The genus Ophioderma are distinctive ferns (or fern-allies) in the family Ophioglossaceae. The same genus name is used for a genus of brittle-stars; for those, see Ophioderma .
Ophioderma is closely related to, and sometimes treated as a subgenus of, the genus Ophioglossum . It includes the genus formerly known as Cheiroglossa. Recent genetic analysis has indicated that the two genera should be treated as one, and Ophioderma has precedence by being validly published at an earlier date. The type species is Ophioderma pendula .Species References
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .Look at other dictionaries:
Ophioderma — Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Echinodermata Subphylum: Eleutherozoa … Wikipedia
Ophioderma palmata — Hand fern Scientific classification Kingdom: Plantae Division: Pteridophyta Class: Psilotopsida … Wikipedia
Ophioderma falcatum — Puapua moa Scientific classification Kingdom: Plantae Division … Wikipedia
Ophioderma pendulum — Old world adder s tongue Scientific classification Kingdom: Plantae Division … Wikipedia
Ophioglossaceae — Ophioglossum vulgatum Scientific classification … WikipediaShare the article and excerpts Direct link
… Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”
To cite this page: Myers, P. R. Espinosa, C. S. Parr, T. Jones, G. S. Hammond, and T. A. Dewey. 2016. The Animal Diversity Web (online). Accessed at http://animaldiversity.org.
Disclaimer: The Animal Diversity Web is an educational resource written largely by and for college students. ADW doesn't cover all species in the world, nor does it include all the latest scientific information about organisms we describe. Though we edit our accounts for accuracy, we cannot guarantee all information in those accounts. While ADW staff and contributors provide references to books and websites that we believe are reputable, we cannot necessarily endorse the contents of references beyond our control.
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Grants DRL 0089283, DRL 0628151, DUE 0633095, DRL 0918590, and DUE 1122742. Additional support has come from the Marisla Foundation, UM College of Literature, Science, and the Arts, Museum of Zoology, and Information and Technology Services.
The ADW Team gratefully acknowledges their support.
If we classify a group of random objects, then we can individualize each object.
thumbtack glass slide seed rubber band test tube paper clip pin pencil match penny wool strand plastic tie chalk file card
Kingdom1(School)Kingdom2(not school)File cardplastic tietest tubepennypencilthumbtackchalkseedpaper clipwool strandglass slidesafety pinrubber bandmatch
Phylum: WritingPhylum: Non-Writingpenciltest tubechalkglass slidefile cardpaper clip
A. Phylum Writing is School objects involved in writing, phylum Non-writing is school objects not used in writing.
Kingdom: School Non-School
Phylum: Writing Non-Writing
B. All objects in the same phylum are in the same kingdom.
Phylum: WritingNon-WritingEasily Mildly DifficultFlexib. Flexib. Flexib.
Items in Easily Flexible: Plastic tie, wool strand, and rubber band
C. Phylum: Easily Flexible
Class: RubberClass: Non-Rubber
Path for rubber band: Non-School- Easily Flexible- Rubber
Path for Wool Strand: Non-School- Easily Flexible- Non-Rubber
D. All items in the same class are in the same phylum, all items in the same phylum are in the same kingdom.
Scientists classify objects for 3 reasons. First, it shows relationships among organisms by grouping them together. Second, they use the genus and the species as the name for the organism. Third, the classification system is the same worldwide. We separated the objects from kingdoms, to phylum, then to class. Our kingdoms were the School and Non-School groups. If we were to add a cork and a nail, they would botch go to the Non-School kingdom.
Class: Stingers No Stingers Pointed Round Star Shaped
Each class does not necessarily have to have the same number of organisms or have the same number of classes for each phylum.
1. Student A separated this by environment, air or sea.
2. Student B separated this by eyes or no eyes.
3. All animals in the same phylum do not belong in the same class.
4. A. This group has backbones.
B. Can live in land and water.
5. Classes are more specific than kingdoms.
Poised motionless near the back door of the twentieth-century, we ponder memories of the past with a daydreaming stare. Before we turn off the lights and lock the doors of the twentieth-century, we take one last look through the century in which we were nurtured and our world lived for so long. The deep engraved scratches upon the walls of the twentieth century serve to jog our national memory to painful events as well as amazing accomplishments. After much reflective thought, we began to grasp how much our world has changed from when we first entered the front door of the twentieth century over ninety-nine years ago.
America and much of the world have been industrialized, modernized, urbanized, commercialized and de-christianized. We have thrown out perennial philosophies, centuries old, which reveal timeless insights into the ultimate meaning of life. Noble pursuits of the changeless purpose of life have been lost among a passionate desire to be like the pop cultural icons of our times. Our attitudes toward religious faith have surrounded our nation with a mordant atmosphere. While our technological ingenuity has made our technologies the envy of the world; and the phenomenon of our pop culture has created lucrative markets and has made our nation a capitalist wonderland; our inconsequential attitude toward religious faith has demoralized us and has lead to psychological and sociological degradation, and the embrace by our nation of psychosexual behavior. The one thing that remains constant in our ever-evolving society is the law of the farm.
The technological advances of the twentieth-century are astounding. From the primitive tools of antiquity to the most complex large-scale technological systems of the twentieth-century, our technology has affected global societies and has impacted the history of our culture right down to the present. Technology has characterized humankind since his earliest days when i.
Classification Essay. (1969, December 31). In MegaEssays.com. Retrieved 07:30, July 26, 2016, from http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/58191.html
MegaEssays. "Classification Essay." MegaEssays.com. MegaEssays.com, (December 31, 1969). Web. 26 Jul. 2016.
MegaEssays, "Classification Essay.," MegaEssays.com, http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/58191.html (accessed July 26, 2016)
While the free essays can give you inspiration for writing, they cannot be used 'as is' because they will not meet your assignment's requirements. If you are in a time crunch, then you need a custom written term paper on your subject (by sp)
Here you can hire an independent writer/researcher to custom write you an authentic essay to your specifications that will pass any plagiarism test (e.g. Turnitin). Waste no more time!
=THE HUMAN EYE IN SPACEHuman visual hardware is a result of a billion years of evolution withinthe earths atmosphere where light is scattered by molecules of air,moisture, particular matter etc.
Hammurabi, said to be the greatest leader of Ancient Mesopotamia, laid out a set of laws which emphasizes retribution as a form of punishment ("an eye for an eye"). It is my belief that Hammurabi was a just ruler who took into consideration all things that affected his people. The Code of Hammurabi is very similar to our laws and yet it is completely different. Hammurabi�s set of laws heavily relies on retaliation which has no place in
the twenty-first century. But Code number 203, states that "If a free-born man strike the body of another free-born man or equal rank, he shall pay on gold mina," this reminds one of small claims court. But in a case it is different because a modern day society does not poke out the eye of an assailant, (number 196 "If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out"). It is my belief
Reproduction and early life history of the Sculpin Have you ever personally thought that fish were an interesting subject? Most people don’t. The majority of individuals consider fish ordinary, routine.
that Hammurabi was a just man but I would not choose to live under his code because of its harsh punishments. For instance, using the above example, what would happen if the eye incident was an accident? There are catch-22s and holes in the code even though it is well thought out. In conclusion, Hammurabi, said to be the greatest leader of Ancient Mesopotamia, laid out a set of laws which emphasizes retribution as a form of punishment ("an
Words = 243 Significant Findings, Questions and Observations: The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a general relationship between the relative amount of.
eye for an eye"). It is my belief that Hammurabi was a just ruler who took into consideration all things that affected his people.
The rest of the paper is available free of charge to our registered users. The registration process just couldn't be easier. Log in or register now. It is all free!More College Papers
BUREAU of ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, and FIREARMS essay
BUREAU of ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, and FIREARMS The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is one of the most important Federal Agencies we have. It is dedicated to reducing violent crime, collecting revenue and protecting the public. The ATF, for short, has many different programs for alcohol, fire
Border Wars essay
US Border Patrol: Pros & Cons The U.S. Border Patrol is the organization that polices the entry of illegal immigrants into our country. The official mission of the United States Border patrol is to protect the boundaries of the United States by preventing illegal entry, and by detecting, inte
CAPITALISM Today in the United States, a free market system or capitalism is the main economic system. I am interested in this subject because I someday wish to own my own business. I believe that in the future this topic will be very useful to me. Among the topics that I will discuss are the
This page is derived from the original publication listed below, whose author(s) should always be credited. Further contributors may edit and improve the content of this page and, consequently, need to be credited as well (see page history ). Any assessment of factual correctness requires a careful review of the original article as well as of subsequent contributions.
If you are uncertain whether your planned contribution is correct or not, we suggest that you use the associated discussion page instead of editing the page directly.
Citation formats to copy and paste
TY - JOUR
T1 - Ophiuroidea (Echinodermata) from coral reefs in the Mexican Pacific
A1 - Granja–Fernández R, Herrero-Pérezrul M, López-Pérez R, Hernández L, Rodríguez-Zaragoza F, Jones R
A1 - Pineda-López R
Y1 - 2014
JF - ZooKeys
VL - 406
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.406.6306
SP - 101
EP - 145
PB - Pensoft Publishers
M1 - Versioned wiki page: 2014-05-07, version 51621, http://species-id.net/w/index.php?title=Ophioderma_panamensis&oldid=51621. contributors (alphabetical order): Pensoft Publishers .
| title = Ophiuroidea (Echinodermata) from coral reefs in the Mexican Pacific
| journal = ZooKeys
| year = 2014
| volume = 406
| issue =
| pages = 101--145
| pmid =
| publisher = Pensoft Publishers
| doi = 10.3897/zookeys.406.6306
| url = http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/article/6306/abstract
| pmc =
| accessdate = 2016-07-10
Disk pentagonal (dd = 4.7 to 18.1 mm); dorsal and ventral side covered by fine, closely and rounded granulation. Radial shields naked, small and oval (Fig. 6D, E). Oral shields large and oval; wider than long. Adoral shields covered by granules. The madreporite is evident. Eight to ten oral papillae on each side of the jaw (Fig. 6F). Dorsal arm plates overlapping and rectangular with rounded edges; wider than long (Fig. 6B). Ventral arm plates oval and slightly overlapping; wider than long. Reduced lateral arm plates. Ten to 11 short and blunt arm spines; all spines are closely equal in size except the lowest which is longer. Two lanceolated tentacle scales (Fig. 6C). Four bursal slits per interradius (Fig. 6E). Disk brownish (Fig. 6A, D). Dorsal arm plates brown with dark and light bands (Fig. 6B).Distribution
USA (California), Mexico, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Peru, Colombia and Galapagos Islands (Clark HL 1940 . Hooker et al. 2005 . Neira and Cantera 2005 . Alvarado et al. 2010  ). In Mexico, from the Gulf of California (Baja California Sur, Sonora, Sinaloa), on the Pacific side of Baja California and Baja California Sur, Jalisco, Revillagigedo Islands, Guerrero and Oaxaca (Solís-Marín et al. 2005 . Honey-Escandón et al. 2008 . Granja-Fernández and López-Pérez 2011 . 2012  ). From intertidal to 40 m depth (Austin and Hadfield 1980  ). In this study, Ophioderma panamensis was collected on coral reefs from Guerrero and Oaxaca, 4.9 to 9.1 m depth.Remarks
Ophioderma panamensis was collected under rocks and on sand. Maluf (1988)  reported that this species may inhabit rocks, corals and algae. Adults and juveniles were found cohabiting together. Juveniles curled their arms over the dorsal side of the disk which is white in most individuals. This behavior camouflages juveniles on the white sand under the rocks. There are studies that report a wide variety of color patterns in Ophioderma panamensis (Ives 1889 . Nielsen 1932 . Ziesenhenne 1955  ) but, we only found two variations in body colors: brown or grey. In addition, some specimens had white spots on the disk and all specimens presented bands on the dorsal side of the arms. Although some authors report a high incidence of subdivided dorsal arm plates (Ives 1889 . Nielsen 1932 . Ziesenhenne 1955  ), we found only a few specimens with divided (in two segments) dorsal arm plates. Ophioderma panamensis was the most common ophiodermatid on the coral reefs from the Mexican Pacific.Collected material
GUERRERO:Morro del Cerro Colorado (1 specimen, rock, 5.5 m, 31/05/2012, ICML-UNAM 10570); Zacatoso (3 specimens, rock, 9.1 m, 01/06/2012, ICML-UNAM 10580); El Yunque (3 specimens, rock, 5.5 m, 04/12/2010, ICML-UNAM 10409); Manzanillo (1 specimen, rock, 6.1 m, 30/05/2012, ICML-UNAM 10555); Morros de Potosí (2 specimens, rock, 06/03/2009, ICML-UNAM 10203); Palmitas (5 specimens, rock, 6.4 m, 20/11/2011, ICML-UNAM 10458).
OAXACA:El Zapatito (1 specimen, rock, 23/04/2009, ICML-UNAM 10226); Estacahuite (1 specimen, rock, 17/04/2008, MHN 005-4354); La Mina (1 specimen, rock, 17/04/2008, MHN 005-4343); Boquilla (7 specimens, sand, 02/11/2007, MHN 005-4397); Tijera (1 specimen, 23/11/2007, MHN 005-401); Dos Hermanas (1 specimen, rock, 08/08/2011, ICML-UNAM 10426); Harrys (4 specimens, rock, 9.1 m, 21/10/2011, ICML-UNAM 10438); Guerrilla (2 specimens, rock, 4.9 m, 18/05/2012, ICML-UNAM 10540).
A major influence on the development of American scientific culture, Swiss-born Louis Agassiz (1807–73) was one of the great scientists of his day. A student of anatomist Georges Cuvier, Agassiz adapted his teacher's pioneering techniques of comparative anatomy to paleontology, and he rose to prominence as a distinguished systematist, paleontologist, and educator. Agassiz introduced science to ordinary citizens to an unprecedented degree; people around the world read his books, sent him specimens, and consulted his opinion.
Agassiz was also a staunch opponent of the theory of evolution, and he was among the last of the reputable scientists who continued to reject the concept after the publication of The Origin of the Species. All of nature bore testimony to a divine plan, Agassiz believed, and he could not reconcile himself to a theory that did not invoke God's design. Ironically, his 1851 Essay on Classification provided Darwin and other evolutionists with evidence from the fossil record to support the theory of natural selection.
A treasure of historically valuable insights that contributed to the development of evolutionary biology, this volume introduced the landmark contention that paleontology, embryology, ecology, and biogeography are inextricably linked in classifications that reveal the true relationships between organisms. Its emphasis on advanced and original work gave major impetus to the study of science directly from nature, and it remains a classic of American scientific literature.
Reprint of the Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1962 edition.
(The first half of the lecture will consist of a video screening. There is a handout that helps you organise some of the information in the video.)
Ethnologue. the largest survey of languages today, first attempted a world-wide review in 1974 where 5,687 languages in referred to. The present edition gives a listing of 6,909 languages. (Click here to go to the Ethnologue website.) If we may be a little sceptical about some of these numbers (we might prefer to think of some of these �languages� as different varieties or dialects of a language), there are still very many languages in the world. How did language itself arise in the human species?
If we compare the human species to other animals, it is clearly significant that the human brain is relatively larger than that of other animals. Early Homo erectus in Africa (from about 1.7 to 1 million years BC) averaged 900 cc in brain size, but later Homo erectus specimens from 500,000 BC average 1,100�1,200 cc (cm�). Today, the average brain size is 1,400 cc. If we assume a correlation a correlation between brain size and intelligence, we might then say that language arose with increased intelligence. (The truth of the matter must be more complex than this though. People with small brains such as nanocephablic dwarfs still have language.)
Secondly, bi- pedalism (standing upright) must have been a factor as well. The hands are freed up for other actions, such as carrying, which in turn frees up the mouth from needing to perform this function. The development of a resonating chamber of about 1� inches (4 centimetres) above the larynx allowed for the development of various speech sounds.
Did language arise independently in different locations (this view is known as polygenesis)? Or are all languages ultimately evolved from a common ancestor (this view is known as monogenesis)?
We can do a small-scale study based on the instruction leaflet found in an Ikea self-assembled item of furniture.
VIKTIGT �FOLLOW ME� = MONTERINGSANVISNING
Kontrollera f�rst inneh�llet. Vad som ing�r ser du l�ngst ner p� n�sta side. Om n�got saknas eller du f�r problem, kontakta ditt varuhus.
IMPORTANT �FOLLOW ME� = ASSEMBLY INSTRUCTIONS
First check the contents. There is a list of contents on the left of the other side. If anything is missing, or you have a problem, contact your store.
WICHTIG �FOLLOW ME� = MONTIERANLEITUNG
Zuerst den Inhalt kontrollieren. Was dazu geh�rt, sehen Sie ganz links auf der n�chsten Seite. Sollte etwas fehlen oder sollten Probleme auftreten, setzen Sie sich bitte mit Ihrem Einrichtungshaus in Verbindung.
IMPORTANT �FOLLOW ME� = INSTRUCTIONS DE MONTAGE
Commencez par contr�ler le contenu en le comparant � liste page suivante, � l�extr�me gauche. Si quelque chose manquait ou que vous aviez un probl�me, contactez votre magasin.
BELANGRIJK �FOLLOW ME: = MONTEAGEAANWIJZING
Kontroleer eerst de inhoud. Uiterst links op de volgende bladzijde staat alles opgesomd. Als er iests ontbreekt of als je problemen krijgt, neem dan kontakt op met het woonwarenhuis.
�IMPORTANTE! �FOLLOW ME� - INSTRUCCIONES DE MONTAJE
Verifica primero el contenido. En la p�gina siguiente, a la izquierda, encontrar�s la descripci�n del contenido. Monta el mueble siguiendo el orden num�rico y las indicaciones de los dibujos. Si algo hace falta o si tienes dificultades, llama a tu tienda distribuidora. Al cabo de unas dos semanas debes apretar nuevamente todos los herrajes.
IMPORTANTE! �FOLLOW ME� = INSTRUZIONI DI MONTAGGIO
Controlla prima il contenuto. Il contenuto � segnato a sinistra nella pagina seguente. Monta il mobile secondo l�ordine del disegno. Se manca qualcosa o se sorgono dei dubbi, chiama il punto vendita. Ristringere tutte le viti dopo alcune settimane.
Based on this we can say a little about:
1. Consider the words for �important�, �instructions�, �first� and �contents�
2. Consider the arrangement �assembly instructions� or �instructions for assembly�
(a ) Hypothesis I: These were originally different languages, but because of contact between the different speakers, they were influenced by one another�s lexical items and grammatical structures.
(b ) Hypothesis II: These were originally one language, only they gradually became different. Perhaps people migrated, and the language changed in different ways: lexically, grammatically and phonologically.
Hypothesis I = centripetal force (convergence)
Hypothesis II = centrifugal force (divergence).
we can imagine a common source for the �original� Group A and Group B languages.
The Germanic, the Italic group and other groups of languages form a larger family of languages. They call this the Indo-European family of languages
This website is interesting and males a similar point: http:// imgur.com/a/iVK8a
Whilst many had been aware of the similarities between and therefore the common source of the Romance languages (French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, etc.), it took a British judge Sir William Jones who was stationed in India to cast the net much wider and noticed similarities between apparently very different languages. He made systematic comparisons of the lexis and the grammar of languages like Greek, Latin, English and Sanskrit in an orderly fashion. This provided strong evidence for the existence of a so-called family of Indo-European languages, with an ultimate common source that was now extinct.
This is what he had to say:
The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have spring from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists: there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothick and the Celtick. though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit. and the old Persian might be added to this family, if this were the place for discussing any question concerning the antiquities of Persia.
This eventually gave rise to a way of classifying languages, known as the genetic classification or the genealogical classification. The main metaphor that has been employed for talking about languages this way is the metaphor of the family tree (introduced by the German linguist Schleicher who thought of language as an organism that could grow and decay). This method compares different languages and use as many written remains that are available. Clearly, this kind of method of research would be more successful in places where more written records were available. Where there are gaps in the tree, reconstruction is possible (indicated by an asterisk below) by comparing cognate forms.
The table above shows that Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese and Catalan are �sister languages�, derived from the parent language Latin. We can extend the diagram and show �daughter languages� for Sanskrit and Gothic for example as well. The name given to the �common source� is Proto-Indo-European or PIE. It is thought to have been spoken before 3000 BC and to have split up into different languages, so that by 2000 BC many of the linguistic differences had been established.
PIE speakers would seem to have lived in the steppe region of southern Russia around 4000 BC but subsequently migrated to other regions. Experts have been able to reconstruct some vocabulary items, including many items pertaining to family. There were also many words for in-laws, used only in relation to the bride � which suggests that the society must have been patriarchal in nature. There are also terms for domesticated animals, suggesting that there was farming activity. There are words for the body, tools and weapons, as well as abstract notions relating to law, religious belief and social status. Numerals were available up to at least 100.
There are no written records of PIE, which suggests that PIE was not a written language. PIE sounds therefore have had to be reconstructed. (Some suggest that PIE was a development from an even earlier language, sometimes called Nostratic ; here is a transcript of a programme �In Search of the First Language�. [If you go either of the links, click on your browser�s Back button to return here.]) If we examine the table above, it is clear that cognate words are pronounced differently in the various languages in the same family. When we examine a sufficient number of words, we will notice that the changes are not haphazard but often quite systematic. The 19th-century German philologist Jakob Grimm (1785�1863) worked out a sound law, known as Grimm�s law or �the first sound-shifting�, of how some Germanic consonants diverged from that of PIE. This is illustrated in the table below.
Aspirated voiced stops