7 research outputs found

    Un Chilopode confirmé pour la faune de France : Cryptops umbricus Verhoeff, 1931 (Scolopendromorpha, Cryptopidae)

    No full text
    Some specimens of the Italian species Cryptops umbricus Verhoeff, 1931 (Scolopendromorpha Cryptopidae) have been identified in the collection of centipedes of the MusĂ©e Zoologique de Strasbourg (MZS). They were found in Nice (Alpes-Maritimes). The species is confirmed for the French fauna. Its morphology is detailed and compared with that of C. anomalans Newport, 1844. The whole of the data on the presence of C. umbricus in Italy is mentioned.Des spĂ©cimens du Scolopendromorphe italien Cryptops umbricus Verhoeff, 1931 (Scolopendromorpha Cryptopidae) ont Ă©tĂ© identifiĂ©s dans la collection de Chilopodes du MusĂ©e Zoologique de Strasbourg (MZS). Ils provenaient de Nice (Alpes-Maritimes). Cette espĂšce est confirmĂ©e pour la faune de France. Sa morphologie est examinĂ©e de façon approfondie et comparĂ©e Ă  celle de Cryptops anomalans Newport, 1844. L'ensemble des donnĂ©es relatives Ă  la prĂ©sence de C. umbricus en Italie est mentionnĂ©.Iorio Étienne, Minelli Alessandro. Un Chilopode confirmĂ© pour la faune de France : Cryptops umbricus Verhoeff, 1931 (Scolopendromorpha, Cryptopidae). In: Bulletin mensuel de la SociĂ©tĂ© linnĂ©enne de Lyon, 74ᔉ annĂ©e, n°4, avril 2005. pp. 150-157

    Les opilions (Arachnida: Opiliones) du Parc national du Mercantour et des Alpes méridionales françaises

    No full text
    Au cours des derniĂšres annĂ©es, l’étude du Parc national du Mercantour s’est intensifiĂ©e afin de davan­tage cerner sa flore et sa faune. Dans le cadre de l’Inventaire biologique gĂ©nĂ©ralisĂ© (ATBI), nous avons Ă©tudiĂ© les opilions du Parc. Ce travail a Ă©tĂ© Ă©largi Ă  toute la rĂ©gion mĂ©ridio-alpine, correspondant aux dĂ©partements des Alpes-de-Haute-Provence (04), des Hautes-Alpes (05) et des Alpes-Maritimes (06), pour lesquels de nouvelles donnĂ©es sont Ă©galement apportĂ©es. Un catalogue des opilions de ces dĂ©partements est proposĂ©. L’étude du matĂ©riel du Parc national du Mercantour a Ă©galement permis de complĂ©ter les donnĂ©es et d’en confirmer d’autres. Ainsi, sur un total de 48 espĂšces inventoriĂ©es dans l’aire alpine considĂ©rĂ©e, 32 sont prĂ©sentes sur le Parc du Mercantour dont 13 nouvelles pour celui-ci. During recent years, the Mercantour National Park has been the subject of increased efforts to better understand its flora and fauna. Here we report on the harvestmen collected in the park during the All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory (ATBI). This study was extended to consider the entire southern-Alpine area of France corresponding to the departments of Alpes-de-Haute-Provence (04), Hautes-Alpes (05) and Alpes-Maritimes (06), for which new data are provided. A catalogue of the harvestmen of these departments is given. The study of the material from the Mercantour National Park has also helped to clarify previous records and confirm others. Out of total of 48 species recorded from the French Alpine area, 32 are present in the Mercantour Park, of which 13 are recorded there for the first time.</p

    Les Arthropodes terrestres dans les Ă©tudes d’impact : limites actuelles et propositions pour une meilleure priseen compte des enjeux de conservation

    No full text
    International audienceEnvironmental impact studies are a regulatory process to assess projects that may have significant environmental impacts. It includes a “natural environments” section, where an ecological diagnosisgives an initial status of the site to be assessed, including its wildlife, botanical and habitat concerns, based on bibliographical references and dedicated surveys. The result is the proposal for “ERC”measures (avoid, reduce, compensate) to preserve the environmental issues identified prior to the project.Arthropods are by far the most diverse phylum of the animal kingdom, and should thereforehave an important place in an environmental impact study. However, only four orders have species listed in the current regulations, and the phylum of arthropods is poorly represented compared tovertebrates. The review of 50 impact studies shows that only three main groups are studied, relatively related to existing protections : butterflies (Zygaena included), dragonflies and Orthoptera, and someprotected saprophagous wood-boring beetles. A ‘closed-loop’ effect occurs, likely inherent in the regulations and many of the associated actions, as these groups are the ones on which knowledgeis most advanced and which are the subject of most Red List assessments. This imbalance between the groups covered in the impact studies and the actual diversity of continental arthropods, theirspecialisations and ecological functions, and their particular distributional characteristics, means that the issues at stake are assessed unequally depending on the habitats and geographical sectorsconcerned. Thus, butterflies and Orthoptera primarily highlight species and conservation issues for grassland environments, followed secondarily by moors, thickets and scrubland ; dragonfliesfor freshwater environments. Butterflies and dragonflies also include a significant number of species of concern that are associated with peat bogs and marshes. These groups are generally goodindicators of the issues affecting these habitats. The beetles that appear most regularly in impact studies highlight isolated trees, hedgerows, tree lines and forest edges. On the other hand, thesegroups are very few valuable to highlight conservation issues for arthropods of the coastal and closed forest environments. Butterflies and dragonflies are among the arthropods with the lowest rates ofendemism in metropolitan France, which means that this conservation issue is under-represented in the impact studies. Functional guilds such as coprophagous, necrophagous or litter predatorsand decomposers are virtually almost forgotten in impact studies. This article proposes six groups for which knowledge has progressed well over the last 10 to 20 years and which would provide anecological and taxonomic complement to the species currently used in regulatory studies: centipedes (Chilopoda), woodlice (Isopoda, Oniscidea), long-horned beetles (Cerambycidae and Vesperidae),Scarabaeoidea and Tenebrionidae, and shield-bugs (Heteroptera, Pentatomoidea). Most of the species of high concern in these six groups are found on beaches or dunes, forests or environments suchas caves, cliffs or screes. Centipedes, woodlice and Tenebrionidae beetles have a large number of endemics and a high national responsibility. Beaches and coastal environments, from the shore tothe dunes, are the most striking example of under-representation in protected species and current impact studies, with dozens of specialised species at risk and no umbrella species to protect them.To a lesser extent, the same applies to closed forests. Caves appear to be of less concern. However, the often narrow distribution of the endemic arthropods they house means that the stakes are notto be underestimated. The protection lists therefore need to be completed with groups other than those taken into account so far, but in a manner appropriate to continental arthropods. Protectionshould prioritise habitats and not specimens, in correlation with the particularities of their study and their biology. For butterflies, dragonflies and Orthoptera, although a large number of regulatedspecies remain relevant, the lists need to be revised.This study proposes a list of 135 species with high conservation concerns in nine arthropod groups. If this list was taken into account byenvironmental agencies, landscape planners and environmental authorities, it would reflect the challenges for continental arthropods in impact studies and thus enable measures to be taken thatare better suited to their conservationL’évaluation environnementale est un processus rĂ©glementaire visant Ă  Ă©valuer les projets de travaux ou d’amĂ©nagements qui peuvent avoir des incidences sur l’environnement. L’étude d’impact comporte un volet « milieux naturels » dans lequel un diagnostic Ă©cologique donne un Ă©tat initial du site, notamment de ses enjeux faunistiques, floristiques et d’habitats, Ă  partir de la bibliographie et de prospections dĂ©diĂ©es. Il s’ensuit la proposition de mesures « ERC » (Ă©viter, rĂ©duire, compenser) visant une neutralitĂ© Ă©cologique entre incidences et gains gĂ©nĂ©rĂ©s. Les Arthropodes constituent de loin le phylum le plus diversifiĂ© du rĂšgne animal, et devraient logiquement y tenir une place importante. Pourtant, en France, seuls quatre ordres comportent des espĂšces inscrites dans les textes rĂ©glementaires nationaux et europĂ©ens. Le phylum des Arthropodes y est donc trĂšs peu reprĂ©sentĂ© comparativement aux VertĂ©brĂ©s. Cet article questionne la place des Arthropodes dans les Ă©tudes d’impacts, leur utilitĂ© pour identifier des enjeux sur leurs habitats, et propose de nouveaux groupes qui pourraient apporter un complĂ©ment Ă  la fois taxinomique et Ă©cologique. L’examen d’un Ă©chantillon de 50 Ă©tudes d’impact montre que seuls trois principaux groupes y sont Ă©tudiĂ©s, tous comportant des espĂšces protĂ©gĂ©es : les papillons diurnes (RhopalocĂšres et Zygaena), les Odonates (Odonata) et les OrthoptĂšres (Orthoptera) ; ainsi que quelques ColĂ©optĂšres saproxylophages rĂ©glementĂ©s. Un effet « vase clos » probablement inhĂ©rent Ă  la rĂ©glementation s’observe, car ces groupes sont ceux sur lesquels les connaissances progressent le plus et qui font l’objet de la plupart des Ă©valuations de type Liste rouge. Ce dĂ©sĂ©quilibre entre les groupes abordĂ©s dans les Ă©tudes d’impact et la diversitĂ© rĂ©elle des Arthropodes continentaux, de leurs spĂ©cialisations et fonctions Ă©cologiques, de leurs particularitĂ©s de rĂ©partition, induit que leurs enjeux sont Ă©valuĂ©s de maniĂšre inĂ©gale selon les habitats et secteurs gĂ©ographiques concernĂ©s. Ainsi, les papillons diurnes et les OrthoptĂšres mettent principalement en exergue des espĂšces et des enjeux de conservation pour les milieux prairiaux, puis secondairement les landes, fourrĂ©s et garrigues ; les Odonates les milieux dulcicoles. Les RhopalocĂšres et Odonates comportent Ă©galement un nombre non nĂ©gligeable d’espĂšces Ă  enjeux infĂ©odĂ©es aux tourbiĂšres et marais. Ces groupes sont globalement de bons indicateurs des enjeux pour ces habitats. Les ColĂ©optĂšres qui reviennent le plus rĂ©guliĂšrement dans les Ă©tudes d’impact mettent surtout en valeur les arbres isolĂ©s, le bocage, les alignements d’arbres et les lisiĂšres forestiĂšres. A contrario, les milieux littoraux et les milieux forestiers fermĂ©s ne sont que trĂšs peu valorisĂ©s par ces groupes. Les papillons diurnes et Odonates sont parmi les Arthropodes avec les plus faibles taux d’endĂ©misme en France mĂ©tropolitaine, ce qui, de fait, sous-reprĂ©sente cet enjeu de conservation dans les Ă©tudes d’impacts. D’un point de vue fonctionnel, les coprophages, les nĂ©crophages ou encore les prĂ©dateurs et dĂ©composeurs litiĂ©ricoles sont aussi quasiment oubliĂ©s dans les Ă©tudes d’impacts. Cet article propose six groupes pour lesquels les connaissances ont bien progressĂ© depuis 10 ou 20 ans et qui apporteraient un complĂ©ment Ă©cologique et taxinomique aux espĂšces actuellement utilisĂ©es dans les Ă©tudes rĂ©glementaires : les Chilopodes (Chilopoda), les Isopodes terrestres (Isopoda, Oniscidea), les ColĂ©optĂšres « Longicornes » (Cerambycidae et Vesperidae), Scarabaeoidea et Tenebrionidae, les HĂ©tĂ©roptĂšres Pentatomoidea. La plupart des espĂšces Ă  enjeux de conservation Ă©levĂ©s de ces six groupes se situent sur les plages ou les dunes, les forĂȘts ou les milieux tels que les grottes, les falaises ou les Ă©boulis. Les Chilopodes, les Isopodes terrestres et les ColĂ©optĂšres Tenebrionidae comportent un grand nombre d’endĂ©miques induisant une responsabilitĂ© nationale Ă©levĂ©e. Les plages et milieux cĂŽtiers, de la partie mĂ©diolittorale supĂ©rieure aux milieux dunaires, constituent l’exemple le plus frappant de sous-reprĂ©sentation au sein des espĂšces protĂ©gĂ©es et des groupes actuellement priorisĂ©s dans les Ă©tudes d’impact, comportant des dizaines d’espĂšces spĂ©cialisĂ©es Ă  enjeux apparaissant menacĂ©es et aucun « parapluie » ne permettant de bien les prĂ©server. De façon moindre, il en est de mĂȘme pour les forĂȘts fermĂ©es. Les grottes paraissent d’emblĂ©e moins concernĂ©es ; cependant, la rĂ©partition souvent Ă©troite des Arthropodes endĂ©miques qu’elles abritent leur confĂšre des enjeux Ă  ne pas nĂ©gliger. Les listes de protection paraissent donc Ă  complĂ©ter par d’autres groupes que ceux pris en compte jusqu’ici, mais de maniĂšre appropriĂ©e aux Arthropodes continentaux : protection priorisant les habitats et non les spĂ©cimens, en corrĂ©lation avec les particularitĂ©s de leur Ă©tude et de leur biologie. Pour les papillons diurnes, Odonates et OrthoptĂšres, bien qu’un grand nombre d’espĂšces rĂ©glementĂ©es demeure pertinent, les listes paraissent Ă  rĂ©ajuster. La prĂ©sente Ă©tude propose une liste argumentĂ©e de 135 espĂšces Ă  forts enjeux de conservation dans neuf groupes d’Arthropodes. La prise en compte de l’ensemble par les bureaux d’études, les amĂ©nageurs et les autoritĂ©s environnementales permettrait de reflĂ©ter les enjeux des Arthropodes continentaux dans les Ă©tudes d’impact et donc de prendre des mesures plus adaptĂ©es Ă  leur conservation

    Inhibitor development according to concentrate in severe hemophilia : reporting on 1392 Previously Untreated Patients from Europe and Canada

    No full text
    Background: Clotting factor concentrates have been the mainstay of severe hemophilia treatment over the last 50 years. Differences in risk of neutralizing antibody (inhibitor) formation according to concentrate used remain clinically relevant. Objectives: To assess inhibitor development according to type of clotting factor concentrate in previously untreated patients (PUPs) with severe hemophilia A and B. Methods: The European Haemophilia Safety Surveillance (EUHASS) and Canadian Bleeding Disorders Registry (CBDR) have been monitoring adverse events overall and according to concentrate for 11 and 8 years, respectively. Inhibitors were reported quarterly, and PUPs completed 50 exposure days without inhibitor development annually. Cumulative inhibitor incidences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were compared without adjustment for other risk factors. Results: Fifty-six European and 23 Canadian centers reported inhibitor development in 312 of 1219 (26%; CI, 23%-28%) PUPs with severe hemophilia A and 14 of 173 (8%; CI, 5%-13%) PUPs with severe hemophilia B. Inhibitor development was lower on plasma-derived factor (F)VIII (pdFVIII, 20%; CI, 14%-26%) than on standard half-life recombinant FVIII (SHL-rFVIII, 27%; CI, 24%-30% and odds ratio, 0.67; CI, 0.45%-0.98%; P = .04). Extended half-life recombinant FVIII (EHL-rFVIII, 22%; CI, 12%-36%) showed an intermediate inhibitor rate, while inhibitor rates for Advate (26%; CI, 22%-31%) and Kogenate/Helixate (30%; CI, 24%-36%) overlapped. For other SHL-rFVIII concentrates, inhibitor rates varied from 3% to 43%. Inhibitor development was similar for pdFIX (11%; CI, 3%-25%), SHL-rFIX (8%; CI, 3%-15%), and EHL-rFIX (7%; CI, 1%-22%). Conclusion: While confirming expected rates of inhibitors in PUPs, inhibitor development was lower in pdFVIII than in SHL-rFVIII. Preliminary data suggest variation in inhibitor development among different SHL-rFVIII and EHL-rFVIII concentrates.Peer reviewe

    Araignées de France métropolitaine

    No full text
    International audienceThis chapter presents an overview of the situation and conservation issues for spiders in metropolitan France.Ce chapitre présente un bilan de la situation et des enjeux de conservation pour les araignées de France métropolitaine
    corecore