Academic literature on the topic '1807-1892'

A search for Lixini (Curculionidae: Lixinae) species housed in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris and the Swedish Natural History Museum, Stockholm allowed the study of a part of the G. -A. Olivier collection. Lectotypes are designated for Larinus centaurii (Olivier, 1807), Larinus cuniculus (Olivier, 1807), Larinus gravidus (Olivier, 1807), Larinus carthami (Olivier, 1807), Lixus cardui Olivier, 1807, Lixus iridis Olivier, 1807, Lixus recurvus Olivier, 1807 and Lixus myagri Olivier, 1807. The following new synonymies and homonymies become evident: Larinus centaurii (Olivier, 1807) [= L. ungulatus Gyllenhal, 1835 syn. nov., L. centaureae Becker, 1864 nom. nud., L. beckeri Petri, 1907 syn. nov.]; Larinus cuniculus (Olivier, 1807) [= L. marki Ter-Minassian, 1982 syn. nov.]; Larinus ursus (Fabricius, 1792) [= L. cuniculus Walker, 1871 hom. nov. nec L. cuniculus (Olivier, 1807) syn. nov.]; Larinus gravidus (Olivier, 1807) [= L. schoenherri Capiomont, 1874 syn. nov.]; Larinus carthami (Olivier, 1807) [= L. crassus Capiomont, 1874 syn. nov., L. griseotessellatus Capiomont, 1874 syn. nov.; L. breviusculus Desbrochers, 1892 syn. nov.]; Lixus recurvus Olivier, 1807 [= L. nordmanni Hochhuth, 1847 syn. nov.]; Lixus myagri Olivier, 1807 [= L. lycophoeus Boheman, 1835 syn. nov. ].

Some flabelligerid bodies are modified into a thick thorax and a long, thinner abdomen, or cauda; the thorax usually hassome sediment particles cemented forming a dorsal shield, and these flabelligerids have been found boring into consoli-dated sediments or calcareous substrates. Two species, Pherusa inflata (Treadwell, 1914) and P. parmata (Grube, 1877),are frequently recorded from many different environmental conditions and localities. The study of all type or non-typematerials of similar flabelligerids had several results: 1) The species with bodies modified into thorax and cauda, usuallycarrying a dorsal shield, are removed from Pherusa Oken, 1807; 2) Two body patterns are recognized on the basis of thetype of neurochaetae in transitional chaetigers (3–5), and on the development of the caudae; 3) Semiodera Chamberlin,1919 is redefined to include species with a dorsal shield variously developed, pseudocompound transitional chaetae, andcaudae usually cylindrical with few neurohooks; 4) Daylithos n. gen., includes species with well-developed dorsal shield,multiarticulate or aristate transitional neurochaetae, and caudae usually depressed with few to many neurohooks; 5) Semi-odera includes Semiodera caribea (Grube & Ørsted in Grube, 1859) new spelling, n. comb. (type species), S. blakei n.sp., S. curviseta (Caullery, 1944) n. comb., S. dubia (Treadwell, 1929) n. comb., S. glynni n. sp., S. inflata (Treadwell,1914) n. comb., S. laevis (Stimpson, 1856) n. comb., S. mezianei n. sp., S. nishii n. sp., S. salazarae n. sp., S. tenera(Grube, 1868) n. comb., S. tovarae n. sp., S. treadwelli n. sp. and S. villalobosi n. sp.; 6), Daylithos n. gen. includes Day-lithos parmatus Grube, 1878 n. comb. (type species), D. amorae n. sp., D. cinctus (Haswell, 1892) n. comb., D. dieteri n. sp., D. iris (Michaelsen, 1892) n. comb., and D. nudus (Caullery, 1944) n. comb.

The West Palaearctic species of the Aleiodes apicalis group (Braconidae: Rogadinae) as defined by van Achterberg & Shaw (2016) are revised. Six new species of the genus Aleiodes Wesmael, 1838, are described and illustrated: A. carbonaroides van Achterberg & Shaw, sp. nov., A. coriaceus van Achterberg & Shaw, sp. nov., A. improvisus van Achterberg & Shaw, sp. nov., A. nigrifemur van Achterberg & Shaw, sp. nov., A. turcicus van Achterberg & Shaw, sp. nov., and A. zwakhalsi van Achterberg & Shaw, sp. nov. An illustrated key to 42 species is included. Hyperstemma Shestakov, 1940, is retained as subgenus to accommodate A. chloroticus (Shestakov, 1940) and similar species. Fourteen new synonyms are proposed: Rogas bicolor Lucas, 1849 (not Spinola, 1808), Rogas rufo-ater Wollaston, 1858, Rhogas bicolorinus Fahringer, 1932, Rhogas reticulator var. atripes Costa, 1884, and Rhogas similis Szépligeti, 1903, of Aleiodes apicalis (Brullé, 1832); Rogas (Rogas) vicinus Papp, 1977, of Aleiodes aterrimus (Ratzeburg, 1852); Rogas affinis Herrich-Schäffer, 1838, of Aleiodes cruentus (Nees, 1834); Bracon dimidiatus Spinola, 1808, and Rhogas (Rhogas) dimidiatus var. turkestanicus Telenga, 1941, of Aleiodes gasterator (Jurine, 1807); Rogas alpinus Thomson, 1892, of Aleiodes grassator (Thunberg, 1822); Rhogas jaroslawensis Kokujev, 1898, of Aleiodes periscelis (Reinhard, 1863); Rhogas carbonarius var. giraudi Telenga, 1941, of Aleiodes ruficornis (Herrich-Schäffer, 1838); Ichneumon ductor Thunberg, 1822, of Aleiodes unipunctator (Thunberg, 1822); Rogas heterostigma Stelfox, 1953, of Aleiodes pallidistigmus (Telenga, 1941). Neotypes are designated for Rogas affinis Herrich-Schäffer, 1838; Rogas nobilis Haliday (in Curtis), 1834; Rogas pallidicornis Herrich-Schäffer, 1838; Rogas ruficornis Herrich-Schäffer, 1838. Lectotypes are designated for Rhogas (Rhogas) dimidiatus var. turkestanicus Telenga, 1941, and Rhogas hemipterus Marshall, 1897.

Collections of antiquities on Danish manorsBefore the establishment of the public museum system and during its first phase after 1807, important activity concerning the relics of antiquity was managed by the estates (fig. 3). This resulted in the creation of collections with varied contents, including Danish antiquities. These were either bought or found within the estate district as was the case with the pieces of ”danefæ”, which the peasants found and brought to the manor (according to a decree from 1737, all treasures found in the Danish soil must be handed over to the king or – later – the state. Such finds are called” danefæ”). It is notable that the collection of danefæ took place according to a decentralised structure, as described in King Frederik V’s public notice from 1752, which also stated that a reward is given in return. According to this, the king delegated his right to collect danefæ to counts and barons, who could then again pass it on and cash the reward. The danefæ became the nucleus in many collections (fig. 4). This category of landowners kept their central position to archaeological work for a long time. Their right to collect danefæ lasted until 1853, and the practice of delivering antiquities found on the estate at the manor went on until modern times.The early museum collections, the kunstkammers and collections of curios of the 17th and 18th centuries, are well described in the literature on museum history. However, only little attention has been paid to the collections of the 19th and early 20th centuries. For instance, the collections of Broholm on Fyn (fig. 9), of Nr. Vosbjerg in Western Jutland, of Brattingsborg on Samsø, and of Valbygaard (fig. 1) and Lerchenborg on Sjælland have all been thoroughly described, but only individually (note 5), not as a phenomenon. This article is based on information from a few selected archives supplemented by spot tests involving a number of manors and several museums in areas with many estates (note 14). ln spite of the limitations induced by the source material it is the aim of the article to throw light on as many collections as possible to reach a general view. The article focuses on the manor collections as a phenomenon and on the museum development and museum traditions to which these collections belong , with the emphasis on the 19th and early 20th centuries.The article is based on two archives,Victor Hermansen’s papers in the Royal Library, indicated in the lists I-V with the signature of ”gl. Bib. VH” and the part of the report archive in the National Museum / Danish Prehistory, listed as ”NM, Oldtiden”, which contains the private collections. The material has been described using five time references: Before 1807 (list I); 1807-1848 (list II); 1848-1892 (list III); and finally 1892-1919 and 1919- the present time (both in list IV) (fig. 2). The time divisions were the result of an overall evaluation of the material, the type of collections and the intellectual, mental and social motives behind the collecting activity. Although the types of collections from different periods overlap and late examples of early collection types do occur, it is still obvious that the ideal for collector’s activity changed in the course of time.The review begins with the period 1807-1848, at the start of which the ”Royal Commission to the Safe keeping of Antiquities” was to become the foundation stone of the public museum system.1807-1848: landowners and others put much work into the issue, which the ”Commission” had been appointed to safeguarding. Danish artefacts were collected as never before. A flow of artefacts arrived at the collection in the capital from several landowners on Fyn and elsewhere. As in the beginning of the previous period, the landowners were also taking part in excavations, in protecting relics of antiquity and in publishing archaeological treatises.1848-1892:The public museum services were established. The new keeper of the Danish antiquities, the archaeologist J.J.A. Worsaae travelled the country to collect information, and he specifically contacted the landowners, knowing that these were key figures within archaeological research (fig. 5 and 10). Consequently, the landowners changed the way they dealt with archaeology in line with the development of the profession as initiated by Worsaae, who went in the direction of a more scholarly method and a dissociation of philosophy and history, which had been closely connected to archaeology. King Frederik VII’s (1848-1863) personal interest in archaeology had a positive influence on the development of the profession and contributed to its growing popularity among the landowners and the public.1892-1919: This period began with the Old Nordic Museum changing its name into the National Museum, and Sophus Müller becoming its curator. The landowners continued their archaeological activity, especially on those estates, which had a tradition for this (fig. 6). However, in the correlation between these archaeologically interested and active landowners, the National Museum gained more authority due to its growing expertise. Not only did the museum engage itself in the landowners’ investigations, it also took over the work and continued it on its own terms. But at the same time the museum staff showed appropriate consideration to the landowners, who according to the constitution had the right of owners hip to extensive areas with artefacts and relics of the past. Cooperation was necessary for the growth of the profession. The landowners had unlimited rights to those finds of artefacts and structures that were not danefæ or listed relics. However, the registers of the National Museum from this time show that after the excavation, the landowner often gave the finds to the museum.This period also saw conflicts between the provincial museums and the National Museum, caused by Sophus Müller’s policy of a centralised museum structure, which gave the provincial museums little liberty of action (note 7). We lack a coherent description of the private artefact collectors’ part in this game. A closer examination of some of them, such as Beck on Valbygaard, the private collectors associated with the museum in Odense, and Collet on Lundbygaard suggests that they were sometimes on one, sometimes on the other front in this controversy (note 9 and 47).After 1919: In 1919, the privileges and special duties of the nobility were cancelled, a development parallelled in the rest of Central, East and Northern Europe. The advanced position in the government previously held by this social class had ended to be replaced by the public sector of the democratic society of which the modern museum system forms a part. However, some estates carried on the tradition of building up collections of artefacts even in this period, and a few landowners opened museums on their estates (fig. 7). These are late activities in the long tradition of archaeological activity on the manors. Both in this periods and the previous one, the interest in collecting artefacts spread down the hierarchy of the manors to the employees and to the farmers on the small holdings. Today almost every family holding owns a collection of artefacts found on the property.To throw light on the changing intellectual context of which the artefact collections on the manors formed part, from the collections of the late Renaissance until the present, the article includes the collections of curios and minerals from the 17th and 18th centuries (list I). Most royal and princely courts in Europe had a kunstkammer with a wideranging content. The archive information used for this article has shown that in Denmark in the 19th century, these collections were not exclusively connected to the nobility or the manors. It is a common trait that the collector was a learned person, an academic or a high official or a well- educated nobleman with or without property. To agree with this, both in Denmark and internationally, a well-equipped library was attached to the collection as a fixed element (fig. 8). Some kunstkammers were attached to grammar schools, orphanages and student hostels. Through purchase and sale parts of the collections changed owner and location from time to time, as for instance the collection of Jesper Friis, which can be followed in written so urces from the 17th century through the following centuries and for a couple of items even into the antique collection of the National Museum.Around 1800, the Romantic Movement and the national currents increased the interest in Danish arte facts and relics of the past. Via folk high school education, which was inspired by the Nordic mythology and attached importance to the prehistory and early history of the nation, this interest spread into the population. As opposed to the earlier collections, which formed part of a learned environment characterised by a classical, humanistic education, the many manor collections, which had their prime in the period of c. 1860-1919, formed part of a practical agronomy universe, where demanding farming techniques were pushed into effect and where hunting and outdoor life was an important part of life. At the same time the landowners put much strength into renovating buildings and erecting fine manor complexes, a natural consequence of the wealth that originated from the corn sales. In an era where natural sciences and practical trades were given pride of place, the turn of archaeology away from the old humanistic method and tradition within philology and history towards the exact sciences will have contributed to the populariry of the profession.The private collections of artefacts have a larger professional and intellectual value than what is usually attributed to them. They were made at a time when the creation of rype collections of artefacts, suites, were in fashion. Information on find conditions and contexts are therefore rare. In the 20th century, professional archaeologists valued these collections according to the presence of find information, and so many of them were split through exchange. The fact that many of these artefacts were from the time before the parish accounts (a registering of relics of the past initiated by the National Museum) and thus – when it comes to the local artefacts – told of the relics of the past that had been situated on the estate earlier, but had been demolished in the early, active farming years of the first half of the 19th century. Also, the ethnological value of these collections has been disregarded.The article ends with considerations as to the public / the private. Nowadays these two notions create two separate rooms. ICOM’s ethical rules for museums have a clear definition, stating that a professional museum activiry is in compatible with private collecting activity.The history of the private collections of arte facts throws light on the development from the time before the public sector, when landowners and other private persons were supporting archaeology and the public museum initiative economically, politically and professionally. The profession developed from here and in a continued interaction between the professionals and the private collectors. Even when today there is a clear distinction between public and private, there are some interesting reminiscences left. Without the contribution and support of the public, archaeology would have difficult conditions.Karen Løkkegaard PoulsenMariboTranslated by Annette Lerche Trolle

Glyptoscapus letiziae, a new species of Hexoplonini Martins, 2006, is described from Brazil (Minas Gerais). Glyptoscapus cicatricosus Aurivillius, 1899 and G. vanettii Martins, 1959 are synonymized with G. pallidulus (White, 1855). A key to species of Glyptoscapus is provided. New state records are presented for Thoracibidion io (Thomson, 1867) (Neoibidionini), Coleoxestia rafaeli Santos-Silva & Wappes, 2017 and C. denticornis (Gahan, 1892) (Cerambycini). The female of C. rafaeli is described for the first time.

O campo dos estudos culturais/literários foca na identificação dos fenômenos responsáveis pela marginalização/subalternização dos sujeitos. Assim, a análise das ondas do movimento feminista através dos olhos da literatura torna possível uma maior aproximação da sociedade perante os fatos que ocorreram e ocorrem no mundo, no intuito de que a luta contra a desigualdade e o patriarcalismo perpetue-se e torna-se uma realidade cada vez mais tangível. O objetivo deste artigo é contextualizar as ondas feministas através da análise de dois contos: “The Yellow Wallpaper” da autora Charlotte Perkins Gilman, publicado originalmente em 1892 e “Woman Hollering Creek” da escritora Sandra Cisneros, publicado em 1991. Para isso, fundamentamos esta pesquisa principalmente com os trabalhos de Pinto (2010), Devereux (2014), Anzaldua (1987), Bittencourt (2015), Walter (2015) e Saffioti (1986) e percebemos que os quase 100 anos que separam as duas histórias foram marcados por diversas conquistas da agenda feminista. Através das ondas se tornou possível materializar a opressão vivida pelas mulheres e a literatura mostrou-se como um excelente guia para ilustrar de forma clara esse percurso. Uma vez que “The Yellow Wallpaper” e “Woman Hollering Creek” representam bem os dois momentos e discursos da primeira e terceira ondas respectivamente.

A list of Curculionoidea (Nemonychidae, Anthribidae, Rhynchitidae, Attelabidae, Brentidae, Apionidae, Nanophyidae, Brachyceridae, Curculionidae, Erirhinidae, Raymondionymidae, Dryoph-thoridae, Scolytidae, Platypodidae) thus far known from Italy is drawn up, updating that by Abbazzi et al. published in 1995. Distributional data of each species are given for broad regions such as northern, central, southern Italy, Sicily and Sardinia. New synonymies are: Acentrotypus laevigatus (Kirby, 1808) (= A. brunnipes (Boheman, 1839), syn.nov.), Ceutorhynchus talickyi Korotyaev, 1980 (= C. strejceki Dieckmann, 1981, syn. nov.), Ceutorhynchus pallipes Crotch,1866 (= Curculio minutus Reich, 1797 not Drury, [1773], syn. nov.; = Curculio contractus Marsham, 1802 not Fourcroy, 1785, syn. nov.), Dodecastichus consentaneus (Boheman, 1843) (= D. c. latialis (Solari & Solari, 1915), syn. nov.; = D. c. dimorphus (Solari & Solari, 1915), syn. nov.; = D. c. pentricus Di Marco & Osella, 2001, syn. nov.), Dodecastichus dalmatinus (Gyllenhal, 1843) (= D. d. lauri (Stierlin, 1861), syn. nov.), Dodecastichus mastix (Olivier, 1807) (= D. m. perlongus (Solari & Solari, 1915), syn. nov.; = D. m. scabrior (Reitter, 1913), syn. nov.), Dorytomus Germar, 1817 (= D. subgen. Chaetodorytomus Iablokov-Khnzorian, 1970, syn. nov.; = D. subgen. Euolamus Reitter, 1916, syn. nov.; = D. subgen. Olamus Reitter, 1916, syn. nov.), Exapion Bedel, 1887 (= Ulapion Ehret, 1997, syn. nov.), Larinus ursus (Fabricius, 1792) (= L. carinirostris Gyllenhal, 1837, syn. nov.; = L. genei Boheman, 1843, syn. nov.), Lixini Schönherr, 1823 (= Rhinocyllini Lacordaire, 1863, syn. nov.), Metacinops rhinomacer Kraatz, 1862 (= M. calabrus Stierlin, 1892, syn. nov.), Microplontus nigrovittatus (Schultze,1901) (= Ceutorhynchus subfasciatus Chevrolat, 1860 not Schönherr, 1826, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus amicalis cenomanus Colonnelli & Magnano, nom. nov. (= O. a. lessinicus (Osella, 1983) not O. lessinicus Franz, 1938, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus anophthalmoides omeros nom. nov. (= O. a. istriensis (F. Solari, 1955) not Germar, 1824, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus anthracinus (Scopoli, 1763) (= O. calabrus Stierlin, 1880, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus armadillo (Rossi, 1792) (= O. halbherri Stierlin, 1890, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus clibbianus Colonnelli & Magnano, nom. nov. (= O. judicariensis (Osella, 1983) not Reitter, 1913, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus cornicinus Stierlin, 1861 (= Curculio laevigatus Fabricius, 1792 not Paykull, 1792, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus fortis Rosenhauer, 1847 (= O. fortis valarsae Reitter, 1913, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus nodosus (O. F. Müller, 1764) (= O. nodosus comosellus Boheman, 1843, syn. nov.; = O. nodosus gobanzi Gredler, 1868, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus pupillatus Gyllenhal, 1834 (= O. p. angustipennis Stierlin, 1883, syn. nov.; = O. venetus F. Solari, 1947, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus serradae Colonnelli & Magnano, nom. nov. (= O. carinatus (Osella 1983) not (Paykull, 1792), syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus strigirostris Boheman, 1843 (= O. aterrimus : Di Marco & Osella, 2002 not Boheman, 1843, syn. nov.; = O. calvus Fiori, 1899, syn. nov.), O. sulcatus (Fabricius, 1775) (= O. linearis Stierlin, 1861, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus tenebricosus (Herbst, 1784) (= O. olivieri Abbazzi & Osella, 1992, syn. nov.), Phrydiuchus augusti Colonnelli, nom. nov. (= Ceuthorrhynchus speiseri Schultze, 1897 not C. speiseri Frivaldszkyi, 1894, syn. nov.), Phyllobius maculicornis Germar, 1824 (= P. m. lucanus Solari & Solari, 1903, syn. nov.), Phyllobius pyri (Linné, 1758) (= P. vespertinus (Fabricius, 1792), syn. nov.), Polydrusus subgen. Chaerodrys Jacquelin du Val, [1854] (= P. subgen. Metadrosus Schilsky, 1910, syn. nov.), Polydrusus subgen. Eudipnus C. G. Thomson, 1859 (= P. subgen. Chrysoyphis Gozis, 1882, syn. nov.; P. subgen. Thomsoneonymus Desbrochers, 1902, syn. nov.), Polydrusus subgen. Eurodrusus Korotyaev & Meleshko, 1997 (= P. subgen. Neoeustolus Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal, 1999, syn. nov.), Polydrusus armipes Brullé, 1832 (= P. a. faillae Desbrochers, 1859, syn. nov.), Pseudomyllocerus invreae invreae (F. Solari, 1948) (= Curculio cinerascens Fabricius, 1792 not [Gmelin], 1790], syn. nov. ), Zacladus Reitter, 1916 (= Z. subgen. Amurocladus Korotyaev, 1997, syn. nov.; = Z. subgen. Angarocladus Korotyaev, 1997, syn. nov.; = Z. subgen. Gobicladus Korotyaev, 1997, syn. nov.; = Z. subgen. Scythocladus Korotyaev, 1997, syn. nov.). New placements are: Amalini Wagner, 1936 as a tribe from synonymy under Ceutorhynchini; Acentrotypus Alonso-Zarazaga, 1990, Aizobius Alonso-Zarazaga, 1990, Aspidapion Schilsky, 1901, Catapion Schilsky, 1906, Ceratapion Schilsky, 1901, Cistapion Wagner, 1924,Cyanapion Bokor, 1923, Diplapion Reitter, 1916, Eutrichapion Reitter, 1916, Exapion Bedel, 1887, Helianthemapion Wagner, 1930, Hemitrichapion Voss, 1959, Holotrichapion Györffy, 1956, Ischnopterapion Bokor, 1923, Ixapion Roudier & Tempère,1973, Kalcapion Schilsky, 1906, Lepidapion Schilsky, 1906, Melanapion Wagner, 1930, Mesotrichapion Györffy, 1956, Metapion Schilsky, 1906, Omphalapion Schilsky, 1901, Onychapion Schilsky, 1901, Oryxolaemus AlonsoZarazaga, 1990, Osellaeus Alonso-Zarazaga, 1990, Perapion Wagner, 1907, Phrissotrichum Schilsky, 1901, Pirapion Reitter, 1916, Protapion Schilsky, 1908, Pseudapion Schilsky, Pseudoperapion Wagner, 1930, Pseudoprotapion Ehret, 1990, Pseudostenapion Wagner, 1930, Rhodapion AlonsoZarazaga, 1990, Squamapion Bokor, 1923, Stenopterapion Bokor, 1923, Synapion Schilsky, 1902, Taeniapion Schilsky, 1906, Trichopterapion Wagner, 1930, all as genera from subgenera of Apion Herbst, 1797; Aspidapion subgen. Koestlinia Alonso-Zarazaga, 1990 and Phryssotrichum subgen. Schilskyapion Alonso-Zarazaga, 1990 from synonymy with Apion Herbst, 1797; Phyllobius italicus Solari & Solari, 1903 and Phyllobius reicheidius Desbrochers, 1873, both from subspecies of P. pyri (Linné, 1758); Mogulones aubei (Boheman, 1845) as a valid species from synonymy with M. talbum (Gyllenhal, 1837); Styphlidius italicus Osella, 1981 as species from subspecies of S. corcyreus (Reitter, 1884). Otiorhynchus subgen. Presolanus Pesarini, 2001 is here selected over O. subgen. Pesolanus Pesarini, 2001, alternative original spelling, here rejected. The incorrect original spelling Otiorhynchus nocturnus peetzi Franz, 1938 is emended in O. n. peezi. New combination are: Eremiarhinus (Depresseremiarhinus) dilatatus (Fabricius, 1801), comb. nov.; Eremiarinus (Pseudorhinus) impressicollis (Boheman, 1834) jarrigei (Roudier, 1959); E. (Pseudorhinus) impressicollis luciae (Ragusa, 1883), comb. nov.; E. (Pseudorhinus) impressicollis peninsularis (F. Solari, 1940), comb. nov.; E. (Pseudorhinus) laesirostris (Fairmaire, 1859), comb. nov., all resulting from the new placement of Depresseremiarhinus Pic, 1914 and of Pseudorhinus Melichar, 1923 as subgenera of Eremiarhinus Fairmaire, 1876. The subfamilial name Phytonominae Gistel, 1848 is used as valid over Hyperinae Marseul, 1863. Nomenclatural changes published from 1992 to date, and affecting Italian weevils are also listed.

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.

At the height of their popularity in the mid-nineteenth century, a vast transatlantic readership conferred on Longfellow and Tennyson the title "The People's Poet." This examination of Anglo-American Victorian poetry attempts to account for that phenomenon. A poetic work is first defined as an aesthetic experience that occurs within a triangular matrix of text, author, and reader. As reception theorist Hans Robert Jauss contends, both the creator's and the receptor's aesthetic experiences are filtered through a historically determined "horizon of expectations" that governs popular appeal. A historical account of the publication and promotion of Longfellow's and Tennyson's poetry provides empirical evidence for how and why their poetic texts appealed to a widespread readership. This account is followed by an analysis of the class and gender of Victorian readers of poetry that considers the role of "consumers" in the production of both poetry and poetic personae as commodities for public consumption. The development of each poet's voice is then examined in a context of a gendered "separate-sphere" ideology to explain how both Longfellow's and Tennyson's adoption of "feminine" cadences in their respective voices influenced the nineteenth-century reception of their work. The final two chapters analyze select texts—lyric and narrative—to determine reasons for their popular appeal in relation to the level of active reader engagement in the poetic experience. Through affective lyricism, as in Longfellow's "Psalm of Life" and Tennyson's "Break, break, break," these poets demanded that their readers listen; through sentiment transformed into domestic allegory, as in Miles Standish and Enoch Arden, these poets demanded further that they feel. While both Victorian poets were later decanonized by their modern successors, contemporary critics, mainly academic, have restored Tennyson to the literary canon while relegating Longfellow to a second-rate schoolroom status. The conclusion speculates on the possible reasons underlying the disparate reputations assigned to the two poets, both of whom, during their lifetimes, shared equally the fame and fortune that attended their role as "The People's Voice."
Arts, Faculty of
English, Department of
Graduate

viii, 233 p. A print copy of this thesis is available through the UO Libraries. Search the library catalog for the location and call number.
This dissertation argues that certain iconic poems have shaped the canon of American poetry. Not merely "canonical" in the usual sense, iconic poems enjoy a special cultural sanction and influence; they have become discourses themselves, generating our notions about American poetry. By "iconic" I mean extraordinarily famous works like Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's "Paul Revere's Ride," Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself," and Claude McKay's "If We Must Die," that do not merely reside in the national memory but that have determined each poet's reception and thus have shaped the history of American poetry. Through case studies, I examine longstanding assumptions about these poets and the literary histories and myths surrounding their legendary texts. In carefully historicized readings of these and other iconic poems, I elucidate the pressure a single poem can exert on a poet's reputation and on American poetry broadly. I study the iconic poem in the context of the poet's corpus to demonstrate its role within the poet's oeuvre and the role assigned to it by canon makers. By tracing a poem's reception, I aim to identify the national, periodic, political, and formal boundaries these poems enforce and the distortions they create. Because iconic poems often direct and justify our inclusions and exclusions, they are of particular use in clarifying persistent obstacles to the canon reformation work of the last thirty years. While anthologies have become more inclusive in their selections and self-conscious about their ideological motives, many of the practices regarding individual poets and poems have remained unchanged over the last fifty years. Even as we include more poets in the canon, we often ironically do so by isolating a particular portion of the career, impulse in the work, or even a single poem, narrowing rather than expanding the horizon of our national literature. Through close readings situated in historical and cultural contexts, I illustrate the varying effects of iconic poems on the poet, other poems, and literary history.
Committee in charge: Dr. Karen J. Ford, Chair; Dr. John T. Gage, Member; Dr. Ernesto J. Martinez, Member; Dr. Leah W. Middlebrook, Outside Member

Pour défendre et justifier la foi, l'apologétique chrétienne dut répondre au cours du XIXe siècle à de nombreux défis : essor du matérialisme et du positivisme, progrès des sciences, développement d'une exégèse indépendante qu'illustre en 1863 la célèbre Vie de Jésus d'Ernest Renan. . . Mais face à Renan et à ses épigones, les apologistes chrétiens furent-ils vraiment incapables de formuler quelque réponse ou réfutation sérieuse, d'apaiser l'inquiétude des esprits ? Dans une confrontation parfois dangereuse mais féconde avec la culture du temps, sans abandonner les arguments traditionnels, les apologètes ont développé une démonstration morale du christianisme. Cette étude se penche sur les modalités théoriques et pratiques du discours apologétique dans la seconde moitié du XIXe siècle, à partir des œuvres du pasteur réformé libriste Edmond de Pressensé (1824-1891) et du magistrat catholique Auguste Nicolas (1807-1888)
During the 19th century apologetics tried to defend the faith and the Christian beliefs against new attacks : the expansion of materialism and positivism, the progress of sciences, the development of the critical and independent exegesis (which famous example is Life of Jesus of Ernest Renan (1863). . . Although Renan and fellow rationalists maintained that they represented true philosophy, Christian apologists waren't incompetent and their discourses not obsolete: they presented reasoned arguments and refutations of the rationalist speculations. The confrontation with the culture of the time is sometimes difficult but fertile: the apologists are developing a moral demonstration of the Christian truth. The autor analyses the french apologetic discourses, theories and methods in the second half of 19th century, the works of Pastor Edmond de Pressensé (1824-1891) and of the catholic magistrate Auguste Nicolas (1807-1888)