Peter Paul van Dijk - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Peter Paul van Dijk

The comments by Kaiser (BZN 71: 30-35), Schleip (BZN 71: 35-36), Wüster et al. (BZN 71: 37-38) an... more The comments by Kaiser (BZN 71: 30-35), Schleip (BZN 71: 35-36), Wüster et al. (BZN 71: 37-38) and Thomson (BZN 71: 133-135) provide no hard evidence to rebut any element of Case 3601 as originally published in BZN. Correspondents on Taxacom and the ICZN list online have correctly dismissed the claims of these authors as 'bluster'. Thorpe (in litt.) added that the comments submitted by Hoser's enemies on Case 3601 were absolutely laughable in terms of the Code, and this view was repeated in similar words by Dubois, Wellington and others (in litt. 2014). Furthermore all claims raised by Kaiser, Schleip, Wüster et al. and Thomson, merely repeated earlier discredited claims of Kaiser (2013) and Kaiser et al. (2013). These were rebutted in detail by Hoser (2012a) (regarding the Spracklandus matter), Hoser (2012b) and Dubois (in litt.) in relation to other issues alleged by the group. However I here deal briefly with some of the points for purpose of further rebuttal and for discussion in BZN. Claims by Kaiser (BZN 71: 133-135) that the Hoser works have been criticized by others have no bearing on the nomenclature and the case for ICZN confirmation of the nomenclatural availability within the Code of the name Spracklandus Hoser, 2009. In any event, the criticism of scientific papers is normal scientific discourse, even if labelled by critics as 'unscientific'. Kaiser has not in fact produced any evidence to suggest that Australasian Journal of Herpetology (AJH) Issue 7 did not comply with Article 8.1.3 of the Code. The distributed issue of AJH Issue 7 is no different from other acknowledged Code-compliant papers published daily. It was published in print with ink on paper in numerous durable copies. An alleged printing defect in terms of printing quality control as suggested by Kaiser (2014) does not in any way make AJH Issue 7 invalid under the Code or Article 8 of the Code. Kaiser's statement that 'I have seen no proof that there were ever more than a handful of copies produced' is meaningless. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Furthermore at no stage have Kaiser, Wallach, Wüster, Broadley or Schleip asked the logical question of me as to where and by whom original copies were distributed. Hoser (2012a) stated that 'All issues of AJH were published in hard copy (over 100 originals of each) and later online, being posted online on average 10 days after the print copies were first received and distributed, by which stage receipts from recipients had been received and archived.' Kaiser, Schleip or Wüster et al. have never produced any evidence to contradict this obvious fact or properly sought contradictory evidence. Kaiser (2014b) used four arguments to allege that AJH was in violation of Article 8.1.3 of the Code. These arguments are refuted in detail below. (1) It was published in an edition, in the usual meaning and understanding of this word, and even cited as such by his close colleagues (Wallach et al., 2009, p. 34). 61 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 72(1) March 2015 brought to you by CORE View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk provided by Archivio della ricerca-Università di Roma La Sapienza (2) There is uncontradicted evidence that numerous copies were made (e.g. Hoser, 2012a). The only evidence provided by Kaiser, Wallach, Wüster, Broadley or Schleip is a statement that they did not make proper or reasonable enquiries as to where copies were distributed. This included failing to check the most likely repositories, such as Zoological Record, as specified in the Code (Recommendation 8A) or persons named in the relevant papers. (3) The original copies were all identical in words, fonts, pagination, margins and all other relevant details. (4) The copies were 'durable' in the commonly accepted meaning of the word, including being printed on high quality white gloss paper (superior to that used by most other published journals) and printed in black ink. Furthermore, all Kaiser's claims against the method of printing of AJH in terms of potential Code-compliance (repeated in part by Wüster et al., 2014) are in fact rejected by Schleip (BZN 71: 35-36) in his point 5. Schleip's claim 'The existence of this outlet [AJH] was primarily proclaimed in herpetoculture internet forums, and zoologists unlikely to participate in such forums were widely unaware of its existence (see the Code, Appendix B.8, General Recommendations).' is clearly false. In the pre-checking of Case 3601, the Commission Secretariat independently established that AJH was sent to numerous places including Zoological Record as the most important part of the Code's 'wide dissemination' recommendation (Recommendation 8A). Significantly, Schleip's claim is also refuted by Wüster (in litt. 2009), who wrote 'You have been accused of many things. Lack of dissemination of your articles has not been one of them'. Schleip's claim 'However, on the date [Issue 7 of AJH] was distributed, it was not obtainable by the public' is patently false. AJH was available at all relevant times. Schleip (BZN 71: 35-36) stated 'In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is not possible to determine whether or not the copies were printed in accordance with Article 8.1.3 or 'printed on demand'. Kaiser (BZN 71: 30-35) asserted 'I believe this shows that there really was no print run of numerous identical and durable copies'. These and similar statements about the availability of AJH and the relevant website are incorrect. Printed issues have always been offered for sale, the price of each being determined by size. I have often chosen to waive fees to persons requesting issues or photocopies of papers, as was the case with Wallach in 2009. As each issue of the journal was published, the relevant details were added to the relevant parts of the website in accordance with similar practices by publishers of other scientific literature. Kaiser's (BZN 71: 30-35) prediction of mass disobedience against the Code in the event of a judgement in favour of Spracklandus was repeated by Wüster et al. (BZN 71: 37-38), Thomson (BZN 71: 133-135) and Schleip (BZN 71: 31-36), who said 'If the Commission, however, were to vote in favor of Case 3601 and declare the name Spracklandus Hoser, 2009 available. .. I predict that the majority of herpetologists will follow the recommendations of Kaiser et al. (2013) and continue to ignore AJH as a reliable source for nomenclatural and taxonomic information'. This is the same prediction made in BZN in relation to the Wells & Wellington papers and names proposed within them made by Stone and others. Stone (1988) wrote: 'If the Commission takes no action with respect to the nomenclature proposed in these publications other scientists may of course choose to ignore that obligation'. King 65 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 72(1) March 2015

Chelonian Research Monographs, 2016

The Keeled Box Turtle, Cuora mouhotii (Family Geoemydidae), is a small (carapace length up to ca.... more The Keeled Box Turtle, Cuora mouhotii (Family Geoemydidae), is a small (carapace length up to ca. 250 mm), once poorly-known terrestrial species. Recent extensive research on the species in its natural habitat in northern Vietnam and Hainan, China, has significantly increased available knowledge of the species. Cuora mouhotii is a highly terrestrial turtle from the mesic forests of Southeast Asia. Two subspecies have been described, and intergradient populations are known. Relatively widespread, it is apparently abundant nowhere. Omnivorous, at least in captivity, the species is highly carnivorous in the wild but will also take fruit. Clutch size ranges from 1-9 eggs, with egg dimensions ca. 41 x 26 mm; incubation period in captivity varies from 82 to 120 days. Major threats to the species are loss of forest habitat from logging and commercial trade for Traditional Chinese Medicine and food. To a lesser extent capture for local consumption and both national and international pet trade are factors threatening this species. dIsTrIbuTIon.

The geographical designations employed in this document do not imply the expression of any opinio... more The geographical designations employed in this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the CITES Secretariat or the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The responsibility for the contents of the document rests exclusively with its author.

Organisms Diversity & Evolution, 2021

Governance is the act of governing or organizing, that is a system of rules, norms, or shared str... more Governance is the act of governing or organizing, that is a system of rules, norms, or shared strategies to guide or regulate the actions of the governed. Since the initial development of Linnaean taxonomy, a diversity of approaches have been adopted for critical taxonomic decisions, introducing pluralism to taxonomic principles and resulting in disagreements about the development of species lists. These disagreements are in part a product of the fragmented governance structure that has developed for the creation of taxonomic lists. To address these challenges and achieve the goal of a single, accepted list of life on Earth, a new governance structure for the development of taxonomic lists is needed. Here, we introduce three high-level categories of governance structure-fragmentation, monocentric governance, and polycentric governance-which differ in the way decision-making power is distributed and coordinated. We then show the problems caused by the fragmented governance structure currently in place for the development of taxonomic lists and consider the potential for a new approach grounded in either monocentric or polycentric governance. Both monocentric and polycentric approaches have the potential to address the problems inherent in the existing fragmented system. Ultimately, the best governance system for taxonomic lists will be the one that the taxonomic community is prepared to accept.

Organisms Diversity & Evolution, 2021

Taxonomy-the delimitation, naming, classification and documentation of species and other taxa-is ... more Taxonomy-the delimitation, naming, classification and documentation of species and other taxa-is an often-misunderstood discipline. Complex and at times contested, taxonomy occupies a sometimes discomforting intermediate position on a continuum from descriptive to hypothetico-deductive science. Two aspects of taxonomy that are striking to many observers and users are the degree to which taxonomists often disagree, and the degree of taxonomic revisionism (the replacement of one taxonomic classification with another, exemplified by the phrase 'taxonomists are always changing the names of things'). Disagreements between taxonomists do not usually indicate taxonomic confusion or chaos, but rather often represent valid disagreements over the best, most effective and most meaningful way to interpret, describe and classify one of the most complex systems that scientists seek to describe and characterise-the patterns of variation of life on Earth. One way to partially manage disagreements among taxonomists is to develop a mechanism to synthesise the flux of taxonomic activity into agreed, broadly accepted, authoritative and scientifically robust global lists of the world's species and other taxa. A sound understanding of some aspects of the nature of taxonomy is needed to appreciate the opportunities, complexities and limitations of the development and maintenance of such lists. This article is part of the Special Issue and Topical Collection Towards a global list of accepted species

Organisms Diversity & Evolution, 2021

A global consensus list of the world's species must be based on the best available taxonomic rese... more A global consensus list of the world's species must be based on the best available taxonomic research, and its contents should not be biased towards certain political or social aims. At the same time, users of any global list must be involved or consulted in its establishment to ensure that the list meets their needs. This paper argues that while these two desiderata-independence and inclusion-might seem to be in conflict, they are in fact compatible. More precisely, it suggests the roles taxonomists and users could play in establishing and maintaining a global consensus list to make sure that this list is both inclusive and independent.

Chelonian Research Monographs, 2015

The Malayan Snail-eating Turtle, Malayemys macrocephala (family Geoemydidae), is a small (carapac... more The Malayan Snail-eating Turtle, Malayemys macrocephala (family Geoemydidae), is a small (carapace length generally under 200 mm) aquatic turtle native to the west-central Indochinese Peninsula and northern Malay Peninsula. Shortly after description, the species was synonymized with M. subtrijuga and only recently regained taxonomic acceptance. Sexual dimorphism is pronounced, with females growing considerably larger than males. Individuals have large heads and other specializations for a diet of predominantly molluscs. The species frequently inhabits rice fields, canals, and other lowland habitats modified by human activity. Clutches of 10 eggs or fewer are laid early in the dry season and the eggs may take several months to hatch. Despite considerable exploitation in the past, and moderate levels of collection and other threats at present, the species appears to remain relatively abundant and widespread. Additional research, including field surveys and population monitoring, in addition to abatement of water pollution and continued reduction of exploitation, are recommended conservation measures. distribution.-Thailand, Malaysia. Extends from northern Thailand through northern Peninsular (West) Malaysia; possibly also occurs marginally in western Laos, western Cambodia, and southeastern Myanmar. synonymy.-Geoclemys macrocephala Gray 1859, Clemmys macrocephala, Emys macrocephala, Damonia macrocephala, Geoclemmys macrocephala, Malayemys macrocephala, Emys megacephala Gray 1870 (nomen nudum), Damonia megacephala. subsPECiEs.-None currently recognized. stAtus.-IUCN 2018 Red List: Not Evaluated (NE); TFTSG Draft Red List: Least Concern (LC, assessed 2018); CITES: Appendix II. Taxonomy.-Malayemys macrocephala was originally described as Geoclemys macrocephala by Gray (1859) based on two specimens originating from "Siam" and sent to the British Museum (now the Natural History Museum) by Henri Mouhot. Following its description, the species was initially reassigned to a number of other genera (i.e., Clemmys, Emys, Geoclemmys, and Damonia; TTWG 2017) before Hubrecht (1881) questioned the species' validity. Hubrecht (1881) argued that the physical description and figure provided by Gray (1859) matched specimens and descriptions of Emys subtrijuga, a species previously named by Schlegel and Müller (1845). Thereafter, Gray's specific epithet macrocephala was considered a junior synonym of the earlier name subtrijuga (Hubrecht 1881; Bourret 1941). The synonymized taxon typically appeared in scientific works as Damonia subtrijuga until Lindholm (1931), aware that Damonia was already in use for a genus of dipteran insect, proposed the generic name Malayemys. Most authors adopted this change, although Damonia continued to sporadically appear in literature afterward (e.g., Bourret 1941; Nutaphand 1979). Malayemys was for a long time considered monotypic, with M. subtrijuga (sensu lato) the sole member of the genus (Ernst and Barbour 1989; Iverson 1992; Stuart et al. 2001). This arrangement persisted until Brophy (2002, 2004) reexamined morphological variation within Malayemys. Based on differences in head stripes and shell characters, Brophy (2004) concluded that the genus consisted of two distinct allopatric groups, each of which he considered a distinct species. Malayemys subtrijuga was restricted to populations in eastern Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, and Java, while M. macrocephala was resurrected for populations in northern, central, and southern Thailand and northern Peninsular Malaysia (Brophy 2004, 2005). This revision was subsequently accepted by others (Fritz 108.2 Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises • Chelonian Research Monographs, No. 5 and Havaš 2007; TTWG 2007b). Of the two syntypes (BMNH.1947.3.4.51-52) of M. macrocephala in the collection of the Natural History Museum, Brophy (2004) designated the larger specimen, BMNH.1947.3.4.52, as the lectotype; he also restricted the type locality to Thanyaburi, Pathum Thani Province, north of Bangkok, in the Chao Phraya River Basin of central Thailand. Ihlow et al. (2016) analyzed mitochondrial DNA, microsatellite loci, and morphology of snail-eating turtles from Thailand and Cambodia. Their analyses identified three distinct groups within Malayemys: M. macrocephala, M. subtrijuga, and a third more genetically divergent clade that they described as the new species M. khoratensis. This new species was also nearly simultaneously described as M. isan by Sumontha et al. (2016), but M. isan was published later (Thomson and Lambertz 2017). In their mitochondrial DNA,

Science, 2010

Assessing Biodiversity Declines Understanding human impact on biodiversity depends on sound quant... more Assessing Biodiversity Declines Understanding human impact on biodiversity depends on sound quantitative projection. Pereira et al. (p. 1496 , published online 26 October) review quantitative scenarios that have been developed for four main areas of concern: species extinctions, species abundances and community structure, habitat loss and degradation, and shifts in the distribution of species and biomes. Declines in biodiversity are projected for the whole of the 21st century in all scenarios, but with a wide range of variation. Hoffmann et al. (p. 1503 , published online 26 October) draw on the results of five decades' worth of data collection, managed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission. A comprehensive synthesis of the conservation status of the world's vertebrates, based on an analysis of 25,780 species (approximately half of total vertebrate diversity), is presented: Approximately 20% of all vertebrate species are at risk of...

Center for the Environment, Purdue University, 503 Northwestern Avenue, West Lafayette, IN 47907 ... more Center for the Environment, Purdue University, 503 Northwestern Avenue, West Lafayette, IN 47907 USA [bickham@purdue.edu]; Department of Biology, Earlham college, Richmond, IN 47374 USA [johni@earlham.edu]; Department of Herpetology, California Academy of Sciences, 875 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 USA, and Museum of Paleontology, 1101 Valley Life Sciences Building, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA [jparham@calacademy.org]; Hans-Dieter Philippen, Kuhlertstrasse 154, D-52525 Heinsberg, Germany [H-D.Philippen@t-online.de]; Chelonian Research Foundation, 168 Goodrich Street, Lunenburg, MA 01462 USA [RhodinCRF@aol.com]; Section of Evolution and Ecology, and Center for Population Biology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616 USA [hbshaffer@ucdavis.edu, pqspinks@ucdavis.edu]; CI/CABS Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Conservation Program, Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202 USA [...

Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises, Sep 30, 2015

The Southern River Terrapin, Batagur affinis (Family Geoemydidae), is a large (carapace length to... more The Southern River Terrapin, Batagur affinis (Family Geoemydidae), is a large (carapace length to 625 mm) Critically Endangered river turtle inhabiting large rivers and estuaries of the southern Malay Peninsula (southern Thailand and West Malaysia), Sumatra, and a remnant population in Cambodia. Wild terrapins are omnivorous, but the bulk of the diet consists of vegetation and fruit. Batagur affinis does not feed in salinities exceeding 20 ppt as it has limited physiological adaptability to high saline concentrations. Nesting occurs during the dry season (November through March) when sand banks are exposed by falling river levels. Females move extensive distances up river to nest on riverine sandbanks. Conspicuous differences occur in the nesting behavior of populations in rivers on the eastern and western coasts of Malaysia. West coast populations tend to nest en masse, digging nests at the bottom of deep body pits and then constructing false body pits to confuse predators. Females of east coast populations nest solitarily and may divide the clutch presumably among multiple nests. Multiple clutches can be laid in a single season. In west coast rivers, young emerge from nests after an average of 88 days and emigrate directly downstream to tidal areas. The species, abundant throughout its range in the 19th and early 20th centuries, is severely depleted and Critically Endangered. A small recently discovered population in Cambodia survives on the Sre Ambel River System and produces about 3 nests/year. The species is considered extinct in the wild in Thailand, Vietnam, and Singapore. In Malaysia, only scattered nesting now occurs on the sand banks of west coast rivers where thousands formerly nested. Populations in east coast rivers are faring better and a recent increase in nesting has been reported for the Terengganu River. A newly discovered population on the Kemaman River produced 36 to 121 nests per year between 2012 and 2014. Surveys of Sumatra in the early 1990s found the species to be rare, but no recent information is available. The terrapin's decline has resulted from extensive exploitation of its flesh and eggs, exacerbated by indirect factors, including habitat alteration and destruction (e.g., deforestation, tin and sand-mining, dam building, erosion control, and pollution) that have damaged the turtle's nesting areas and feeding habitat. Malaysia has been a leader in conservation action for the species, establishing the first hatchery on the Perak River in 1967. This program has since expanded to include head-starting and captive breeding. Conservation programs now exist in Kedah, Perak, and Terengganu. These efforts have failed to stem the decline on the Kedah and Perak Rivers, but populations on the Terengganu River are now increasing. A population was discovered along the Kemaman River in 2010 and a conservation program was initiated in 2011. In 1987, Thailand established an ex-situ conservation program for the terrapin on the Klong La-ngu River in Satun Province. Thousands of young are being kept and raised, but to date none have been released. In 2001 in Cambodia the Sre Ambel Fisheries Administration began a small conservation program in Koh Kong Province, protecting habitat, nesting areas, and locating nests for a small hatchery program. diStriButiOn.-Cambodia, Indonesia (Sumatra), Malaysia (West), Singapore (extirpated, reintroduced), Thailand, Vietnam (extirpated). 090.2 Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises • Chelonian Research Monographs, No. 5 Taxonomy.-Batagur affinis is in the family Geoemydidae with its closest relatives appearing to be B. baska and B. kachuga of South Asia. Until 2007 all populations of this species inhabiting the lower Malay Peninsula and Sumatra were considered conspecific with the northern species, B. baska (Moll et al. 2009). However, Praschag et al. (2007), as part of a larger study of Batagur relationships using DNA sequences of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene, demonstrated the widespread species B. baska actually comprised at least two genetically distinct species. In a follow-up paper, Praschag et al. (2008) argued that, based on priority, the more northern species should retain the name B. baska. The specific epithet affinis, a name initially given by Cantor (1847) to a type series comprising two hatchling river terrapins and a hatchling painted terrapin (Batagur borneoensis) from Penang Island, was deemed available for the southern species occupying Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia (Praschag et al. 2008). However, the problem appeared still more complex, as coloration, morphology, and behavior of terrapin populations on the west and east coasts of Malaysia differed significantly (Moll 1980) with the latter bearing obvious resemblance to a relictual population in Cambodia. Praschag et al. (2009) assessed the taxonomic status of the Cambodian relict population using phylogenetic analyses of three mitochondrial and three nuclear DNA fragments and compared them to all other Batagur species. Genetically, Cambodian Batagur were found to be closely related but distinct from B. affinis from Sumatra and the west coast of the Malay Peninsula. Morphologically, Cambodian Batagur resemble the distinctive B. affinis populations from the eastern Malay Peninsula that were not available for genetic study. Consequently, Praschag et al. (2009) described the unnamed Batagur populations from the eastern Malay Peninsula and Cambodia as the new subspecies Batagur affinis edwardmolli that presumably once inhabited estuaries surrounding the Gulf of Thailand. SynOnyMy.-Tetraonyx affinis Cantor 1847, Batagur affinis, Kachuga affinis, Batagur affinis affinis, Batagur siebenrocki † Jaekel 1911. SuBSPECiES.-Two subspecies are currently recognized: 1) Batagur affinis affinis (Western Malay River Terrapin) (distribution: western coast of West Malaysia, adjacent southernmost Thailand, Sumatra); and 2) Batagur affinis edwardmolli (Eastern Malay River Terrapin) (synonymy: Batagur affinis edwardmolli Praschag, Holloway, Georges, Päckert, Hundsdörfer, and Fritz 2009) (distribution: eastern coast of West Malaysia, adjacent southernmost Thailand [extirpated], Cambodia, Vietnam [extirpated]). StatuS.

Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises, Mar 3, 2016

The Asiatic Softshell Turtle, Amyda cartilaginea (Family Trionychidae), is a large species (total... more The Asiatic Softshell Turtle, Amyda cartilaginea (Family Trionychidae), is a large species (total carapace length up to 850 mm) showing considerable variation in coloration over its wide range in tropical Southeast Asia. A recent genetic analysis suggests A. cartilaginea may be a species complex consisting of three species level clades with several subspecies. The turtle inhabits most types of aquatic habitats, from hill streams to rivers and swamps. It is an opportunistic omnivore with a preference for animal food. No comprehensive study of its reproductive biology exists; published observations suggest that females lay multiple clutches throughout the year with most nests being laid in the dry season, with clutch size ranging 3-28 eggs. Incubation period depends on microhabitat conditions and may last from 2-4.5 months. Amyda cartilaginea is a popular food animal; it is intensively exploited and appears frequently in the Asian food trade. Although some populations are in decline, the species still appears moderately abundant, at least at some sites. Several populations occur in protected areas. Specific conservation actions for heavily exploited populations appear to be overdue. Continued unregulated and unreported international trade would undoubtedly further threaten the species and careful monitoring of this trade is necessary. DiStributiOn.-Bangladesh,

Zootaxa

The Burmese Roofed Turtle (Batagur trivittata Duméril & Bibron, 1835) is a large (straight-line c... more The Burmese Roofed Turtle (Batagur trivittata Duméril & Bibron, 1835) is a large (straight-line carapace length [CL] to 620 mm; Platt et al., 2019), aquatic, herbivorous turtle endemic to the major river systems of Myanmar (Smith 1931; TTWG 2017). Although historically widespread and apparently abundant, long-term population declines resulted from chronic egg collecting, subsistence harvesting of adults, and loss of critical nesting habitat (Platt et al. 2017a). By the late 1990s B. trivittata was considered a candidate for Extinct status (Bhupathy et al. 2000) until a living specimen purchased in a Chinese wildlife market came into the possession of an American turtle collector in the early 2000s (Platt et al. 2005; W.P. McCord, pers. comm.). Shortly thereafter, field surveys “rediscovered” two remnant populations in the Dokhtawady and upper Chindwin Rivers (Platt et al. 2005; Kuchling et al. 2006). Intense ex- and in-situ recovery efforts were launched shortly thereafter and conti...

Chelonian Conservation and Biology

, www.chelonian.org/crm) for prices, titles, and to place orders. Chelonian Research Foundation (... more , www.chelonian.org/crm) for prices, titles, and to place orders. Chelonian Research Foundation (founded in 1992) and Turtle Conservancy (founded in 2009) are nonprofit tax-exempt organizations under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

... The species referred to can usually be identified by showing photographs of various ... Ectop... more ... The species referred to can usually be identified by showing photographs of various ... Ectoparasites such as leeches or ticks were collected when present and preserved in ... Visits to several natural history museums afforded opportunities to compare western Thai specimens with ...

Front cover photograph: Close-up of Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata scutes.

Chelonian Research Monographs, 2016

Organisms Diversity & Evolution, 2021

Chelonian Research Monographs, 2015

Science, 2010

Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises, Sep 30, 2015

Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises, Mar 3, 2016

Zootaxa

Chelonian Conservation and Biology

Front cover photograph: Close-up of Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata scutes.