Academic literature on the topic '1828-1903'

The work of Meigen 1800 was suppressed by the ICZN Commission in 1963 for the purposes of zoological nomenclature. The work as such is still to be treated as having been published and it remains available as a source of published descriptions and illustrations. Therefore, while the names in Meigen (1800) are deemed unavailable, a subsequent usage of any of the names may be considered a novel proposal. We review the first post-Meigen 1800 occurrence of each name, its first date of availability and authorship, and determine status and synonymy. Designations of type species are given for the following genus-group names: Coryneta Hendel, 1908 [Hybotidae]; Cyanea Hendel, 1908 [Hippoboscidae]. Acting as First Reviser, we select the following as the correct original spelling from multiple original spellings: Calirrhoe Hendel, 1908. New synonymies are proposed for the following: Ablabesmyia Johannsen, 1905 under Pelopia Latreille, 1802, n. syn. [Limoniidae]; Amasia Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Penthetria Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Bibionidae]; Amphinome Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Limonia Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Limoniidae]; Antiopa Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Chrysotoxum Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Apivora Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Volucella Geoffroy, 1762, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Atalanta Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Clinocera Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Empididae]; Calirrhoe Meigen & Hendel in Hendel, 1908 under Prosena Le Peletier & Audinet-Serville, 1828, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Chrysozona Hendel, 1903 under Haematopota Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tabanidae]; Cinxia Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Sericomyia Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Cleona Meigen in Hendel 1908 under Callomyia Meigen, 1804, n. syn. [Platypezidae]; Clythia Hendel, 1903 under Platypeza Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Platypezidae]; Coryneta Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Tachydromia Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Hybotidae]; Crocuta Bezzi, 1907 under Siphona Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Cyanea Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Melophagus Latreille, 1802, n. syn. [Hippoboscidae]; Cypsela Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Sphaerocera Latreille, 1804, n. syn. [Sphaeroceridae]; Dionnaea Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Rhamphomyia Meigen, 1822, n. syn. [Empididae]; Dorilas Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Pipunculus Latreille, 1802, n. syn. [Pipunculidae]; Echinodes Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Eriothrix Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Erinna Hendel, 1903 under Xylophagus Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Xylophagidae]; Eulalia Hendel, 1903 under Odontomyia Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Stratiomyidae]; Euphrosyne Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Macrocera Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Keroplatidae]; Flabellifera Osten Sacken, 1882 under Tanyptera Latreille, 1804, n. syn. [Tipulidae]; Fungivora Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Mycetophila Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Mycetophilidae]; Helea Osten Sacken, 1882 under Ceratopogon Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Ceratopogonidae]; Hermione Bezzi, 1908 under Oxycera Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Stratiomyidae]; Itonida Bezzi, 1908 under Cecidomyia Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Lampetia Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Merodon Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Laphria Bezzi, 1907 under Laphria Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Asilidae]; Lapria Bezzi, 1907 under Laphria Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Asilidae]; Larvaevora Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Tachina Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Liriope Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Ptychoptera Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Ptychopteridae]; Lycoria Latreille, 1802 under Sylvicola Harris, 1776, n. syn. [Anisopodidae]; Melusina Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Trichocera Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Trichoceridae]; Musidora Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Lonchoptera Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Lonchopteridae]; Noeza Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Hybos Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Hybotidae]; Omphrale Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Scenopinus Latreille, 1802, n. syn. [Scenopinidae]; Pales Bezzi, 1906 under Nephrotoma Meigen, 1803, n. syn . [Tipulidae]; Penthesilea Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Blera Billberg, 1820, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Petaurista Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Trichocera Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Trichoceridae]; Phalaenula Desmarest, 1818 under Psychoda Latreille, 1797, n. syn. [Psychodidae]; Philia Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Dilophus Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Bibionidae]; Phryne Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Sylvicola Harris, 1776, n. syn. [Anisopodidae]; Polymeda Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Erioptera Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Limoniidae]; Polyxena Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Cordyla Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Mycetophilidae]; Potamida Hendel, 1903 under Clitellaria Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Stratiomyidae]; Rhodogyne Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Gymnosoma Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Salmacia Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Gonia Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Scathophaga Meigen, 1803 under Scopeuma Latreille, 1802, n. syn. [Scathophagidae]; Coremacera Rondani, 1856 under Statinia Latreille, 1802, n. syn. [Sciomyzidae]; Tendipes Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Chironomus Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Chironomidae]; Titania Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Chlorops Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Chloropidae]; Trepidaria Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Calobata Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Micropezidae]; Tritonia Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Temnostoma Le Peletier & Audinet-Serville, 1828, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Tubifera Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Eristalis Latreille, 1804, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Urophora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 under Euribia Latreille, 1802, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Zelima Hendel, 1903 under Xylota Meigen, 1822, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Zelmira Meigen in Hendel, 1908 under Orfelia Costa, 1857, n. syn. [Keroplatidae]. The following three names have not been found to be synonymous with any other taxon, and are treated here as nomina dubia: Orithea Meigen in Hendel, 1908; Salpyga Meigen in Hendel, 1908; Titia Meigen in Hendel, 1908 (preoccupied). The following four names are found to be senior synonyms of more commonly used genus-group names: Euribia Latreille, 1802 of Urophora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Pelopia Latreille, 1802 of Ablabesmyia Johannsen, 1905, n. syn.; Scopeuma Latreille, 1802 of Scathophaga Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Scathophagidae]; Statinia Latreille, 1802 of Coremacera Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Sciomyzidae]. If they are construed as threatening stability of nomenclature and/or taxonomy, applications to the ICZN Commission may be warranted to request suppression of these names in favor of their junior synonyms.

The research results of the foliar fertilization influence with different levels of mineral nutrition on the maize grain yield were presented, and the economic efficiency of growing of grain products was clarified. It was found that when increasing the mineral fertilizer dose from N30P30K30 to N45P45K45 and N60P60K60, the height of plants increased by 3 and 7 cm, the leaf surface area of one plant – by 4.8 and 10.9 %, respectively. Due to foliar fertilization, the height of plants increased by 2–5 cm, and the leaf area changed insignificantly. Depending on the background of mineral nutrition, it was accounted 98–99 ears per 100 maize plants, and in the case of foliar fertilization – 98–100 ears. The maize grain yield on the background of N30P30K30 was 7.56 t/ha, on the background of N45P45K45 and N60P60K60 – 8.65 and 8.68 t/ha, respectively. In the control variant (without spraying) the yield was 7.77 t/ha, and when plants fertilizing with urea (15 kg/ha) – 8.09 t/ha. The grain yield in the variants with maize plant fertilizing with a mixture of urea and micronutrients reached to 8.30–8.78 t/ha. The prime cost of 1 ton of maize grain when growing on the background of N30P30K30 was 1808 UAH, with increasing the fertilizer dose to N45P45K45 and N60P60K60 – 1781 and 1903 UAH, respectively. In the control variant, it was equal to 1828 UAH, in the variants under maize fertilization with urea (15 kg/ha) or a mixture of urea and micronutrients – 1827–1836 UAH. The conditional profit on the background of N30P30K30 was 21878 UAH/ha, it enlarged to 24264–25265 UAH/ha in the case of fertilizer dose increasing. In the control variant (without spraying) the conditional profit was equal to 22310 UAH/ha, when plants were fertilized with urea (15 kg/ha) – 23257 UAH/ha, with a mixture of urea and micronutrients – 23823–25155 UAH/ha. The highest level of profitability (163.9 %) was on the background of N45P45K45; the impact of foliar fertilization on this indicator was insignificant. Key words: maize, fertilizers, foliar fertilization, grain yield, economic efficiency.

The phylogeny of the carabid beetle supertribe Nebriitae is inferred from analyses of DNA sequence data from eight gene fragments including one nuclear ribosomal gene (28S), four nuclear-protein coding genes (CAD, topoisomerase 1, PEPCK, and wingless), and three mitochondrial gene fragments (16S + tRNA-Leu + ND1, COI (“barcode” region) and COI (“Pat/Jer” region)). Our taxon sample included 264 exemplars representing 241 species and subspecies (25% of the known nebriite fauna), 39 of 41 currently accepted genera and subgenera (all except Notiokasis and Archileistobrius), and eight outgroup taxa. Separate maximum likelihood (ML) analyses of individual genes, combined ML analyses of nuclear, nuclear protein-coding, and mitochondrial genes, and combined ML and Bayesian analyses of the eight-gene-fragment matrix resulted in a well-resolved phylogeny of the supertribe, with most nodes in the tree strongly supported. Within Nebriitae, 167 internal nodes of the tree (out of the maximum possible 255) are supported by maximum-likelihood bootstrap values of 90% or more. The tribes Notiophilini, Opisthiini, Pelophilini, and Nebriini are well supported as monophyletic but relationships among these are not well resolved. Nippononebria is a distinct genus more closely related to Leistus than Nebria. Archastes, Oreonebria, Spelaeonebria, and Eurynebria, previously treated as distinct genera by some authors, are all nested within a monophyletic genus Nebria. Within Nebria, four major clades are recognized: (1) the Oreonebria Series, including eight subgenera arrayed in two subgeneric complexes (the Eonebria and Oreonebria Complexes); (2) the Nebriola Series, including only subgenus Nebriola; (3) the Nebria Series, including ten subgenera arrayed in two subgeneric complexes, the Boreonebria and Nebria Complexes, with the latter further subdivided into three subgeneric subcomplexes (the Nebria, Epinebriola, and Eunebria Subcomplexes)); and (4) the Catonebria Series, including seven subgenera arrayed in two subgeneric complexes (the Reductonebria and Catonebria Complexes). A strong concordance of biogeography with the inferred phylogeny is noted and some evident vicariance patterns are highlighted. A revised classification, mainly within the Nebriini, is proposed to reflect the inferred phylogeny. Three genus-group taxa (Nippononebria, Vancouveria and Archastes) are given revised status and seven are recognized as new synonymies (Nebriorites Jeannel, 1941 and Marggia Huber, 2014 = Oreonebria Daniel, 1903; Pseudonebriola Ledoux & Roux, 1989 = Boreonebria Jeannel, 1937; Patrobonebria Bänninger, 1923, Paranebria Jeannel, 1937 and Barbonebriola Huber & Schmidt, 2017 = Epinebriola Daniel & Daniel, 1904; and Asionebria Shilenkov, 1982 = Psilonebria Andrewes, 1923). Six new subgenera are proposed and described for newly recognized clades: Parepinebriola Kavanaugh subgen. nov. (type species: Nebria delicata Huber & Schmidt, 2017), Insulanebria Kavanaugh subgen. nov. (type species: Nebria carbonaria Eschscholtz, 1829), Erwinebria Kavanaugh subgen. nov. (type species Nebria sahlbergii Fischer von Waldheim, 1828), Nivalonebria Kavanaugh subgen. nov. (type species: Nebria paradisi Darlington, 1931), Neaptenonebria Kavanaugh subgen. nov. (type species: Nebria ovipennis LeConte, 1878), and Palaptenonebria Kavanaugh subgen. nov. (type species: Nebria mellyi Gebler, 1847). Future efforts to better understand relationships within the supertribe should aim to expand the taxon sampling of DNA sequence data, particularly within subgenera Leistus and Evanoleistus of genus Leistus and the Nebria Complex of genus Nebria.

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

Abstract It is recorded for the first time in the state of Rio Grande do Sul the occurrence of Scobina melanocephala (Lepeletier, 1823), Scobina thoracica (Jorgensen, 1913) and Scobina poeciloides (Ashmead, 1895), being this last the first record for Brazil. Scobina melanopyga (Klug, 1834) and Scobina torquata (Konow, 1903) were also found in the study. The analyzed material was collected utilizing Malaise traps in tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) fields and is deposited at the Entomological Collection of Santa Cruz do Sul.

The tribe Hygrotini Portevin, 1929 is currently composed of four genera, Heroceras Guignot, 1950, Herophydrus Sharp, 1880, Hygrotus Stephens, 1828 (with two subgenera, Coelambus Thomson, 1860, and Hygrotus s. str.), and Hyphoporus Sharp, 1880. A recent molecular phylogeny of the tribe with ca. 45% of the 137 described species of Hygrotini, including the type species of all genus-level taxa, revealed extended para- or polyphyly of the current genera and subgenera (Villastrigo et al., Zoologica Scripta, in press), for which reason a new classification of the tribe Hygrotini is proposed. Within Hygrotini only two genera are recognised: Clemnius n. gen. (with two subgenera: Clemnius s. str. with type species Hyphydrus decoratus Gyllenhal, 1810, and Cyclopius n. subgen. with type species Hydroporus acaroides LeConte, 1855) and Hygrotus (with four subgenera: Coelambus, Hygrotus s. str., Hyphoporus n. stat. and Leptolambus n. subgen. with type species Dytiscus impressopunctatus Schaller, 1783). Two genera are synonymised under Hygrotus s. str., Herophydrus n. syn. and Heroceras n. syn. The following 67 new combinations, for species thus far treated under the genera Heroceras, Herophydrus, Hygrotus and Hyphoporus, result from the new classification: Clemnius (s. str.) berneri (Young & Wolfe, 1984) n. comb., Clemnius (s. str.) decoratus (Gyllenhal, 1810) n. comb., Clemnius (s. str.) hydropicus (LeConte, 1852) n. comb., Clemnius (s. str.) laccophilinus (LeConte, 1878) n. comb., Clemnius (s. str.) sylvanus (Fall, 1917) n. comb., Clemnius (Cyclopius) acaroides (LeConte, 1855) n. comb., Clemnius (Cyclopius) farctus (LeConte, 1855) n. comb., Clemnius (Cyclopius) marginipennis (Blatchley, 1912) n. comb., Hygrotus (s. str.) assimilis (Régimbart, 1895) n. comb., H. (s. str.) bilardoi (Biström & Nilsson, 2002) n. comb., H. (s. str.) capensis (Régimbart, 1895) n. comb., H. (s. str.) confusus (Régimbart, 1895) n. comb., H. (s. str.) descarpentriesi (Peschet, 1923) n. comb., H. (s. str.) discrepatus (Guignot, 1954) n. comb., H. (s. str.) endroedyi (Biström & Nilsson, 2002) n. comb., H. (s. str.) gigantoides (Biström & Nilsson, 2002) n. comb., H. (s. str.) gigas (Régimbart, 1895) n. comb., H. (s. str.) goldschmidti (Pederzani & Rocchi, 2009) n. comb., H. (s. str.) gschwendtneri (Omer-Cooper, 1957) n. comb., H. (s. str.) hyphoporoides (Régimbart, 1895) n. comb., H. (s. str.) ignoratus (Gschwendtner, 1933) n. comb., H. (s. str.) inquinatus (Boheman, 1848) n. comb., H. (s. str.) janssensi (Guignot, 1952) n. comb., H. (s. str.) kalaharii (Gschwendtner, 1935) n. comb., H. (s. str.) morandi (Guignot, 1952) n. comb., H. (s. str.) muticus (Sharp, 1882) n. comb., H. (s. str.) natator (Biström & Nilsson, 2002) n. comb., H. (s. str.) nigrescens (Biström & Nilsson, 2002) n. comb., H. (s. str.) nodieri (Régimbart, 1895) n. comb., H. (s. str.) obscurus (Sharp, 1882) n. comb., H. (s. str.) obsoletus (Régimbart, 1895) n. comb., H. (s. str.) ovalis (Gschwendtner, 1932) n. comb., H. (s. str.) pallidus (Omer-Cooper, 1931) n. comb., H. (s. str.) pauliani (Guignot, 1950) n. comb., H. (s. str.) quadrilineatus (Régimbart, 1895) n. comb., H. (s. str.) reticulatus (Pederzani & Rocchi, 2009) n. comb., H. (s. str.) ritsemae (Régimbart, 1889) n. comb., H. (s. str.) rohani (Peschet, 1924) n. comb., H. (s. str.) rufus (Clark, 1863) n. comb., H. (s. str.) sjostedti (Régimbart, 1908) n. comb., H. (s. str.) spadiceus (Sharp, 1882) n. comb., H. (s. str.) sudanensis (Guignot, 1952) n. comb., H. (s. str.) travniceki (Šťastný, 2012) n. comb., H. (s. str.) tribolus (Guignot, 1953) n. comb., H. (s. str.) variabilis secundus (Régimbart, 1906) n. comb., H. (s. str.) variabilis variabilis (Guignot, 1954) n. comb., H. (s. str.) verticalis (Sharp, 1882) n. comb., H. (s. str.) vittatus (Régimbart, 1895) n. comb., H. (s. str.) wewalkai (Biström & Nilsson, 2002) n. comb., Hygrotus (Hyphoporus) anitae (Vazirani, 1969) n. comb., H. (Hyphoporus) aper (Sharp, 1882) n. comb., H. (Hyphoporus) bengalensis (Severin, 1890) n. comb., H. (Hyphoporus) bertrandi (Vazirani, 1969) n. comb., H. (Hyphoporus) caliginosus (Régimbart, 1899) n. comb., H. (Hyphoporus) dehraduni (Vazirani, 1969) n. comb., H. (Hyphoporus) elevatus (Sharp, 1882) n. comb., H. (Hyphoporus) geetae (Vazirani, 1969) n. comb., H. (Hyphoporus) josephi (Vazirani, 1969) n. comb., H. (Hyphoporus) kempi (Gschwendtner, 1936) n. comb., H. (Hyphoporus) montanus (Régimbart, 1899) n. comb., H. (Hyphoporus) nilghiricus (Régimbart, 1903) n. comb., H. (Hyphoporus) oudomxai (Brancucci & Biström, 2013) n. comb., H. (Hyphoporus) pacistanus (Guignot, 1959) n. comb., H. (Hyphoporus) pugnator (Sharp, 1890) n. comb., H. (Hyphoporus) severini (Régimbart, 1892) n. comb., H. (Hyphoporus) subaequalis (Vazirani, 1969) n. comb., H. (Hyphoporus) tonkinensis (Régimbart, 1899) n. comb.

Changes to the treatment of Coleoptera family-group names published by Bouchard et al. (2011) are given. These include necessary additions and corrections based on much-appreciated suggestions from our colleagues, as well as our own research. Our ultimate goal is to assemble a complete list of available Coleoptera family-group names published up to the end of 2010 (including information about their spelling, author, year of publication, and type genus). The following 59 available Coleoptera family-group names are based on type genera not included in Bouchard et al. (2011): Prothydrinae Guignot, 1954, Aulonogyrini Ochs, 1953 (Gyrinidae); Pogonostomini Mandl 1954, Merismoderini Wasmann, 1929, †Escheriidae Kolbe, 1880 (Carabidae); Timarchopsinae Wang, Ponomarenko & Zhang, 2010 (Coptoclavidae); Stictocraniini Jakobson, 1914 (Staphylinidae); Cylindrocaulini Zang, 1905, Kaupiolinae Zang, 1905 (Passalidae); Phaeochroinae Kolbe, 1912 (Hybosoridae); Anthypnidae Chalande, 1884 (Glaphyridae); Comophorini Britton, 1957, Comophini Britton, 1978, Chasmidae Streubel, 1846, Mimelidae Theobald, 1882, Rhepsimidae Streubel, 1846, Ometidae Streubel, 1846, Jumnidae Burmeister, 1842, Evambateidae Gistel, 1856 (Scarabaeidae); Protelmidae Jeannel, 1950 (Byrrhoidea); Pseudeucinetini Csiki, 1924 (Limnichidae); Xylotrogidae Schönfeldt, 1887 (Bostrichidae); †Mesernobiinae Engel, 2010, Fabrasiinae Lawrence & Reichardt, 1966 (Ptinidae); Arhinopini Kirejtshuk & Bouchard, 2018 (Nitidulidae); Hypodacninae Dajoz, 1976, Ceuthocera Mannerheim, 1852 (Cerylonidae); Symbiotinae Joy, 1932 (Endomychidae); Cheilomenini Schilder & Schilder, 1928, Veraniini Schilder & Schilder, 1928 (Coccinellidae); Ennearthroninae Chûjô, 1939 (Ciidae); Curtimordini Odnosum, 2010, Mordellochroini Odnosum, 2010 (Mordellidae); Chanopterinae Borchmann, 1915 (Promecheilidae); Heptaphyllini Prudhomme de Borre, 1886, Olocratarii Baudi di Selve, 1875, Opatrinaires Mulsant & Rey, 1853, Telacianae Poey, 1854, Ancylopominae Pascoe, 1871 (Tenebrionidae); Oxycopiini Arnett, 1984 (Oedemeridae); Eutrypteidae Gistel, 1856 (Mycteridae); Pogonocerinae Iablokoff-Khnzorian, 1985 (Pyrochroidae); Amblyderini Desbrochers des Loges, 1899 (Anthicidae); Trotommideini Pic, 1903 (Scraptiidae); Acmaeopsini Della Beffa, 1915, Trigonarthrini Villiers, 1984, Eunidiini Téocchi, Sudre & Jiroux, 2010 (Cerambycidae); Macropleini Lopatin, 1977, Stenopodiides Horn, 1883, Microrhopalides Horn, 1883, Colaphidae Siegel, 1866, Lexiphanini Wilcox, 1954 (Chrysomelidae); †Medmetrioxenoidesini Legalov, 2010, †Megametrioxenoidesini Legalov, 2010 (Nemonychidae); Myrmecinae Tanner, 1966, Tapinotinae Joy, 1932, Acallinae Joy, 1932, Cycloderini Hoffmann, 1950, Sthereini Hatch, 1971 (Curculionidae). The following 21 family-group names, listed as unavailable in Bouchard et al. (2011), are determined to be available: Eohomopterinae Wasmann, 1929 (Carabidae); Prosopocoilini Benesh, 1960, Pseudodorcini Benesh, 1960, Rhyssonotini Benesh, 1960 (Lucanidae); Galbini Beaulieu, 1919 (Eucnemidae); Troglopates Mulsant & Rey, 1867 (Melyridae); Hippodamiini Weise, 1885 (Coccinellidae); Micrositates Mulsant & Rey, 1854, Héliopathaires Mulsant & Rey, 1854 (Tenebrionidae); Hypasclerini Arnett, 1984; Oxaciini Arnett, 1984 (Oedemeridae); Stilpnonotinae Borchmann, 1936 (Mycteridae); Trogocryptinae Lawrence, 1991 (Salpingidae); Grammopterini Della Beffa, 1915, Aedilinae Perrier, 1893, Anaesthetinae Perrier, 1893 (Cerambycidae); Physonotitae Spaeth, 1942, Octotomides Horn, 1883 (Chrysomelidae); Sympiezopinorum Faust, 1886, Sueinae Murayama, 1959, Eccoptopterini Kalshoven, 1959 (Curculionidae). The following names were proposed as new without reference to family-group names based on the same type genus which had been made available at an earlier date: Dineutini Ochs, 1926 (Gyrinidae); Odonteini Shokhin, 2007 (Geotrupidae); Fornaxini Cobos, 1965 (Eucnemidae); Auletobiina Legalov, 2001 (Attelabidae). The priority of several family-group names, listed as valid in Bouchard et al. (2011), is affected by recent bibliographic discoveries or new nomenclatural interpretations. †Necronectinae Ponomarenko, 1977 is treated as permanently invalid and replaced with †Timarchopsinae Wang, Ponomarenko & Zhang, 2010 (Coptoclavidae); Agathidiini Westwood, 1838 is replaced by the older name Anisotomini Horaninow, 1834 (Staphylinidae); Cyrtoscydmini Schaufuss, 1889 is replaced by the older name Stenichnini Fauvel, 1885 (Staphylinidae); Eremazinae Iablokoff-Khnzorian, 1977 is treated as unavailable and replaced with Eremazinae Stebnicka, 1977 (Scarabaeidae); Coryphocerina Burmeister, 1842 is replaced by the older name Rhomborhinina Westwood, 1842 (Scarabaeidae); Eudysantina Bouchard, Lawrence, Davies & Newton, 2005 is replaced by the older name Dysantina Gebien, 1922 which is not permanently invalid (Tenebrionidae). The names Macraulacinae/-ini Fleutiaux, 1923 (Eucnemidae), Anamorphinae Strohecker, 1953 (Endomychidae), Pachycnemina Laporte, 1840 (Scarabaeidae), Thaumastodinae Champion, 1924 (Limnichidae), Eudicronychinae Girard, 1971 (Elateridae), Trogoxylini Lesne, 1921 (Bostrichidae), Laemophloeidae Ganglbauer, 1899 (Laemophloeidae); Ancitini Aurivillius, 1917 (Cerambycidae) and Tropiphorini Marseul, 1863 (Curculionidae) are threatened by the discovery of older names; Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Art. 23.9) or an application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will be necessary to retain usage of the younger synonyms. Reversal of Precedence is used herein to qualify the following family-group names as nomina protecta: Murmidiinae Jacquelin du Val, 1858 (Cerylonidae) and Chalepini Weise, 1910 (Chrysomelidae). The following 17 Coleoptera family-group names (some of which are used as valid) are homonyms of other family-group names in zoology, these cases must be referred to the Commission for a ruling to remove the homonymy: Catiniidae Ponomarenko, 1968 (Catiniidae); Homopterinae Wasmann, 1920, Glyptini Horn, 1881 (Carabidae); Tychini Raffray, 1904, Ocypodina Hatch, 1957 (Staphylinidae); Gonatinae Kuwert, 1891 (Passalidae); Aplonychidae Burmeister, 1855 (Scarabaeidae); Microchaetini Paulus, 1973 (Byrrhidae); Epiphanini Muona, 1993 (Eucnemidae); Limoniina Jakobson, 1913 (Elateridae); Ichthyurini Champion, 1915 (Cantharidae); Decamerinae Crowson, 1964 (Trogossitidae); Trichodidae Streubel, 1839 (Cleridae); Monocorynini Miyatake, 1988 (Coccinellidae); Gastrophysina Kippenberg, 2010, Chorinini Weise, 1923 (Chrysomelidae); Meconemini Pierce, 1930 (Anthribidae). The following new substitute names are proposed: Phoroschizus (to replace Schizophorus Ponomarenko, 1968) and Phoroschizidae (to replace Schizophoridae Ponomarenko, 1968); Mesostyloides (to replace Mesostylus Faust, 1894) and Mesostyloidini (to replace Mesostylini Reitter, 1913). The following new genus-group name synonyms are proposed [valid names in square brackets]: Plocastes Gistel, 1856 [Aesalus Fabricius, 1801] (Lucanidae); Evambates Gistel, 1856 [Trichius Fabricius, 1775] (Scarabaeidae); Homoeoplastus Gistel, 1856 [Byturus Latreille, 1797] (Byturidae). Two type genera previously treated as preoccupied and invalid, Heteroscelis Latreille, 1828 and Dysantes Pascoe, 1869 (Tenebrionidae), are determined to be senior homonyms based on bibliographical research. While Dysantes is treated as valid here, Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Art. 23.9) is used to conserve usage of Anomalipus Guérin-Méneville, 1831 over Heteroscelis.

Between 1778 and 1903, three successive generations of the Wendland family were Court Gardeners at the Royal Gardens of Herrenhausen, Hanover, Germany. In addition to their horticultural responsibilities, they published several important taxonomic accounts, some involving Australian plants. Johann Christoph Wendland (1755–1828) (J.C.Wendl.) established the endemic Australian genera Angianthus J.C.Wendl. (Asteraceae), Hakea Schrad. & J.C.Wendl. (Proteaceae) and Waitzia J.C.Wendl. (Asteraceae), and provided novel work on Melaleuca L. (Myrtaceae) and Acacia Mill. (as Mimosa L; Fabaceae); Heinrich Ludolph Wendland (1792–1869) (H. L.Wendl.) provided novel and revisionary work on Acacia and Leptospermum J.R.Forst. & G.Forst. (Myrtaceae); and Hermann Wendland (1825–1903) (H. Wendl.) specialised in the palms (Arecaceae) and wrote Palmae Australasicae with Oscar Drude, the foundational work on Australian palms. A search of all the databases and other references accessible to us has resulted in the identification of ~148 names of Australian plants in which the author citation includes any of the three Wendlands. Of these, ~30 are the currently accepted names. Lectotypes are here proposed for the names Acacia amoena H.L.Wendl., A. crassiuscula H.L.Wendl., A. dolabriformis H.L.Wendl., A. emarginata H.L.Wendl., A. homomalla H.L.Wendl., Aster tomentosus J.C.Wendl., Leptospermum buxifolium H.L.Wendl., L. emarginatum H.L.Wendl. ex Link, L. glomeratum H.L.Wendl., Melaleuca linearis Schrad. & J.C.Wendl., M. thea Schrad. & J.C.Wendl., Passiflora glabra J.C.Wendl., Protea nectarina J.C.Wendl., P. pulchella Schrad. & J.C.Wendl., Pultenaea daphnoides J.C.Wendl., P. linophylla Schrad. & J.C.Wendl., P. retorta J.C.Wendl. and Tristania subverticillata H.L.Wendl. Figures are provided of all the proposed lectotypes housed in GOET.

Thesis (M.A.) -- University of Maryland, College Park, 2004
Thesis research directed by: Counseling and Personnel Services. Title from t.p. of PDF. Includes bibliographical references. Published by UMI Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor, Mich. Also available in paper.

Thesis (Ph. D.) -- University of Maryland, College Park, 2003.
Thesis research directed by: Theatre. Title from t.p. of PDF. Includes bibliographical references. Published by UMI Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor, Mich. Also available in paper.

Autour des voyages extraordinaires de jules verne, cette contribution envisage un corpus dont la coherence se veut d'ordre psycho-thematique : le voyage comme exploration de la mort, et l'ecriture comme voyage fantasmatique. Des lors, le voyage n'est plus seulement le reve d'epuiser les ressources de la mappemonde, mais aussi un reve d'utopies : utopies de l'ailleurs, de l'amour, du futur, d'un accord nature-societe-utopies qui se voient contraintes, devant les ingerences du siecle, a l'exorcisme paradoxal que constituent les diverses contre-utopies : mal moral explore par le recit policier ou le recit fantastique, souvent associes ; mal politique envisage tant en fonction des blocages imposes au desir, que des trop reelles oppressions d'une histoire titubant a l'aveuglette- tandis que la science-fiction tente d'y voir clair dans la stochastique du futur. D'ou la dilection de notre travail pour les differentes formes de la litterature des limites, celle qui, sachant que le monde n'est que notre representation, se soucie peu des normes d'un pseudo-realisme reducteur. Merveilleux, fantastique, science-fiction, utopie et contre-utopie, poesie et exploration du mal sont donc autant de manieres de dire, non pas l'absurdite, mais le sens infini du monde. Que la transcendance debute par l'ecrit, tel fut peut-etre, du premier au dernier de ces textes, notre fil conducteur
This thesis is a corpus centred round jules verne's voyages extraordinaires and its coherence is meant to be psychothematic : travelling is seen as an exploration of death, and writing as an imaginary journey. Thus, travelling is not merely a dream of exhausting what a map of the world may offer, but also a dream of utopias : the utopias of the extraneous, of love, of the future, of a harmony between nature and society - such utopias are forced into the para- doxical exorcism which the various counter-utopias have formed: a moral evil explored by detective of fantastic narratives, a political evil seen as a repre- hension of desires and as the oppression inflicted by history- meanwhile science-fiction tries to see through a hazardous future. Hence our preference for the various aspects of the literature of limits, which, aware that the world is only our weltanschaaumg, is quite heedless of the rules of a reducing pseudo-realism. Therefore, the wonderful, the fantastic, science-fiction, utopias and counter-utopias, poetry and the exploration of death are as many ways of expressing not the preposterousness but the infinite significance of the world. Let transcendency begin with writing, such was, perhaps, our clew, from the first to the last of these texts

This Master’s thesis explores Jewish masculinity and identity within early twentieth-century literature (1903-1925), using texts written by Jewish authors in late imperial Russia and the early Soviet Union. This was a period of change for Russia’s Jewish community, involving increased secularization and reform, massive pogroms such as in Kishinev in 1903, newfound leadership within the 1905 and 1917 Revolutions, and a rise in both Zionist and Revolutionary ideology. Subsequently, Jewish literary masculinity experienced a significant shift in characterization. Historically, a praised Jewish man had been portrayed as gentle, scholarly, and faithful, yet early twentieth century Jewish male literary figures were asked to be physically strong, hypermasculine, and secular. This thesis first uses H.N. Bialik’s “In the City of Slaughter” (1903) and Sholem Aleichem’s “Tevye Goes to Palestine” (1914) to introduce a concept of “Jewish shame,” or a sentiment that historical Jewish masculinity was insufficient for a contemporary Russian world. It then creates two models for these new men to follow. The Assimilatory Jew, seen in Isaac Babel’s Red Cavalry cycle (published throughout the 1920s), held that perpetual outsider Jewish men should imitate the behaviour of a secular whole in order to be accepted. The Jewish Superman is depicted in Vladimir Jabotinsky’s “In Memory of Herzl” (1904) and Ilya Selvinsky’s “Bar Kokhba” (1920), and argues that masculine glory is entirely compatible with a proud Jewish identity, without an external standard needed. Judith Butler’s theories on gender performativity are used to analyze these diverse works, published in Hebrew, Yiddish, and Russian by authors of varying political alignments, to establish commonalities among these literary canons and plot a new spectrum of desired identities for Jewish men.
Graduate
2020-04-10

The Canadian astrophysics program rapidly developed between 1903 and 1914, leading to the wartime construction of what was hoped to be the world’s largest research telescope. The institution opened in Victoria British Columbia in 1918 with fanfare. Throughout the 1920s, the new Dominion Astrophysical Observatory (DAO) contributed to discoveries on the frontiers of astrophysics, while educating residents of Victoria about astronomy. In a history often overshadowed by the advent of cosmology in the 1920s, the discoveries of Victoria’s astronomers produced lasting insight into the size and scale of our own galaxy. Accordingly, historians of astronomy have probed the scientific accomplishments of Canadian astronomers, devoting relatively little attention to the regional importance of these scientific facilities. The Victoria observatory itself developed into a widely visited tourism destination as staff astronomers regularly engaged in public education initiatives. This study utilizes newspaper sources, scientific papers, and contemporary publications in assessing the cultural relationship between the DAO, Victorians, and Canadians, while examining the significance of the scientific research conducted with the world’s second largest telescope. In doing so it engages themes of public interest in the achievements of the institution, and Victoria’s civic identity as an emerging tourism destination.
Graduate
0334
0585
danielgposey@gmail.com

Blood pressure measurement occurs either non-invasively or invasively, and usually refers to systemic arterial pressure measurement, but can also refer to systemic venous or pulmonary arterial pressure measurement. In 1733 the Reverend Stephen Hales was the first person to measure the blood pressure in vivo in unanaesthetised horses by direct cannulation of the carotid and femoral arteries. In doing so he observed the pulsatile nature of flow in the circulation. In 1828 Poiseuille developed the mercury manometer, and used it to measure blood pressure in a dog. The mercury manometer has, of course, become the standard technique against which other techniques are compared. The earliest numerical information on blood pressure measurement came from direct rather than indirect measurement in 1856 by Faivre, using Poiseuille’s device. However, in the last part of the nineteenth century, non-invasive measurement techniques were developed. In 1903, Codman and Cushing introduced the concept of routine intraoperative blood pressure measurement, which at the time was a revolutionary concept. Nowadays it is a fundamental part of minimal monitoring criteria. There are several techniques of non-invasive BP (NIBP) measurement, all of which function by occluding the pulse in a limb with a proximal cuff, then detecting its onset again distally, on lowering the cuff pressure. Detection methods include palpation, auscultation, plethysmography, oscillotonometry and oscillometry. Accuracy of all non-invasive techniques depends on cuff size in relation to the limb concerned, and over which artery the cuff is placed. Such techniques of NIBP measurement are necessarily intermittent. Much discussion has taken place on the accuracy of these devices, and the accuracy of diastolic pressure measurements needs improving, and there are ideas proposed for new non-invasive devices [Tooley and Magee 2009]. In the absence of a stethoscope, this technique is simple and reliable. After inflating the cuff on the upper arm to a pressure of above that of systolic, the cuff is then deflated while palpating the brachial artery and the systolic pressure is measured with a mercury column at first detection of the pulse. A study by van Bergen [1954] showed that BP can be underestimated by this method by up to 25% at 120 mmHg.