甘肃莲花山四川林初步观察

四川林鹗（Strix davidi）中国特产鸟类，目前已知仅分布于四川西部、甘肃南部的高山针叶林中，其生态学资料极为缺乏，尚无其巢址的报道。1866年法国博物学家Armand David首次在四川的森林中猎获了这种鹗类；1875年，Sharpe将它命名为长尾林鹗的一个亚种S．uralensis davidi。四川林鹗在体型、形态及叫声上与长尾林鹗非常相似，但鉴于它与遍布于欧亚大陆北部森林中的长尾林鹗长期隔离，目前国际重要鸟类专著已将它单独列为一个种。     

四川林在甘肃的新分布

四川林 (Strix davidi)曾被认为是长尾林 (Strix uralensis)的一个亚种,即Strix uralensis davidi,过去有记录的分布点包括青海省的斑玛,四川省的宝兴、松潘和巴塘(郑作新等,1991;郑作新,2000).20世纪90年代以来,国际上的一些重要鸟类学著作将四川林列为一个独立的种,国际鸟类联盟(Bird Life International)还将之列为易危种(vulnerable),但目前为止尚无关于四川林生态学方面的研究报道(Konig et al.1999;Hoyo et al.,1999).我们在甘肃省发现了四川林的新分布区,并在莲花山自然保护区对四川林进行了观察,现报道如下.     

中国鸮形目鸟类分类现状

鸮形目Strigiformes鸟类是一类适应夜行性生活的猛禽,主要于夜间活动,体色暗而斑驳,难于直接观察。我国关于鸮类分类的研究报道并不多见,长期沿用的一些种属名和目前国际上通用的相比已显陈旧。通过参阅相关文献,对我国现生鸮形目鸟类的分类系统进行了整理,计有2科12属33种。并指出需要迫切关注的物种和研究内容,其中毛脚渔鸮Bubo blakistoni为濒危种,四川林鸮Strixdavidi为易危种且是我国特有种,这两种鸮类国内相关报道罕见,亟待开展进一步研究工作以加强对这两个物种的保护管理。鬼鸮甘肃亚种Aegolius funereus beickianus的分类地位仍存在争议。鸮类的声学研究在我国几乎一片空白,鸮类的繁殖生物学研究也需要引起我国鸟类学工作者的足够重视。     

让我们与自然和谐地生活在一起——莲花山科学探索营随想

<正>这个暑假,我和妈妈一起参加了国家动物博物馆举办的甘肃莲花山观鸟科学探索营。甘肃莲花山特殊的地理环境、气候条件使这里成为了最有价值的野生生物栖息地。这里有着国家一级保护动物斑尾榛鸡和中国特有鸟类四川林鸮、血雉、鬼鸮,是鸟类自由驰骋的家园。这次夏令营让我更加亲近了鸟类,我们通过录音笔更加清晰地听到了鸟类的鸣叫,     

北京门头沟灰林鸮繁殖记录

<正>灰林鸮(Strix aluco)是广泛分布于欧亚大陆及非洲西北部温暖森林地带的鸮形目(Strigiformes)鸱鸮科(Strigidae)猛禽(del Hoyo et al.1999)。2008年出版的鸮形目鸟类专著Owls of the World将分布于南亚、东亚、东南亚的原属Strix aluco的种群划分出来作为一个独立的种Strix nivicola(K?nig et al.2008),其英文名为     

四川鸟类新记录

1989年10月10日在四川屏山县龙溪乡,海拔1 200米处采获1只雄性褐林鸮(Strix leptogrammica ticehursti)。此鸟分布于广西、云南、贵州、江西、福建、浙江。在四川为首次发现。体重750克,体长460、翼长410、跗蹠62、嘴峰39、尾长250毫米。面盘和翎领较显著;趾被羽至趾端第一关节处;第4—6枚初级飞羽最长。     

鸮形目4种鸟类线粒体调控区全序列的测定与比较研究

利用Long-PCR和Primer Walking的方法对鸮形目的短耳鸮、长耳鸮、纵纹腹小鸮、灰林鸮4种鸟类的线粒体调控区进行了全序列测定。结果表明：短耳鸮的调控区跃度为3290bp;长耳鸮为2848bp;纵纹腹小鸮为2444bp;灰林鸮为1771bp。短耳鸮的调控区长度是4种鸮中最大的,并且是目前已知最大的鸟类线粒体调控区。这4种鸮类调控区的基本结构和其他鸟类相似,按照碱基变化速率的不同可以分为3个区：碱基变化速率较快的外围区域Ⅰ、Ⅲ和保守的中间区域Ⅱ。这4种鸟类调控区的3’端均存在大量的串联重复序列,短耳鸮为126bp单元重复7次和78bp单元重复14次;长耳鸮为127bp单元重复8次和78bp单几重复6次;纵纹腹小鸮有3个重复单元,分别为89bp单元重复3次、77bp单元重复4次和71bp单元重复6次;灰林鸮仅有1个单元的串联重复为78bp重复5次。调控区中串联重复序列可能是由链的滑动错配产生,另外这些重复序列都能形成热力学稳定的多重茎环二级结构,而且在重复序列中还发现一些保守基序,这说明重复序列可能具有一定的生理功能,影响调控区的调重控功能从而影响线粒体基因组的复制和转录。     

不同气味对虎皮鹦鹉取食行为影响

研究发现许多鸟类具有发育良好的嗅觉系统,但气味是否影响鸟类取食行为的研究报道较少。本研究开展了长尾林鸮（Strix uralensis）、金雕（Aquila chrysaetos）、家犬和家猫的粪便气味以及香水和香烟的气味对虎皮鹦鹉（Melopsittacus undulates）取食行为影响的比较研究。研究发现,虎皮鹦鹉在香水气味下的取食意图显著低于长尾林鸮粪便气味和无气味对照;在金雕粪便、猫粪便、香水及香烟气味下的取食频次显著低于无气味对照,同时香水及香烟气味下的取食频次显著低于长尾林鸮粪便气味,说明虎皮鹦鹉可能通过气味识别潜在的风险,进而调整取食行为。     

鸮形目8种鸟类线粒体DNA多态性研究

采用14种限制性内切酶,对鸮形目8种鸟类(Tyto alba、T.capensis、Otus bakkamoena、O.scops、Asio otus、A.flammeus、Strix aluco、Glaucidium cuculoides)线粒体DNA进行限制性片段长度多态分析, 结果表明:不同种间存在基因组长度多态性,短耳鸮为23.35 kb,长耳鸮为19.78 kb,斑头鸺鹠为18.62 kb,红角鸮为17.65 kb.鸮形目种间具有较高的遗传变异,其中仓鸮和草鸮的平均遗传距离为1.0%,长耳鸮和短耳鸮平均为10.8%,红角鸮和领角鸮平均为13.1%,灰林鸮和斑头鸺鹠为12.3%,其中红角鸮与斑头鸺鹠的平均遗传距离最大为17.5%.鸮形目鸟类线粒体DNA的进化速率为每百万年变化2.0%～2.2%,提示鸮形目两个科间在距今2 800～3 000万年前分歧开来,同时,鸱鸮科各种间的分歧时间在距今2 000～2 500万年前,即处于中新世中期.     

蓝紫色花海中的徜徉

<正>说七月的莲花山如同人间仙境一点也不为过,清晨烟雾缭绕的山林间鸟语花香:各种柳莺在树枝间跳跃,白顶溪鸲和红尾水鸲在水边嬉戏,在树干上来回攀爬,灰头灰雀和各种朱雀则一直在觊觎田地里的油菜籽……对于观鸟的人来说这里就是圣地。我曾经来过这里两次,每次待上半个月,一直流连于八度村和沙河滩核心区,迷恋着八度村的各种雀形目小鸟和沙河滩的斑尾榛鸡、血雉、鬼鸮、四川林鸮……每天清晨和傍晚穿梭于乡间或林下小道,让人忘记     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor