白鱀豚研究的概况

白鱀豚的记载最早见于西汉时(约公元前200年)的辞书《尔雅》:“鱀,是”。晋代的郭璞(公元276-324年)对其形态及习性作了记述。这表明古代人们对白鱀豚的形貌已有一定的认识。1958年,白鱀豚开始受到我国动物学界的注意。目前这种水生哺乳动物的数量迅速减少,已成为接近灭绝的物种。 1.分布和分类位置白鱀豚是中国的特有种。美国的米勒(Miller)在1918年描记白鱀豚时,认为它分布在洞庭湖及其附近的长江中。至1958年,周开亚等首次证实白鱀豚不仅生活在     

抢救江豚只有最后的15年!

<正>我们不能让白鱀豚的悲剧在江豚身上再次上演!1980年从长江获得淇淇的时候,我们刚刚着手白鱀豚研究。从那以后,淇淇和我们生活了多年,彼此有了很深的感情。它的离开,我们都感觉心情非常沉重。其实在上世纪七十年代末八十年代初的时候是抢救这个物种的最佳时期,如果各界对此给予足够重视,白鱀豚灭绝的悲剧就不会发生。可惜,那时正值改革开放的初期,人     

漩涡模型及其在白鱀豚种群管理中的应用

漩涡模型作为一种用于野生动物种群生存力分析的计算机模拟工具,已在濒危物种的保护和管理方面得到了广泛的应用。本文介绍了漩涡模型的产生和特征,同时使用这一模型完成了长江中白鱀豚（Lipotes vexillifer）种群生存力分析。模拟的结果表明,在未来 100年内,白鱀豚在高、中死亡率的条件下,种群灭绝概率分别为1．0和0．5左右。但是,在死亡率低和极低的条件下,白鱀豚的灭绝过程可能持续100年以上,或永远也不会灭绝。开始种群大小对白鱀豚的平均灭绝时间有一定的影响,但对种群生长率（r）却没有影响。在高、中、和低死亡率条件下,白鱀豚种群生长率分别为－0．07、－0．04和－0．02。     

声驱网捕白鱀豚

为确保白鱀豚物种的繁衍,加快我国豚类生物学的研究步伐,为饲养在我所长达六年之久的“淇淇”寻找配偶,急需活捕白鱀豚。但是过去渔民偶然捕得的白鱀豚皆因钩伤严重,难以存活。1979年湖北省石首县渔民曾采用封堵江湾汊口的办法捕白鱀豚,由于不熟悉白鱀豚的生态习性,也未成功。       

白鱀豚:水中传说

<正>"淇淇"死后,长江里再也没有人确认见过白鱀豚。它曾经陪伴了人类23年,却始终孑然一身。2002年7月14日上午8时许,在武汉东湖之滨的白鱀豚馆内,一头名为"淇淇"的白鱀豚永远沉睡。它是全世界唯一人工饲养成功的白鱀豚,从此之后,人们再也无缘见到它的身影。     

白鱀豚的肾脏

研究了4头雄性和9头雌性白鱀豚肾脏的结构和各项指标。白鱀豚肾脏是由许多小肾组成。肾脏和小肾的各项指标随着个体体长的增加而增加。与其他3种淡水豚相比,白鱀豚成体肾脏的小肾数比恒河豚多,比哑河豚少,而与拉河豚相近。白鱀豚幼体的肾脏和小肾的各项指标与恒河豚和亚河豚相近,但成体肾脏和小肾的各项指标比上述2种淡水豚大得多。并证实鲸类动物肾脏的小肾并生群在幼体即已存在,随着个体的长大,小肾化加剧,而并不是次级融合的结果。白鱀豚小肾的髓旁肌肉带的排列并无规律,它并不构成白豚鱀所特有的排列结构。       

白暨豚肾上腺的研究

白鱀豚肾上腺重与体重的平均比值为0.25克/公斤,皮质体积与髓质体积的比值为6.59。白鱀豚肾上腺的组织结构与其它海豚相似,它有比较发达的球状带。讨论了白鱀豚肾上腺形态变化在年龄生长、授乳等生理过程和在自然环境、豢养环境生态适应上的意义。并报道了一例罕见的白鱀豚肾上腺先天性表皮样囊肿。       

白暨豚种群数量及资源保护

为了了解长江中白鱀豚的分布状况及种群数量,从1978年至1983年1月止,先后9次在长江中、下游(宜昌至南通)的干流进行了白鱀豚的生态考察,并到汉江和鄱阳湖、洞庭湖等水域查访有无白鱀豚活动的情况,依据考察所得资料,对长江白鱀豚群体的数量作了初步剖析。 通过考察,到1983年初为止,中游最上是在湖北枝城,约距长江口1,613公里的江段和下游最下是江苏太仓浏河口距长江口24公里的江段都有白鱀豚的活动。白鱀豚种群约156头,20个群体,分布在长江中、下游的17个江段里,在安庆一黑砂洲南水道约170公里及嘉鱼—王家渡水道约80公里的两个江段里生活着较多的个体。根据雌、雄自鱀豚体长与年龄关系式的速度变化曲线,白鱀豚的个体发育阶段可分为:幼龄期(胎儿—雄性4龄,雌性5龄),壮年期(雄性5龄—12龄,雌性6龄—13龄),成年期(雄性13龄,雌性14龄至20龄)和老年期(20龄以上雌雄个体)4个龄期。白鱀豚种群的年龄结构是一个基部较窄,顶部相对宽的锥体,显然是一个生产较差的种群。 近些年来,由于人类对江河的开发利用,使得白鱀豚种群的补充能力和再生产能力都遭到了一定程度的破坏。分析白鱀豚资源减少的主要原因是:(1)食物条件的变化;(2)有害渔具对白鱀豚的杀伤;(3)航运业务对白鱀豚的误伤;(4)群众缺乏保护珍贵动物的知识而     

捕捞作业的误伤

<正>据不完全统计,由于捕捞作业误伤死亡的白鱀豚几乎达到死亡总数的一半。捕捞作业对白鱀豚的误伤事件时有发生。渔民的捕鱼区鱼类资源相对比较集中,也是白鱀豚捕食的最好去处。长江里渔民最常用的一种方法是滚钩,白鱀豚追吃滚钩上的鱼时极易被滚钩缠绕窒息而死。1990年3月,在长江下游靖江段罗家桥发现的一头死亡雌性成年豚的身     

白鱀豚某些血液生化指标的测定

关于海豚和几种淡水豚类的血液学和血液生化指标国外有过研究4-13。白鱀豚(Lipotes vexillifer)血液有形成份已有过报道2,3。本实验对白鱀豚血液生化指标进行了研究,以期建立白鱀豚血液正常生理生化指标,为白鱀豚的临床诊断,健康监测和保健措施提供血液学参数,并且为完善淡水豚类血液学比较研究提供基础资料。       

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