Functional morphology and integration of corvid skulls – a 3D geometric morphometric approach

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Sympatric corvid species have evolved differences in nesting, habitat choice, diet and foraging. Differences in the frequency with which corvid species use their repertoire of feeding techniques is expected to covary with bill-shape and with the frontal binocular field. Species that frequently probe are expected to have a relatively longer bill and more sidewise oriented orbits in contrast to species that frequently peck. We tested this prediction by analyzing computed tomography scans of skulls of six corvid species by means of three-dimensional geometric morphometrics. We (1) explored patterns of major variation using principal component analysis, (2) compared within and between species relationships of size and shape and (3) quantitatively compared patterns of morphological integration between bill and cranium by means of partial least squares (singular warp) analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Major shape variation occurs at the bill, in the orientation of orbits, in the position of the foramen magnum and in the angle between bill and cranium. The first principal component correlated positively with centroid-size, but within-species allometric relationships differed markedly. Major covariation between the bill and cranium lies in the difference in orbit orientation relative to bill-length and in the angle between bill and cranium.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Corvid species show pronounced differences in skull shape, which covary with foraging mode. Increasing bill-length, bill-curvature and sidewise orientation of the eyes is associated with an increase in the observed frequency in probing (vice versa in pecking). Hence, the frequency of probing, bill-length, bill-curvature and sidewise orientation of the eyes is progressively increased from jackdaw, to Eurasian jay, to black-billed magpie, to hooded crow, to rook and to common raven (when feeding on carcasses is considered as probing). Our results on the morphological integration suggest that most of the covariation between bill and cranium is due to differences in the topography of the binocular fields and the projection of the bill-tip therein, indicating the importance of visual fields to the foraging ecology of corvids.</p

On the ornithological collection of Friedrich Sellow in Brazil (1814-1831), with some considerations about the provenance of his specimens

Abstract The Prussian naturalist Friedrich Sellow (1789-1831) traveled through Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina between 1814 and 1831 gathering numerous zoological and botanical specimens. Despite the effort spent in those countries, the ornithological collection assembled by Sellow did not receive adequate care after it had been deposited in the Zoologische Museum in Berlin, thus compromising its integrity. In the present article we discuss the treatment given by Lichtenstein and by Sellow to this bird material, with special focus on some cases in which incorrect label information on Sellow&apos;s specimens led to faulty conclusions on the zoogeography of South American birds. Key words: M. H. K. Lichtenstein, Calyptura cristata, Pipra tyranulus, Picumnus exilis, Cercomacra brasiliana Resumen El naturalista prusiano Friedrich Sellow (1789-1831) viajó a través de Brasil, Uruguay y Argentina entre 1814 y 1831 colectando numerosos materiales zoológicos y botánicos. A pesar del largo esfuerzo de muestreo hecho por él en estos paises, la colección ornitológica montada por Sellow no recibió el cuidado adecuado después de haber sido depositadas en el Zoologische Museum en Berlín, comprometiendo así su integridad. En el presente artículo discutimos el tratamiento dado por Lichtenstein y por Sellow a su material ornitológico, con especial atención en algunos casos en los cuales información equivocada en las etiquetas de sus especímenes lleva a conclusiones erradas sobre la zoogeografía de las aves Sudamericanas

The role of natural science collections in the biomonitoring of environmental contaminants in apex predators in support of the EU's zero pollution ambition

The chemical industry is the leading sector in the EU in terms of added value. However, contaminants pose a major threat and significant costs to the environment and human health. While EU legislation and international conventions aim to reduce this threat, regulators struggle to assess and manage chemical risks, given the vast number of substances involved and the lack of data on exposure and hazards. The European Green Deal sets a 'zero pollution ambition for a toxic free environment' by 2050 and the EU Chemicals Strategy calls for increased monitoring of chemicals in the environment. Monitoring of contaminants in biota can, inter alia: provide regulators with early warning of bioaccumulation problems with chemicals of emerging concern; trigger risk assessment of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances; enable risk assessment of chemical mixtures in biota; enable risk assessment of mixtures; and enable assessment of the effectiveness of risk management measures and of chemicals regulations overall. A number of these purposes are to be addressed under the recently launched European Partnership for Risk Assessment of Chemicals (PARC). Apex predators are of particular value to biomonitoring. Securing sufficient data at European scale implies large-scale, long-term monitoring and a steady supply of large numbers of fresh apex predator tissue samples from across Europe. Natural science collections are very well-placed to supply these. Pan-European monitoring requires effective coordination among field organisations, collections and analytical laboratories for the flow of required specimens, processing and storage of specimens and tissue samples, contaminant analyses delivering pan-European data sets, and provision of specimen and population contextual data. Collections are well-placed to coordinate this. The COST Action European Raptor Biomonitoring Facility provides a well-developed model showing how this can work, integrating a European Raptor Biomonitoring Scheme, Specimen Bank and Sampling Programme. Simultaneously, the EU-funded LIFE APEX has demonstrated a range of regulatory applications using cutting-edge analytical techniques. PARC plans to make best use of such sampling and biomonitoring programmes. Collections are poised to play a critical role in supporting PARC objectives and thereby contribute to delivery of the EU's zero-pollution ambition.Non peer reviewe

Wachstumsbedingte Proportionsver\ue4nderungen am Sch\ue4del des Bibers, Castor fiber L., 1758 (Rodentia, Castoridae): Taxonomische Bedeutung und Diskussion funktioneller Aspekte

Volume: 49Start Page: 131End Page: 15

Pyrrhocorax alpinus

Pyrrhocorax alpinus var. digitata Hemprich & Ehrenberg Pyrrhocorax alpinus varietas digitata Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1833: 50. Now. Pyrrhocorax graculus digitatus (Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1833). See Hartert (1903: 37), Steinheimer (2009: 24). Type series. Hemprich and Ehrenberg (1833: 50) clearly stated that they had only a single individual (“Unicum specimen habuimus.”), thus excluding all other specimens from the type series (ICZN 1999, Art. 72.4.1). Lichtenstein (1825, Nr. 47–48) listed two specimens of these choughs from “ Syria ”, but he probably sold one of them before Ehrenberg restudied this bird (cf. Stresemann 1954; only one specimen was registered in the Inventory Catalogue of the ZMB). Probably forgetting that they collected two specimens, Ehrenberg (in Hemprich & Ehrenberg 1833: 50) referred to a single specimen, apparently that which he examined in the ZMB (Hemprich was already dead at that time). This specimen is thus the holotype. Steinheimer (2009: 24) incorrectly said that Hemprich and Ehrenberg (1833: 50) “referred to two specimens” and listed specimen ZMB 1575 as a syntype. Holotype: ZMB 1575, skin, unsexed, collected on an unknown date [= 5–24 July 1824] at “Bischerra” (label) [= Bcharré, Lebanon]. Type locality. Type locality of Pyrrhocorax graculus var. digitata was usually given as “ Syria ” (e.g. Hemprich & Ehrenberg 1833: 50, Hartert 1903: 37, Vaurie 1954: 6). Vaurie (1959 b: 163; see also C. Vaurie in Blake & Vaurie 1962: 260) restricted the type locality to “ Lebanon ”, respecting data in Stresemann (1954). Label data indicate that the holotype was collected at Bcharré. We thus restrict here the type locality to Bcharré, Lebanon, where the holotype was collected during 5–24 July 1824.Published as part of Mlíkovský, Jiří & Frahnert, Sylke, 2011, Type specimens and type localities of birds collected during the Hemprich and Ehrenberg expedition to Lebanon in 1824, pp. 1-29 in Zootaxa 2990 on pages 17-18, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.27840

Sylvia flava Meyen 1834

&lt;i&gt;Sylvia flava&lt;/i&gt; Meyen, 1834a: 79. &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Now&lt;/b&gt;: &lt;i&gt;Zosterops meyeni meyeni&lt;/i&gt; Bonaparte, 1850. See Hartlaub (1865: 17), Gadow (1884: 180), Finsch (1901: 22).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Holotype&lt;/b&gt;: ZMB 4554 (Lichtenstein 1832, Nr. 29 sub &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;Sylvia flava&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo;), skin, &female;, collected by Meyen in &ldquo; October &rdquo; [= 5 October 1831; Meyen 1835: 266] in &ldquo; Manila &rdquo; [= the Jalajala Peninsula, Luzon, Philippines; see below].&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Type locality.&lt;/b&gt; M.H.C. Lichtenstein (1832) and Meyen (1834a: 79) said that the holotype was collected at &ldquo; Manila &rdquo;. In his travel report, Meyen (1835: 266) specified that he collected the bird in lowland forest between &ldquo; Hali-Hali &rdquo; [= Jalajala] and &ldquo; Monte Sembrano &rdquo; [= Mount Sembrano]. We thus ascertain the type locality as the Jalajala Peninsula between the village of Jalajala [14.35&deg;N, 121.32&deg;E] and Mount Sembrano [14.39&deg;N, 121.37&deg;E], southern Luzon, Philippines.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Remarks.&lt;/b&gt; In the genus &lt;i&gt;Zosterops&lt;/i&gt; Vigors &amp; Horsfield, 1827, &lt;i&gt;Sylvia flava&lt;/i&gt; Meyen, 1834a is a junior secondary homonym of &lt;i&gt;Dicaeum flavum&lt;/i&gt; Kittlitz (1833: 15, pl. 19) [= &lt;i&gt;Zosterops meyeni&lt;/i&gt; Bonaparte, 1850] and of &lt;i&gt;Dicaeum flavum&lt;/i&gt; Horsfield (1821: 170) [= &lt;i&gt;Zosterops flavus&lt;/i&gt; (Horsfield, 1821)]. Bonaparte (1850: 398) introduced a new name for it, &lt;i&gt;Zosterops meyeni&lt;/i&gt;, in the following way: &ldquo; Dicaeum flavum? &lt;i&gt;Meyen.&lt;/i&gt; (Zosterops &lt;i&gt;meyeni&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Bp.&lt;/i&gt;) &lt;i&gt;Kittl. Kupf. V&ouml;g. t. 19.2. ex Ins. Philipp.&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo; (his bold and italics). After consulting formatting in Bonaparte&rsquo;s &lt;i&gt;Conspectus Generum Avium&lt;/i&gt; (1850), we interpret this arrangement as meaning that Bonaparte presumed &lt;i&gt;flava&lt;/i&gt; Meyen, 1834 and &lt;i&gt;flavum&lt;/i&gt; Kittlitz, 1832 were, question mark notwithstanding: (1) conspecific, (2) both allotted to the genus &lt;i&gt;Dicaeum&lt;/i&gt; prior to his revision in the &lt;i&gt;Conspectus&lt;/i&gt;, and (3) both junior homonyms of &lt;i&gt;Dicaeum flavum&lt;/i&gt; Horsfield, 1821 in &lt;i&gt;Zosterops&lt;/i&gt; that had to be replaced with a new name, &lt;i&gt;meyeni&lt;/i&gt;. Replacing two junior homonyms with a single common name in one nomenclatural act is most unusual and creates a problem in typification. The appropriate solution appears to be to treat the types of &lt;i&gt;Dicaeum flavum&lt;/i&gt; Kittlitz, 1832 and &lt;i&gt;Sylvia flava&lt;/i&gt; Meyen, 1834 as syntypes of &lt;i&gt;Zosterops meyeni&lt;/i&gt; (ICZN 1999: Article 72.7). Should &lt;i&gt;flavum&lt;/i&gt; Kittlitz and &lt;i&gt;flava&lt;/i&gt; Meyen ever be separated taxonomically, application of &lt;i&gt;meyeni&lt;/i&gt; Bonaparte can then be resolved by lectotypification. Specimen ZMB 4554 is thus the holotype of &lt;i&gt;Sylvia flava&lt;/i&gt; Meyen and a syntype of &lt;i&gt;Zosterops meyeni&lt;/i&gt; Bonaparte. This confirms that the lowland &lt;i&gt;Zosterops&lt;/i&gt; of Luzon and adjacent islands should bear the name &lt;i&gt;Zosterops meyeni meyeni&lt;/i&gt; Bonaparte, 1850 (see Hartlaub 1865: 17; Gadow 1884: 180; Finsch 1901: 22; van Balen 2008: 446).&lt;/p&gt;Published as part of &lt;i&gt;Mlíkovský, Jiří &amp; Frahnert, Sylke, 2017, Type specimens and type localities of birds (Aves) collected during F. J. F. Meyen's circumnavigation in 1830 – 1832, pp. 1-22 in Zootaxa 4250 (1)&lt;/i&gt; on pages 13-14, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4250.1.1, &lt;a href="http://zenodo.org/record/439779"&gt;http://zenodo.org/record/439779&lt;/a&gt

Aquila pezopora Meyen 1834

&lt;i&gt;Aquila pezopora&lt;/i&gt; Meyen, 1834a: 62, pl. 6. &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Now&lt;/b&gt;: &lt;i&gt;Milvago chimango chimango&lt;/i&gt; (Vieillot, 1816). See Hellmayr &amp; Conover (1949: 266).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Syntype&lt;/b&gt;: ZMB 434 (Lichtenstein 1832, Nr. 45 or 46 sub &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;Falco degener&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo;), skin, juv., collected by Meyen in &ldquo; Maerz &rdquo; [= 20&ndash;23 Feb 1831; see below] in &ldquo; Chile &rdquo; [= Colina, Chile; see below].&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Syntype&lt;/b&gt; (lost): ZMB 435, collected by Eduard Poeppig on an unknown date [= 1827&ndash;1829] in Chile.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Syntype&lt;/b&gt;: ZMB 437 (Lichtenstein 1832, Nr. 45 or 46 sub &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;Falco degener&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo;), skin, &female;, collected by Meyen in &ldquo; Maerz &rdquo; [= 20&ndash;23 Feb1831; see below] in &ldquo; Chile &rdquo; [= Colina, Chile; see below].&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Type locality.&lt;/b&gt; Meyen (1834a: 64) wrote: &ldquo;Lebt in grosser Anzahl auf den Feldern der Ebene vom Mapocho, besonders in der N&auml;he von Santiago. &rdquo; (&ldquo;Lives in great numbers on the fields of the Mapocho plain, especially near Santiago.&rdquo;) Lichtenstein (1832) stated that Meyen&rsquo;s syntypes were collected in March, but Meyen (1834b: 365) left Santiago on 24 February and spent the remaining days before his ship&rsquo;s departure in Valpara&iacute;so; hence he could not have collected any birds at Santiago in March. The only period during which Meyen explored the vicinity of Santiago was 20&ndash;23 February, when he went to Colina (Meyen 1834b: 360&ndash;365). During this trip he observed and collected &lt;i&gt;Milvago chimango&lt;/i&gt; (see Meyen 1834b: 361). Poeppig collected one syntypical specimen at an unknown locality in Chile. The type locality of &lt;i&gt;Aquila pezopora&lt;/i&gt; is thus Chile (including Colina, Metropolitan Region, 33.20&deg;S, 70.68&deg;W).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Remarks.&lt;/b&gt; Meyen (1834a) did not specify the type series, but Lichtenstein (1832) listed two specimens collected by Meyen which are surviving types. ZMB registers show that Poeppig's specimen was available to Meyen during his ZMB visit, although it is now lost. All three specimens constitute the type series.&lt;/p&gt;Published as part of &lt;i&gt;Mlíkovský, Jiří &amp; Frahnert, Sylke, 2017, Type specimens and type localities of birds (Aves) collected during F. J. F. Meyen's circumnavigation in 1830 – 1832, pp. 1-22 in Zootaxa 4250 (1)&lt;/i&gt; on pages 5-6, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4250.1.1, &lt;a href="http://zenodo.org/record/439779"&gt;http://zenodo.org/record/439779&lt;/a&gt

Fringilla bella C. L. Brehm

Fringilla bella C. L. Brehm Fringilla bella Hemprich, 1824 [Unpublished label name.] Fringilla bella “Hemprich Lichtenstein, 1825 [Unpublished manuscript name.] Fringilla bella “Hemprich C. L. Brehm, 1845: col. 348. Now. Carduelis cannabina bella (C. L. Brehm, 1845). See Hartert (1903: 75). Type series. C. L. Brehm (1845) based this name on specimens in “Mus. Berol.” [= ZMB], there identified as Fringilla bella. Lichtenstein (1825, Nr. 450–491) listed 42 such specimens, which constitute the type series. Six of these syntypes were registered in the Inventory Catalogue of the ZMB, but only four of them were found in ZMB in 2010. The remaining 36 specimens were probably sold by Lichtenstein to other collections, but we were not able to locate them. They were not found in the Brehm Collection in the AMNH (M. LeCroy, in litt. 2010). Syntype. ZMB 6599: skin, 3, collected on an unknown date [= 18 May– 9 June 1824] in “ Syrien ” (label) or “Bairut” (Lichtenstein 1825) [= Beirut, Lebanon]. Syntype. ZMB 6600, skin, 3, collected on an unknown date [= 18 May– 9 June 1824] in “ Syrien // V.–VI. 1824 ” (label) or “Bairut” (Lichtenstein 1825) [= Beirut, Lebanon]. Syntype. ZMB 6601, mount, unsexed, collected on an unknown date [= 18 May– 9 June 1824] in “Bairut” (Lichtenstein 1825) = [Beirut, Lebanon]. Syntype. ZMB 6602: skin, Ƥ, collected on an unknown date [= 18 May– 9 June 1824] in “ Syrien ” (label) or “Bairut” (Lichtenstein 1825) [= Beirut, Lebanon]. Syntype (lost): ZMB 6598: Ƥ, collected on an unknown date [= 18 May– 9 June 1824] in “Bairut” (Lichtenstein 1825) [= Beirut, Lebanon]. Syntype (lost): ZMB 6603: Ƥ, collected on an unknown date [= 18 May– 9 June 1824] in “Bairut” (Lichtenstein 1825) [= Beirut, Lebanon]. Type locality. C. L. Brehm (1845: col. 348) believed that Hemprich named F. bella from “ Ägypten oder Nubia ”, which is an apparent error. Cabanis (1850: 161) stated that this form inhabits “ Syrien ” without explanation. The type locality was corrected to “Beirut”, Lebanon by Vaurie (1959 b: 616), probably following data presented by Stresemann (1954). Stresemann (1962: 386) indicated that the type series was collected at “Bairut, May, Junio”, following Lichtenstein (1825), which supports Vaurie’s (1959 b) decision. The type locality of Fringilla bella C. L. Brehm is thus Beirut, Lebanon, where type specimens were obtained during 18 May– 9 June 1824. Remarks. C. L. Brehm (1845: col. 348) published Fringilla bella in the synonymy of Linota cannabina Bp. = Carduelis cannabina (Linnaeus, 1758). Cabanis (1850: 161, footnote) recognized it as a valid species and made it available thereby with C. L. Brehm (1845) as its author (ICZN 1999, Art. 11.6. 1 and Art. 50.7.).Published as part of Mlíkovský, Jiří & Frahnert, Sylke, 2011, Type specimens and type localities of birds collected during the Hemprich and Ehrenberg expedition to Lebanon in 1824, pp. 1-29 in Zootaxa 2990 on page 19, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.27840

Fringilla chlorotica Bonaparte

Fringilla chlorotica Bonaparte Fringilla chlorotica “Licht. ex Ehrenb. ” Bonaparte, 1850: 514. Now. Carduelis chloris chlorotica (Bonaparte, 1850). See Hartert (1903: 63). Type series. Lichtenstein (1825, Nr. 433–438) listed six specimens of Fringilla chloris from “Bairut”, received from Hemprich and Ehrenberg, which constitute the type series of F. chlorotica. Only two of them were registered in the Inventory Catalogue of the ZMB (see also Lichtenstein 1854: 46 sub Ligurinus chloroticus) and found in ZMB in 2007. Bonaparte (1850: 514) indicated that types are deposited in ZMB and MNHN (without specifying their numbers), but no such specimens were found in MNHN (E. Pasquet, in litt. 2007). Syntype. ZMB 6662, skin, unsexed, collected on an unknown date [= 18–31 May 1824] at “Bairut” (label) or “Bischerra” (Inventory Catalogue of the ZMB) [= Beirut, Lebanon; see below]. Syntype. ZMB 6663, skin, unsexed, collected on an unknown date [= 18–31 May 1824] in “ Syrien ” (label) or “Bairut” (Lichtenstein 1825) [= Beirut, Lebanon]. Type locality. Bonaparte (1850: 514) described Fringilla chlorotica from “ As. occ.”, i.e. from western Asia. Hartert (1903: 63) restricted the type locality to “ Syria ” (see also Vaurie 1959 b: 601, Howell et al. 1968: 236). All types were collected at “Bairut, Maj” according to Lichtenstein (1825; see also Stresemann 1962: 386). This is the oldest and probably correct entry; deviating label or Inventory Catalogue data (see above) are probably subsequent curatorial errors. We thus restrict here the type locality to Beirut, Lebanon, where the syntypes were collected during 18–31 May 1824. Remarks. Bonaparte (1850: 523) attributed this species name to Lichtenstein, but he is its author (ICZN 1999, Art. 51.1).Published as part of Mlíkovský, Jiří & Frahnert, Sylke, 2011, Type specimens and type localities of birds collected during the Hemprich and Ehrenberg expedition to Lebanon in 1824, pp. 1-29 in Zootaxa 2990 on pages 19-20, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.27840

Psittacaria rectirostris Meyen 1834

&lt;i&gt;Psittacaria rectirostris&lt;/i&gt; Meyen, 1834a: 95, pl. 15. &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Now&lt;/b&gt;: &lt;i&gt;Enicognathus leptorhynchus&lt;/i&gt; (King, 1831). See Salvadori (1891: 209); Meyen&rsquo;s &lt;i&gt;rectirostris&lt;/i&gt; was not listed by Cory (1918).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Holotype&lt;/b&gt; (lost): ZMB 10107 (Lichtenstein 1832, Nr. 3 sub &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;Psittacus&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo;), collected by Meyen in &ldquo; Februar &rdquo; [= Feb 1831; see below] in &ldquo; Chile &rdquo; [= central Chile; see below].&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Type locality.&lt;/b&gt; Meyen (1834a) did not specify the type locality, but mentioned that the holotype was shot in February. M.H.C. Lichtenstein (1832) listed Chile as the country of the specimen&rsquo;s origin. The &lt;i&gt;Prinzess Louise&lt;/i&gt; was anchored at Valpara&iacute;so from 22 January to 15 March 1831 (Meyen 1834b; Berghaus 1842). During February, Meyen (1834b) visited modern-day Chilean regions of Valpara&iacute;so, O&rsquo;Higgins and Metropolitan. He thus probably collected the holotype in one of these regions. Details being unknown, the type locality includes all the three regions.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Remarks.&lt;/b&gt; One dataless historical specimen of &lt;i&gt;Enicognathus leptorhynchus&lt;/i&gt; was found in the ZMB collection in 2011 (ZMB 2000.11400). However, as three historical specimens of this species are missing from ZMB, the surviving specimen cannot be identified with any one of them with certainty.&lt;/p&gt;Published as part of &lt;i&gt;Mlíkovský, Jiří &amp; Frahnert, Sylke, 2017, Type specimens and type localities of birds (Aves) collected during F. J. F. Meyen's circumnavigation in 1830 – 1832, pp. 1-22 in Zootaxa 4250 (1)&lt;/i&gt; on page 10, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4250.1.1, &lt;a href="http://zenodo.org/record/439779"&gt;http://zenodo.org/record/439779&lt;/a&gt