Journal articles on the topic '1810-1894'

La que tradicionalmente ha sido considerada como la primera novela histórica mexicana Jicotencal (1826), se publicó en Estados Unidos y fue escrita por un cubano. En realidad, el yucateco Justo Sierra O’Reilly (1814-1861) debe de ser considerado como el primer mexicano que publicó una novela histórica (1841). No solo eso: las dos primeras novelas de folletín publicadas en nuestro país son: Un año en el Hospital de San Lázaro, también de Justo Sierra O’Reilly, y El fistol del diablo (1845-1846), de Manuel Payno (1810-1894).

Summary This article assesses Robert Maunsell’s (1810–1894) Grammar of the New Zealand Language (1842). In particular, it is shown that, contrary to established belief, Maunsell’s Grammar was not exclusively based upon European or Hebrew grammatical models, but rather that it constituted an intriguing synthesis of different aspects of both traditions. Consequently, the relationship between Maunsell’s work and influential English texts such as Robert Lowth’s A Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762) and Lindley Murray’s English Grammar (1795) is explored in considerable detail in an attempt to indicate exactly how the 18th century English grammatical tradition influenced the demanding task of analysing an indigenous language encountered in a British colony in the early 19th century.

AbstractDuring the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when blubber oil fuelled house lamps, the king penguin population at Macquarie Island was reduced from two very large (perhaps hundreds of thousands of birds) colonies to about 3000 birds. One colony, located on the isthmus when the island was discovered in 1810, was extinct by 1894 and it took about 100 years for king penguins to re-establish a viable breeding population there. Here we document this recovery. The first eggs laid at Gadget Gully on the isthmus were recorded in late February 1995 but in subsequent years egg laying took place earlier between November and February (this temporal discontinuity is a consequence of king penguin breeding behaviour). The first chick was hatched in April 1995 but the first fledging was not raised until the following breeding season in October 1996. The colony increased on average 66% per annum in the five years between 1995 and 2000. King penguins appear resilient to catastrophic population reductions, and as the island's population increases, it is likely that other previously abandoned breeding sites will be reoccupied.

SynopsisThis analysis examines some of the psychological, philosophical and sociological motives behind the development of pauper lunatic asylum architecture in Ireland during the time of the Anglo–Irish union (1801–1922). Ground plans and structural features are used to define five psycho-architectonic generations. While isolation and classification were the prime objectives in the first public asylum in Ireland (1810–1814), a combination of the ideas of a psychological, ‘moral’, management and ‘panoptic’ architecture led to a radial institutional design during the next phase of construction (1817–1835). The asylums of the third generation (1845–1855) lacked ‘panoptic’ features but they were still intended to allow a proper ‘moral’ management of the inmates, and to create a therapeutic family environment. By the time the institutions of the fourth epoch were erected (1862–1869) the ‘moral’ treatment approach had been given up, and asylums were built to allow a psychological management by ‘association’. The last institutions (1894–1922) built before Ireland's acquisition of Dominion status (1922) were intended to foster the development of a curative society.

Uffe Hansen 14.12. 1894 - 11.9. 1994By Henning HøirupThe obituary begins with a description of Uffe Hansen’s background as an Independent Congregation clergyman (from 1925) to the Grundtvigian Independent Congregation (Danish valgmenighed, i.e. a congregation within the National Church, claiming the right to employ their own minister) of Ubberup, where the prominent clergymen V.J.Hoff and Carl Koch were his predecessors. Carl Koch’s extensive writings, theologically erudite, but .popular. in their language, and thus accessible to the layman, were to become the model for Uffe Hansen’s studies in Grundtvig’s hymnwriting. Through his membership of the Hymn Book Commission of the free Grundtvigian congregations (HYMNS. Independent Congregations and Free Church Congregations, 1935), Uffe Hansen was motivated to realize his plan of a complete account of the whole of Grundtvig’s hymn writing in the book Grundtvig’s Hymn Writing. Its History and Content I. 1810-1837, published in 1937. In the following years Uffe Hansen was absorbed in organizational work (Grundtvigian Convent, the »No More War« organization) and by his membership of the Grundtvigian Hymn Book Committee (The Danish Hymn Book. A Grundtvigian Proposal, 1944). In the 1940s efforts were made to unite the hymn tradition of the re-united Southern Jutland with the traditions of the Kingdom, i.e. the old Danish treasury of hymns and the Grundtvigian hymns. Uffe Hansen became a member of the Hymn Book Commission which published the proposal The Danish Hymn Book in 1951. More than anybody else, Uffe Hansen is responsible for the large number of Grundtvig hymns in this proposal, often with verses from the original versions of the hymns added to them. In spite of vehement criticism on this point The Danish Hymn Book was authorized in 1953. Grundtvig remained the predominant contributor, even though significant Grundtvig hymns, expressing his church view, were omitted, much to Uffe Hansen’s regret. The Hymn Book includes Uffe Hansen’s own translation of the Latin antiphone Oh, Grant Us Peace, Our Lord. While this debate was going on, the continuation of Uffe Hansen’s work, Grundtvig9s Hymn Writing II. 1837-1850 appeared in 1951, an important contribution to a comprehensive interpretation of Grundtvig’s work to renew the Danish hymnody. However, Uffe Hansen’s main achievement as a hymn researcher was his work as a co-editor of Grundtvig’s Song-Work I-VI, 1944-1964. This new edition was worked out on scientific principles, and the hymns were brought in chronological order, as far as it was possible. The edition included a critical variant apparatus, compiled by Uffe Hansen. Concurrently with this work, Uffe Hansen participated in the compilation of a Register of Grundtvig’s Posthumous Papers 1-IXXX, 1956-1964, and, while engaged on this, found several hitherto unknown hymns, which were included in the new edition of the Song-Work.Here Uffe Hansen’s abilities as a researcher and scholar were amply demonstrated. Then, in 1966, came his finalwork, Grundtvig’s Hymn Writing III. 1851-1872, which, like the other volumes, testify to Uffe Hansen’s talent for combining erudition with easy comprehensibility. In his last years Uffe Hansen lived in Holland; he was laid to rest from the Independent Congregation Church of Ubberup.

The Diptera genus-group names of Camillo Rondani are reviewed and annotated. A total of 601 nomenclaturally available genus-group names in 82 families of Diptera are listed alphabetically. For each name the following are given: author, year and page of original publication, originally included species [and first included species if none were originally included], type species and method of fixation, current status of the name, family placement, and a list of any emendations of it that have been found in the literature. Remarks are given to clarify nomenclatural or taxonomic information. In addition, an index is provided to all the species-group names of Diptera proposed by Rondani (1,236, of which 1,183 are available) with bibliographic reference to each original citation. Appended to this study is a full bibliography of Rondani’s works and a list with explanations for all new synonymies arising from revised emendations. Corrected or clarified type-species and/or corrected or clarified type-species designations are given for the following genus-group names: Anoplomerus Rondani, 1856 [Dolichopodidae]; Biomya Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Bremia Rondani, 1861 [Cecidomyiidae]; Deximorpha Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Elasmocera Rondani, 1845 [Asilidae]; Enteromyza Rondani, 1857 [Oestridae]; Exogaster Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Istocheta Rondani, 1859 [Tachinidae]; Istoglossa Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Lejogaster Rondani, 1857 [Syrphidae]; Lignodesia Rondani, 1868 [Phaeomyiidae]; Medorilla Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Meroplius Rondani, 1874 [Sepsidae]; Nodicornis Rondani, 1843 [Dolichopodidae]; Omalostoma Rondani, 1862 [Tachinidae]; Opegiocera Rondani, 1845 [Asilidae]; Petagnia Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Phaniosoma Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Proboscina Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Pyragrura Rondani, 1861 [Tachinidae]; Stemonocera Rondani, 1870 [Tephritidae]; Telejoneura Rondani, 1863 [Asilidae]; Tricoliga Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]. The following genus-group names previously treated as available were found to be unavailable: Bombyliosoma Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Bombyliidae]; Bombylosoma Marschall, 1873, n. stat. [Bombyliidae]; Brachynevra Agassiz, 1846, n. stat. [Cecidomyiidae]; Calliprobola Rondani, 1856, n. stat. [Syrphidae]; Camponeura Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Syrphidae]; Chlorosoma Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Stratiomyidae]; Engyzops Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Calliphoridae]; Exodonta Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Stratiomyidae]; Histochaeta Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Tachinidae]; Histoglossa Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Tachinidae]; Homalostoma Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Tachinidae]; Hoplacantha Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Stratiomyidae]; Hoplodonta Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Stratiomyidae]; Liota Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Syrphidae]; Lomatacantha Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Tachinidae]; Machaera Mik, 1890, n. stat. [Tachinidae]; Machaira Brauer & Bergenstamm, 1889, n. stat. [Tachinidae]; Myiatropa Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Syrphidae]; Oplacantha Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Stratiomyidae]. Previous First Reviser actions for multiple original spellings missed by previous authors include: Genus-group names—Achanthipodus Rondani, 1856 [Dolichopodidae]; Argyrospila Rondani, 1856 [Bombyliidae]; Botria Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Chetoliga Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Chrysoclamys Rondani, 1856 [Syrphidae]; Cyrtophloeba Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Istocheta Rondani, 1859 [Tachinidae]; Macherea Rondani, 1859 [Tachinidae]; Macronychia Rondani, 1859 [Sarcophagidae]; Pachylomera Rondani, 1856 [Psilidae]; Peratochetus Rondani, 1856 [Clusiidae]; Phytophaga Rondani, 1840 [Cecidomyiidae]; Spylosia Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Thlipsogaster Rondani, 1863 [Bombyliidae]; Tricogena Rondani, 1856 [Rhinophoridae]; Tricoliga Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Viviania Rondani, 1861 [Tachinidae]. Species-group name—Sphixapata albifrons Rondani, 1859 [Sarcophagidae]. Acting as First Reviser, the following correct original spellings for multiple original spellings are selected by us: Bellardia Rondani, 1863 [Tabanidae]; Chetoptilia Rondani, 1862 [Tachinidae]; Chetylia Rondani, 1861 [Tachinidae]; Clytiomyia Rondani, 1862 [Tachinidae]; Cryptopalpus Rondani, 1850 [Tachinidae]; Diatomineura Rondani, 1863 [Tabanidae]; Enteromyza Rondani, 1857 [Oestridae]; Esenbeckia Rondani, 1863 [Tabanidae]; Hammomyia Rondani, 1877 [Anthomyiidae]; Hydrothaea Rondani, 1856 [Muscidae]; Hyrmophlaeba Rondani, 1863 [Nemestrinidae]; Limnomya Rondani, 1861 [Limoniidae]; Lyoneura Rondani, 1856 [Psychodidae]; Micetoica Rondani, 1861 [Anisopodidae]; Miennis Rondani, 1869 [Ulidiidae]; Mycetomiza Rondani, 1861 [Mycetophilidae]; Mycosia Rondani, 1861 [Mycetophilidae]; Mycozetaea Rondani, 1861 [Mycetophilidae]; Piotepalpus Rondani, 1856 [Mycetophilidae]; Prothechus Rondani, 1856 [Pipunculidae]; Spyloptera Rondani, 1856 [Limoniidae]; Teremya Rondani, 1875 [Lonchaeidae]; Thricogena Rondani, 1859 [Tachinidae]; Trichopalpus Rondani, 1856 [Scathophagidae]; Trichopeza Rondani, 1856 [Brachystomatidae]; Tricophthicus Rondani, 1861 [Muscidae]; Triphleba Rondani, 1856 [Phoridae]; Xiloteja Rondani, 1863 [Syrphidae]. The following names are new synonymies of their respective senior synonyms: Genus-group names—Acanthipodus Bigot, 1890 of Poecilobothrus Mik, 1878, n. syn. [Dolichopodidae]; Acanthiptera Rondani, 1877 of Achanthiptera Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Achantiptera Schiner, 1864 of Achanthiptera Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Acydia Rondani, 1870 of Acidia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Acyura Rondani, 1863 of Aciura Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Agaromyia Marschall, 1873 of Agaromya Rondani, 1861, n. syn. [Mycetophilidae]; Ammomyia Mik, 1883 of Leucophora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Anthomyiidae]; Anomoja Rondani, 1871 of Anomoia Walker, 1835, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Anthracomyia Rondani, 1868 of Morinia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Calliphoridae]; Antracomya Lioy, 1864 of Morinia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Calliphoridae]; Anthoeca Bezzi, 1906 of Solieria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1849, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Antomyza Rondani, 1866 of Anthomyza Fallén, 1810, n. syn. [Anthomyzidae]; Antracia Rondani, 1862 of Nyctia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Sarcophagidae]; Aporomyia Schiner, 1861 of Lypha Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Asphondilia Rondani, 1861 of Asphondylia Loew, 1850, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Asteja Rondani, 1856 of Asteia Meigen, 1830, n. syn. [Asteiidae]; Astenia Rondani, 1856 of Blepharicera Macquart, 1843, n. syn. [Blephariceridae]; Astilium Costa, 1866 of Senobasis Macquart, 1838, n. syn. [Asilidae]; Ateleneura Agassiz, 1846 of Atelenevra Macquart, 1834, n. syn. [Pipunculidae]; Athomogaster Rondani, 1866 of Azelia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Axista Rondani, 1856 of Axysta Haliday, 1839, n. syn. [Ephydridae]; Bigonichaeta Schiner, 1864 of Triarthria Stephens, 1829, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Billea Rondani, 1862 of Billaea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Biomyia Schiner, 1868 of Biomya Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Bombilius Dufour, 1833 of Bombylius Linnaeus, 1758, n. syn. [Bombyliidae]; Bombylosoma Loew, 1862 of Bombylisoma Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Bombyliidae]; Brachipalpus Rondani, 1845 of Brachypalpus Macquart, 1834, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Brachipalpus Rondani, 1863 of Palpibracus Rondani, 1863, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Brachistoma Rondani, 1856 of Brachystoma Meigen, 1822, n. syn. [Brachystomatidae]; Brachychaeta Brauer & Bergenstamm, 1889 of Brachicheta Rondani, 1861, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Brachyglossum Bigot, 1858 of Leopoldius Rondani, 1843, n. syn. [Conopidae]; Brachyneura Oken, 1844 of Brachineura Rondani, 1840, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Caelomya Rondani, 1866 of Fannia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Fanniidae]; Caelomyia Rondani, 1877 of Fannia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Fanniidae]; Caenosia Westwood, 1840 of Coenosia Meigen, 1826, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Campilomiza Rondani, 1840 of Campylomyza Meigen, 1818, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Campylochaeta Bezzi & Stein, 1907 of Campylocheta Rondani, 1859, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Caricoea Rondani, 1856 of Coenosia Meigen, 1826, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Carpomyia Loew, 1862 of Carpomya Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Cassidemya Rondani, 1861 of Cassidaemyia Macquart, 1835, n. syn. [Rhinophoridae]; Ceratoxia Costa, 1866 of Otites Latreille, 1804, n. syn. [Ulidiidae]; Ceratoxys Rondani, 1861 of Otites Latreille, 1804, n. syn. [Ulidiidae]; Chaetogena Bezzi & Stein, 1907 of Chetogena Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Chamemyia Rondani, 1875 of Chamaemyia Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Chamaemyiidae]; Chaetoptilia Bezzi & Stein, 1907 of Chetoptilia Rondani, 1862, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Chatolyga Bigot, 1892 of Carcelia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Chersodromya Rondani, 1856 of Chersodromia Haliday, 1851, n. syn. [Hybotidae]; Chetilya Rondani, 1861 of Chetina Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Chilopogon Bezzi, 1902 of Dasypogon Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Asilidae]; Chiromya Agassiz, 1846 of Chyromya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Chyromyidae]; Chlorisoma Rondani, 1861 of Microchrysa Loew, 1855, n. syn. [Stratiomyidae]; Chorthophila Rondani, 1856 of Phorbia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Anthomyiidae]; Chortofila Rondani, 1843 of Phorbia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Anthomyiidae]; Chriorhyna Rondani, 1845 of Criorhina Meigen, 1822, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Chrisogaster Rondani, 1868 of Chrysogaster Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Chryorhina Rondani, 1856 of Criorhina Meigen, 1822, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Chryorhyna Rondani, 1857 of Criorhina Meigen, 1822, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Chrysoclamys Rondani, 1856 of Ferdinandea Rondani, 1844, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Chrysomya Rondani, 1856 of Microchrysa Loew, 1855, n. syn. [Stratiomyidae]; Chrysopila Rondani, 1844 of Chrysopilus Macquart, 1826, n. syn. [Rhagionidae]; Chyrosia Rondani, 1866 of Chirosia Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Anthomyiidae]; Clytiomyia Rondani, 1862 of Clytiomya Rondani, 1861, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Conopoejus Bigot, 1892 of Conops Linnaeus, 1758, n. syn. [Conopidae]; Criorhyna Rondani, 1865 of Criorhina Meigen, 1822, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Criptopalpus Rondani, 1863 of Cryptopalpus Rondani, 1850, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Crysogaster Rondani, 1865 of Chrysogaster Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Crysops Rondani, 1844 of Chrysops Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tabanidae]; Cyrthoneura Rondani, 1863 of Graphomya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Cyrthoplaeba Rondani, 1857 of Cyrtophloeba Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Cyrthosia Rondani, 1863 of Cyrtosia Perris, 1839, n. syn. [Mythicomyiidae]; Cystogaster Walker, 1856 of Cistogaster Latreille, 1829, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Cyterea Rondani, 1856 of Cytherea Fabricius, 1794, n. syn. [Bombyliidae]; Dactyliscus Bigot, 1857 of Habropogon Loew, 1847, n. syn. [Asilidae]; Dasiphora Rondani, 1856 of Dasyphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Dasipogon Dufour, 1833 of Dasypogon Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Asilidae]; Dasyneura Oken, 1844 of Dasineura Rondani, 1840, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Dexiomorpha Mik, 1887 of Estheria Robineau-Desvoidy, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Dichaetophora Becker, 1905 of Dichetophora Rondani, 1868, n. syn. [Sciomyzidae]; Dicheta Rondani, 1856 of Dichaeta Meigen, 1830, n. syn. [Ephydridae]; Dictia Rondani, 1856 of Dictya Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Sciomyzidae]; Dionea Rondani, 1861 of Dionaea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Ditricha Rondani, 1871 of Dithryca Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Dolicopeza Rondani, 1856 of Dolichopeza Meigen, 1830, n. syn. [Tipulidae]; Doricera Rondani, 1856 of Dorycera Meigen, 1830, n. syn. [Ulidiidae]; Drimeia Rondani, 1877 of Drymeia Meigen, 1826, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Drimeja Rondani, 1856 of Drymeia Meigen, 1826, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Driomyza Rondani, 1844 of Dryomyza Fallén, 1820, n. syn. [Dryomyzidae]; Driope Rondani, 1868 of Dryope Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Dryomyzidae]; Dryomiza Rondani, 1869 of Dryomyza Fallén, 1820, n. syn. [Dryomyzidae]; Dynera Rondani, 1861 of Dinera Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Dytricha Rondani, 1870 of Dithryca Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Elachysoma Rye, 1881 of Elachisoma Rondani, 1880, n. syn. [Sphaeroceridae]; Elaeophila Marschall, 1873 of Eloeophila Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Limoniidae]; Emerodromya Rondani, 1856 of Hemerodromia Meigen, 1822, n. syn. [Empididae]; Engyzops Bezzi & Stein, 1907 of Eggisops Rondani, 1862, n. syn. [Calliphoridae]; Entomybia Rondani, 1879 of Braula Nitzsch, 1818, n. syn. [Braulidae]; Epidesmya Rondani, 1861 of Acidia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Erinnia Rondani, 1856 of Erynnia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Eristalomyia Kittel & Kreichbaumer, 1872 of Eristalomya Rondani, 1857, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Esteria Rondani, 1862 of Estheria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Exatoma Rondani, 1856 of Hexatoma Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tabanidae]; Exochila Mik, 1885 of Hammerschmidtia Schummel, 1834, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Fisceria Rondani, 1856 of Fischeria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Gedia Rondani, 1856 of Gaedia Meigen, 1838, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Gimnocheta Rondani, 1859 of Gymnocheta Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Gimnosoma Rondani, 1862 of Gymnosoma Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Gonirhinchus Lioy, 1864 of Myopa Fabricius, 1775, n. syn. [Conopidae]; Gonirhynchus Marschall, 1873 of Myopa Fabricius, 1775, n. syn. [Conopidae]; Gononeura Oldenberg, 1904 of Gonioneura Rondani, 1880, n. syn. [Sphaeroceridae]; Graphomia Rondani, 1862 of Graphomya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Gymnopha Rondani, 1856 of Mosillus Latreille, 1804, n. syn. [Ephydridae]; Hammobates Rondani, 1857 of Tachytrechus Haliday, 1851, n. syn. [Dolichopodidae]; Harrysia Rondani, 1865 of Lydina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Hemathobia Rondani, 1862 of Haematobia Le Peletier & Serville, 1828, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Hemerodromya Rondani, 1856 of Hemerodromia Meigen, 1822, n. syn. [Empididae]; Heryngia Rondani, 1857 of Heringia Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Hidropota Lioy, 1864 of Hydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Ephydridae]; Hipostena Rondani, 1861 of Phyllomya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Hirmophloeba Marschall, 1873 of Hyrmophlaeba Rondani, 1863, n. syn. [Nemestrinidae]; Histricia Rondani, 1863 of Hystricia Macquart, 1843, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Hoemotobia Rondani, 1856 of Haematobia Le Peletier & Serville, 1828, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Homalomya Rondani, 1866 of Fannia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Fanniidae]; Homalostoma Bezzi & Stein, 1907 of Billaea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Hoplisa Brauer & Bergenstamm, 1889 of Oplisa Rondani, 1862, n. syn. [Rhinophoridae]; Hydrothaea Rondani, 1856 of Hydrotaea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Hylara Rondani, 1856 of Hilara Meigen, 1822, n. syn. [Empididae]; Hyrmoneura Rondani, 1863 of Hirmoneura Meigen, 1820, n. syn. [Nemestrinidae]; Ilisomyia Osten Sacken, 1869 of Ormosia Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Limoniidae]; Istochaeta Marschall, 1873 of Istocheta Rondani, 1859, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Lamnea Rondani, 1861 of Erioptera Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Limoniidae]; Lasiophthicus Rondani, 1856 of Scaeva Fabricius, 1805, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Lestremya Rondani, 1856 of Lestremia Macquart, 1826, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Lidella De Galdo, 1856 of Lydella Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Lomacantha Lioy, 1864 of Lomachantha Rondani, 1859, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Lomachanta Schiner, 1864 of Lomachantha Rondani, 1859, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Loncoptera Rondani, 1856 of Lonchoptera Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Lonchopteridae]; Lymnophora Blanchard, 1845 of Limnophora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Macherium Rondani, 1856 of Machaerium Haliday, 1832, n. syn. [Dolichopodidae]; Macrochaetum Bezzi, 1894 of Elachiptera Macquart, 1825, n. syn. [Chloropidae]; Macrochoetum Bezzi, 1892 of Elachiptera Macquart, 1825, n. syn. [Chloropidae]; Macroneura Rondani, 1856 of Diadocidia Ruthe, 1831, n. syn. [Diadocidiidae]; Marshamya Rondani, 1850 of Linnaemya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Marsilia Bezzi & Stein, 1907 of Tricoliga Rondani, 1859, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Megachetum Rondani, 1856 of Dasyna Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Psilidae]; Megaloglossa Bezzi, 1907 of Platystoma Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Platystomatidae]; Megera Rondani, 1859 of Senotainia Macquart, 1846, n. syn. [Sarcophagidae]; Melanomyia Rondani, 1868 of Melanomya Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Calliphoridae]; Melizoneura Bezzi & Stein, 1907 of Melisoneura Rondani, 1861, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Mesomelaena Bezzi & Stein, 1907 of Mesomelena Rondani, 1859, n. syn. [Sarcophagidae]; Micetina Rondani, 1861 of Mycetophila Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Mycetophilidae]; Micetobia Rondani, 1861 of Mycetobia Meigen, 1818, n. syn. [Anisopodidae]; Micromyia Oken, 1844 of Micromya Rondani, 1840, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Miennis Rondani, 1869 of Myennis Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Ulidiidae]; Miopina Rondani, 1866 of Myopina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Anthomyiidae]; Morjnia Rondani, 1862 of Morinia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Calliphoridae]; Morphomyia Rondani, 1862 of Stomina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Myatropa Rondani, 1857 of Myathropa Rondani, 1845, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Mycetomiza Rondani, 1861 of Mycosia Rondani, 1861, n. syn. [Mycetophilidae]; Myiantha Rondani, 1877 of Fannia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Fanniidae]; Myiathropa Rondani, 1868 of Myathropa Rondani, 1845, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Myiocera Rondani, 1868 of Dinera Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Myiolepta Rondani, 1868 of Myolepta Newman, 1838, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Myiospila Rondani, 1868 of Myospila Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Myltogramma Rondani, 1868 of Miltogramma Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Sarcophagidae]; Myntho Rondani, 1845 of Mintho Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Myospyla Rondani, 1862 of Myospila Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Napoea Rondani, 1856 of Parydra Stenhammar, 1844, n. syn. [Ephydridae]; Neera Rondani, 1861 of Neaera Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Nemestrina Blanchard, 1845 of Nemestrinus Latreille, 1802, n. syn. [Nemestrinidae]; Nemorea Macquart, 1834 of Nemoraea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Nevrolyga Agassiz, 1846 of Neurolyga Rondani, 1840, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Nictia Rondani, 1862 of Nyctia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Sarcophagidae]; Noteromyia Marschall, 1873 of Camilla Haliday, 1838, n. syn. [Camillidae]; Ociptera Rondani, 1862 of Cylindromyia Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Onodonta Rondani, 1866 of Hydrotaea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Opegiocera Rondani, 1845 of Ancylorhynchus Berthold, 1827, n. syn. [Asilidae]; Ophira Rondani, 1844 of Hydrotaea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Ornithoeca Kirby, 1880 of Ornithoica Rondani, 1878, n. syn. [Hippoboscidae]; Ornithomyia Macquart, 1835 of Ornithomya Latreille, 1804, n. syn. [Hippoboscidae]; Orthochile Blanchard, 1845 of Ortochile Latreille, 1809, n. syn. [Dolichopodidae]; Oxicera Rondani, 1856 of Oxycera Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Stratiomyidae]; Oxina Rondani, 1856 of Oxyna Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Ozyrhinchus Rondani, 1861 of Ozirhincus Rondani, 1840, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Oxyrhyncus Rondani, 1856 of Ozirhincus Rondani, 1840, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Pachigaster Rondani, 1856 of Pachygaster Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Stratiomyidae]; Pachimeria Rondani, 1856 of Pachymeria Stephens, 1829, n. syn. [Empididae]; Pachipalpus Rondani, 1856 of Cordyla Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Mycetophilidae]; Pachirhyna Rondani, 1845 of Nephrotoma Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tipulidae]; Pachirina Rondani, 1840 of Nephrotoma Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tipulidae]; Pachistomus Rondani, 1856 of Xylophagus Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Xylophagidae]; Pangonia Macquart, 1834 of Pangonius Latreille, 1802, n. syn. [Tabanidae]; Pentetria Rondani, 1856 of Penthetria Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Bibionidae]; Perichaeta Herting, 1984 of Policheta Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Perichoeta Bezzi, 1894 of Policheta Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Phalacromyia Costa, 1866 of Copestylum Macquart, 1846, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Phicodromia Rondani, 1866 of Malacomyia Westwood, 1840, n. syn. [Coelopidae]; Phillophaga Lioy, 1864 of Asphondylia Loew, 1850, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Phito Rondani, 1861 of Phyto Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Rhinophoridae]; Phitomyptera Lioy, 1864 of Phytomyptera Rondani, 1845, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Phitophaga Lioy, 1864 of Cecidomyia Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Phloebotomus Rondani, 1856 of Phlebotomus Rondani & Berté, 1840, n. syn. [Psychodidae]; Phorichaeta Brauer & Bergenstamm, 1889 of Periscepsia Gistel, 1848, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Phrino Rondani, 1861 of Phryno Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Phrixe Rondani, 1862 of Phryxe Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Phthyria Rondani, 1856 of Phthiria Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Bombyliidae]; Phtyria Rondani, 1863 of Phthiria Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Bombyliidae]; Phyllodromya Rondani, 1856 of Phyllodromia Zetterstedt, 1837, n. syn. [Empididae]; Phytofaga Rondani, 1843 of Cecidomyia Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Phytomyzoptera Bezzi, 1906 of Phytomyptera Rondani, 1845, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Platiparea Rondani, 1870 of Platyparea Loew, 1862, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Platistoma Lioy, 1864 of Platystoma Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Platystomatidae]; Platychyra Rondani, 1859 of Panzeria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Platynochetus Rondani, 1845 of Platynochaetus Wiedemann, 1830, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Polychaeta Schiner, 1868 of Policheta Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Polycheta Schiner, 1861 of Policheta Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Porrhocondyla Agassiz, 1846 of Porricondyla Rondani, 1840, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Porrycondyla Walker, 1874 of Porricondyla Rondani, 1840, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Prosopaea Brauer & Bergenstamm, 1889 of Prosopea Rondani, 1861, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Psicoda Rondani, 1840 of Psychoda Latreille, 1797, n. syn. [Psychodidae]; Psylopus Rondani, 1850 of Sciapus Zeller, 1842, n. syn. [Dolichopodidae]; Pteropectria Rondani, 1869 of Herina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Ulidiidae]; Pterospylus Bigot, 1857 of Syneches Walker, 1852, n. syn. [Hybotidae]; Pticoptera Rondani, 1856 of Ptychoptera Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Ptychopteridae]; Ptilocheta Rondani, 1857 of Zeuxia Meigen, 1826, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Ptilochoeta Bezzi, 1894 of Zeuxia Meigen, 1826, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Ptylocera Rondani, 1861 of Zeuxia Meigen, 1826, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Ptylops Rondani, 1859 of Macquartia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Pyragrura Rondani, 1861 of Labigastera Macquart, 1834, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Pyrrhosia Bezzi & Stein, 1907 of Leskia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Ragio Scopoli, 1777 of Rhagio Fabricius, 1775, n. syn. [Rhagionidae]; Raimondia Rondani, 1879 of Raymondia Frauenfeld, 1855, n. syn. [Hippoboscidae]; Ramphina Rondani, 1856 of Rhamphina Macquart, 1835, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Ramphomya Rondani, 1845 of Rhamphomyia Meigen, 1822, n. syn. [Empididae]; Raphium Latreille, 1829 of Rhaphium Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Dolichopodidae]; Rhynchomyia Macquart, 1835 of Rhyncomya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Rhiniidae]; Rhyncosia Rondani, 1861 of Aphria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Rhynophora Rondani, 1861 of Rhinophora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Rhinophoridae]; Riphus Rondani, 1845 of Rhyphus Latreille, 1804, n. syn. [Anisopodidae]; Ripidia Rondani, 1856 of Rhipidia Meigen, 1818, n. syn. [Limoniidae]; Sarcopaga Rondani, 1856 of Sarcophaga Meigen, 1826, n. syn. [Sarcophagidae]; Scatomiza Rondani, 1866 of Scathophaga Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Scathophagidae]; Schaenomyza Rondani, 1866 of Schoenomyza Haliday, 1833, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Sciomiza Rondani, 1856 of Sciomyza Fallén, 1820, n. syn. [Sciomyzidae]; Sciopila Rondani, 1856 of Sciophila Meigen, 1818, n. syn. [Mycetophilidae]; Serromya Rondani, 1856 of Serromyia Meigen, 1818, n. syn. [Ceratopogonidae]; Seseromyia Costa, 1866 of Cosmina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Rhiniidae]; Sibistroma Rondani, 1856 of Sybistroma Meigen, 1824, n. syn. [Dolichopodidae]; Simplecta Rondani, 1856 of Symplecta Meigen, 1830, n. syn. [Limoniidae]; Sinapha Rondani, 1856 of Synapha Meigen, 1818, n. syn. [Mycetophilidae]; Siritta Rondani, 1844 of Syritta Le Peletier & Serville, 1828, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Somatolia Bezzi & Stein, 1907 of Lydina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Somomia Rondani, 1862 of Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Calliphoridae]; Somomyia Rondani, 1868 of Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Calliphoridae]; Sphixaea Rondani, 1856 of Milesia Latreille, 1804, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Sphyxaea Rondani, 1856 of Milesia Latreille, 1804, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Sphyxapata Bigot, 1881 of Senotainia Macquart, 1846, n. syn. [Sarcophagidae]; Sphyximorpha Rondani, 1856 of Sphiximorpha Rondani, 1850, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Spilomya Rondani, 1857 of Spilomyia Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Spiximorpha Rondani, 1857 of Sphiximorpha Rondani, 1850, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Spixosoma Rondani, 1857 of Conops Linnaeus, 1758, n. syn. [Conopidae]; Spylographa Rondani, 1871 of Trypeta Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Stenopterix Millet de la Turtaudière, 1849 of Craterina Olfers, 1816, n. syn. [Hippoboscidae]; Stomorhyna Rondani, 1862 of Stomorhina Rondani, 1861, n. syn. [Rhiniidae]; Stomoxis Latreille, 1797 of Stomoxys Geoffroy, 1762, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Syphona Rondani, 1844 of Siphona Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Tachidromya Rondani, 1856 of Tachydromia Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Hybotidae]; Tachipeza Rondani, 1856 of Tachypeza Meigen, 1830, n. syn. [Hybotidae]; Tanipeza Rondani, 1850 of Tanypeza Fallén, 1820, n. syn. [Tanypezidae]; Teicomyza Rondani, 1856 of Teichomyza Macquart, 1835, n. syn. [Ephydridae]; Telaira Rondani, 1862 of Thelaira Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Teremya Rondani, 1875 of Lonchaea Fallén, 1820, n. syn. [Lonchaeidae]; Thecomya Rondani, 1848 of Thecomyia Perty, 1833, n. syn. [Sciomyzidae]; Thlypsigaster Marschall, 1873 of Amictus Wiedemann, 1817, n. syn. [Bombyliidae]; Thlypsomyza Rondani, 1863 of Amictus Wiedemann, 1817, n. syn. [Bombyliidae]; Thrichogena Bezzi, 1894 of Loewia Egger, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Thricogena Rondani, 1859 of Loewia Egger, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Thricophticus Rondani, 1866 of Thricops Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Thriptocheta Lioy, 1864 of Campichoeta Macquart, 1835, n. syn. [Diastatidae]; Thryptochoeta Bezzi, 1891 of Campichoeta Macquart, 1835, n. syn. [Diastatidae]; Thyreodonta Marschall, 1873 of Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762, n. syn. [Stratiomyidae]; Toxopora Rondani, 1856 of Toxophora Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Bombyliidae]; Tricholiga Rondani, 1873 of Tricoliga Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Trichophticus Rondani, 1871 of Thricops Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Tricocera Rondani, 1856 of Trichocera Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Trichoceridae]; Tricolyga Schiner, 1861 of Tricoliga Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Trigliphus Rondani, 1856 of Triglyphus Loew, 1840, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Tripeta Rondani, 1856 of Trypeta Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Triphera Rondani, 1861 of Tryphera Meigen, 1838, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Triptocera Lioy, 1864 of Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Tryptocera Macquart, 1844 of Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Uromya Rondani, 1856 of Phania Meigen, 1824, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Winthemya Rondani, 1859 of Winthemia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Xiloteja Rondani, 1863 of Myolepta Newman, 1838, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Xylomyia Marschall, 1873 of Xylomya Rondani, 1861, n. syn. [Xylomyidae]; Xyloteja Rondani, 1856 of Myolepta Newman, 1838, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Xyphidicera Rondani, 1845 of Xiphidicera Macquart, 1834, n. syn. [Hybotidae]; Xyphocera Rondani, 1845 of Ancylorhynchus Berthold, 1827, n. syn. [Asilidae]; Zigoneura Rondani, 1840 of Zygoneura Meigen, 1830, n. syn. [Sciaridae]; Zophomya Rondani, 1859 of Zophomyia Macquart, 1835, n. syn. [Tachinidae]. Species-group name—Psalida leucostoma Rondani, 1856 of Ocyptera simplex Fallén, 1815, n. syn. [Tachinidae]. Mycosia Rondani, 1861 is treated here as nomen dubium [Mycetophilidae]; Habropogon heteroneurus Timon-David, 1951 is resurrected from junior synonymy with Asilus striatus Fabricius, 1794, new stat. [Asilidae]. Reversal of precedence is invoked for three cases of subjective synonymy to promote stability in nomenclature: Macquartia monticola Egger, 1856, nomen protectum and Proboscina longipes Rondani, 1856, nomen oblitum [in Tachinidae]; Loewia Egger, 1856, nomen protectum and Thrychogena Rondani, 1856, nomen oblitum [in Tachinidae]; Zygomyia Winnertz, 1863, nomen protectum and Bolithomyza Rondani, 1856, nomen oblitum [in Mycetophilidae].

The Tallahatta Formation, Lisbon Formation, and Gosport Sand are the three lithostratigraphic units that make up the lower-to-middle Eocene Claiborne Group. In Alabama, these marine units are among the most fossiliferous in the state and a long history of scattered reports have attempted to document their fossil diversity. In this study, we examined 20931 elasmobranch and bony fish elements, including otoliths, derived from Claiborne Group units in Alabama and identified 115 unequivocal taxa. Among the taxa identified, one new species is described, Carcharhinus mancinae sp. nov., and Pseudabdounia gen. nov. is a new genus erected to include two species formerly placed within Abdounia Capatta, 1980. New taxonomic combinations proposed include Pseudabdounia claibornensis (White, 1956) gen. et comb. nov., Pseudabdounia recticona (Winkler, 1874) gen. et comb. nov., Physogaleus alabamensis (Leriche, 1942) comb. nov., and Eutrichiurides plicidens (Arambourg, 1952) comb. nov. We also report the first North American paleobiogeographic occurrences of Aturobatis aff. A. aquensis Adnet, 2006, Brachycarcharias atlasi (Arambourg, 1952), Eutrichiurides plicidens comb. nov., Galeorhinus louisi Adnet & Cappetta, 2008, Ginglymostoma maroccanum Noubhani & Cappetta, 1997, Gymnosarda sp., Mennerotodus sp., Rhizoprionodon ganntourensis (Arambourg, 1952), Stenoscyllium aff. S. priemi Noubhani & Cappetta, 1997, Trichiurus oshosunensis White, 1926, and the first North American occurrence for a fossil member of the Balistidae Risso, 1810. Our sample also included 26 taxa that represented first paleobiogeographic occurrences for Alabama, including Abdounia beaugei (Arambourg, 1935), Albula eppsi White, 1931, Ariosoma nonsector Nolf & Stringer, 2003, Anisotremus? sp., Anomotodon sp., Brachycarcharias twiggsensis (Case, 1981), Burnhamia daviesi (Woodward, 1889), Eoplinthicus yazooensis Capetta & Stringer, 2002, Galeorhinus ypresiensis (Casier, 1946), Gnathophis meridies (Frizzell & Lamber, 1962), Haemulon? obliquus (Müller, 1999), Hypolophodon sylvestris (White, 1931), Malacanthus? sulcatus (Koken, 1888), Meridiania cf. M. convexa Case, 1994, Palaeocybium proosti (Storms, 1897), Paraconger sector (Koken, 1888), Paralbula aff. P. marylandica Blake, 1940, Phyllodus toliapicus Agassiz, 1844, Propristis schweinfurthi Dames, 1883, Pycnodus sp., Pythonichthys colei (Müller, 1999), Scomberomorus stormsi (Leriche, 1905), Signata stenzeli Frizzell & Dante, 1965, and Signata nicoli Frizzell & Dante, 1965, and the first Paleogene occurrences in Alabama of a member of the Gobiidae Cuvier, 1816. A biostratigraphic analysis of our sample showed stratigraphic range extensions for several taxa, including the first Bartonian occurrences of Eoplinthicus yazooensis, Jacquhermania duponti (Winkler, 1876), Meridiania cf. M. convexa, Phyllodus toliapicus, and “Rhinobatos” bruxelliensis (Jaekel, 1894), range extensions into the late Ypresian and Bartonian for Tethylamna dunni Cappetta & Case, 2016 and Scoliodon conecuhensis Cappetta & Case, 2016, the first late Ypresian records of Galeorhinus louisi, the first Lutetian occurrence of Gymnosarda Gill, 1862, and a range extension for Fisherichthys aff. F. folmeri Weems, 1999 into the middle Bartonian. Larger biostratigraphic and evolutionary trends are also documented, such as the acquisition of serrations in Otodus spp., possible population increases for the Rhinopterinae Jordan & Evermann, 1896 and Carcharhiniformes Compagno, 1973 in the Bartonian, and the apparent diversification of the Tetraodontiformes Berg, 1940 during the same stage. This study helps better our understanding of early-to-middle Eocene elasmobranch and bony fish diversity, paleobiogeography, and biostratigraphy in the Gulf Coastal Plain of North America.

Introduction“From every kind of man obedience I expect; I’m the Emperor of Japan.” (“Miyasama,” from Gilbert and Sullivan’s musical The Mikado, 1885)This commentary is facilitated by—surprisingly resilient—oriental stereotypes of an imagined Japan (think of Oscar Wilde’s assertion, in 1889, that Japan was a European invention). During the Victorian era, in Britain, there was a craze for all things oriental, particularly ceramics and “there was a craze for all things Japanese and no middle class drawing room was without its Japanese fan or teapot.“ (V&A Victorian). These pastoral depictions of the ‘oriental life’ included the figures of men and women in oriental garb, with fans, stilt shoes, kimono-like robes, and appropriate headdresses, engaging in garden-based activities, especially tea ceremony variations (Landow). In fact, tea itself, and the idea of a ceremony of serving it, had taken up a central role, even an obsession in middle- and upper-class Victorian life. Similarly, landscapes with wild seas, rugged rocks and stunted pines, wizened monks, pagodas and temples, and particular fauna and flora (cranes and other birds flying through clouds of peonies, cherry blossoms and chrysanthemums) were very popular motifs (see Martin and Koda). Rather than authenticity, these designs heightened the Western-based romantic stereotypes associated with a stylised form of Japanese life, conducted sedately under rule of the Japanese Imperial Court. In reality, prior to the Meiji period (1868–1912), the Emperor was largely removed from everyday concerns, residing as an isolated, holy figure in Kyoto, the traditional capital of Japan. Japan was instead ruled from Edo (modern day Tokyo) led by the Shogun and his generals, according to a strict Confucian influenced code (see Keene). In Japan, as elsewhere, the presence of feudal-style governance includes policies that determine much of everyday life, including restrictions on clothing (Rall 169). The Samurai code was no different, and included a series of protocols that restricted rank, movement, behaviour, and clothing. As Vincent has noted in the case of the ‘lace tax’ in Great Britain, these restrictions were designed to punish those who seek to penetrate the upper classes through their costume (28-30). In Japan, pre-Meiji sumptuary laws, for example, restricted the use of gold, and prohibited the use of a certain shade of red by merchant classes (V&A Kimono).Therefore, in the governance of pre-globalised societies, the importance of clothing and textile is evident; as Jones and Stallybrass comment: We need to understand the antimatedness of clothes, their ability to “pick up” subjects, to mould and shape them both physically and socially—to constitute subjects through their power as material memories […] Clothing is a worn world: a world of social relations put upon the wearer’s body. (2-3, emphasis added)The significant re-imagining of Japanese cultural and national identities are explored here through the cataclysmic impact of Western ideologies on Japanese cultural traditions. There are many ways to examine how indigenous cultures respond to European, British, or American (hereafter Western) influences, particularly in times of conflict (Wilk). Western ideology arrived in Japan after a long period of isolation (during which time Japan’s only contact was with Dutch traders) through the threat of military hostility and war. It is after this outside threat was realised that Japan’s adoption of military and industrial practices begins. The re-imagining of their national identity took many forms, and the inclusion of a Western-style military costuming as a schoolboy uniform became a highly visible indicator of Japan’s mission to protect its sovereign integrity. A brief history of Japan’s rise from a collection of isolated feudal states to a unified military power, in not only the Asian Pacific region but globally, demonstrates the speed at which they adopted the Western mode of warfare. Gunboats on Japan’s ShorelinesJapan was forcefully opened to the West in the 1850s by America under threat of First Name Perry’s ‘gunboat diplomacy’ (Hillsborough 7-8). Following this, Japan underwent a rapid period of modernisation, and an upsurge in nationalism and military expansion that was driven by a desire to catch up to the European powers present in the Pacific. Noted by Ian Ferguson in Civilization: The West and the Rest, Unsure, the Japanese decided […] to copy everything […] Japanese institutions were refashioned on Western models. The army drilled like Germans; the navy sailed like Britons. An American-style system of state elementary and middle schools was also introduced. (221, emphasis added)This was nothing short of a wide-scale reorganisation of Japan’s entire social structure and governance. Under the Emperor Meiji, who wrested power from the Shogunate and reclaimed it for the Imperial head, Japan steamed into an industrial revolution, achieving in a matter of years what had taken Europe over a century.Japan quickly became a major player-elect on the world stage. However, as an island nation, Japan lacked the essentials of both coal and iron with which to fashion not only industrial machinery but also military equipment, the machinery of war. In 1875 Japan forced Korea to open itself to foreign (read: Japanese) trade. In the same treaty, Korea was recognised as a sovereign nation, separate from Qing China (Tucker 1461). The necessity for raw materials then led to the Sino-Japanese War (1894–95), a conflict between Japan and China that marked the emergence of Japan as a major world power. The Korean Peninsula had long been China’s most important client state, but its strategic location adjacent to the Japanese archipelago, and its natural resources of coal and iron, attracted Japan’s interest. Later, the Russo-Japanese War (1904–05), allowed a victorious Japan to force Russia to abandon its expansionist policy in the Far East, becoming the first Asian power in modern times to defeat a European power. The Russo-Japanese War developed out of the rivalry between Russia and Japan for dominance in Korea and Manchuria, again in the struggle for natural resources (Tucker 1534-46).Japan’s victories, together with the county’s drive for resources, meant that Japan could now determine its role within the Asia-Pacific sphere of influence. As Japan’s military, and their adoption of Westernised combat, proved effective in maintaining national integrity, other social institutions also looked to the West (Ferguson 221). In an ironic twist—while Victorian and Continental fashion was busy adopting the exotic, oriental look (Martin and Koda)—the kimono, along with other essentials of Japanese fashions, were rapidly altered (both literally and figuratively) to suit new, warlike ideology. It should be noted that kimono literally means ‘things that you wear’ and which, prior to exposure to Western fashions, signified all worn clothing (Dalby 65-119). “Wearing Things” in Westernised JapanAs Japan modernised during the late 1800s the kimono was positioned as symbolising barbaric, pre-modern, ‘oriental’ Japan. Indeed, on 17 January 1887 the Meiji Empress issued a memorandum on the subject of women’s clothing in Japan: “She [the Empress] believed that western clothes were in fact closer to the dress of women in ancient Japan than the kimonos currently worn and urged that they be adopted as the standard clothes of the reign” (Keene 404). The resemblance between Western skirts and blouses and the simple skirt and separate top that had been worn in ancient times by a people descended from the sun goddess, Amaterasu wo mikami, was used to give authority and cultural authenticity to Japan’s modernisation projects. The Imperial Court, with its newly ennobled European style aristocrats, exchanged kimono silks for Victorian finery, and samurai armour for military pomp and splendour (Figure 1).Figure 1: The Meiji Emperor, Empress and Crown Prince resplendent in European fashions on an outing to Asukayama Park. Illustration: Toyohara Chikanobu, circa 1890.It is argued here that the function of a uniform is to prepare the body for service. Maids and butlers, nurses and courtesans, doctors, policemen, and soldiers are all distinguished by their garb. Prudence Black states: “as a technology, uniforms shape and code the body so they become a unit that belongs to a collective whole” (93). The requirement to discipline bodies through clothing, particularly through uniforms, is well documented (see Craik, Peoples, and Foucault). The need to distinguish enemies from allies on the battlefield requires adherence to a set of defined protocols, as referenced in military fashion compendiums (see Molloy). While the postcolonial adoption of Western-based clothing reflects a new form of subservience (Rall, Kuechler and Miller), in Japan, the indigenous garments were clearly designed in the interests of ideological allegiance. To understand the Japanese sartorial traditions, the kimono itself must be read as providing a strong disciplinary element. The traditional garment is designed to represent an upright and unbending column—where two meters of under bindings are used to discipline the body into shape are then topped with a further four meters of a stiffened silk obi wrapped around the waist and lower chest. To dress formally in such a garment requires helpers (see Dalby). The kimono both constructs and confines the women who wear it, and presses them into their roles as dutiful, upper-class daughters (see Craik). From the 1890s through to the 1930s, when Japan again enters a period of militarism, the myth of the kimono again changes as it is integrated into the build-up towards World War II.Decades later, when Japan re-established itself as a global economic power in the 1970s and 1980s, the kimono was re-authenticated as Japan’s ‘traditional’ garment. This time it was not the myth of a people descended from solar deities that was on display, but that of samurai strength and propriety for men, alongside an exaggerated femininity for women, invoking a powerful vision of Japanese sartorial tradition. This reworking of the kimono was only possible as the garment was already contained within the framework of Confucian family duty. However, in the lead up to World War II, Japanese military advancement demanded of its people soldiers that could win European-style wars. The quickest solution was to copy the military acumen and strategies of global warfare, and the costumes of the soldiery and seamen of Europe, including Great Britain (Ferguson). It was also acknowledged that soldiers were ‘made not born’ so the Japanese educational system was re-vamped to emulate those of its military rivals (McVeigh). It was in the uptake of schoolboy uniforms that this re-imagining of Japanese imperial strength took place.The Japanese Schoolboy UniformCentral to their rapid modernisation, Japan adopted a constitutional system of education that borrowed from American and French models (Tipton 68-69). The government viewed education as a “primary means of developing a sense of nation,” and at its core, was the imperial authorities’ obsession with defining “Japan and Japaneseness” (Tipton 68-69). Numerous reforms eventually saw, after an abolition of fees, nearly 100% attendance by both boys and girls, despite a lingering mind-set that educating women was “a waste of time” (Tipton 68-69). A boys’ uniform based on the French and Prussian military uniforms of the 1860s and 1870s respectively (Kinsella 217), was adopted in 1879 (McVeigh 47). This jacket, initially with Prussian cape and cap, consists of a square body, standing mandarin style collar and a buttoned front. It was through these education reforms, as visually symbolised by the adoption of military style school uniforms, that citizen making, education, and military training became interrelated aspects of Meiji modernisation (Kinsella 217). Known as the gakuran (gaku: to study; ran: meaning both orchid, and a pun on Horanda, meaning Holland, the only Western country with trading relations in pre-Meiji Japan), these jackets were a symbol of education, indicating European knowledge, power and influence and came to reflect all things European in Meiji Japan. By adopting these jackets two objectives were realised:through the magical power of imitation, Japan would, by adopting the clothing of the West, naturally rise in military power; and boys were uniformed to become not only educated as quasi-Europeans, but as fighting soldiers and sons (suns) of the nation.The gakuran jacket was first popularised by state-run schools, however, in the century and a half that the garment has been in use it has come to symbolise young Japanese masculinity as showcased in campus films, anime, manga, computer games, and as fashion is the preeminent garment for boybands and Japanese hipsters.While the gakuran is central to the rise of global militarism in Japan (McVeigh 51-53), the jacket would go on to form the basis of the Sun Yat Sen and Mao Suits as symbols of revolutionary China (see McVeigh). Supposedly, Sun Yat Sen saw the schoolboy jacket in Japan as a utilitarian garment and adopted it with a turn down collar (Cumming et al.). For Sun Yat Sen, the gakuran was the perfect mix of civilian (school boy) and military (the garment’s Prussian heritage) allowing him to walk a middle path between the demands of both. Furthermore, the garment allowed Sun to navigate between Western style suits and old-fashioned Qing dynasty styles (Gerth 116); one was associated with the imperialism of the National Products Movement, while the other represented the corruption of the old dynasty. In this way, the gakuran was further politicised from a national (Japanese) symbol to a global one. While military uniforms have always been political garments, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, as the world was rocked by revolutions and war, civilian clothing also became a means of expressing political ideals (McVeigh 48-49). Note that Mahatma Ghandi’s clothing choices also evolved from wholly Western styles to traditional and emphasised domestic products (Gerth 116).Mao adopted this style circa 1927, further defining the style when he came to power by adding elements from the trousers, tunics, and black cotton shoes worn by peasants. The suit was further codified during the 1960s, reaching its height in the Cultural Revolution. While the gakuran has always been a scholarly black (see Figure 2), subtle differences in the colour palette differentiated the Chinese population—peasants and workers donned indigo blue Mao jackets, while the People’s Liberation Army Soldiers donned khaki green. This limited colour scheme somewhat paradoxically ensured that subtle hierarchical differences were maintained even whilst advocating egalitarian ideals (Davis 522). Both the Sun Yat Sen suit and the Mao jacket represented the rejection of bourgeois (Western) norms that objectified the female form in favour of a uniform society. Neo-Maoism and Mao fever of the early 1990s saw the Mao suit emerge again as a desirable piece of iconic/ironic youth fashion. Figure 2: An example of Gakuran uniform next to the girl’s equivalent on display at Ichikawa Gakuen School (Japan). Photo: Emerald King, 2015.There is a clear and vital link between the influence of the Prussian style Japanese schoolboy uniform on the later creation of the Mao jacket—that of the uniform as an integral piece of worn propaganda (Atkins).For Japan, the rapid deployment of new military and industrial technologies, as well as a sartorial need to present her leaders as modern (read: Western) demanded the adoption of European-style uniforms. The Imperial family had always been removed from Samurai battlefields, so the adoption of Western military costume allowed Japan’s rulers to present a uniform face to other global powers. When Japan found itself in conflict in the Asia Pacific Region, without an organised military, the first requirement was to completely reorganise their system of warfare from a feudal base and to train up national servicemen. Within an American-style compulsory education system, the European-based curriculum included training in mathematics, engineering and military history, as young Britons had for generations begun their education in Greek and Latin, with the study of Ancient Greek and Roman wars (Bantock). It is only in the classroom that ideological change on a mass scale can take place (Reference Please), a lesson not missed by later leaders such as Mao Zedong.ConclusionIn the 1880s, the Japanese leaders established their position in global politics by adopting clothing and practices from the West (Europeans, Britons, and Americans) in order to quickly re-shape their country’s educational system and military establishment. The prevailing military costume from foreign cultures not only disciplined their adopted European bodies, they enforced a new regime through dress (Rall 157-174). For boys, the gakuran symbolised the unity of education and militarism as central to Japanese masculinity. Wearing a uniform, as many authors suggest, furthers compliance (Craik, Nagasawa Kaiser and Hutton, and McVeigh). As conscription became a part of Japanese reality in World War II, the schoolboys just swapped their military-inspired school uniforms for genuine military garments.Re-imagining a Japanese schoolboy uniform from a European military costume might suit ideological purposes (Atkins), but there is more. The gakuran, as a uniform based on a close, but not fitted jacket, was the product of a process of advanced industrialisation in the garment-making industry also taking place in the 1800s:Between 1810 and 1830, technical calibrations invented by tailors working at the very highest level of the craft [in Britain] eventually made it possible for hundreds of suits to be cut up and made in advance [...] and the ready-to-wear idea was put into practice for men’s clothes […] originally for uniforms for the War of 1812. (Hollander 31) In this way, industrialisation became a means to mass production, which furthered militarisation, “the uniform is thus the clothing of the modern disciplinary society” (Black 102). There is a perfect resonance between Japan’s appetite for a modern military and their rise to an industrialised society, and their conquests in Asia Pacific supplied the necessary material resources that made such a rapid deployment possible. The Japanese schoolboy uniform was an integral part of the process of both industrialisation and militarisation, which instilled in the wearer a social role required by modern Japanese society in its rise for global power. Garments are never just clothing, but offer a “world of social relations put upon the wearer’s body” (Jones and Stallybrass 3-4).Today, both the Japanese kimono and the Japanese schoolboy uniform continue to interact with, and interrogate, global fashions as contemporary designers continue to call on the tropes of ‘military chic’ (Tonchi) and Japanese-inspired clothing (Kawamura). References Atkins, Jaqueline. Wearing Propaganda: Textiles on the Home Front in Japan, Britain, and the United States. Princeton: Yale UP, 2005.Bantock, Geoffrey Herman. Culture, Industrialisation and Education. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1968.Black, Prudence. “The Discipline of Appearance: Military Style and Australian Flight Hostess Uniforms 1930–1964.” Fashion & War in Popular Culture. Ed. Denise N. Rall. Bristol: Intellect/U Chicago P, 2014. 91-106.Craik, Jenifer. Uniforms Exposed: From Conformity to Transgression. Oxford: Berg, 2005.Cumming, Valerie, Cecil Williet Cunnington, and Phillis Emily Cunnington. “Mao Style.” The Dictionary of Fashion History. Eds. Valerie Cumming, Cecil Williet Cunnington, and Phillis Emily Cunnington. Oxford: Berg, 2010.Dalby, Liza, ed. Kimono: Fashioning Culture. London: Vintage, 2001.Davis, Edward L., ed. Encyclopaedia of Contemporary Chinese Culture. London: Routledge, 2005.Dees, Jan. Taisho Kimono: Speaking of Past and Present. Milan: Skira, 2009.Ferguson, N. Civilization: The West and the Rest. London: Penguin, 2011.Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Penguin, 1997. Gerth, Karl. China Made: Consumer Culture and the Creation of the Nation, Cambridge: East Asian Harvard Monograph 224, 2003.Gilbert, W.S., and Arthur Sullivan. The Mikado or, The Town of Titipu. 1885. 16 Nov. 2015 ‹http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/mikado/mk_lib.pdf›. Hillsborough, Romulus. Samurai Revolution: The Dawn of Modern Japan Seen through the Eyes of the Shogun's Last Samurai. Vermont: Tuttle, 2014.Jones, Anne R., and Peter Stallybrass, Renaissance Clothing and the Materials of Memory. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000.Keene, Donald. Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World, 1852-1912. New York: Columbia UP, 2002.King, Emerald L. “Schoolboys and Kimono Ladies.” Presentation to the Un-Thinking Asian Migrations Conference, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, 24-26 Aug. 2014. Kinsella, Sharon. “What’s Behind the Fetishism of Japanese School Uniforms?” Fashion Theory 6.2 (2002): 215-37. Kuechler, Susanne, and Daniel Miller, eds. Clothing as Material Culture. Oxford: Berg, 2005.Landow, George P. “Liberty and the Evolution of the Liberty Style.” 22 Aug. 2010. ‹http://www.victorianweb.org/art/design/liberty/lstyle.html›.Martin, Richard, and Harold Koda. Orientalism: Vision of the East in Western Dress. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1994.McVeigh, Brian J. Wearing Ideology: State, Schooling, and Self-Presentation in Japan. Oxford: Berg, 2000.Molloy, John. Military Fashion: A Comparative History of the Uniforms of the Great Armies from the 17th Century to the First World War. New York: Putnam, 1972.Peoples, Sharon. “Embodying the Military: Uniforms.” Critical Studies in Men’s Fashion 1.1 (2014): 7-21.Rall, Denise N. “Costume & Conquest: A Proximity Framework for Post-War Impacts on Clothing and Textile Art.” Fashion & War in Popular Culture, ed. Denise N. Rall. Bristol: Intellect/U Chicago P, 2014. 157-74. Tipton, Elise K. Modern Japan: A Social and Political History. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2016.Tucker, Spencer C., ed. A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2013.V&A Kimono. Victoria and Albert Museum. “A History of the Kimono.” 2004. 2 Oct. 2015 ‹http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/h/a-history-of-the-kimono/›.V&A Victorian. Victoria and Albert Museum. “The Victorian Vision of China and Japan.” 10 Nov. 2015 ‹http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/t/the-victorian-vision-of-china-and-japan/›.Vincent, Susan J. The Anatomy of Fashion: Dressing the Body from the Renaissance to Today. Berg: Oxford, 2009.Wilde, Oscar. “The Decay of Lying.” 1889. In Intentions New York: Berentano’s 1905. 16 Nov. 2015 ‹http://virgil.org/dswo/courses/novel/wilde-lying.pdf›. Wilk, Richard. “Consumer Goods as a Dialogue about Development.” Cultural History 7 (1990) 79-100.

Introduction Ireland did not have a tradition of printed cookbooks prior to the 20th century. As a consequence, Irish culinary manuscripts from before this period are an important primary source for historians. This paper makes the case that the manuscripts are a unique way of accessing voices that have quotidian concerns seldom heard above the dominant narratives of conquest, colonisation and famine (Higgins; Dawson). Three manuscripts are examined to see how they contribute to an understanding of Irish social and culinary history. The Irish banking crisis of 2008 is a reminder that comments such as the one in the title of this paper may be more then a casual remark, indicating rather an underlying anxiety. Equally important is the evidence in the manuscripts that Ireland had a domestic culinary tradition sited within the culinary traditions of the British Isles. The terms “vernacular”, representing localised needs and traditions, and “polite”, representing stylistic features incorporated for aesthetic reasons, are more usually applied in the architectural world. As terms, they reflect in a politically neutral way the culinary divide witnessed in the manuscripts under discussion here. Two of the three manuscripts are anonymous, but all are written from the perspective of a well-provisioned house. The class background is elite and as such these manuscripts are not representative of the vernacular, which in culinary terms is likely to be a tradition recorded orally (Gold). The first manuscript (NLI, Tervoe) and second manuscript (NLI, Limerick) show the levels of impact of French culinary influence through their recipes for “cullis”. The Limerick manuscript also opens the discussion to wider social concerns. The third manuscript (NLI, Baker) is unusual in that the author, Mrs. Baker, goes to great lengths to record the provenance of the recipes and as such the collection affords a glimpse into the private “polite” world of the landed gentry in Ireland with its multiplicity of familial and societal connections. Cookbooks and Cuisine in Ireland in the 19th Century During the course of the 18th century, there were 136 new cookery book titles and 287 reprints published in Britain (Lehmann, Housewife 383). From the start of the 18th to the end of the 19th century only three cookbooks of Irish, or Anglo-Irish, authorship have been identified. The Lady’s Companion: or Accomplish’d Director In the whole Art of Cookery was published in 1767 by John Mitchell in Skinner-Row, under the pseudonym “Ceres,” while the Countess of Caledon’s Cheap Receipts and Hints on Cookery: Collected for Distribution Amongst the Irish Peasantry was printed in Armagh by J. M. Watters for private circulation in 1847. The modern sounding Dinners at Home, published in London in 1878 under the pseudonym “Short”, appears to be of Irish authorship, a review in The Irish Times describing it as being written by a “Dublin lady”, the inference being that she was known to the reviewer (Farmer). English Copyright Law was extended to Ireland in July 1801 after the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland in 1800 (Ferguson). Prior to this, many titles were pirated in Ireland, a cause of confusion alluded to by Lehmann when she comments regarding the Ceres book that it “does not appear to be simply a Dublin-printed edition of an English book” (Housewife 403). This attribution is based on the dedication in the preface: “To The Ladies of Dublin.” From her statement that she had a “great deal of experience in business of this kind”, one may conclude that Ceres had worked as a housekeeper or cook. Cheap Receipts and Hints on Cookery was the second of two books by Catherine Alexander, Countess of Caledon. While many commentators were offering advice to Irish people on how to alleviate their poverty, in Friendly Advice to Irish Mothers on Training their Children, Alexander was unusual in addressing her book specifically to its intended audience (Bourke). In this cookbook, the tone is of a practical didactic nature, the philosophy that of enablement. Given the paucity of printed material, manuscripts provide the main primary source regarding the existence of an indigenous culinary tradition. Attitudes regarding this tradition lie along the spectrum exemplified by the comments of an Irish journalist, Kevin Myers, and an eminent Irish historian, Louis Cullen. Myers describes Irish cuisine as a “travesty” and claims that the cuisine of “Old Ireland, in texture and in flavour, generally resembles the cinders after the suttee of a very large, but not very tasty widow”, Cullen makes the case that Irish cuisine is “one of the most interesting culinary traditions in Europe” (141). It is not proposed to investigate the ideological standpoints behind the various comments on Irish food. Indeed, the use of the term “Irish” in this context is fraught with difficulty and it should be noted that in the three manuscripts proposed here, the cuisine is that of the gentry class and representative of a particular stratum of society more accurately described as belonging to the Anglo-Irish tradition. It is also questionable how the authors of the three manuscripts discussed would have described themselves in terms of nationality. The anxiety surrounding this issue of identity is abating as scholarship has moved from viewing the cultural artifacts and buildings inherited from this class, not as symbols of an alien heritage, but rather as part of the narrative of a complex country (Rees). The antagonistic attitude towards this heritage could be seen as reaching its apogee in the late 1950s when the then Government minister, Kevin Boland, greeted the decision to demolish a row of Georgian houses in Dublin with jubilation, saying that they stood for everything that he despised, and describing the Georgian Society, who had campaigned for their preservation, as “the preserve of the idle rich and belted earls” (Foster 160). Mac Con Iomaire notes that there has been no comprehensive study of the history of Irish food, and the implications this has for opinions held, drawing attention to the lack of recognition that a “parallel Anglo-Irish cuisine existed among the Protestant elite” (43). To this must be added the observation that Myrtle Allen, the doyenne of the Irish culinary world, made when she observed that while we have an Irish identity in food, “we belong to a geographical and culinary group with Wales, England, and Scotland as all counties share their traditions with their next door neighbour” (1983). Three Irish Culinary Manuscripts The three manuscripts discussed here are held in the National Library of Ireland (NLI). The manuscript known as Tervoe has 402 folio pages with a 22-page index. The National Library purchased the manuscript at auction in December 2011. Although unattributed, it is believed to come from Tervoe House in County Limerick (O’Daly). Built in 1776 by Colonel W.T. Monsell (b.1754), the Monsell family lived there until 1951 (see, Fig. 1). The house was demolished in 1953 (Bence-Jones). William Monsell, 1st Lord Emly (1812–94) could be described as the most distinguished of the family. Raised in an atmosphere of devotion to the Union (with Great Britain), loyalty to the Church of Ireland, and adherence to the Tory Party, he converted in 1850 to the Roman Catholic religion, under the influence of Cardinal Newman and the Oxford Movement, changing his political allegiance from Tory to Whig. It is believed that this change took place as a result of the events surrounding the Great Irish Famine of 1845–50 (Potter). The Tervoe manuscript is catalogued as 18th century, and as the house was built in the last quarter of the century, it would be reasonable to surmise that its conception coincided with that period. It is a handsome volume with original green vellum binding, which has been conserved. Fig. 1. Tervoe House, home of the Monsell family. In terms of culinary prowess, the scope of the Tervoe manuscript is extensive. For the purpose of this discussion, one recipe is of particular interest. The recipe, To make a Cullis for Flesh Soups, instructs the reader to take the fat off four pounds of the best beef, roast the beef, pound it to a paste with crusts of bread and the carcasses of partridges or other fowl “that you have by you” (NLI, Tervoe). This mixture should then be moistened with best gravy, and strong broth, and seasoned with pepper, thyme, cloves, and lemon, then sieved for use with the soup. In 1747 Hannah Glasse published The Art of Cookery, Made Plain and Easy. The 1983 facsimile edition explains the term “cullis” as an Anglicisation of the French word coulis, “a preparation for thickening soups and stews” (182). The coulis was one of the essential components of the nouvelle cuisine of the 18th century. This movement sought to separate itself from “the conspicuous consumption of profusion” to one where the impression created was one of refinement and elegance (Lehmann, Housewife 210). Reactions in England to this French culinary innovation were strong, if not strident. Glasse derides French “tricks”, along with French cooks, and the coulis was singled out for particular opprobrium. In reality, Glasse bestrides both sides of the divide by giving the much-hated recipe and commenting on it. She provides another example of this in her recipe for The French Way of Dressing Partridges to which she adds the comment: “this dish I do not recommend; for I think it an odd jumble of thrash, by that time the Cullis, the Essence of Ham, and all other Ingredients are reckoned, the Partridges will come to a fine penny; but such Receipts as this, is what you have in most Books of Cookery yet printed” (53). When Daniel Defoe in The Complete English Tradesman of 1726 criticised French tradesmen for spending so much on the facades of their shops that they were unable to offer their customers a varied stock within, we can see the antipathy spilling over into other creative fields (Craske). As a critical strategy, it is not dissimilar to Glasse when she comments “now compute the expense, and see if this dish cannot be dressed full as well without this expense” at the end of a recipe for the supposedly despised Cullis for all Sorts of Ragoo (53). Food had become part of the defining image of Britain as an aggressively Protestant culture in opposition to Catholic France (Lehmann Politics 75). The author of the Tervoe manuscript makes no comment about the dish other than “A Cullis is a mixture of things, strained off.” This is in marked contrast to the second manuscript (NLI, Limerick). The author of this anonymous manuscript, from which the title of this paper is taken, is considerably perplexed by the term cullis, despite the manuscript dating 1811 (Fig. 2). Of Limerick provenance also, but considerably more modest in binding and scope, the manuscript was added to for twenty years, entries terminating around 1831. The recipe for Beef Stake (sic) Pie is an exact transcription of a recipe in John Simpson’s A Complete System of Cookery, published in 1806, and reads Cut some beef steaks thin, butter a pan (or as Lord Buckingham’s cook, from whom these rects are taken, calls it a soutis pan, ? [sic] (what does he mean, is it a saucepan) [sic] sprinkle the pan with pepper and salt, shallots thyme and parsley, put the beef steaks in and the pan on the fire for a few minutes then put them to cool, when quite cold put them in the fire, scrape all the herbs in over the fire and ornament as you please, it will take an hour and half, when done take the top off and put in some coulis (what is that?) [sic]. Fig. 2. Beef Stake Pie (NLI, Limerick). Courtesy of the National Library of Ireland. Simpson was cook to Lord Buckingham for at least a year in 1796, and may indeed have travelled to Ireland with the Duke who had several connections there. A feature of this manuscript are the number of Cholera remedies that it contains, including the “Rect for the cholera sent by Dr Shanfer from Warsaw to the Brussels Government”. Cholera had reached Germany by 1830, and England by 1831. By March 1832, it had struck Belfast and Dublin, the following month being noted in Cork, in the south of the country. Lasting a year, the epidemic claimed 50,000 lives in Ireland (Fenning). On 29 April 1832, the diarist Amhlaoibh Ó Súilleabháin notes, “we had a meeting today to keep the cholera from Callan. May God help us” (De Bhaldraithe 132). By 18 June, the cholera is “wrecking destruction in Ennis, Limerick and Tullamore” (135) and on 26 November, “Seed being sown. The end of the month wet and windy. The cholera came to Callan at the beginning of the month. Twenty people went down with it and it left the town then” (139). This situation was obviously of great concern and this is registered in the manuscript. Another concern is that highlighted by the recommendation that “this receipt is as good as the bank. It has been obligingly given to Mrs Hawkesworth by the chief book keeper at the Bank of Ireland” (NLI, Limerick). The Bank of Ireland commenced business at St. Mary’s Abbey in Dublin in June 1783, having been established under the protection of the Irish Parliament as a chartered rather then a central bank. As such, it supplied a currency of solidity. The charter establishing the bank, however, contained a prohibitory clause preventing (until 1824 when it was repealed) more then six persons forming themselves into a company to carry on the business of banking. This led to the formation, especially outside Dublin, of many “small private banks whose failure was the cause of immense wretchedness to all classes of the population” (Gilbert 19). The collapse that caused the most distress was that of the Ffrench bank in 1814, founded eleven years previously by the family of Lord Ffrench, one of the leading Catholic peers, based in Connacht in the west of Ireland. The bank issued notes in exchange for Bank of Ireland notes. Loans from Irish banks were in the form of paper money which were essentially printed promises to pay the amount stated and these notes were used in ordinary transactions. So great was the confidence in the Ffrench bank that their notes were held by the public in preference to Bank of Ireland notes, most particularly in Connacht. On 27 June 1814, there was a run on the bank leading to collapse. The devastation spread through society, from business through tenant farmers to the great estates, and notably so in Galway. Lord Ffrench shot himself in despair (Tennison). Williams and Finn, founded in Kilkenny in 1805, entered bankruptcy proceedings in 1816, and the last private bank outside Dublin, Delacours in Mallow, failed in 1835 (Barrow). The issue of bank failure is commented on by writers of the period, notably so in Dickens, Thackery, and Gaskill, and Edgeworth in Ireland. Following on the Ffrench collapse, notes from the Bank of Ireland were accorded increased respect, reflected in the comment in this recipe. The receipt in question is one for making White Currant Wine, with the unusual addition of a slice of bacon suspended from the bunghole when the wine is turned, for the purpose of enriching it. The recipe was provided to “Mrs Hawkesworth by the chief book keeper of the bank” (NLI, Limerick). In 1812, a John Hawkesworth, agent to Lord CastleCoote, was living at Forest Lodge, Mountrath, County Laois (Ennis Chronicle). The Coote family, although settling in County Laois in the seventeenth century, had strong connections with Limerick through a descendent of the younger brother of the first Earl of Mountrath (Landed Estates). The last manuscript for discussion is the manuscript book of Mrs Abraham Whyte Baker of Ballytobin House, County Kilkenny, 1810 (NLI, Baker). Ballytobin, or more correctly Ballaghtobin, is a townland in the barony of Kells, four miles from the previously mentioned Callan. The land was confiscated from the Tobin family during the Cromwellian campaign in Ireland of 1649–52, and was reputedly purchased by a Captain Baker, to establish what became the estate of Ballaghtobin (Fig. 3) To this day, it is a functioning estate, remaining in the family, twice passing down through the female line. In its heyday, there were two acres of walled gardens from which the house would have drawn for its own provisions (Ballaghtobin). Fig. 3. Ballaghtobin 2013. At the time of writing the manuscript, Mrs. Sophia Baker was widowed and living at Ballaghtobin with her son and daughter-in-law, Charity who was “no beauty, but tall, slight” (Herbert 414). On the succession of her husband to the estate, Charity became mistress of Ballaghtobin, leaving Sophia with time on what were her obviously very capable hands (Nevin). Sophia Baker was the daughter of Sir John Blunden of Castle Blunden and Lucinda Cuffe, daughter of the first Baron Desart. Sophia was also first cousin of the diarist Dorothea Herbert, whose mother was Lucinda’s sister, Martha. Sophia Baker and Dorothea Herbert have left for posterity a record of life in the landed gentry class in rural Georgian Ireland, Dorothea describing Mrs. Baker as “full of life and spirits” (Herbert 70). Their close relationship allows the two manuscripts to converse with each other in a unique way. Mrs. Baker’s detailing of the provenance of her recipes goes beyond the norm, so that what she has left us is not just a remarkable work of culinary history but also a palimpsest of her family and social circle. Among the people she references are: “my grandmother”; Dorothea Beresford, half sister to the Earl of Tyrone, who lived in the nearby Curraghmore House; Lady Tyrone; and Aunt Howth, the sister of Dorothea Beresford, married to William St Lawrence, Lord Howth, and described by Johnathan Swift as “his blue eyed nymph” (195). Other attributions include Lady Anne Fitzgerald, wife of Maurice Fitzgerald, 16th knight of Kerry, Sir William Parsons, Major Labilen, and a Mrs. Beaufort (Fig. 4). Fig. 4. Mrs. Beauforts Rect. (NLI, Baker). Courtesy of the National Library of Ireland. That this Mrs. Beaufort was the wife of Daniel Augustus Beaufort, mother of the hydrographer Sir Francis Beaufort, may be deduced from the succeeding recipe supplied by a Mrs. Waller. Mrs. Beaufort’s maiden name was Waller. Fanny Beaufort, the elder sister of Sir Francis, was Richard Edgeworth’s fourth wife and close friend and confidante of his daughter Maria, the novelist. There are also entries for “Miss Herbert” and “Aunt Herbert.” While the Baker manuscript is of interest for the fact that it intersects the worlds of the novelist Maria Edgeworth and the diarist Dorothea Herbert, and for the societal references that it documents, it is also a fine collection of recipes that date back to the mid-18th century. An example of this is a recipe for Sligo pickled salmon that Mrs. Baker, nee Blunden, refers to in an index that she gives to a second volume. Unfortunately this second volume is not known to be extant. This recipe features in a Blunden family manuscript of 1760 as referred to in Anelecta Hibernica (McLysaght). The recipe has also appeared in Cookery and Cures of Old Kilkenny (St. Canices’s 24). Unlike the Tervoe and Limerick manuscripts, Mrs. Baker is unconcerned with recipes for “cullis”. Conclusion The three manuscripts that have been examined here are from the period before the famine of 1845–50, known as An Gorta Mór, translated as “the big hunger”. The famine preceding this, Bliain an Áir (the year of carnage) in 1740–1 was caused by extremely cold and rainy weather that wiped out the harvest (Ó Gráda 15). This earlier famine, almost forgotten today, was more severe than the subsequent one, causing the death of an eight of the population of the island over one and a half years (McBride). These manuscripts are written in living memory of both events. Within the world that they inhabit, it may appear there is little said about hunger or social conditions beyond the walls of their estates. Subjected to closer analysis, however, it is evident that they are loquacious in their own unique way, and make an important contribution to the narrative of cookbooks. Through the three manuscripts discussed here, we find evidence of the culinary hegemony of France and how practitioners in Ireland commented on this in comparatively neutral fashion. An awareness of cholera and bank collapses have been communicated in a singular fashion, while a conversation between diarist and culinary networker has allowed a glimpse into the world of the landed gentry in Ireland during the Georgian period. References Allen, M. “Statement by Myrtle Allen at the opening of Ballymaloe Cookery School.” 14 Nov. 1983. Ballaghtobin. “The Grounds”. nd. 13 Mar. 2013. ‹http://www.ballaghtobin.com/gardens.html›. Barrow, G.L. “Some Dublin Private Banks.” Dublin Historical Record 25.2 (1972): 38–53. Bence-Jones, M. A Guide to Irish Country Houses. London: Constable, 1988. Bourke, A. Ed. Field Day Anthology of Irish Writing Vol V. Cork: Cork UP, 2002. Craske, M. “Design and the Competitive Spirit in Early and Mid 18th Century England”, Journal of Design History 12.3 (1999): 187–216. Cullen, L. The Emergence of Modern Ireland. London: Batsford, 1981. Dawson, Graham. “Trauma, Memory, Politics. The Irish Troubles.” Trauma: Life Stories of Survivors. Ed. Kim Lacy Rogers, Selma Leydesdorff and Graham Dawson. New Jersey: Transaction P, 2004. De Bhaldraithe,T. Ed. Cín Lae Amhlaoibh. Cork: Mercier P, 1979. Ennis Chronicle. 12–23 Feb 1812. 10 Feb. 2013 ‹http://astheywere.blogspot.ie/2012/12/ennis-chronicle-1812-feb-23-feb-12.html› Farmar, A. E-mail correspondence between Farmar and Dr M. Mac Con Iomaire, 26 Jan. 2011. Fenning, H. “The Cholera Epidemic in Ireland 1832–3: Priests, Ministers, Doctors”. Archivium Hibernicum 57 (2003): 77–125. Ferguson, F. “The Industrialisation of Irish Book Production 1790-1900.” The Oxford History of the Irish Book, Vol. IV The Irish Book in English 1800-1891. Ed. J. Murphy. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2011. Foster, R.F. Luck and the Irish: A Brief History of Change from 1970. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. Gilbert, James William. The History of Banking in Ireland. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green, and Longman, 1836. Glasse, Hannah. The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy by a Lady: Facsimile Edition. Devon: Prospect, 1983. Gold, C. Danish Cookbooks. Seattle: U of Washington P, 2007. Herbert, D. Retrospections of an Outcast or the Life of Dorothea Herbert. London: Gerald Howe, 1929. Higgins, Michael D. “Remarks by President Michael D. Higgins reflecting on the Gorta Mór: the Great famine of Ireland.” Famine Commemoration, Boston, 12 May 2012. 18 Feb. 2013 ‹http://www.president.ie/speeches/ › Landed Estates Database, National University of Galway, Moore Institute for Research, 10 Feb. 2013 ‹http://landedestates.nuigalway.ie/LandedEstates/jsp/family-show.jsp?id=633.› Lehmann, G. The British Housewife: Cookery books, cooking and society in eighteenth-century Britain. Totnes: Prospect, 1993. ---. “Politics in the Kitchen.” 18th Century Life 23.2 (1999): 71–83. Mac Con Iomaire, M. “The Emergence, Development and Influence of French Haute Cuisine on Public Dining in Dublin Restaurants 1900-2000: An Oral History”. Vol. 2. PhD thesis. Dublin Institute of Technology. 2009. 8 Mar. 2013 ‹http://arrow.dit.ie/tourdoc/12›. McBride, Ian. Eighteenth Century Ireland: The Isle of Slaves. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 2009. McLysaght, E.A. Anelecta Hibernica 15. Dublin: Irish Manuscripts Commission, 1944. Myers, K. “Dinner is served ... But in Our Culinary Dessert it may be Korean.” The Irish Independent 30 Jun. 2006. Nevin, M. “A County Kilkenny Georgian Household Notebook.” Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 109 (1979): 5–18. (NLI) National Library of Ireland. Baker. 19th century manuscript. MS 34,952. ---. Limerick. 19th century manuscript. MS 42,105. ---. Tervoe. 18th century manuscript. MS 42,134. Ó Gráda, C. Famine: A Short History. New Jersey: Princeton UP, 2009. O’Daly, C. E-mail correspondence between Colette O’Daly, Assistant Keeper, Dept. of Manuscripts, National Library of Ireland and Dorothy Cashman. 8 Dec. 2011. Potter, M. William Monsell of Tervoe 1812-1894. Dublin: Irish Academic P, 2009. Rees, Catherine. “Irish Anxiety, Identity and Narrative in the Plays of McDonagh and Jones.” Redefinitions of Irish Identity: A Postnationalist Approach. Eds. Irene Gilsenan Nordin and Carmen Zamorano Llena. Bern: Peter Lang, 2010. St. Canice’s. Cookery and Cures of Old Kilkenny. Kilkenny: Boethius P, 1983. Swift, J. The Works of the Rev Dr J Swift Vol. XIX Dublin: Faulkner, 1772. 8 Feb. 2013. ‹http://www.google.ie/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=works+of+jonathan+swift+Vol+XIX+&btnG=› Tennison, C.M. “The Old Dublin Bankers.” Journal of the Cork Historical and Archeological Society 1.2 (1895): 36–9.