in bulrush Typha latifolia stands or on island termite mounds covered with reeds Phragmites mauritianus, which are connected to the mainland by Polygonum senegalense weed. Nest construction was different in thickness, diameter, height and materials used between the two types of nesting habitat. Clumping of nests in pairs and trios was apparent andMayhave some social significance. The Marsh Harrier Circus ranivorus preyed on the eggs and small chicks of the heron, whilst the Clawless Otter Aonyx capensis probably preyed on large chicks destroying the nest completely in the process. Low lake levels appear to be a major limiting factor to nesting success.     

Modeling, docking, and simulation of the major facilitator superfamily

X-ray structures are known for three members of the Major Facilitator Superfamily (MFS) of membrane transporter proteins, thus enabling the use of homology modeling to extrapolate to other MFS members. However, before employing such models for, e.g., mutational or docking studies, it is essential to develop a measure of their quality. To aid development of such metrics, two disparate MFS members (NupG and GLUT1) have been modeled. In addition, control models were created with shuffled sequences, to mimic poor quality homology models. These models and the template crystal structures have been examined in terms of both static and dynamic indicators of structural quality. Comparison of the behavior of modeled structures with the crystal structures in molecular dynamics simulations provided a metric for model quality. Docking of the inhibitor forskolin to GLUT1 and to a control model revealed significant differences, indicating that we may identify accurate models despite low sequence identity between target sequences and templates.     

Tanaidacean phylogeny,the first step: the superfamily Paratanaidoidea

This paper addresses the phylogeny of the superfamily Paratanaidoidea using computer‐assisted parsimony methods. Our morphologically based, empirical analysis uses exemplar species from all families and most genera in the superfamily. Species of Apseudomorpha, Neotanaidomorpha and Tanaidoidea were employed as out‐groups. The analysis supports most of the older systematics, including the monophyly of Paratanaididae, Leptocheliidae (in part), Nototanaididae, Pseudotanaididae and Pseudozeuxidae (excluding Heterotanaoides ). The analysis does not support the monophyly of Typhlotanaididae and Anarthruridae and suggests that both families be split up. The core genera of Typhlotanaididae are combined with the Nototanaididae under the name Nototanaididae. Other genera of Typhlotanaididae are left without family designation. Anarthruridae is divided into five families, Agathotanaididae, Anarthruridae, Leptognathiidae, Tanaellidae fam. nov. and Colletteidae fam. nov. , but a large part of the anarthrurid genera could not be designated to families. The Leptocheliidae could neither be rejected nor verified but a subfamilial division (Heterotanaidinae subfam. nov. and Leptocheliinae) seems appropriate. A new proposal for the higher‐level taxonomy of the Paratanaidoidea is presented. Many tanaidacean names have been corrected to make them agree with the presumed Latin stem ‘tanaid‐’.