Taxonomy Sample Clauses

Taxonomy. Ownership (5%or more)

Taxonomy. Onvia and AOL will mutually agree upon an initial product category taxonomy, using taxonomy in existence on the Standard Site as of the Effective Date as an initial starting point, within 30 days of the Effective Date, and shall cooperate to update such taxonomy on a regular and consistent basis, as mutually agreed. Third parties will map from such third parties' proprietary taxonomy to Onvia taxonomy prior to being integrated into the AOL Buying Directory. Onvia will extend taxonomy to incorporate additional items and product types not in current taxonomy within a reasonable time frame. Data Exchange: Third parties which AOL wishes to have integrated into the AOL Buying Directory shall (it being acknowledged and agreed that this is outside the control of AOL) meet XML (eXtensible Markup Language), or any other mutually agreed standard data exchange standards published by Onvia (and the Parties shall so mutually agree on at least one standard prior to the completion of the AOL Buying Directory); provided that, in the event they do not meet such standards, Onvia shall use commercially reasonable efforts to integrate them based on other reasonable and applicable standards. Third parties also shall (it being acknowledged and agreed that this is outside the control of AOL) maintain appropriate XML (or other applicable) data quality standards as established through generally applicable standard policy by Onvia; provided that, in the event they do not meet such standards, Onvia shall use commercially reasonable efforts to work with such party based on other reasonable and applicable standards. Third Parties will retain QA responsibility for all data transferred for use in the AOL Buying Directory. Any additional items and product types will require expanded data to be provided to Onvia by third parties in formats to be defined based on requirements. Any data transmissions by third parties to Onvia should be delivered via FTP and, if mutually agreed, shall meet currently available compression and encryption standards; provided that, in each case, in the event they do not meet such standards (FTP, or compression and encryption), Onvia shall use commercially reasonable efforts to work with such party based on other reasonable and applicable standards.

Taxonomy. Order Procellariiformes Family Diomedeidae Genus Phoebastria Species albatrus The type specimen for this species was collected by Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx offshore of Kamchatka, Russia in the Bering Sea during the 1740's and was described by X.X. Xxxxxx as Diomedea albatrus in 1769 [1]. Following the results of genetic studies [2], the family Diomedeidae was arranged into four genera. The genus Phoebastria, North Pacific albatrosses, now includes the short-tailed albatross (Figure 1), the Laysan albatross (P. immutabilis), the black-footed albatross (P. nigripes), and the waved albatross (P. irrorata) [1]. Recent analyses, based on complete nucleotide sequencing of mitochondrial cytochrome b gene, confirm this arrangement [3].

Taxonomy. Additional analysis comparing shell morphology, anatomy, and genetic relationship of known populations of Page springsnails and congenerics is needed. This information could help estimate how much of the Page springsnail’s total genetic diversity is due to genetic variability within populations, versus how much is due to variability among populations. Benefit: Researching baseline biological and ecological data is essential for evaluation and documentation of trend, determining appropriate management actions, and refining management strategies. Measure of Success: Research questions (A, B, C above) will be investigated and reported on in annual reports, and/or technical reports and the results will be included in future management strategies.

Taxonomy. Few or no and/or inconsistently variety of levels of activities are questions asked. reflect a variety of Xxxxx’x Taxonomy. consistently of high levels of Xxxxx’x quality fostering Taxonomy. students’ self-directed reflections. Standards Teacher demonstrates Teacher inconsistently Teacher consistently Teacher demonstrates 3-10 little or no evidence of demonstrates evidence demonstrates evidence a variety of

Taxonomy. Xxxxxxxxx initially described the species as Aster georgianus based on a specimen collected by Xxxxxxxx in 1898 from Augusta (Richmond County), Georgia (Small 1933, p. 1381). The distribution was listed as the coastal plain and piedmont of Georgia and South Carolina. When Xxxxxxxxx (1980) prepared the treatment of the Asteraceae for the Southeastern Flora, he included A. georgianus as a variety of A. patens. Xxxxx (1983), in a Ph.D. dissertation on the Systematics of Aster Section Patentes (Vanderbilt University, TN), provided morphological, cytological, geographic distributional and ecological evidence that supported consideration of this taxon as a distinct species. The genus Aster L. (sensu lato) contains some 250-300 species that occur in the northern Hemisphere of Eurasia and North America, with a few species occurring in South America (Xxxxx 1994). Recent evidence, derived from morphological and molecular characters as well as chromosome counts, supports earlier contentions that North American species are distinct from Eurasian and South American species, and that a major revision of the genus is needed (e.g., Xxxxx 1994; Xxxxx and Xxxxxxxxx, 1999; Xxxxxxxxx et al. 2001; Xxxxxx et al. 1996). According to these findings, the currently accepted nomenclature for this taxon is Symphyotrichum georgianum (Xxxxxxxxx) Xxxxx.

Taxonomy. The bottlenose dolphin is a single representative of the genus Tursiops and one of two Delphinidae species in the Black Sea (Table 1). For the first time it was recorded in this basin under the name Delphinus tursio by Xxxxxx (1837). Fifty-five years later, Xxxxxxxxx (1892) has confirmed its presence and attributed it to the species Tursiops tursio Fabricius. Then, within taxonomic revision of Black Sea cetacean fauna conducted by Xxxxxxxxx-Xxxxxxxxx (1940), local bottlenose dolphin was designated as the subspecies Tursiops truncatus ponticus. The author compared his own research data (1,450 individuals and 19 skulls were measured) with few publications on the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin and, as a result, has adduced four morphological peculiarities as diagnostic markers of the Black Sea subspecies: (a) lesser body length (120-310 cm; 225 cm on average); (b) some difference in typical coloration; (c) short-cut beak with relatively more wide basis; and (d) lesser number of teeth (from 74 to 90 in both jaws). Table 1 – Taxonomic position of the Black Sea bottlenose dolphin Latin name English name Order: Cetacea Linnaeus, 1758 Cetaceans Suborder: Odontoceti Flower, 1867 Toothed whales Family: Delphinidae Gray, 1821 Dolphins Genus: Tursiops Gervais, 1855 Bottlenose dolphins Species: Tursiops truncatus (Montagu, 1821) Common bottlenose dolphin Subspecies (?): Tursiops truncatus ponticus Barabasch, 1940 Black Sea bottlenose dolphin The proposed new taxonomic position of the Black Sea bottlenose dolphin immediately excited strong objections from some cetologists (e.g., Xxxxxx, 1941). Later, Xxxxxxxxxxx (1956) has examined 21 skulls and 50 carcasses which were 155-310 xx xxxx with the mean length of 275 and 233 cm in mature males and females, respectively. He strictly criticized the preceding standpoint (Xxxxxxxxx-Xxxxxxxxx, 1940) and recognized above features (especially, coloration, beak measurements and teeth number) as insufficient and unreliable criteria for the subspecies determination. However, he measured only two skulls of bottlenose dolphins from other (unspecified) sea(s). Of course, that was not enough for accurate comparative morphometric investigation. No indisputable evidence, supporting either Xxxxxxxxx-Xxxxxxxxx’x or Xxxxxxxxxxx’s viewpoint, was reported during last 45 years. Nevertheless, in spite of persistent unsolved controversy, existing de jure and de facto, this animal is mentioned as the “rare endemic subspecies” in many publications belon...

Taxonomy. Although the Sicklefin Redhorse is only recently known to science; this species was an important food resource for Native American tribes inhabiting the Southeast region of the United States. Xxxxxx (2006) elicited from native speakers of the Cherokee language that they recognized pictures of the Sicklefin Redhorse as a species called “junigihtla.” which translates in English as “wearing a red feather.” This name is a fitting description of the red, falcate dorsal fin of this species. Modern fish biologists were slow to recognize the distinct morphological features of this species despite encountering it for several decades before its recognition as distinct from other co-occurring redhorse species. The Sicklefin Redhorse was collected in 1937 (based upon preserved specimens collected at the then unimpounded mouth of Xxxxxx Creek near its confluence with the Tuckasegee River), but this and subsequent collections were misidentified until 1992, when Dr. Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx obtained and examined two specimens collected by Xx. Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx in 1981 and 1982 from the Little Tennessee River and recognized they were a distinct species (Xxxxxxx 1999, p. 4). Based on the characteristics of specimens’ lower lips, dorsal fins, and pharyngeal teeth, Xxxxxxx (1999, pp. 3-4, 9, and 13) recognized the species as possibly a previously unidentified species or a hybrid of the Smallmouth Redhorse (M. breviceps) and the River Redhorse (M. carinatum). Subsequent detailed morphological and behavioral studies (Xxxxxxx 1999, pp. 3-6 and 8-25, Tables 1-3, and Figures 1-12) and genetic studies (Xxxxxx et al. 2002, pp. 1433-1452) have concluded that the Sicklefin Redhorse is, in fact, a distinct species. The USFWS has reviewed the available taxonomic literature and is not aware of any challenges to the validity of this determination regarding the Sicklefin Redhorse.

Taxonomy. Order Family Genus and Species Scientific Synonyms Common names (English, French and Spanish)

Taxonomy. The taxonomy used in our annotation endeav- our is an extension of the taxonomy introduced in Da San Xxxxxxx et al. (2019b,c). At the top level, there are 6 coarse-grained types of persuasion tech- niques, namely: Attack on Reputation, Justification, Distraction, Simplification, Call, and Manipula- tive Wording, whose full definitions are provided in Appendix A. These core types are further sub- divided into 23 fine-grained techniques. The 5 new techniques vis-a-vis the taxonomy presented in Da San Xxxxxxx et al. (2019b,c) are: Appeal to Hypocrisy, Questioning the Reputation, Appeal to Values, Consequential Oversimplification, and Appeal To Time. The main drive beyond introduc- ing these 5 new techniques is due to their frequent presence in news articles based on our empirical observations. The full two-tier taxonomy, includ- ing short definitions, and examples of each fine- grained technique are provided in Figure 3 and 4 in Appendix A respectively.