Academic literature on the topic '1833'

AbstractAn alphabetical genus-group catalogue of the family Eucnemidae is given with type species citations. The catalogue is up-dated to 1984. Type designations are made for three names, Compsocnemis Bonvouloir, Feaía Fleutíaux and Sassanus Fleutiaux. The author of the genus Perothops is shown to be Laporte, 1838, that of the genus Oisocerus Bonvouloir in Murray, 1868. The descriptions of Rhigmaphorus Guérin-Méneville, 1843 and Sphaerocephalus brasiliensis, Germar 1839 are regarded to be valid. Haywardinia Cobos, 1964 and Suareziella Cobos, 1964 are shown to be junior homonyms. Willinkia Cobos is shown to be a nomen nudum. The correct usage of some misapplied names is emphasized: Farsus Jacquelin du Val, 1863 (=Hylochares auctt. nec Latreille, 1834), Galbites Fleutiaux, 1918 (=Pterotarsus auctt. nec Guérin-Méneville, 1831). Hylis des Gozis, 1886 (=Hypocaelus auctt. nec Dejean, 1833), Microrhagus Dejean, 1833 (=Dirhagus Latreille, 1834) and Xylophilus Mannerheim, 1823 (=Xyloecus Dejean, 1833, =Xylobius Latreille, 1834).

La Mezquita-Catedral de Córdoba cuenta con un rico legado de imágenes hasta la llegada de la fotografía a mediados del XIX que constituyen una destacada fuente documental para la investigación. Tras una amplia labor de rastreo y localización de dichas imágenes, se aportan referencias sobre sus autores, contexto y técnicas, valorando su fiabilidad o precisión gráfica. Las primeras conocidas corresponden a tiempos cristianos, destacando dos panorámicas urbanas de la segunda mitad del XVI, una de ellas objeto de plagios con una notable difusión en Europa. Los primeros planos a escala del monumento conservados son del XVIII y las primeras vistas interiores de finales de ese siglo. En la primera mitad del XIX se produjeron abundantes imágenes de viajeros y artistas, algunas muy bellas y publicadas con gran éxito editorial. Los documentos gráficos reseñados se presentan agrupados según su autoría y orden cronológico: primeras imágenes simbólicas (desde 1360), Wyngaerde (1567), Civitatis (h. 1585-1617), copias del Civitatis (s. XVII-XVIII), Baldi (1668), óleo anónimo (1741), imágenes esquemáticas (s. XVIII), dibujo colección Vázquez Venegas (1752), planos Académicos (1767-1804), Swinburne (1775-1779), Karwinsky y Rillo (1811), Laborde (h. 1800-1812), Murphy (1802-1813), Bacler d’Able (h. 1820), Taylor (h. 1826-1832), Ford (1831), Lewis (1832-1836), Prangey (1832-1837), Gail (h. 1832-37), Roberts (1833-1839), Dauzats (h. 1836-1838), Chapuy (h. 1838-1842), Villaamil (h. 1838-1844), Bossuet (h. 1841-1855), Gerhardt (h. 1849-1851), Guesdon (1853), Parcerisa (1855) y Los Monumentos Arquitectónicos (h. 1852-1881).

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

Taxonomic and nomenclatorial revision of the Neotropical tiger beetle genus Phaeoxantha Chaudoir, 1850 (originally Megacephala Latreille, 1802) is presented. Ammosia Westwood, 1852 (with type species Megacephala bifasciata) is confirmed as a junior synonym of Phaeoxantha. The results by Naviaux (2008), who rectified commonly confused taxonomy and nomenclature of Phaeoxantha nocturna (Dejean, 1831) and P. laminata (Perty, 1830) versus P. limata, based on Megacephala limata Perty, 1833 which is an unjustified emendation by Perty (1833) in Perty (1830–1833), are confirmed – the date of the unjustified emendation is newly rectified here. Megacephala laminata Perty, 1830 is confirmed as the type species of Phaeoxantha. Lectotype of Megacephala nocturna Dejean, 1831 is designated here, based on syntypes from the Dejean-Chaudoir collection in MNHN. The genus is subdivided here into two clearly differentiated subgenera: Phaeoxantha (Phaeoxantha) and Phaeoxantha (Euphaeoxantha) subgen. nov. The nominotypical subgenus is represented by Phaeoxantha laminata (Perty, 1830), P. (P.) nocturna (Dejean, 1831), P. (P.) nocturna crassipunctata ssp. nov., P. (P.) paranocturna sp. nov., P. (P.) epipleuralis W. Horn, 1923, P. (P.) tremolerasi (W. Horn, 1909), P. (P.) cruciata (Brullé, 1837) and P. (P.) bifasciata (Brullé, 1837). The latter, based on Megacephala bifasciata Brullé, 1837, was published by Brullé in order to rectify the concept of Megacephala aequinoctialis sensu auctorum, (primarily sensu Dejean 1825, 1833, 1836), which has been commonly yet incorrectly treated in literature as Phaeoxantha aequinoctialis aequinoctialis (Dejean, 1825). Although Dejean (1825) clearly characterized the same Megacephala species, his act cannot be interpreted as a valid description under Article 12 of the ICZN (1999), because he explicitly referred to the publications by Linnaeus (1763) and redescription by Fabricius (1775). Therefore, his act must be interpreted as a misidentification and subsequent usage of the name Cicindela aequinoctialis Linnaeus, 1763, which is in fact a bombardier beetle (Brachinini, Carabidae), presently known as Pheropsophus aequinoctialis (Linnaeus, 1763), misidentified by Dejean as Megacephala. In contrast, the name Megacephala bifasciata Brullé, 1837 was validly published, supported by a rather appropriate illustration and preserved type specimen, being also in common use to the present day; therefore, the confused name aequinoctialis cannot be preserved and is considered an unavailable name being excluded here from Megacephalini and Cicindelidae. The new subgenus Phaeoxantha (Euphaeoxantha) subgen nov. (type species Megacephala testudinea Klug, 1834) comprises following five species: P. (E.) testudinea (Klug, 1834), P. (E.) klugii (Chaudoir, 1850), P. (E.) bucephala (W. Horn, 1909), P. (E.) wimmeri (Mandl, 1958) and P. (E.) lindemannae (Mandl, 1964). Keys to the two subgenera and to their species, descriptions or differential diagnoses and colour photographs of the habitus and of characters of available type specimens of all species of the genus, as well as the variability and characters of individual populations, are presented and their distribution discussed.

Presently 724 species are known from the Danube Delta and Dobruja. From these, 270 in the Danube Delta and Dobruja, 50 to Romania and 2 to science are new (the description of the species is in progress). The species new to Romania are the following: Noxius curtirostris (Mulsant & Rey, 1861); Bruchela cana (Küster, 1848); B. concolor (Fåhraeus, 1839); B. parvula (Motschulsky, 1875); Perapion (Perapion) connexum (Schilsky, 1902); Ceratapion (Echinostroma) scalptum caviceps (Desbrochers des Loges, 1870); Metapion ermischi (Voss, 1969); Protapion angusticolle (Gyllenhal, 1833); Allomalia quadrivirgata (Costa, 1863); Corimalia fausti fausti (Reitter, 1890); Bagous (Macropelmus) claudicans Boheman, 1845; B. (Macropelmus) dieckmanni Gratshev, 1993; B. (Macropelmus) lothari Caldara & O'Brien, 1998; Brachycerus lutosus Gyllenhal, 1833; Stenopelmus rufinasus Gyllenhal, 1835; Tanysphyrus ater Blatchley, 1928; Aulacobaris kiesenwetteri (Faust, 1890); Labiaticola despicatus Faust, 1889; L. melas (Boheman, 1836); Ceutorhynchus levantinus Schultze, 1898; C. merkli Korotyaev, 2001; C. scrobicollis Neresheimer & H. Wagner, 1924; C. talickyi Korotyaev, 1980; C. varius Rey, 1895; Microplontus millefolii (Schultze, 1897); Ranunculiphilus (Austroceutorhynchus) italicus (C. N. F. Brisout de Barneville, 1869); Thamiocolus roubali Dieckmann, 1973; T. sinapis (Desbrochers des Loges, 1893); Gymnetron tibiellum Desbrochers des Loges, 1900; Miarus hellenicus Dieckmann 1978; M. solarii Smreczyński, 1957; Philernus ponticus Korotyaev, 1979; Sibinia (Sibinia) femoralis Germar, 1823; S. (Sibinia) variata Gyllenhal, 1835; Tychius (Tychius) ochraceus Tournier, 1873; T. (Tychius) subsulcatus Tournier, 1874; Ptochus (Ptochus) porcellus Boheman, 1834; Omias murinus (Boheman, 1842); Otiorhynchus (Pseudocryphiphorus) zebei Stierlin, 1861; Argoptochus (Argoptochus) markovensis Angelov, 1987; Polydrusus (Conocetus) baudii (Faust, 1889); Sitona ophthalmicus Desbrochers des Loges, 1869; Chlorophanus viridis balcanicus Behne, 1989; Rhabdorrhynchus echii Brahm, 1790; Bangasternus planifrons (Brullé, 1832); Larinus (Larinomesius) atomarius Capiomont, 1874; L. (Larinomesius) canescens Gyllenhal, 1835; L. (Larinomesius) syriacus Gyllenhal, 1835; L. (Phyllonomeus) filiformis Petri, 1907; Lixus (Epimeces) scolopax Boheman, 1835.

Steven Marcus has observed, “On any account, the 1830s are a decade of critical importance” (15). The period is prominent in the industrial era for several far-reaching if not entirely satisfactory pieces of legislation, including the Reform Bill of 1832, Althorp's Factory Act of 1833, and the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834. The Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 established the principle of popular election in all corporate boroughs with the exception of London. The decade is marked, as well, by the quantification of social problems, which is represented by the statistical societies founded in Manchester in 1833 and in London in 1834 and by the Journal of the Statistical Society in 1838. These manifestations of the transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy reflected the shift from cottage to factory production that marked the Industrial Revolution.

On répète trop souvent que Tocqueville avait commencé à penser avant d'avoir rien appris. Il était un homme de terrain bien plus qu'un homme de cabinet et le premier volume de ses Oeuvres publié par Gallimard (la Pléiade) vient opportunément le rappeler. On y trouve la totalité des notes de voyages de Tocqueville : Sicile (1826), Amérique (1831-1832), Angleterre (1833 et 1835), Irlande (1835), Suisse (1836). Algérie (1841 et 1846). A quoi s'ajoutent des réflexions pour un ouvrage projeté sur l'Inde (1840-1842) et un choix de discours politiques et académiques.

Highly precise occurrence data for 13 poorly-known weevil species in Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk Provinces of Ukraine are given: Eubrychius velutus (Beck, 1817), Pelenomus velaris (Gyllenhal, 1827), Cotaster uncipes (Boheman, 1838), Anthonomus undulatus Gyllenhal, 1836, Orthochaetes setiger (Beck, 1817), Acallocrates colonnellii Bahr, 2003, Centricnemus leucogrammus (Germar, 1823), Humeromima rufipes (Boheman, 1834), Otiorhynchus pinastri (Herbst, 1795), Paophilus afflatus (Boheman, 1833), Stomodes gyrosicollis Boheman, 1842, Adexius scrobipennis Gyllenhal, 1834, Neoplinthus tigratus porcatus (Panzer, 1798). Eubrychius velutus, Anthonomus undulatus and Acallocrates colonnellii are recorded from Ukraine for the first time. Cotaster uncipes (Boheman, 1838) firstly documented since 1941 and firstly recorded from Lviv Province and Ciscarpathian region.

Ilya Vasilyevich was born in 1789, from eight years he studied first at the county school, then at the Chernigov seminary. In 1809, I.V. Buyalsky entered the Medical-Surgical Academy, after which he worked as an anatomy prosector, engaged in surgical activities, including issues of surgery of the blood vessels. In 1822, Buyalsky developed a spatula, in 1827–1830 - a turnstile, named after him. In 1823 he defended his thesis on the topic: "On the pathology and therapy of aneurysms." In 1824, Buyalsky wrote The Guide to Doctors for the Correct Examination of Dead Human Bodies for Recognition of the Cause of Death, Especially in Forensic Studies, is the first original Russian guide to forensic medicine. In 1825, Buyalsky was elected an extraordinary, and in 1831, an ordinary professor at the Department of Anatomy of the Medical-Surgical Academy and a consultant to the Mariinsky Hospital (1831-1864). In 1828, he prepared “Anatomic-surgical tables explaining the production of large artery dressing operations”, which became the first national atlas of topographic anatomy and operative surgery. In 1829, I.V. Buyalsky was appointed manager of the Petersburg Surgical Instrument Factory, where various instruments for doctors were produced. Since 1833, he served as operator of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, since 1835 - Chief Doctor of all cadet corps. Buyalsky ligation of the nameless artery (1833), neurotomy (1835), removal of skin tumors, foreign body from the pelvic cavity (1835), vaginal and uterine polyps (1841), lipomas under chloroform anesthesia (1846), hernia repair (1847), plastic operations (1847), “an operation to destroy the rectal fusion” (1847), “extraction of embryos of the first 3-4 months or their succession during severe bleeding” (1852) and others. In 1837, Buyalsky was elected an honorary member of the Medical Council of the Ministry of the Interior, promoted to full state councilor. In 1838, Buyalsky received the title of a member of the Society of Russian Doctors and the title of honorary member of Kharkov University. In 1839, he was approved as an honored professor; in 1842 - in the rank of academician; in 1844 - in the rank of honorary member of the Academy with the preservation of "other positions and titles." In 1852, Buyalsky published the work Anatomic-Surgical Tables explaining the production of cutting and crushing stones, which laid the foundation for national urology. I.V. Buyalsky was awarded the Order of Vladimir 3 degrees (1840), St. Stanislav 1st degree (1843), Philip the Magnanimous (1844), Gustav Vaz (1848) and Oak Crown (1853). December 20, 1866 Ilya Vasilyevich died and was buried at the Big Okhta Cemetery in St. Petersburg.

The article is devoted to the first years of existence of the Mints cabinet of the University of St. Volodymyr. Kyiv University of St. Volodymyr was created by decree of Emperor Nicholas I on November 8th (20th) 1833. However, back in September 1833, the State Trustee of the Kyiv Educational District Egor Fedorovich von Bradke issued an order according to which all collections, including numismatic ones, from the Kremenets Lyceum and Vilnius University, closed after the Polish uprising of 1830–1831, should be moved to Kyiv. Actually, this date can be considered the beginning of the existence of the Mints cabinet of St. Volodymyr. In early 1834 M. Y. Yakubovych brought numismatic collection of Kremenets Lyceum from Vilnius to Kyiv. Since at that time Kyiv University did not have its own building, several private houses in Pechersk were rented for this work. M. Y. Yakubovych reported to the University Council that the Kremenets collection consists of 8636 of ancient coins and 9200 coins and medals of the new age. In January 1834, P. O. Yarkovsky was appointed to the post of chief librarian and curator of Mints cabinet. In 1834 he was sent on a business trip to Vilnius, where he had to accept the property and library of the University of Vilnius. In September 1835, along with the library and property, the numismatic collection of Vilnius University, consisting of 2783 coins, arrived in Kyiv. In the following years, the collections of of Theophilpolskyi nobility county school, Uman basilian county school, Lutsk gymnasium were also transferred to the Mints cabinet. In April 1835, the first addition in the «new» Kyiv collection was recorded. Among the donors – the first rector of the University M. O. Maksymovych, governor G. S. Loshkarev, amateur researcher of ancient Kyiv O. S. Anenkov, etc. By the end of 1836, the collection received more than 500 coins and medals. Since 1838, one of the important sources of replenishment of the numismatic collection were treasures, which, by order of Kyiv, Podolskyi, Volyn Governor-General began to come to the university for consideration. During the period from 1838 to 1842, about 20 treasures were examined in the Mints Cabinet. In the new university building, the Mints cabinet received room № 21 on the third floor for arranging the exposition and storing coins. In fact, the Mints cabinet became the first museum institution in Kyiv.

El período a analizar en esta investigación ha sido motivo de múltiples debates. Se le ha descrito con adjetivos tales como, desorden, ensayo y anarquía, dejando la impresión que esta es una época nebulosa y oscura de la historia en la que no se presentaron grandes avances concretos y que producto de la agitación reinante los gobiernos eran numerosos y muy cortos, además del hecho de que no había una opinión reinante por lo que se juraron dos Constituciones, además de dar paso a un proyecto de organización federal. Esto es visto así mayoritariamente puesto que entre los años 1823 y1833 ocurre una especie de período de transición entre dos momentos históricos coyunturales: la salida del poder de Bernardo O’Higgins en enero de 1823 y el advenimiento de los conservadores al poder con el Gobierno de José Joaquín Prieto (18 de septiembre de 1831). Por consiguiente, la mayoría de las investigaciones tradicionales al respecto, le ha asignado un juicio de valor a este período de la historia; por un lado se encuentran los historiadores conservadores, entre los cuales se puede nombrar a Ramón Sotomayor Valdés y a Carlos Walker Martínez, quienes estiman que dentro de estos diez años se produce un caos (o anarquía) total hasta que el bando conservador (representado sin lugar a dudas en la emblemática figura del Ministro Diego Portales), tras la ruptura que impuso la batalla de Lircay, estableció un orden y un control que urgían de sobremanera. Por otro lado los historiadores liberales entre quienes se encuentran José Victorino Lastarria, Benjamín Vicuña Mackenna y Diego Barros Arana, proponen que este decenio resultaba ser más que nada una especie de período de organización que mejoraría las instituciones del Estado con el tiempo mediante ensayos que llevarían al pensamiento de la época a un gran desarrollo moderno, el cual interrumpido precisamente por los resultados de Lircay y el ascenso de los conservadores al poder. La motivación y objetivo que persigue esta investigación, es ir más allá de estas dos tradicionales perspectivas de entendimiento del decenio 1823 – 1833 y dilucidar con hechos y nombres concretos si es factible hablar de una anarquía o un desorden, por ello, el objeto principal de estudio en estas páginas será el desarrollo y funcionamiento del Poder Ejecutivo entre el 28 de enero de 1823 hasta la promulgación de la Constitución de 1833 (26 de mayo de 1833). Estas fechas han sido así escogidas por encerrar entre sus días los verdaderos márgenes que permiten separar las épocas históricas, por un lado la salida de O’Higgins y por otro la promulgación de la Constitución, hecho que corona definitivamente el avance conservador y el fin de los ‘ensayos constitucionales’. Al analizar en concreto lo acontecido entre estas fechas, se pretende llegar a un resultado fresco, y en lo posible, libre de una postura ideológica o política, ya que si bien estas son totalmente válidas, al quedarse inmerso en ellas se ejerce un juicio desde una perspectiva más general (debate) en desmedro de la descripción específica y científica de lo ocurrido, la cual puede sin duda, arrojar nuevas luces para comprender este período.

Le 29 septembre 1833, lorsque le roi d'Espagne, Ferdinand VII meurt, la première des guerres carlistes de l'Espagne contemporaine (sept 1833-aôut 1840) éclate. Ce soulèvement affecte principalement le Nord de l'Espagne (Provinces basques, Catalogne et Province de Valence). Il s'achève par la défaite des carlistes dont environ 30000 trouvent refuge en France. Ce qui les caracteŕise, c'est la relative jeunesse, l'âge moyen étant de 30 ans. Pour ce qui est des catégories socio-professionnelles, les militaires se trouvent logiquement en première position (61. 5 % du total). Les origines géographiques des carlistes reprennent fort bien la carte des lieux des combats menés par les troupes nationales et insurgées. En t^ete, arrivent les basques et les Navarrais (38 %) et les Catalans (35. 5 %). Par ailleurs, l'étude de la correspondance entre le ministre de l'intérieur et les préfets révèle que ces derniers s'écartent très souvent des décrets promulgués par leur supérieur. [. . . ]. Gr^ace à notre étude, nous nous sommes faits une idée plus précise de la situation politique et sociale de la France et de l'Espagne ainsi que de l'importance que revêt, pour l'Espagne contemporaine, le thème de cette émigration politique.

This thesis examines the role of the British merchant firm Jardine, Matheson & Co. (Jardine Matheson) in promoting and facilitating Chinese migration into and around the British Empire between 1833 and 1853. It argues that existing historiography on Chinese migration has focused too heavily on the late-nineteenth century and has paid insufficient attention to earlier experiments with Chinese labour. The case study of Jardine Matheson also emphasises the varied roles played by commercial organisations in the British Empire. Existing work has focused on the role of the firm’s partners either as opium traders or elite businessmen in colonial Hong Kong, with little analysis of their interest and involvement in Chinese migration. By examining Jardine Matheson’s archive of letters and accounts, official colonial correspondence, parliamentary papers, newspapers, books, journals and periodicals, the thesis will shed light on both the changing perceptions and uses of Chinese migrant labour in various imperial contexts from the 1830s to the 1850s. Chinese migration to different colonial destinations, including Singapore, Assam, New South Wales and Ceylon, will be examined comparatively. The colonial case studies examined in the thesis demonstrate how imperial experiments with Chinese labour in the mid nineteenth century were dependent on the resources and networks of Jardine Matheson on the China coast. The firm’s publishing network simultaneously circulated ideas about Chinese migrants that were reproduced across the British Empire. Additionally, Anglo-Chinese contact zones that developed over the 1830s and 1840s were crucial to the formation of stereotypes about a specifically Chinese ethnic character and systems of onward migration to global destinations. This thesis demonstrates the importance of Jardine Matheson – as well as connected Western commercial organisations and individuals – in facilitating Chinese migration and creating demand for Chinese labour during a period of rapid change in the British Empire.

Cette thèse porte sur la mise sur pied et le fonctionnement de l'appareil de justice pénale en Grèce juste après son indépendance. La période retenue dans ce travail est celle de la monarchie absolue, c'est-à-dire de 1833, avec l'accession au trône du jeune prince bavarois Othon, jusqu'en 1843, où une révolte de l'armée l'obligea à octroyer une constitution. L'argument central est que la royauté nouvellement instaurée s'efforce de créer certaines structures étatiques de base par lesquelles elle aspire à saisir progressivement le contrôle du territoire et de monopoliser la violence légitime. Dans une première partie la thèse se concentre sur les rapports entre l'État et les justiciables. Les perceptions, tant officielles que populaires, de la déviance et du crime sont examinées dans le premier chapitre. Le second chapitre est consacré au brigandage, qui constitue la cible par excellence des instances. Les gens et les lieux de déviance, ainsi que l'arsenal extrajudiciaire mis en place par les instances étatiques sont abordés dans les chapitres suivants. Dans un second temps, l'analyse poursuit la mise sur pied des instances judiciaires. La constitution du corps de magistrature, l'introduction d'un nouveau cadre normatif cohérent, largement emprunté aux législations occidentales ainsi que la formation et le fonctionnement des nouvelles structures judiciaires, les tribunaux, sont examinées dans la seconde partie de notre travail. Enfin, la troisième partie se focalise sur l'arsenal pénal mis en vigueur. L'administration des peines, les efforts pour la mise en place d'un système pénitentiaire et la question de la peine capitale constituent l'objet de la troisième et dernière partie de la thèse
This doctoral dissertation examines the formation and the actual functioning of the penal justice system in Greece during the era of absolute monarchy, from 1833, when the new king Otto arrives in the recently liberated country, to 1843, when a military revolt forces him to promulgate a constitution. The main argument of this thesis is that the new regime makes a considerable effort to establish new institutions, based on the European model, and subsequently to take control of the territory and the populations, in order to access to the monopoly of legitimate violence. The first part of this work deals with the crime and the deviance. Our approach focuses on the relations between the state and its subjects, on the perceptions of crime, both official and popular, on the survival of traditional modes of resolution of disputes, on special cases of endemic violence, such as the brigandage, and on the extraordinary military of which makes use the state power so as to eradicate violence. The second part deals with the formation of the creation of the new judicial instances, the introduction of a new coherent legislation as well as with the formation, the composition and the evolution of the judiciary. Finally, the third and last part examines the functioning of the legal institutions, with a special focus on the nature of the penalties and the application of the sentences, the creation of some elementary penitentiary institutions and the application of the death penalty

La presente tesis es un estudio metaléptico que tiene por objeto descubrir la imagen literaria de un cronotopo urbano.

Los documentos literarios elegidos muestran la ciudad de Barcelona durante los años en los que se llevó a cabo la Revolución burguesa, tal y como fue recogida y plasmada por novelistas, poetas o autores teatrales contemporáneos a los hechos que se relatan.

Fueron años en los que se establecieron las bases de lo que después ha sido el mundo moderno desde el punto de vista ideológico, industrial y político, durante los cuales Barcelona fue el motor impulsor de los cambios del país, en diversos ámbitos. Cambios que no eran factibles sin una profunda y constante convulsión que tuvieron a la ciudad en un casi permanente estado revolucionario y con frecuencia de sitio.

La literatura posee suficientes imágenes de testigos o actores en las refriegas, tanto de carácter progresista como conservador, que permiten el rastreo por la década sin demasiadas lagunas puesto que dejaron constancia de la mayoría de sucesos relevantes ocurridos en la ciudad.

1) Ordenamiento de la investigación

La tesis consta de dos tomos. El primero está destinado a presentar les autores y las obras que han sido objeto de estudio. Además de los "Prolegómenos" (Cap. I) en los que se indican los objetivos del trabajo, contiene los capítulos "El Romanticismo en Catalunya y Barcelona" (Cap. II) y "Géneros y autores" (Cap. III). En ellos se señalan aspectos como la situación literaria de Catalunya o los autores y las obras que nos han servido para el propósito inicial. Hemos elegido poesías de Aribau, Cabanellas, Del Castillo, Gironella, Piferrer y Ribot, así como novelas de Mata, Milà de la Roca y Fatxot. También hemos escogido obras teatrales de Renart, Robrenyo y Ribot. Así mismo comentamos y analizamos los poemas anónimos correspondientes a "pliegos de cordel", que recuerdan los hechos más relevantes de esos años, y citamos las memorias escritas por personajes históricos en relación con acontecimientos que protagonizaron o de los que fueron testigos de excepción. Finaliza el Primer Tomo con algunos documentos "Anexos", elegidos de entre todos los utilizados en la obra, por sus dimensiones reducidas y ser los mismos de difícil acceso. Más que pormenorizar ahora cada autor, al final de esta exposición daremos unas conclusiones generales que sirvan para todos.

El Segundo Tomo dedica sus capítulos al objetivo fundamental de la investigación: considerar la literatura como motor y espejo de una sociedad en un momento dado. Por lo tanto, en esta parte se aportan los documentos que nos permiten trazar una imagen literaria de Barcelona desde 1833 a 1843 en los aspectos político, social y topográfico, estructurados de la siguiente manera:

- "Barcelona, centro político de Catalunya" (Cap. IV) recoge la información literaria relacionada con los hechos históricos de los diez años que estudiamos: La amnistía de María Cristina (1833), el inicio de la guerra carlista (1834), el Estatuto Real y sus consecuencias (1834), Las "Bullangues" (Del 25/7/1835 al 4/5/1837), el periodo del Barón de Meer (De octubre de 1337 a diciembre de1839), la estancia en Barcelona de María Cristina el verano de 1840 (Encuentros con Espartero / Ley de Ayuntamientos), la Revolución de Septiembre de 1841, el intento de demolición de la "Ciutadella" en octubre del mismo año, la crisis de la industria algodonera y textil a causa del final del proteccionismo comercial (1842), el bombardeo de Barcelona por Espartero (3/12/1842), los pronunciamientos del movimiento juntista en pro de la dimisión y expatriación de Espartero (junio -julio 1843), la revuelta de la "Jamància" (otoño 1843) y el bombardeo a la ciudad por el general Prim.

El Capítulo V, dedicado a la sociedad, estudia las características de la burguesía y del proletariado del momento a través de los datos aportados por la literatura. Los autores explicitan en sus obras la ideología política que defienden, en función de un complejo entramado de intereses. También recogen aspectos relacionados con la moralidad, costumbres, vivienda, modas y diversiones, todas ellas presentadas por el autor con el objetivo de ensalzar o denunciar al personaje y a la clase social objeto de descripción y a quien representa. En ese sentido, los datos que se aportan en las obras siempre tienen el carácter funcional de educar, desenmascarar o denunciar, de acuerdo con la manera de pensar de cada autor.

La Topografía de la ciudad (Cap. VI) representada literariamente es la que corresponde a los escenarios de la convulsión que están viviendo, por lo que las descripciones no son desapasionadas, ni se presentan equilibradamente los diversos espacios urbanos. Su razón de existir está en función de los acontecimientos que en ellos se iban desarrollando. De este modo, los autores señalan las murallas y los fuertes militares, sobre todo los de Drassanes, la Ciutadella y Montjuïc. Por otra parte, los lugares emblemáticos de intramuros son las plazas políticas de Palau y de Sant Jaume y algunos lugares de encuentro ciudadano como la Rambla, las calles Escudellers, Ample, Ferran, la Muralla de Mar y poco más. De extramuros se resalta la Barceloneta, la plaza de toros, el
"Cementiri Vell", Nuestra Señora del Coll y Montjuïc.

El Epílogo (Cap. VII) proporciona las conclusiones de la investigación. Sigue una Cronología de los autores y de los hechos ocurridos en la ciudad de Barcelona, con el fin de dar una información rápida al lector que lo requiera.

2) Descripción del trabajo

Las obras presentadas han sido estudiadas en dos sentidos:

- Primero, el propiamente literario y lingüístico, interesado por los aspectos formales y significativos de la obra en si misma. Aquí sólo se ha buscado hacer una presentación de los documentos elegidos, sin pretender una mayor exhaustividad.

- Segundo, un análisis del contenido de los textos desde el punto de vista pragmático, previo del análisis sociológico del discurso. Aquí se estudia la implicación del autor en su texto, los implícitos y las presuposiciones integradas, los modalizadores utilizados para conseguir los objetivos pretendidos, la ideología que transmite, etc.

Para enjuiciar las obras adecuadamente, hemos reunido informaciones diversas, que dan a esta investigación un carácter multidisciplinar:

A. El marco cultural y literario en el que, por su adscripción a una determinada generación, se desenvolvieron los autores, lo que permite contextualizar las obras en los márgenes adecuados dentro de la Literatura Comparada.

B. Las motivaciones que impulsaron a nuestros autores a escribir las obras seleccionadas y entenderlas mejor, tanto por el contenido como por la forma.

C. El contexto político, tanto de España como de Catalunya y Barcelona, en el que se producían las obras.

D. La situación económica y social de la población de Barcelona.

E. Los datos topográficos de la ciudad.

3) Conclusiones

Si bien cada obra es un reflejo particular de cómo su autor entendía e interpretaba el mundo, todos consiguieron, desde un punto de vista funcional, unos objetivos análogos:

a) Producir documentos literarios cercanos a la realidad.

b) Enmarcarlos de forma explícita en la ciudad de Barcelona.

c) Desarrollar el contenido de lo relatado entre los anos 1833 y 1843, aunque ninguna obra abarque toda la década en su conjunto.

d) Escribir obras narrativas, independientemente de su pertenencia a un género literario.

e) Denunciar aquello que sus respectivos autores consideraban abominable. Consecuentemente con su adscripción ideológica, las filias o las fobias manifestadas varían y aún se contraponen. A pesar de sus diferencias, tanto progresistas como conservadores propugnan un cambio en las estructuras políticas desde el absolutismo del que partían al liberalismo.

f) Funcionalizar los espacios elegidos. Con frecuencia se produce una metonimia entre el espacio y la acción de los personajes.

g) Reflejar la sociedad, con el objeto en general de mostrar las penurias y miserias (ya fueran físicas o morales) en las que estaban inmersos.

Las obras que presentamos fueron concebidas para defender los ideales abanderados por unos y otros. Las de los autores progresistas y radicales resaltan e idealizan los cambios conseguidos, mientras que las que pertenecen a autores conservadores destacan aspectos costumbristas, haciendo una crítica y ridiculizando al progresismo.

En conjunto, todas ellas nos proporcionan una imagen polifónica del cronotopo elegido: el de la ciudad de Barcelona entre los años 1833 y 1843.
This is a metaleptic study which aims to discover the literary image of a particular urban chronotope. The literary documents selected give an impression of the city of Barcelona during the years of the bourgeois Revolution and the events of the times as depicted by contemporary novelists, poets and playwrights.

The study is divided into two volumes.

- The first one starts with the Introduction (Prolegómenos) which outlines the aims of the work; there are then two chapters: Romanticism in Catalonia and Barcelona (El Romanticismo en Catalunya y Barcelona), and Genres and Authors (Géneros y autores). These chapters present an analysis of the literay situation in Catalonia. This volume ends with an annex (Anexos) of documents selected because they are short or hard to find.

- The second one is devoted to the basic aim of the study: the consideration of literatura as the motor of a society at a given moment, and also as a mirror of this society. The several chapters presents a wide range of documents which presents a literary image of Barcelona from 1833 to 1843, from the political, social and topographical points of view. This volume is closed with an Epilogue (Epílogo), a Cronology (Cronología) about the authors and events in question, and finally a Bibliography (Bibliografía).

Abstract He was preparing for death, even going so far as to close a letter to an old acquaintance, ‘Wishing you ease and consolation for the remainder of your days, and a quiet passage to a happy Immortality … ‘. Only two years before, however, this old man had travelled with Crabb Robinson to the Isle of Man, and then once again to Scotland, tolerating the new discomforts of the steamship as well as the familiar ones of carriages and bad inns in his determination to see Staffa with ‘Fingal’s Cave’ and the Christian site, lona.

The concept of multiple droplet impacts resulting from ultra high-pressure waterjet (UHPWJ) was used to develop a mathematical model to describe the effect of interfacial pressure on the underlying workpiece material. A non-linear elastic-plastic finite element analysis (FEA) was carried out in this study using the interfacial pressure model to predict residual compressive stresses. This three-dimensional FEA model was based on quasi-static considerations to provide prediction of both magnitude and depth of residual stress fields in a 7075-T6 aluminum alloy (A17075-T6). Results of the FEA modeling were in good agreement with experimental measurements. Effects of applied pressures on the residual stress fields are also presented and discussed as a method of estimating high-pressure waterjet induced compressive stresses under varying process conditions for peening.

A régmúlt idők járványai közül az 1831-es kolerajárványt állítja középpontba a cikk. Az addig nem ismert betegség új kihívások elé állította az orvosokat, a hatóságokat, a társadalmat. A cikk a betegség Magyarországra kerülését, a társadalmi feszültségeket okozó korlátozó intézkedéseket, az ezek nyomán szervezett megmozdulásokat ismerteti Pesten és Budán. Az 1821–1833 közötti időszak népességmozgalmi adataival érzékelteti a betegség hatását anyakönyvi bejegyzések alapján.

The US Congress codified the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), the nation’s most effective cultural resources legislation to date, mostly through establishing the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The NHPA requires Federal agencies to address their cultural resources, which are defined as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object. Section 110 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to inventory and evaluate their cultural resources, and Section 106 requires them to determine the effect of Federal undertakings on those potentially eligible for the NRHP. Fort Hunter Liggett is located on California’s Central Coast within Monterey County. The fort has been used as a training facility for large-scale maneuvers and live-fire exercises since its establishment as a US Army training facility in 1941. The periods of significance for Criterion A are: from 1769 to 1833, relating to the founding and development of Mission San Antonio de Padua; from 1834 to 1923, relating to Euro-American land grants and ranchos; from 1923 to 1940, relating to Hearst’s purchase of the property and subsequent development; from 1940 to 1945, relating to the establishment of the Hunter Liggett Military Reservation (HLMR) and activities related to WWII; from 1959 to 1970, relating to the establishment and buildup of CDEC; and from 1975 to 1980, relating to HLMR’s redesignation as Fort Hunter Liggett and associated development. This report provides a comprehensive historic context for ranges, features, and buildings at Fort Hunter Liggett in support of Section 110 of the NHPA.