Journal articles on the topic '1781-1848'

New Records of Xylomycetobiontic Beetles (Insecta, Coleoptera) from Kyiv Region (Ukraine) Eleven species are recorded from Kyiv and Kyiv Region, among them three, Corticarina latipennis (Sahlberg, 1871), Cis laricinus (Mellié, 1848), and Epuraea excisicollis (Reitter 1872), are recorded from Ukraine, Triplax rufipes (Fabricius, 1781) and Cis glabratus (Mellié, 1848) from Kyiv Region, and Salpingus ruficollis (Linnaeus, 1761) from the Left-Bank (Trans-Dnieper) Ukraine for the first time. Distribution and ecological peculiarities of some species are discussed.

The issue of the Edict of Toleration legalised Protestants of Lutheran and Reformed confessions in Bohemia and Moravia. Their religious life required the support of printed materials in the form of religious literature of the corresponding confession approved by the state. Relatively high production of Protestant books, both original and translated, began to emerge. They anchored both Protestant denominations but simultaneously became mutually competitive and sometimes came into controversy with Roman Catholic authors. The author of this article monitors all printed Protestant literature in Bohemia and Moravia of the so-called toleration period, i.e. the period when the believers of the two Protestant confessions did not have full-fledged positions and were affected by numerous restrictions. In terms of book culture, it is divided into: 1) the period of early toleration (1781–1800), 2) the period of established toleration (1800–1848) and 3) the period of late toleration (1848–1861). In this framework, he provides an overview of Protestant literature in terms of its typological, authorial and publishing development and also evaluates the readership of this literary production.

As Contribuições a uma Exposição mais Bem Fundamentada da Matemática foram publicadas por Bernard Bolzano (1781-1848) em 1810. Elas constituem parte importante do esforço, manifestado desde cedo em sua obra e nunca abandonado, de atingir clareza a respeito da ciência que tamanha admiração lhe despertava. Em aberta oposição às posições kantianas, ele logra formular uma concepção da matemática como ciência formal geral. O presente artigo traz a tradução inédita da primeira metade da obra, acrescida de notas e de um ensaio introdutório.

16 species of Lithosiini and 25 species of Arctiini (Erebidae: Arctiinae) are recorded from Daghestan, North-East Caucasus. Nine Lithosiini species and one Arctiini species (Katha depressa (Esper, 1787), Manulea pygmaeola (Doubleday, 1848), M. lurideola (Zincken, 1817.), Cybosia mesomella (Linnaeus, 1758), Eilema caniolum (Hübner, [1808]), Atolmis rubricollis (Linnaeus, 1758), Pelosia muscerda (Hufnagel, 1766), Setina roscida ([Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775), Thumatha senex (Hübner, [1808]), Epatolmis caesarea (Goeze, 1781) were formerly not known from Daghestan territory. Localities, typical biotopes and imago flight period are provided for all species.

New data on the distribution of 101 species from 16 Heteroptera families in the East Kazakhstan Region of the Republic of Kazakhstan are reported. Twelve species are recorded for the first time from the study area: Nabis nigrovittatus steppensis (Kerzhner, 1981) (Nabidae), Deraeocoris ater (Jakovlev, 1889), Orthops mutans (Stål, 1858), Oncotylus setulosus (Herrich-Schaeffer, 1837) (Miridae), Dictyla humuli (Fabricius, 1794) (Tingidae), Coranus aethiops Jakovlev, 1893 (Reduviidae), Aradus crenaticollis R.F. Sahlberg, 1848 (Aradidae), Horvathiolus superbus (Pollish, 1781), Acompus rufipes (Wolff, 1804), Acanthosoma denticaudum (Jakovlev, 1880) (Acanthosomatidae), Rubiconia peltata Jakovlev, 1890, and Eurydema fieberi Fieber, 1837 (Pentatomidae). Based on the latest data, the fauna of true bugs of the East Kazakhstan Region comprises 482 species from 25 families.

The paper presents representations and conceptions of Reformation and Protestantism from the late 18th century to the early 1860s. Protestantism in the Habsburg Monarchy underwent a new development mainly after the Patent of Toleration by emperor Joseph II in 1781, when the Slovene Protestant parishes in Prekmurje and the only Slovene Crypto-Protestant community in Zagoriče in Carinthia reappeared. A new turning point came in 1848, when the concept of equality in the Austrian Empire encompassed languages as well as religions. The Slovene area at that time was characterized by a tolerant relationship between Catholics and Protestants in the cultural and national spheres. Slomšek’s view on the cultural significance of Slovene Protestants, as well as at the time still present German linguistic tolerance, enabled peaceful coexistence. The paper introduces in more detail the book about Primož Trubar by Wilhelm Sillem, which was published in 1861 and has heretofore not been noticed and considered in the historiography and biographies of Primož Trubar (with the exception of Jože Rajhman).

João Allen (1781–1848) was a business man who collected antiques, curiosities, natural history, numismatics, archeological pieces, and fine arts. A trip to Italy in 1826–1827 was fundamental to his collection building, to the opening of the first private museum in Portugal, the Allen Museum in Porto (1837), and to the identity of one of Portugal’s most important museums, the Museu Nacional de Soares dos Reis created in 1833 under a different designation. Allen’s Grand Tour of Italy and his eclecticism were the cornerstone of the exhibition that took place in this museum in 2018. This article addresses the way in which the exhibition reflects the museum itself and recalls the formation of collections which are of great importance for the history of European museums due to what they reveal about the political and cultural circumstances of their times. Finally, we point out some possible developments concerning the permanent exhibition of the museum.

Historically, our theme is situated within the triangle of three of Kant's students: Hegel (1770-1831), Bolzano (1781-1848) and Peirce (1839-1914). All three wanted to change Kant's strict separation of philosophy and science by developing a new conception of logic. Bolzano inaugurated the so-called linguistic turn of philosophy which became the guiding principle of all analytical philosophy (Dummett, 2014) and he opposed Hegel’s unity of concept and object of knowledge. Charles Peirce took a middle position, a position that is expressed in his so-called Pragmatic Maxim (Peirce, CP 5.3). Taken together we might say that a universal principle of complementarity of meaning and reference, or of meaning and information (in the sense of Shannon) finds its origin in Post-Kantian philosophy. We encounter here the very same approach of principled thinking endorsed by Einstein in physics (special theory of relativity) or by the formal axiomatic approach in mathematics (Hilbert)! Key Words: Bolzano, Hegel, Peirce; Complementarity of sense and reference; Geometry from Euclid to Einstein; Hilbert.

The authors of the article not only reflected the impressions of A.N. Ostrovsky about Kostroma, but, unlike other researchers, analyzed how the appearance of the provincial city was formed. Starting from the diary entries of the playwright, having studied a variety of materials, the authors showed the features of the construction of the city according to the plan of 1781, its central square, streets, the town of “Wildsˮ, the Ipatievsky Monastery, etc., which the playwright saw on his first visit to the city in 1848. In the future, until the end of his life in 1886, A.N. Ostrovsky often visited Kostroma on business, as a provincial city and lived here for a month or more. The article reflects how the city developed, its population increased, new industrial zones were created, a new theater building was built and opened in 1863, which later received the name of the playwright. A.N. Ostrovsky not only witnessed these changes, but may have been a participant in some city events. As a result, the authors came to the conclusion that without the impressions of A.N. Ostrovsky about Kostroma, its surrounding nature, people, the playwright could not have created his immortal works that are relevant both in the XIX century and our time.

Afrotropical species of the Craspedophorus leprieuri and Craspedophorus regalis groups are revised. C. clasispilus (Alluaud, 1915) and C. guineensis Basilewsky, 1987 are considered as subspecies of C. leprieuri (Laporte de Castelnau, 1835); the synonymized C. peringueyi Csiki, 1929 (=laticollis Péringuey, 1904) is restated as subspecies of C. leprieuri, and it is described C. leprieuri zambianus (DR Congo: Katanga Province; Zambia); C. pseudofestivus Burgeon, 1930 is considered subspecies of C. merus Péringuey, 1904, and it is described C. merus lundanus (Angola, DR Congo: Kasai-Oriental and Katanga Provinces); C. bouvieri imperialis Burgeon, 1930 is considered to be a separate species of C. bouvieri (Rousseau, 1905), and C. bouvieri dux Basilewsky, 1951 is transferred to C. imperialis. The synonymized C. sayersii (Hope, 1842) is considered to be a good subspecies of C. regalis. C. bouvieri crampeli (Alluaud, 1915) is removed from C. bouvieri, and transferred to C. reflexus (Fabricius, 1781) in the C. reflexus species group (Häckel 2016). In this group C. uelensis Burgeon, 1930 is considered to be a subspecies of C. reflexus; and C. bozasi Alluaud, 1930 is synonymized with C. reflexus uelensis Burgeon, 1930. C. arnosti Häckel 2016 is synonymized with C. reflexus crampeli (Alluaud, 1915), C. ethmoides Alluaud, 1930 is synonymized with C. impictus (Boheman, 1848), and C. lebaudyi Alluaud, 1932 is synonymized with C. stanleyi Alluaud, 1930.

A review of genus-group names for darkling beetles in the family Tenebrionidae (Insecta: Coleoptera) is presented. A catalogue of 4122 nomenclaturally available genus-group names, representing 2307 valid genera (33 of which are extinct) and 761 valid subgenera, is given. For each name the author, date, page number, gender, type species, type fixation, current status, and first synonymy (when the name is a synonym) are provided. Genus-group names in this family are also recorded in a classification framework, along with data on the distribution of valid genera and subgenera within major biogeographical realms. A list of 535 unavailable genus-group names (e.g., incorrect subsequent spellings) is included. Notes on the date of publication of references cited herein are given, when known. The following genera and subgenera are made available for the first time: Anemiadena Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Cheirodes Gené, 1839), Armigena Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Nesogena Mäklin, 1863), Debeauxiella Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Hyperops Eschscholtz, 1831), Hyperopsis Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Hyperops Eschscholtz, 1831), Linio Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Nilio Latreille, 1802), Matthewsotys Bouchard & Bousquet, gen. nov., Neosolenopistoma Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Eurynotus W. Kirby, 1819), Paragena Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Nesogena Mäklin, 1863), Paulianaria Bouchard & Bousquet, gen. nov., Phyllechus Bouchard & Bousquet, gen. nov., Prorhytinota Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Rhytinota Eschscholtz, 1831), Pseudorozonia Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Rozonia Fairmaire, 1888), Pseudothinobatis Bouchard & Bousquet, gen. nov., Rhytinopsis Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Thalpophilodes Strand, 1942), Rhytistena Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Rhytinota Eschscholtz, 1831), Spinosdara Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Osdara Walker, 1858), Spongesmia Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Adesmia Fischer, 1822), and Zambesmia Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Adesmia Fischer, 1822). The names Adeps Gistel, 1857 and Adepsion Strand, 1917 syn. nov. [= Tetraphyllus Laporte & Brullé, 1831], Asyrmatus Canzoneri, 1959 syn. nov. [= Pystelops Gozis, 1910], Euzadenos Koch, 1956 syn. nov. [= Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834], Gondwanodilamus Kaszab, 1969 syn. nov. [= Conibius J.L. LeConte, 1851], Gyrinodes Fauvel, 1897 syn. nov. [= Nesotes Allard, 1876], Helopondrus Reitter, 1922 syn. nov. [= Horistelops Gozis, 1910], Hybonotus Dejean, 1834 syn. nov. [= Damatris Laporte, 1840], Iphthimera Reitter, 1916 syn. nov. [= Metriopus Solier, 1835], Lagriomima Pic, 1950 syn. nov. [= Neogria Borchmann, 1911], Orphelops Gozis, 1910 syn. nov. [= Nalassus Mulsant, 1854], Phymatium Billberg, 1820 syn. nov. [= Cryptochile Latreille, 1828], Prosoblapsia Skopin & Kaszab, 1978 syn. nov. [= Genoblaps Bauer, 1921], and Pseudopimelia Gebler, 1859 syn. nov. [= Lasiostola Dejean, 1834] are established as new synonyms (valid names in square brackets). Anachayus Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. is proposed as a replacement name for Chatanayus Ardoin, 1957, Genateropa Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. as a replacement name for Apterogena Ardoin, 1962, Hemipristula Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. as a replacement name for Hemipristis Kolbe, 1903, Kochotella Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. as a replacement name for Millotella Koch, 1962, Medvedevoblaps Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. as a replacement name for Protoblaps G.S. Medvedev, 1998, and Subpterocoma Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. is proposed as a replacement name for Pseudopimelia Motschulsky, 1860. Neoeutrapela Bousquet & Bouchard, 2013 is downgraded to a subgenus (stat. nov.) of Impressosora Pic, 1952. Anchomma J.L. LeConte, 1858 is placed in Stenosini: Dichillina (previously in Pimeliinae: Anepsiini); Entypodera Gerstaecker, 1871, Impressosora Pic, 1952 and Xanthalia Fairmaire, 1894 are placed in Lagriinae: Lagriini: Statirina (previously in Lagriinae: Lagriini: Lagriina); Loxostethus Triplehorn, 1962 is placed in Diaperinae: Diaperini: Diaperina (previously in Diaperinae: Diaperini: Adelinina); Periphanodes Gebien, 1943 is placed in Stenochiinae: Cnodalonini (previously in Tenebrioninae: Helopini); Zadenos Laporte, 1840 is downgraded to a subgenus (stat. nov.) of the older name Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834. The type species [placed in square brackets] of the following available genus-group names are designated for the first time: Allostrongylium Kolbe, 1896 [Allostrongylium silvestre Kolbe, 1896], Auristira Borchmann, 1916 [Auristira octocostata Borchmann, 1916], Blapidocampsia Pic, 1919 [Campsia pallidipes Pic, 1918], Cerostena Solier, 1836 [Cerostena deplanata Solier, 1836], Coracostira Fairmaire, 1899 [Coracostira armipes Fairmaire, 1899], Dischidus Kolbe, 1886 [Helops sinuatus Fabricius, 1801], Eccoptostoma Gebien, 1913 [Taraxides ruficrus Fairmaire, 1894], Ellaemus Pascoe, 1866 [Emcephalus submaculatus Brême, 1842], Epeurycaulus Kolbe, 1902 [Epeurycaulus aldabricus Kolbe, 1902], Euschatia Solier, 1851 [Euschatia proxima Solier, 1851], Heliocaes Bedel, 1906 [Blaps emarginata Fabricius, 1792], Hemipristis Kolbe, 1903 [Hemipristis ukamia Kolbe, 1903], Iphthimera Reitter, 1916 [Stenocara ruficornis Solier, 1835], Isopedus Stein, 1877 [Helops tenebrioides Germar, 1813], Malacova Fairmaire, 1898 [Malacova bicolor Fairmaire, 1898], Modicodisema Pic, 1917 [Disema subopaca Pic, 1912], Peltadesmia Kuntzen, 1916 [Metriopus platynotus Gerstaecker, 1854], Phymatium Billberg, 1820 [Pimelia maculata Fabricius, 1781], Podoces Péringuey, 1886 [Podoces granosula Péringuey, 1886], Pseuduroplatopsis Pic, 1913 [Borchmannia javana Pic, 1913], Pteraulus Solier, 1848 [Pteraulus sulcatipennis Solier, 1848], Sciaca Solier, 1835 [Hylithus disctinctus Solier, 1835], Sterces Champion, 1891 [Sterces violaceipennis Champion, 1891] and Teremenes Carter, 1914 [Tenebrio longipennis Hope, 1843]. Evidence suggests that some type species were misidentified. In these instances, information on the misidentification is provided and, in the following cases, the taxonomic species actually involved is fixed as the type species [placed in square brackets] following requirements in Article 70.3 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Accanthopus Dejean, 1821 [Tenebrio velikensis Piller & Mitterpacher, 1783], Becvaramarygmus Masumoto, 1999 [Dietysus nodicornis Gravely, 1915], Heterophaga Dejean, 1834 [Opatrum laevigatum Fabricius, 1781], Laena Dejean, 1821, [Scaurus viennensis Sturm, 1807], Margus Dejean, 1834 [Colydium castaneum Herbst, 1797], Pachycera Eschscholtz, 1831 [Tenebrio buprestoides Fabricius, 1781], Saragus Erichson, 1842 [Celibe costata Solier, 1848], Stene Stephens, 1829 [Colydium castaneum Herbst, 1797], Stenosis Herbst, 1799 [Tagenia intermedia Solier, 1838] and Tentyriopsis Gebien, 1928 [Tentyriopsis pertyi Gebien, 1940]. The following First Reviser actions are proposed to fix the precedence of names or nomenclatural acts (rejected name or act in square brackets): Stenosis ciliaris Gebien, 1920 as the type species for Afronosis G.S. Medvedev, 1995 [Stenosis leontjevi G.S. Medvedev, 1995], Alienoplonyx Bremer, 2019 [Alienolonyx], Amblypteraca Mas-Peinado, Buckley, Ruiz & García-París, 2018 [Amplypteraca], Caenocrypticoides Kaszab, 1969 [Caenocripticoides], Deriles Motschulsky, 1872 [Derilis], Eccoptostira Borchmann, 1936 [Ecoptostira], †Eodromus Haupt, 1950 [†Edromus], Eutelus Solier, 1843 [Lutelus], Euthriptera Reitter, 1893 [Enthriptera], Meglyphus Motschulsky, 1872 [Megliphus], Microtelopsis Koch, 1940 [Extetranosis Koch, 1940, Hypermicrotelopsis Koch, 1940], Neandrosus Pic, 1921 [Neoandrosus], Nodosogylium Pic, 1951 [Nodosogilium], Notiolesthus Motschulsky, 1872 [Notiolosthus], Pseudeucyrtus Pic, 1916 [Pseudocyrtus], Pseudotrichoplatyscelis Kaszab, 1960 [Pseudotrichoplatynoscelis and Pseudotrichoplatycelis], Rhydimorpha Koch, 1943 [Rhytimorpha], Rhophobas Motschulsky, 1872 [Rophobas], Rhyssochiton Gray, 1831 [Ryssocheton and Ryssochiton], Sphaerotidius Kaszab, 1941 [Spaerotidius], Stira Agassiz, 1846 (Mollusca) [Stira Agassiz, 1846 (Coleoptera)], Sulpiusoma Ferrer, 2006 [Sulpiosoma] and Taenobates Motschulsky, 1872 [Taeniobates]. Supporting evidence is provided for the conservation of usage of Cyphaleus Westwood, 1841 nomen protectum over Chrysobalus Boisduval, 1835 nomen oblitum.

Este artigo apresenta esquema didático e crítico, a partir do Método de Marx, das teorias Positivistas, Funcionalistas, Estruturalistas e Pós-Modernistas. Conclui que a dialética, a contradição e a totalidade permitem compreender que a educação e o ensino são determinados pelas condições de produção e distribuição, sem que essa suposição signifique uma posição mecânica, imobilistica ou idealista. As possibilidades de pesquisa, neste método, são a investigação sobre a distribuição e circulação do conhecimento e, também, a luta por uma escola universal que leve à crítica da realidade concreta.REFERÊNCIASANDERSON, Perry. Neoliberalismo: un balance provisório. In. SADER, Emir. GENTILI, Pablo. La Trama del Neoliberalismo. Mercado, crisis y exclusión social. Buenos Aires: Clacso, 2003. p. 11-18BOURDIEU, Pierre. A escola conservadora: as desigualdades frente à escola e à cultura. In:NOGUEIRA, Maria Alice; CATANI, Afrânio (orgs). Escritos de educação. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 1998, p. 39-64BRECHT, Bertolt. (1955). A Vida de Galileu. São Paulo: Abril Cultural, 1977BURTT, Edwin A. As bases metafísicas da ciência moderna. Tradução: José Viegas Filho. Orlando Araújo Henriques. Editora Universidade de Brasília, 1983CHASIN, J. Marx: estatuto ontológico e resolução metodológica. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2009COUTINHO, Carlos Nelson. O Estruturalismo e a Miséria da Razão. São Paulo: Expressão Popular, 2010DESCARTES, René. (1637). Discurso do Método. Tradução : Maria Ermantina Galvão. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2001.DILTHEY, Wilhelm. (1883). A construção do mundo histórico nas ciências humanas. Tradução : Marcos Casanova. São Paulo : Editora UNESP, 2010.DOSSE, François. História do Estruturalismo. O campo do signo, 1945/1966. Campinas, SP: Editora da Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 1993DURKHEIM, Émile. (1922). Educação e Sociologia. Tradução: Stephania Matousek. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2011 EAGLETON, Terry. Ideologia. São Paulo: Editora da Universidade Estadual Paulista: Editora Boitempo, 1997FREDERICO, Celso. O jovem Marx. 1843-1844: as origens da ontologia do ser social. São Paulo: Expressão Popular, 2009GIL, Rosa María Cifuentes. Diseño de proyectos de investigación cualitativa. Buenos Aires: NOVEDUC, 2014HEGEL, G.W.F. (1820) Linhas Fundamentais da Filosofia do Direito ou Direito Natural e Ciência do Estado em Compêndio. Tradução: Marcos L. Müller. Analytica, Vol 1, N.01, 1994HOUAISS. Antônio. Novo Dicionário Houaiss da Língua Portuguesa. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Objetiva, 2001JAPIASSU, Hilton. Introdução ao pensamento epistemológico. Rio de Janeiro: F. Alves, 1934KANT, Immanuel. (1781) Crítica da razão pura. Tradução: Manuela Pinto dos Santos. Alexandre Fradique Morujão. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 2001KONDER, Leandro. O que é dialética. Brasiliense, 1990KOSIK, Karel (1961). Tradução: Célia Neves. Alderico Toríbio. Dialética do Concreto. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2002LUKÁCS, György. (1972) Ontologia do Ser Social I. Os Princípios Ontológicos Fundamentais de Marx. Tradução: Carlos Nelson Coutinho. São Paulo: Livraria Editora Ciências Humanas LTDA, S/DMARX, Karl. (1859). Para a crítica da economia política. Do capital. O rendimento e suas fontes. Tradução: Edgard Malagodi. São Paulo: Editora Nova Cultural, 1999MARX, Karl. ENGELS, Friedrich (1846). A ideologia alemã. Tradução: Rubens Enderle. Nélio Schneider. Luciano Cavini Martorano. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2014 MARX, Karl. ENGELS, Friedrich (1848). Manifesto do Partido Comunista. Tradução: José Barata-Moura e Francisco Melo. Lisboa: Editorial Avante, 1997MARX, Karl. (1847) A miséria da Filosofia. Tradução: José Paulo Netto. São Paulo: Global, 1985MARX, Karl. ENGELS, Friedrich. Critique de l’éducationet de l’einsegnement. Introduction, traductionet notes de Roger Dangeville. In. DANGEVILLE. Roger. Une anthólogie de Marx-Engels surl’éducation, l’einsegnement et la formatión professionnelle. Librairie François Maspero: Paris, 1976MORROW, Raymond Allen. TORRES, Carlos Alberto. Teoria social e educação. Uma crítica das teorias da Reprodução Social e Cultural. Porto, Portugal: Editora Afrontamento, 1997.SAUSSURE, Ferdinand. (1910). Curso de Linguística Geral. Tradução: Antônio Chelini. José Paulo Paes. Izidoro Blikstein. São Paulo: Cultrix, 2010.SAUTU, Ruth. BONIOLO, Paula. DALLE, Pablo. ELBERT, Rodolfo. Manual de metodología. Contrucción del marco teórico, formulación de los objetivos y elección de la metodología. Buenos Aires: Prometeo Libros, 2010VYGOTSKI, Lev. S. (1931) Obras Escogidas. Tomo III. Tradução: José María Bravo: Madri: Visor, 2000Recebido em 05-05-2018/ Aceito em 10-08-2018.

Résumé Très rapidement oubliés par les administrateurs de la colonie dans les savanes de l’ouest, au milieu de leurs troupeaux de bovins et de leurs parcs à tortue, les quelque 40 familles acadiennes, venues de l’Isle-Madame, de Saint-Pierre-du-Nord, de Rivière-du-Moulin-à-Scie, installées en Guyane dans les quartiers de Kourou, de Sinnamary et d’Iracoubo, à la suite du désastre de l’expédition de Kourou de 1764, ont été tenues à l’écart des projets de développement économique de la Guyane qui allaient concerner les Terres-Basses de l’Est, les grands domaines des quartiers les plus proches de Cayenne. Ce désintérêt, devenu pratiquement total à la suite du décès du gouverneur Jacau de Fiedmond en décembre 1781, aura probablement servi leur projet d’installation, sur des bases de rapprochement familial, de mariage des enfants et de remariage rapide des veufs et des veuves, jusqu’aux époques plus troublées de la Révolution française (1789), de la première abolition de l’esclavage (1794), des déportations de révolutionnaires (1794–1798) et de l’occupation portugaise de la Guyane (1809–1817). Une lecture ethnologique des caractéristiques de cette « société d’habitation », fondée sur des éléments d’ethnohistoire et sur des données généalogiques, vient confirmer la capacité des marges à structurer des relations autonomes et originales avec les centres de pouvoir, politiques ou économiques. On peut même se risquer à entrevoir l’influence de pratiques — dont on pourrait abusivement dire qu’elles sont déjà devenues « traditionnelles » en Acadie — dans l’organisation de la pêche à la tortue, de la pêche et de la navigation côtière, dans l’organisation spatiale des habitations le long du littoral, etc. Mais une société parallèle, en marge, se met nécessairement en marge d’un système existant ou en voie de constitution — ici une « société d’habitation » — sur la base d’une appropriation séparée de l’espace, de l’histoire immédiate, de la quotidienneté, que nous avons appelé ailleurs localisme, qui constitue dès lors sa force en cas de besoin de résistance à des pressions extérieures.

In the last decade of the 18th century, the Danish state experienced a period of prosperity, which was characterized by a German-Danish cultural transfer in all intellectual fields. The first clouds were cast by the rise of an artistic self-confidence. Asmus Jacob Carstens from Schleswig and Ernst Meyer from Altona, who felt disadvantaged in the awarding of medals and protested vehemently, were expelled from the art academy in Copenhagen in 1781 and 1821. Nevertheless, the Copenhagen Art Academy had a strong attraction for numerous artists from northern Germany. In this respect, Caspar David Friedrich, Philipp Otto Runge and Georg Friedrich Kersting are primarily worthy of mention. The Danish sculptor Bertel Thorvaldsen was a strong link between the Germans and Scandinavians living in Rome throughout his life. The first cracks in the good bilateral relationship came with the strengthening of the national liberal movements. In 1842, the influential teacher at the Copenhagen Art Academy, N.L. Høyen, drew up a program aimed at repressing influences from abroad, especially from Germany. Not all artists heeded Høyens call for a return to national themes of history, folk life, and nature, so that two groups confronted each other in Denmark: the nationalists and the Europeans. With the German-Danish War of 1848/51 there was a rift, and with the war of 1864 the final break. Only after twenty years did the academies of Copenhagen and Berlin resume contact. From 1883 onwards, there were reciprocal visits, which led to Danish artists once again taking part in representative exhibitions in Berlin or Munich. Conversely, however, German artists were denied participation in exhibitions in Copenhagen, an exception being the International Art Exhibition on the inauguration of the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen in 1897. A spirit freed from all academic constraints also emanated from the artist colonies in Europe. In particular, the works of the Skagen painters were enthusiastically celebrated at exhibitions in Munich and Berlin, which led to some German painters traveling to the Danish artists' colony, where they were received without prejudice. However, at no time was there a balance in the official acceptance and appreciation of the art of the respective neighbouring country. While painters such as Michael Ancher and Peder Severin Krøyer sold works to renowned collectors and museums in Germany, no Danish Museum acquired the work of a German artist during the period under study. The Berlin painter Walter Leistikow, who was married to a Danish woman, worked hard to stimulate a German-Danish art transfer and succeeded in getting the leading Danish gallery owner Valdemar Kleis to offer German painters the opportunity to exhibit in Copenhagen for the first time in 1894, most of whom belonged to the group Die XI, a precursor of the Berlin Secession. The appreciation of the Skagen painters was replaced at the turn of the century by admiration works by F.J. Willumsen and Vilhelm Hammershøj. Hammershøj filled a room of his own at the Great Berlin Art Exhibition in 1900 with 14 works, and the Schulte Gallery in Berli While German admiration for Danish art peaked between 1890 and 1900, people in Denmark continued to look past the German art scene. This was also experienced by the artists' group Die Brücke, which sought foreign members soon after its founding. When Kleis presented works by the Brücke artists in Copenhagen in 1908, they too received only negative reviews. In March 1910, the time seemed ripe for a change of mood. The Berlin gallery owner Herwarth Walden strove to make his Sturm-Galerie a rallying point for the European modernist art movements. In July 1912, he rented the exhibition building of the secessionist group Den Frie in Copenhagen and held an exhibition of Italian Futurists there. When Walden was celebrated by the Danish press as a cosmopolitan who had brought modernism to Copenhagen, he showed works by the French Henri le Fauconier and Raoul Dufy, as well as the painters Marianne von Werefkin and Gabriele Münter, but the tenor of the press was again dominated by anti-German resentment. After the outbreak of World War I, Walden allowed himself to be abused by the German propaganda department of the German Secret and Intelligence Service, which strove to correct the image of Germans abroad as cultural barbarians. Walden showed works by Kandinsky, Klee, Kokoschka, Marc, and again Gabriele Münter at the Copenhagen artists’ cabaret Edderkoppen in the fall of 1917. He also planned an exhibition of Danish avant-garde in his Sturm Gallery in Berlin, but the artists had become suspicious in the face of German propaganda, which was celebrating a last military success. The exhibition was canceled. This did not prevent Walden from organizing an exhibition at Kleis’ art shop in Copenhagen shortly before the end of the war, under the guise of internationalism. This was Walden's largest and most ambitious project in Scandinavia. Of the 133 works exhibited, almost half came from Germany. The attempt to convince the Danes of the excellence of German art failed miserably, because the basic conviction was still: Everything that comes from Germany is bad. The opening took place on November 28 and ended on December 16, 1918, by which time the war was already over.

More than 4700 nominal family-group names (including names for fossils and ichnotaxa) are nomenclaturally available in the order Coleoptera. Since each family-group name is based on the concept of its type genus, we argue that the stability of names used for the classification of beetles depends on accurate nomenclatural data for each type genus. Following a review of taxonomic literature, with a focus on works that potentially contain type species designations, we provide a synthesis of nomenclatural data associated with the type genus of each nomenclaturally available family-group name in Coleoptera. For each type genus the author(s), year of publication, and page number are given as well as its current status (i.e., whether treated as valid or not) and current classification. Information about the type species of each type genus and the type species fixation (i.e., fixed originally or subsequently, and if subsequently, by whom) is also given. The original spelling of the family-group name that is based on each type genus is included, with its author(s), year, and stem. We append a list of nomenclaturally available family-group names presented in a classification scheme. Because of the importance of the Principle of Priority in zoological nomenclature, we provide information on the date of publication of the references cited in this work, when known. Several nomenclatural issues emerged during the course of this work. We therefore appeal to the community of coleopterists to submit applications to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (henceforth “Commission”) in order to permanently resolve some of the problems outlined here. The following changes of authorship for type genera are implemented here (these changes do not affect the concept of each type genus): CHRYSOMELIDAE: Fulcidax Crotch, 1870 (previously credited to “Clavareau, 1913”); CICINDELIDAE: Euprosopus W.S. MacLeay, 1825 (previously credited to “Dejean, 1825”); COCCINELLIDAE: Alesia Reiche, 1848 (previously credited to “Mulsant, 1850”); CURCULIONIDAE: Arachnopus Boisduval, 1835 (previously credited to “Guérin-Méneville, 1838”); ELATERIDAE: Thylacosternus Gemminger, 1869 (previously credited to “Bonvouloir, 1871”); EUCNEMIDAE: Arrhipis Gemminger, 1869 (previously credited to “Bonvouloir, 1871”), Mesogenus Gemminger, 1869 (previously credited to “Bonvouloir, 1871”); LUCANIDAE: Sinodendron Hellwig, 1791 (previously credited to “Hellwig, 1792”); PASSALIDAE: Neleides Harold, 1868 (previously credited to “Kaup, 1869”), Neleus Harold, 1868 (previously credited to “Kaup, 1869”), Pertinax Harold, 1868 (previously credited to “Kaup, 1869”), Petrejus Harold, 1868 (previously credited to “Kaup, 1869”), Undulifer Harold, 1868 (previously credited to “Kaup, 1869”), Vatinius Harold, 1868 (previously credited to “Kaup, 1869”); PTINIDAE: Mezium Leach, 1819 (previously credited to “Curtis, 1828”); PYROCHROIDAE: Agnathus Germar, 1818 (previously credited to “Germar, 1825”); SCARABAEIDAE: Eucranium Dejean, 1833 (previously “Brullé, 1838”). The following changes of type species were implemented following the discovery of older type species fixations (these changes do not pose a threat to nomenclatural stability): BOLBOCERATIDAE: Bolbocerus bocchus Erichson, 1841 for Bolbelasmus Boucomont, 1911 (previously Bolboceras gallicum Mulsant, 1842); BUPRESTIDAE: Stigmodera guerinii Hope, 1843 for Neocuris Saunders, 1868 (previously Anthaxia fortnumi Hope, 1846), Stigmodera peroni Laporte & Gory, 1837 for Curis Laporte & Gory, 1837 (previously Buprestis caloptera Boisduval, 1835); CARABIDAE: Carabus elatus Fabricius, 1801 for Molops Bonelli, 1810 (previously Carabus terricola Herbst, 1784 sensu Fabricius, 1792); CERAMBYCIDAE: Prionus palmatus Fabricius, 1792 for Macrotoma Audinet-Serville, 1832 (previously Prionus serripes Fabricius, 1781); CHRYSOMELIDAE: Donacia equiseti Fabricius, 1798 for Haemonia Dejean, 1821 (previously Donacia zosterae Fabricius, 1801), Eumolpus ruber Latreille, 1807 for Euryope Dalman, 1824 (previously Cryptocephalus rubrifrons Fabricius, 1787), Galeruca affinis Paykull, 1799 for Psylliodes Latreille, 1829 (previously Chrysomela chrysocephala Linnaeus, 1758); COCCINELLIDAE: Dermestes rufus Herbst, 1783 for Coccidula Kugelann, 1798 (previously Chrysomela scutellata Herbst, 1783); CRYPTOPHAGIDAE: Ips caricis G.-A. Olivier, 1790 for Telmatophilus Heer, 1841 (previously Cryptophagus typhae Fallén, 1802), Silpha evanescens Marsham, 1802 for Atomaria Stephens, 1829 (previously Dermestes nigripennis Paykull, 1798); CURCULIONIDAE: Bostrichus cinereus Herbst, 1794 for Crypturgus Erichson, 1836 (previously Bostrichus pusillus Gyllenhal, 1813); DERMESTIDAE: Dermestes trifasciatus Fabricius, 1787 for Attagenus Latreille, 1802 (previously Dermestes pellio Linnaeus, 1758); ELATERIDAE: Elater sulcatus Fabricius, 1777 for Chalcolepidius Eschscholtz, 1829 (previously Chalcolepidius zonatus Eschscholtz, 1829); ENDOMYCHIDAE: Endomychus rufitarsis Chevrolat, 1835 for Epipocus Chevrolat, 1836 (previously Endomychus tibialis Guérin-Méneville, 1834); EROTYLIDAE: Ips humeralis Fabricius, 1787 for Dacne Latreille, 1797 (previously Dermestes bipustulatus Thunberg, 1781); EUCNEMIDAE: Fornax austrocaledonicus Perroud & Montrouzier, 1865 for Mesogenus Gemminger, 1869 (previously Mesogenus mellyi Bonvouloir, 1871); GLAPHYRIDAE: Melolontha serratulae Fabricius, 1792 for Glaphyrus Latreille, 1802 (previously Scarabaeus maurus Linnaeus, 1758); HISTERIDAE: Hister striatus Forster, 1771 for Onthophilus Leach, 1817 (previously Hister sulcatus Moll, 1784); LAMPYRIDAE: Ototreta fornicata E. Olivier, 1900 for Ototreta E. Olivier, 1900 (previously Ototreta weyersi E. Olivier, 1900); LUCANIDAE: Lucanus cancroides Fabricius, 1787 for Lissotes Westwood, 1855 (previously Lissotes menalcas Westwood, 1855); MELANDRYIDAE: Nothus clavipes G.-A. Olivier, 1812 for Nothus G.-A. Olivier, 1812 (previously Nothus praeustus G.-A. Olivier, 1812); MELYRIDAE: Lagria ater Fabricius, 1787 for Enicopus Stephens, 1830 (previously Dermestes hirtus Linnaeus, 1767); NITIDULIDAE: Sphaeridium luteum Fabricius, 1787 for Cychramus Kugelann, 1794 (previously Strongylus quadripunctatus Herbst, 1792); OEDEMERIDAE: Helops laevis Fabricius, 1787 for Ditylus Fischer, 1817 (previously Ditylus helopioides Fischer, 1817 [sic]); PHALACRIDAE: Sphaeridium aeneum Fabricius, 1792 for Olibrus Erichson, 1845 (previously Sphaeridium bicolor Fabricius, 1792); RHIPICERIDAE: Sandalus niger Knoch, 1801 for Sandalus Knoch, 1801 (previously Sandalus petrophya Knoch, 1801); SCARABAEIDAE: Cetonia clathrata G.-A. Olivier, 1792 for Inca Lepeletier & Audinet-Serville, 1828 (previously Cetonia ynca Weber, 1801); Gnathocera vitticollis W. Kirby, 1825 for Gnathocera W. Kirby, 1825 (previously Gnathocera immaculata W. Kirby, 1825); Melolontha villosula Illiger, 1803 for Chasmatopterus Dejean, 1821 (previously Melolontha hirtula Illiger, 1803); STAPHYLINIDAE: Staphylinus politus Linnaeus, 1758 for Philonthus Stephens, 1829 (previously Staphylinus splendens Fabricius, 1792); ZOPHERIDAE: Hispa mutica Linnaeus, 1767 for Orthocerus Latreille, 1797 (previously Tenebrio hirticornis DeGeer, 1775). The discovery of type species fixations that are older than those currently accepted pose a threat to nomenclatural stability (an application to the Commission is necessary to address each problem): CANTHARIDAE: Malthinus Latreille, 1805, Malthodes Kiesenwetter, 1852; CARABIDAE: Bradycellus Erichson, 1837, Chlaenius Bonelli, 1810, Harpalus Latreille, 1802, Lebia Latreille, 1802, Pheropsophus Solier, 1834, Trechus Clairville, 1806; CERAMBYCIDAE: Callichroma Latreille, 1816, Callidium Fabricius, 1775, Cerasphorus Audinet-Serville, 1834, Dorcadion Dalman, 1817, Leptura Linnaeus, 1758, Mesosa Latreille, 1829, Plectromerus Haldeman, 1847; CHRYSOMELIDAE: Amblycerus Thunberg, 1815, Chaetocnema Stephens, 1831, Chlamys Knoch, 1801, Monomacra Chevrolat, 1836, Phratora Chevrolat, 1836, Stylosomus Suffrian, 1847; COLONIDAE: Colon Herbst, 1797; CURCULIONIDAE: Cryphalus Erichson, 1836, Lepyrus Germar, 1817; ELATERIDAE: Adelocera Latreille, 1829, Beliophorus Eschscholtz, 1829; ENDOMYCHIDAE: Amphisternus Germar, 1843, Dapsa Latreille, 1829; GLAPHYRIDAE: Anthypna Eschscholtz, 1818; HISTERIDAE: Hololepta Paykull, 1811, Trypanaeus Eschscholtz, 1829; LEIODIDAE: Anisotoma Panzer, 1796, Camiarus Sharp, 1878, Choleva Latreille, 1797; LYCIDAE: Calopteron Laporte, 1838, Dictyoptera Latreille, 1829; MELOIDAE: Epicauta Dejean, 1834; NITIDULIDAE: Strongylus Herbst, 1792; SCARABAEIDAE: Anisoplia Schönherr, 1817, Anticheira Eschscholtz, 1818, Cyclocephala Dejean, 1821, Glycyphana Burmeister, 1842, Omaloplia Schönherr, 1817, Oniticellus Dejean, 1821, Parachilia Burmeister, 1842, Xylotrupes Hope, 1837; STAPHYLINIDAE: Batrisus Aubé, 1833, Phloeonomus Heer, 1840, Silpha Linnaeus, 1758; TENEBRIONIDAE: Bolitophagus Illiger, 1798, Mycetochara Guérin-Méneville, 1827. Type species are fixed for the following nominal genera: ANTHRIBIDAE: Decataphanes gracilis Labram & Imhoff, 1840 for Decataphanes Labram & Imhoff, 1840; CARABIDAE: Feronia erratica Dejean, 1828 for Loxandrus J.L. LeConte, 1853; CERAMBYCIDAE: Tmesisternus oblongus Boisduval, 1835 for Icthyosoma Boisduval, 1835; CHRYSOMELIDAE: Brachydactyla annulipes Pic, 1913 for Pseudocrioceris Pic, 1916, Cassida viridis Linnaeus, 1758 for Evaspistes Gistel, 1856, Ocnoscelis cyanoptera Erichson, 1847 for Ocnoscelis Erichson, 1847, Promecotheca petelii Guérin-Méneville, 1840 for Promecotheca Guérin- Méneville, 1840; CLERIDAE: Attelabus mollis Linnaeus, 1758 for Dendroplanetes Gistel, 1856; CORYLOPHIDAE: Corylophus marginicollis J.L. LeConte, 1852 for Corylophodes A. Matthews, 1885; CURCULIONIDAE: Hoplorhinus melanocephalus Chevrolat, 1878 for Hoplorhinus Chevrolat, 1878; Sonnetius binarius Casey, 1922 for Sonnetius Casey, 1922; ELATERIDAE: Pyrophorus melanoxanthus Candèze, 1865 for Alampes Champion, 1896; PHYCOSECIDAE: Phycosecis litoralis Pascoe, 1875 for Phycosecis Pascoe, 1875; PTILODACTYLIDAE: Aploglossa sallei Guérin-Méneville, 1849 for Aploglossa Guérin-Méneville, 1849, Colobodera ovata Klug, 1837 for Colobodera Klug, 1837; PTINIDAE: Dryophilus anobioides Chevrolat, 1832 for Dryobia Gistel, 1856; SCARABAEIDAE: Achloa helvola Erichson, 1840 for Achloa Erichson, 1840, Camenta obesa Burmeister, 1855 for Camenta Erichson, 1847, Pinotus talaus Erichson, 1847 for Pinotus Erichson, 1847, Psilonychus ecklonii Burmeister, 1855 for Psilonychus Burmeister, 1855. New replacement name: CERAMBYCIDAE: Basorus Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. for Sobarus Harold, 1879. New status: CARABIDAE: KRYZHANOVSKIANINI Deuve, 2020, stat. nov. is given the rank of tribe instead of subfamily since our classification uses the rank of subfamily for PAUSSINAE rather than family rank; CERAMBYCIDAE: Amymoma Pascoe, 1866, stat. nov. is used as valid over Neoamymoma Marinoni, 1977, Holopterus Blanchard, 1851, stat. nov. is used as valid over Proholopterus Monné, 2012; CURCULIONIDAE: Phytophilus Schönherr, 1835, stat. nov. is used as valid over the unnecessary new replacement name Synophthalmus Lacordaire, 1863; EUCNEMIDAE: Nematodinus Lea, 1919, stat. nov. is used as valid instead of Arrhipis Gemminger, 1869, which is a junior homonym. Details regarding additional nomenclatural issues that still need to be resolved are included in the entry for each of these type genera: BOSTRICHIDAE: Lyctus Fabricius, 1792; BRENTIDAE: Trachelizus Dejean, 1834; BUPRESTIDAE: Pristiptera Dejean, 1833; CANTHARIDAE: Chauliognathus Hentz, 1830, Telephorus Schäffer, 1766; CARABIDAE: Calathus Bonelli, 1810, Cosnania Dejean, 1821, Dicrochile Guérin-Méneville, 1847, Epactius D.H. Schneider, 1791, Merismoderus Westwood, 1847, Polyhirma Chaudoir, 1850, Solenogenys Westwood, 1860, Zabrus Clairville, 1806; CERAMBYCIDAE: Ancita J. Thomson, 1864, Compsocerus Audinet-Serville, 1834, Dorcadodium Gistel, 1856, Glenea Newman, 1842; Hesperophanes Dejean, 1835, Neoclytus J. Thomson, 1860, Phymasterna Laporte, 1840, Tetrops Stephens, 1829, Zygocera Erichson, 1842; CHRYSOMELIDAE: Acanthoscelides Schilsky, 1905, Corynodes Hope, 1841, Edusella Chapuis, 1874; Hemisphaerota Chevrolat, 1836; Physonota Boheman, 1854, Porphyraspis Hope, 1841; CLERIDAE: Dermestoides Schäffer, 1777; COCCINELLIDAE: Hippodamia Chevrolat, 1836, Myzia Mulsant, 1846, Platynaspis L. Redtenbacher, 1843; CURCULIONIDAE: Coeliodes Schönherr, 1837, Cryptoderma Ritsema, 1885, Deporaus Leach, 1819, Epistrophus Kirsch, 1869, Geonemus Schönherr, 1833, Hylastes Erichson, 1836; DYTISCIDAE: Deronectes Sharp, 1882, Platynectes Régimbart, 1879; EUCNEMIDAE: Dirhagus Latreille, 1834; HYBOSORIDAE: Ceratocanthus A. White, 1842; HYDROPHILIDAE: Cyclonotum Erichson, 1837; LAMPYRIDAE: Luciola Laporte, 1833; LEIODIDAE: Ptomaphagus Hellwig, 1795; LUCANIDAE: Leptinopterus Hope, 1838; LYCIDAE: Cladophorus Guérin-Méneville, 1830, Mimolibnetis Kazantsev, 2000; MELOIDAE: Mylabris Fabricius, 1775; NITIDULIDAE: Meligethes Stephens, 1829; PTILODACTYLIDAE: Daemon Laporte, 1838; SCARABAEIDAE: Allidiostoma Arrow, 1940, Heterochelus Burmeister, 1844, Liatongus Reitter, 1892, Lomaptera Gory & Percheron, 1833, Megaceras Hope, 1837, Stenotarsia Burmeister, 1842; STAPHYLINIDAE: Actocharis Fauvel, 1871, Aleochara Gravenhorst, 1802; STENOTRACHELIDAE: Stenotrachelus Berthold, 1827; TENEBRIONIDAE: Cryptochile Latreille, 1828, Heliopates Dejean, 1834, Helops Fabricius, 1775. First Reviser actions deciding the correct original spelling: CARABIDAE: Aristochroodes Marcilhac, 1993 (not Aritochroodes); CERAMBYCIDAE: Dorcadodium Gistel, 1856 (not Dorcadodion), EVODININI Zamoroka, 2022 (not EVODINIINI); CHRYSOMELIDAE: Caryopemon Jekel, 1855 (not Carpopemon), Decarthrocera Laboissière, 1937 (not Decarthrocerina); CICINDELIDAE: Odontocheila Laporte, 1834 (not Odontacheila); CLERIDAE: CORMODINA Bartlett, 2021 (not CORMODIINA), Orthopleura Spinola, 1845 (not Orthoplevra, not Orthopleuva); CURCULIONIDAE: Arachnobas Boisduval, 1835 (not Arachnopus), Palaeocryptorhynchus Poinar, 2009 (not Palaeocryptorhynus); DYTISCIDAE: Ambarticus Yang et al., 2019 and AMBARTICINI Yang et al., 2019 (not Ambraticus, not AMBRATICINI); LAMPYRIDAE: Megalophthalmus G.R. Gray, 1831 (not Megolophthalmus, not Megalopthalmus); SCARABAEIDAE: Mentophilus Laporte, 1840 (not Mintophilus, not Minthophilus), Pseudadoretus dilutellus Semenov, 1889 (not P. ditutellus). While the correct identification of the type species is assumed, in some cases evidence suggests that species were misidentified when they were fixed as the type of a particular nominal genus. Following the requirements of Article 70.3.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature we hereby fix the following type species (which in each case is the taxonomic species actually involved in the misidentification): ATTELABIDAE: Rhynchites cavifrons Gyllenhal, 1833 for Lasiorhynchites Jekel, 1860; BOSTRICHIDAE: Ligniperda terebrans Pallas, 1772 for Apate Fabricius, 1775; BRENTIDAE: Ceocephalus appendiculatus Boheman, 1833 for Uroptera Berthold, 1827; BUPRESTIDAE: Buprestis undecimmaculata Herbst, 1784 for Ptosima Dejean, 1833; CARABIDAE: Amara lunicollis Schiødte, 1837 for Amara Bonelli, 1810, Buprestis connexus Geoffroy, 1785 for Polistichus Bonelli, 1810, Carabus atrorufus Strøm, 1768 for Patrobus Dejean, 1821, Carabus gigas Creutzer, 1799 for Procerus Dejean, 1821, Carabus teutonus Schrank, 1781 for Stenolophus Dejean, 1821, Carenum bonellii Westwood, 1842 for Carenum Bonelli, 1813, Scarites picipes G.-A. Olivier, 1795 for Acinopus Dejean, 1821, Trigonotoma indica Brullé, 1834 for Trigonotoma Dejean, 1828; CERAMBYCIDAE: Cerambyx lusitanus Linnaeus, 1767 for Exocentrus Dejean, 1835, Clytus supernotatus Say, 1824 for Psenocerus J.L. LeConte, 1852; CICINDELIDAE: Ctenostoma jekelii Chevrolat, 1858 for Ctenostoma Klug, 1821; CURCULIONIDAE: Cnemogonus lecontei Dietz, 1896 for Cnemogonus J.L. LeConte, 1876; Phloeophagus turbatus Schönherr, 1845 for Phloeophagus Schönherr, 1838; GEOTRUPIDAE: Lucanus apterus Laxmann, 1770 for Lethrus Scopoli, 1777; HISTERIDAE: Hister rugiceps Duftschmid, 1805 for Hypocaccus C.G. Thomson, 1867; HYBOSORIDAE: Hybosorus illigeri Reiche, 1853 for Hybosorus W.S. MacLeay, 1819; HYDROPHILIDAE: Hydrophilus melanocephalus G.-A. Olivier, 1793 for Enochrus C.G. Thomson, 1859; MYCETAEIDAE: Dermestes subterraneus Fabricius, 1801 for Mycetaea Stephens, 1829; SCARABAEIDAE: Aulacium carinatum Reiche, 1841 for Mentophilus Laporte, 1840, Phanaeus vindex W.S. MacLeay, 1819 for Phanaeus W.S. MacLeay, 1819, Ptinus germanus Linnaeus, 1767 for Rhyssemus Mulsant, 1842, Scarabaeus latipes Guérin-Méneville, 1838 for Cheiroplatys Hope, 1837; STAPHYLINIDAE: Scydmaenus tarsatus P.W.J. Müller & Kunze, 1822 for Scydmaenus Latreille, 1802. New synonyms: CERAMBYCIDAE: CARILIINI Zamoroka, 2022, syn. nov. of ACMAEOPINI Della Beffa, 1915, DOLOCERINI Özdikmen, 2016, syn. nov. of BRACHYPTEROMINI Sama, 2008, PELOSSINI Tavakilian, 2013, syn. nov. of LYGRINI Sama, 2008, PROHOLOPTERINI Monné, 2012, syn. nov. of HOLOPTERINI Lacordaire, 1868.

En este trabajo hacemos una revisión sobre qué entendían los primeros economistas políticos españoles por felicidad, examinando el papel que jugaba ésta en su pensamiento en relación a la riqueza. En su etapa como catedrático interino de Economía Política en la Real Sociedad Económica de Amigos del País de Madrid en 1816, Julián de Luna y de la Peña comprendería esta noción de forma congruente con la Economía Clásica. Su paso por la Económica en Badajoz, el destierro durante la Década Ominosa, y su posterior trayectoria política tras abandonar la Cátedra de Agricultura de la Real Sociedad Económica Extremeña de Amigos del País en 1836, motivarían que su liberalismo se radicalizase hacia una comprensión subjetiva de la felicidad que no encajaba bajo la noción de riqueza clásica. El vínculo que establece Luna entre la riqueza y la felicidad sería la base de la argumentación de su crítica a los principios de los economistas, sobre lo cual construiría un particular sistema de organización del trabajo de influencia fourierista. Palabras Clave: felicidad, pensamiento económico español, crítica a la economía clásica, socialismo utópicoTopónimos: EspañaPeríodo: siglo XIX ABSTRACTThis paper reviews what the first Spanish political economists understood by happiness, examining the role played by the latter in their thinking in relation to wealth. During his time as interim professor of Political Economy at Madrid’s Real Sociedad Económica de Amigos del País in 1816, Julián de Luna y de la Peña interpreted this notion in a manner consistent with Classical Economics. His time at the Sociedad Económica de Amigos del País in Badajoz, his exile during the Década Ominosa, and his subsequent political career after leaving the Chair of Agriculture of the Real Sociedad Económica Extremeña de Amigos del País in 1836, prompted a radicalisation of his liberalism towards a subjective understanding of happiness that was not compatible with the classical notion of wealth. The link that Luna establishes between wealth and happiness would be the basis of the reasoning behind his criticism of the principles of the economists, upon which he would build a particular system of organization of work of Fourierist influence.Keywords: happiness, Spanish economic thought, criticism of classical economics, utopian socialismToponyms: SpainPeriod: 19th century REFERENCIASAlmenar, S. (1997), “Los primeros economistas clásicos y la industrialización”, en A. Estruch y G. Bel (coords.), Industrialización en España, entusiasmo, desencantos y rechazos: ensayos en homenaje al profesor Fabián Estapé, Madrid, Civitas, pp. 139-166.— (2000), “Álvaro Flórez Estrada y la economía política clásica”, en E. Fuentes Quintana (coord.), Economía y economistas españoles: La economía clásica, Barcelona, Galaxia Gutenberg, vol. IV, pp. 369-411.Barnosell, G. (2008), “Entre el liberalismo y el saint-simonismo: J. Andrew de Covert-Spring”, en M. Suárez (ed.), Utopías, quimeras y desencantos. El universo utópico de la España liberal, Santander, Universidad de Cantabria, pp. 113-158.Beecher, J. y Bienvenu, R. (1971), The utopian visión of Charles Fourier. Selected Texts on Work, Love and Passionate Attraction Traslated, Edited, and with an Introduction by Jonathan Beecher y Richard Bienvenu, Boston, Beacon Press.Bruni, L. (2006), Civil happiness: economics and human flourishing in historical perspective, London and New York, Routledge.Cardoso, J. L. (1997), Pensar a Economia em Portugal: disgressões históricas, Algés, Difel.Cortijo, E. (2017), “Biografía de Julián de Luna”, en E. Cortijo (ed.) Economía Política, Badajoz, Diputación de Badajoz, pp. 15-140.Covert-Spring, J. A. (1999), Escritos Saint-Simonianos (edición y estudio preliminar de A. Sánchez Hormigo), Madrid, Instituto de Estudios Fiscales.Cruz, E. (2017), “Un economista extremeño entre la reforma y la utopía. Julián de Luna y de la Peña”, Revista de Historia de las Vegas Altas, 10, pp. 62-74.— (2020), Ensayos críticos en Historia del Pensamiento Económico: la evolución de las instituciones capitalistas a través de tres proyectos radicales, Universidad de Extremadura, tesis doctoral.Cruz, E., Parejo, F. M. y Rangel, J. F. (2019), “El reformismo pragmático del primer catedrático de Economía Política extremeño Julián de Luna y de la Peña”, Baética: Estudios de arte, geografía e historia, 39, pp. 349-367.— (2020), “Valor, Riqueza y Felicidad en una crítica fourierista de la Economía Clásica: las singularidades de Julián de Luna”, Investigaciones históricas: Época moderna y contemporánea, 40, 419-446.Easterlin, R. (1973), “Does money buy happiness?”, The public interest, 30, pp. 3-10.Elorza, A. (1970), Socialismo utópico español, Madrid, Alianza Editorial.— (1975), El fourierismo en España, Madrid, Ediciones de la revista de trabajo.Engels, F. (1880 [2001]), Del socialismo utópico al socialismo científico, Buenos Aires, Editorial Agora.Estapé, F. (1990), Introducción al pensamiento económico: una perspectiva española, Madrid, Espasa-Calpe.Flórez, A. (1810 [1812]), Examen imparcial de las disensiones de la América con la España, de los medios de su reconciliación y de la prosperidad de todas las Naciones, Cádiz, Imp. de D. Manuel Ximenez Carreño.— (1828 [1980]), Curso de Economía Política (edición y estudio preliminar de Salvador Almenar), Madrid, Instituto de Estudios Fiscales.Fourier, C. (1829), Le nouveau monde industriel et sociétaire ou invention du procédé d'industrie attrayante et naturelle distribuée en séries passionnées, París, Bossagne Père.— (1841-1848), Ouvres completes, París, imp. L. Sainte-Agathe.Fuentes Quintana, E. (2000), “Una aproximación al pensamiento económico de Jovellanos a través de las funciones del Estado”, en E. Fuentes Quintana (coord.), Economía y economistas españoles: La Ilustración, Barcelona, Galaxia Gutenberg, vol. III, pp. 331-420.Gide, C. y Rist, C. (1927), Historia de las doctrinas económicas, Madrid, Editorial Reus.Heilbroner, R. (1981 [2015]), Los filósofos terrenales, Madrid, Alianza Editorial.Hernández, J. y Tortorella, G. (2017), “El liberalismo de Jean Baptiste Say, sus discípulos y la Economía Política en España”, Empresa y Humanismo, 20 (1), pp.7-34.Jaumeandreu, E. (1816), Rudimentos de Economía Política, Barcelona, oficina de D. Antonio Brusi.— (1836), Curso Elemental de Economía Política con aplicación a la legislación económica de España, Barcelona, imp. de Gaspar.Jovellanos, G. M. (1781 [2008]), “Discurso dirigido a la Sociedad de Amigos del País de Asturias sobre los medios de promover la felicidad de aquel principado”, en V. Llombart y J. Ocampo (eds.), Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos Obras Completas Escritos económicos, Barcelona, Crítica, vol. X.— (1796-1797 [2012]), “Introducción a un discurso sobre la economía civil y la instrucción pública”, Revista Asturiana de Economía, 45, pp. 181-194.Lechevalier, J. (1834), Études sur la Science Sociale, París, Imp. de Cosson.Lida, C. (1972), Anarquismo y Revolución en la España del XIX, Madrid, Siglo XXI.— (1973), Antecedentes y desarrollo del movimiento obrero español (1835-1888). Textos y documentos, Madrid, Siglo XXI.Lluch, E. (2000), “Las historias nacionales del pensamiento económico y España”, en E. Fuentes Quintana (coord.) Economía y Economistas Españoles: Una introducción al pensamiento económico, Barcelona, Galaxia Gutenberg, vol. I, pp. 435-476.Lluch, E., Almenar, S. y Argemí, L. (1999), “Els industrialismes a Espanya: 1804-1850”, en M. Gutiérrez (coord.), Doctor Jordi Nadal: La industrialització i el desenvolupament econòmic D'Espanya, Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, vol. 2, pp. 1436-1454.López Castellano, F. (2006), “La enseñanza de la economía en la Universidad de Granada (1807-1936)”, Historia de la Educación, 25, pp. 379-400.— (2008), “La obra de Jean Baptiste Say como modelo en la primera etapa de la institucionalización de la enseñanza de la Economía en España (1807-1856)”, Investigaciones de Economía de la Educación, 3, pp. 479-487.Luna, J. (2017), Economía Política (edición revisada de E. Cortijo), Badajoz, Diputación de Badajoz.— (1816 [2017]), “Discurso en la inauguración de la Cátedra de Economía Política”, E. Cortijo (ed.), Economía Política, Badajoz, Diputación de Badajoz, pp. 469-478.— (1833 [2017]), “Discurso en defensa de la Cátedra de Agricultura”, E. Cortijo (ed.), Economía Política, Badajoz, Diputación de Badajoz, pp. 479-488.— (1842 [2017]), “Memoria que contiene una estadística sucinta de Vizcaya”. E. Cortijo (ed.), Economía Política, Badajoz, Diputación de Badajoz, pp. 509-546.Malo, J. L. (2008), “Utopía y economía liberal: de la armonía al conflicto social en los inicios del capitalismo español”, en M. Suárez (ed.), Utopías, quimeras y desencantos. El universo utópico de la España liberal, Santander, Universidad de Cantabria, pp. 191-220.Maluquer, J. (1977), El socialismo en España 1833-1868, Barcelona, Editorial Crítica.Martí, M. (2012), “El concepto de felicidad en el discurso económico de la Ilustración”, Cuadernos dieciochistas, 13, pp. 251-270.Martín, M. (1989), La institucionalización de los estudios de Economía Política en la Universidad Española (1784-1857). (Edición y estudio preliminar de Valle Elementos de Economía Política con aplicación particular a España, 1833, 2ª edición, Madrid, Instituto de Estudios Fiscales, pp. IX-CCXXXIV.Menudo, J. M. y O’Kean, J. M. (2019), “Ediciones, reimpresiones y traducciones en español del Tratado De Economía Política de Jean Baptiste Say”, Revista de Historia Economica-Journal of Iberian and Latin American Economic History, 37 (1), pp. 169-192.Morange, C. (2014), En los orígenes del moderantismo decimonónico. El Censor (1820-1822): promotores, doctrina e índice, Salamanca, Universidad de Salamanca.Ocampo, J. (2014), “Las Cortes de Cádiz: de la ‘felicidad pública’ al ‘interés particular’. La crisis de la utopía ilustrada”, Hispania, 74 (247), pp. 439-464.Parejo, F. M. y Cruz, E. (2018), “La ‘Cuestión Social’ en el Tratado de Economía Política de Julián de Luna y de la Peña”, Iberian Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 5 (1), pp. 1-15.Roca, J. (2014), “Democracia y federalismo internacional. Del exilio liberal italiano a los exaltados españoles”, en I. Fernández Sarasola (ed.), Constituciones en la sombra. Proyectos constitucionales españoles (1809-1823), Oviedo, In Itinere, pp. 97-144.Sagra, R. (1840), Lecciones de economía social: dadas en el Ateneo científico y literario de Madrid, Madrid, Imp. de Ferrer y compañía.Sánchez Hormigo, A. (2000a), “Fourieristas y cabetianos”, en E. Fuentes Quintana (coord.), Economía y economistas españoles: Las críticas a la economía clásica, Barcelona, Galaxia Gutenberg, vol. V, pp. 581-610.— (2000b), “El pensamiento saint-simoniano en España”, en E. Fuentes Quintana (coord.), Economía y economistas españoles: Las críticas a la economía clásica, Barcelona, Galaxia Gutenberg, vol. V, pp. 623-648.Sánchez Hormigo, A. y Malo, J. L. (2000), “La economía social de Ramón de la Sagra”, en E. Fuentes Quintana (coord.), Economía y economistas españoles: Las críticas a la economía clásica, Barcelona, Galaxia Gutenberg, vol. V, pp. 649-662.Schumpeter, J. A. (1954 [2012]), Historia del análisis económico, Barcelona, Ariel.Smith, A. (1776 [2011]), La riqueza de las naciones, Madrid, Alianza editorial.Torrente, M. (1835), Revista general de la Economía Política, La Habana, Imprenta de Jordan.Valle, F. G. (1833 [1989]), Elementos de Economía Política con aplicación particular a España (edición y estudio preliminar de M. Martín), Madrid, Instituto de Estudios Fiscales.Valle, E. M. (1842), Curso de Economía Política, Madrid, Imprenta del Colegio Nacional de Sordo-Mudos.Varela, J. (2007), Política y Constitución en España (1808-1978), Madrid, Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales.

The taxa of Cryptocephalinae (Clytrini), Synetinae and part of Galerucinae introduced by Carl Peter Thunberg are reviewed based on the examination of primary type specimens deposited in the Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University. The following taxonomic changes are proposed: Coptocephala unifasciata unifasciata (Scopoli, 1763) = Cryptocephalus melanocephalus Thunberg, 1787 syn. nov.; Melitonoma decemnotata (Thunberg, 1787) comb. nov. (from Cryptocephalus Geoffroy, 1762); Miopristis flexuosa (Thunberg, 1821) = Miopristis namaquensis Medvedev, 1993 syn. nov.; Protoclytra (Lacordairella) taeniata (Thunberg, 1821) comb. nov. (from Camptolenes Chevrolat, 1836) = Camptolenes fastuosa (Lacordaire, 1848) syn. nov.; Smeia undata (Thunberg, 1821) comb. nov. (from Miopristis Lacordaire, 1848) = Smeia virginea (Lacordaire, 1848) syn. nov. = Melitonoma pictipennis Jacoby, 1898 syn. nov.; Teinocera catenata (Thunberg, 1821) comb. nov. (from Miopristis) = Teinocera subclathrata (Lacordaire, 1848) syn. nov.; Exosoma lusitanica (Linnaeus, 1767) = Crioceris haemorrhoa Thunberg, 1827 syn. nov.; Megalognatha festiva (Fabricius, 1781) = Crioceris virens Thunberg, 1827 syn. nov.; Monolepta bioculata (Fabricius, 1781) = Cryptocephalus bioculatus Thunberg, 1827 syn. nov.; Monolepta melanogaster (Wiedemann, 1823) = Cryptocephalus capensis Thunberg, 1827 syn. nov.; Palaeophylia tricolor (Fabricius, 1781) = Crioceris tetrapuncta Thunberg, 1787 syn. nov. = Crioceris dimidiata Thunberg, 1827 syn. nov. Lectotypes are designated for Cryptocephalus bioculatus Thunberg, 1827 and Crioceris dimidiata Thunberg, 1827. Melitonoma decemnotata comb. nov. is redescribed. Labidostomis insidiosa Péringuey, 1888 is resurrected from synonymy with Teinocera catenata comb. nov. and provisionally placed as a valid species in the genus Miopristis Lacordaire, 1848. Crioceris betulina Thunberg, 1787 is proposed as nomen oblitum for Syneta betulae (Fabricius, 1792) (nomen protectum). Colour photographs of the type specimens of all taxa are provided.

Abstract Bernard Bolzano (1781–1848) is commonly thought to have attempted to develop a theory of size for infinite collections that follows the so-called part–whole principle, according to which the whole is always greater than any of its proper parts. In this paper, we develop a novel interpretation of Bolzano’s mature theory of the infinite and show that, contrary to mainstream interpretations, it is best understood as a theory of infinite sums. Our formal results show that Bolzano’s infinite sums can be equipped with the rich and original structure of a non-commutative ordered ring, and that Bolzano’s views on the mathematical infinite are, after all, consistent.

The first armed civilian unit in Banat was documented during the siege of the fortress of Timişoara in the year 1551. It was a detachment made up of 200 armed citizens, whose roots can be traced in the civil freedoms conferred through the privileges of the free royal borough by the Hungarian king Louis the Great, in the year 1364. After Banat was transformed into a Turkish pashalik, the Ottoman authorities maintained the tradition of paramilitary units recruited from among the civilian population. During the confrontations between the Austrians and the Ottomans, the Serbian and Serbian-Romanian units – and even one made up of Bulgarians –, documented in Szeged, Arad, Novi Sad, Vărădia de Mureş, Şoimoş, Păuliş, Glogovăţ-Vladimirescu, Pecica, Şemlacu, Nădlac, Cenad, Gyula, Ineu, Hălmagiu and Lugoj, went into the service of Austria. After the Peace Treaty of Passarowitz in 1718, in order to secure the southern borders of the recently occupied province, the governor of the province – the general Mercy Florymund – intended to move the Serbian troops from the former border on the Tisa-Mureş line towards the bank of the Danube. After the failure of the action, starting with the year 1724, the first units of border patrols were created, recruited from among the Romanians and Serbians from the Timişoara-Ciacova-Odzaci (Serbia) and Ohaba-Mâtnic areas. Between 1738-1739 we have information upon the participation of the Timişoara armed citizens’ guards to fights against the Turks and the Romanian rebels. Simultaneously, the Aulic Chamber and the private companies for the exploitation and processing of mineral resources (Gewerkschaften) set up mining companies (Bergschützen-Compagnie) at Potoc, Maidanpek, Dognecea, Oraviţa, Ciclova and Moldova Nouă.A new phase of the Civic Guards and the noblemen’s banderies in Banat was the period of the French wars of 1794-1814. Even though the Banat banderies had few direct combat contacts with the French, the citizens’ guards from the larger cities had an important contribution to maintaining order in the province. A new phase in the history of Banat civic guards were the years 1848-1849, when the National Guards from the free royal boroughs, as well as those from mining settlements, played an important role in the unfolding of military events.Armed civic guards in some of the more important Banat towns: Biserica Albă. the first civic guard was established in the year 1738, drawing its members from among the German population. In the year 1777, an armed company (Schützenkorp), made up of 100 infantrymen, was formed from among the inhabitants of the free military town who had citizen rights.Lugoj. The nucleus of the first armed Citizens’ guard in Lugoj was made up of the group of inhabitants who, in 1775, gathered to fight the armed gangs that terrorized the town and the neighbouring villages. The actual civic guard of the town was established in 1793, when it was granted the privilege of chamber town (“Kammeral Kleinstadt Lugosch”). From this period we also have information about a Shooting society of riemen musicians (Bürger und Schützenmusik), led by the schoolteacher Adam Reinhol.Zrenjanin. Becicherecul Mare was granted the privilege of fair-holding town on 8 May 1769 by Maria Theresa. On this occasion was probably established the Citizen’s guard which, on 12 July 1779, received Count Christophorus Niczky with military honours upon his arrival in town.Oraviţa. The town’s German inhabitants, organized into an armed guard led by the forestry inspector Meier, took up arms against the Ottoman troops and Romanian rebels which attacked the town on 4 June 1738. In 1809, when the regular troops left town, Oraviţa miners formed an armed unit. Between 1752 and 1763 we have information about a Guard of armed miners, known as the “Werkschütz” and maintained with chamber funds, whose members were recruited only from among the German population. Pančevo. In 1794, Panciova received free town (Freie Comunität) privileges, on condition that, besides the payment of a tax, it should create an armed unit from among its citizens. During the French war, following the Imperial call of 20 August 1808, the town organized a battalion of volunteers. Reşiţa. During the 1789 war with the Turks, the forestry inspector of the Chamber estates in Reşiţa, Beckmann, organised, acting upon orders of the Vienna Military Council, an armed Civil guard, made up of 600 shooters. In the spring of 1848, a National Guard (Bürger Garda) of 173 citizens was formed in Reşiţa.Timişoara. The first information about the existence of citizens organized to provide military support to the administration dates back to the year 1735. Besides military actions, the armed Citizens’ Guards (known as “Bürgergarde” and “Freie Compagnie”) ensured the protection as well as the quarantine of provisional hospitals at Fântâna Paşei and at the Green Forest Hunters’ Lodge during the plague of 1838-1839.When it was given the privileges of free royal town through the imperial diploma issued by Joseph II on 21 December 1781, point No. 10 of the diploma stated: “Die Bürger der Stadt sollen im Krieg und Zeiten der Gefahr im Einvernehmen und mit der Zustimmung des Militärkommandos und der politischen Führung mit der Waffe in der Hand der Festung wehren, alle Versuche und Verschwörungen feindlicher Kräften denunzieren und gegenüberstellen.”Vršac. The excellent expert in the town’s history, the historian Felix Milleker, reports on the existence of a Shooting Society as early as 1730. According to Milleker, the Shooting Society was also known as the “Schützen.”Vinga. The Bulgarian citizens of the town (which became a fair-holding town in 1744), had the right to elect freely the town’s administration, consisting of a judge and 6 jurors. In addition to this, they had to maintain an armed civilian company which, in exceptional cases, also rendered service in Timişoara. The provisions of the diploma issued by Maria Theresa on 1 August 1744 granted special rights to the Bulgarian citizens settled here. Beside the right of the sword (i.e. the right to also administer justice in capital cases), the town’s administration also had the obligation to maintain an armed company (Landmiliz) for the defense of the town.Beside the already mentioned towns, for the period studied we have data on the activity of civil guards or shooting societies in over 70 rural localities with German population.