Journal articles on the topic '1833-1893'

The type specimens of Lasioglossum Curtis, 1833 deposited in the Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences (St. Petersburg) are reviewed. Primary types of 69 taxa are illustrated and detailed information is provided (taxa include 33 described by F. Morawitz; 16 by P. Blüthgen; 15 by Yu. Pesenko (one of them with N. Davydova); four by E. Eversmann; and one by T.D.A. Cockerell). Lectotypes are designated here for the following eleven nominal taxa: Halictus anguliceps Morawitz, 1893, H. corvinus Morawitz, 1877, H. debilis Morawitz, 1893, H. glabriusculus Morawitz, 1872, H. gussakovskii Blüthgen, 1929, H. hyalinipennis Morawitz, 1876, H. morbillosus orientis Cockerell, 1924, H. popovi Blüthgen, 1931, H. porcus Morawitz, 1872, H. puncticollis Morawitz, 1872, and H. truncaticollis Morawitz, 1877.

The giant millipede genus Spirostreptus Brandt 1833 is revised to include six species from Africa, south of the Congo River. The six species formerly included in the genus were S. heros Porat 1872, S. kruegeri Attems 1928, S. sebae Brandt 1833, S. tripartitus (Cook & Collins 1893), S. unciger Attems 1928 and S. kymatorhabdus Attems 1914. Spirostreptus kymatorhabdus is here removed from Spirostreptus and accommodated in the new genus Namibostreptus. A new species, S. batokensis Mwabvu from Zimbabwe, is described. A key to the species of Spirostreptus species based on gonopod morphology is presented. Despite the remarkable similarity between the gonopods of S. heros and S. kruegeri, the two species are distinct. Spirostreptus has strict fidelity to the savanna biome, with overlapping distributions of species, thus making conservation of many species in one biome possible.

A recent cataloguing of the Heteroptera (Hemiptera) types held in the collection of National Museum, Prague (NMPC), revealed several specimens originating from the collection of Czech collectors Emil Holub and Ladislav Duda, being part of the same series as types described by Géza Horváth in his paper ‘Hemiptera nova africana’ and until now believed to be deposited exclusively in the Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest (HNHM). The publication date of that paper is fixed as March 20, 1893, affecting these taxa: Reduviidae: Coranopsis Horváth, 1893, Coranopsis vittata Horváth, 1893, Cosmolestes fulvus Horváth, 1893, Edocla albipennis Horváth, 1893, Harpactor (Diphymus) dudae Horváth, 1893, Oncocephalus angustatus Horváth, 1893, Phonoctonus validus Horváth, 1893, Reduvius reuteri Horváth, 1893, Staccia inermis Horváth, 1893; Blissidae: Ischnocoridea Horváth, 1893, Ischnocoridea elegans Horváth, 1893; Rhyparochromidae: Aphanus (Graptopeltus) dilutus Horváth, 1893 [= Naphiellus dilutus (Horváth, 1893)], Pamera bergrothi Horváth, 1893 [= Horridipamera bergrothi (Horváth, 1893)]; Coreidae: Homoeocerus fuscicornis Horváth, 1893, Hypselonotus balteatus Horváth, 1893 [= Hypselonotus interruptus Hahn, 1833]; Plataspidae: Niamia Horváth, 1893, Niamia angulosa Horváth, 1893; Scutelleridae: Cantao africanus Horváth, 1893, Cryptacrus princeps Horváth, 1893 [= Cryptacrus comes comes (Fabricius, 1803)], Polytodes Horváth, 1893 [= Polytes Stål, 1867], Polytodes ochraceus Horváth, 1893 [= Polytes tigrinus (Vollenhoven, 1868)]; Dinidoridae: Dinidor vicarius Horváth, 1893; Pentatomidae: Caura modesta Horváth, 1893, Diploxys (Paracoponia) holubi Horváth, 1893 [= Coponia holubi (Horváth, 1893)], Paracoponia Horváth, 1893 [= Coponia Stål, 1865], Mecosoma spinosum Horváth, 1893 [= Macrorhaphis acuta Dallas, 1851], Menida distanti Horváth, 1893 [= Menida transversa transversa (Signoret, 1861)], and Stollia crucifera Horváth, 1893. Only the following type specimens bearing Horváth’s original type label and deposited in HNHM are recognized and their status elucidated: Coranopsis vittata (1 syntype), Cosmolestes fulvus (holotype), Edocla albipennis (holotype), Harpactor (Diphymus) dudae (1 syntype), Oncocephalus angustatus (1 syntype), Reduvius reuteri (1 syntype), Homoeocerus fuscicornis (1 syntype), Hypselonotus balteatus (1 syntype), Niamia angulosa (1 syntype), Cryptacrus princeps (1 syntype), Polytodes ochraceus (holotype), Dinidor vicarius (holotype), Caura modesta (lectotype), Diploxys (Paracoponia) holubi (lectotype), and Menida distanti (1 syntype). The syntype(s) of Cantao africanus and holotype of Stollia crucifera could not be located; a specimen in NMPC presumably from the same series is designated here as neotype of Stollia crucifera. Based on the examination of the type material the following subjective synonymies are proposed: Neotrichedocla quadrisignata (Stål, 1855) = Reduvius reuteri Horváth, 1893, confirmed synonymy; Dinidor impicticollis Stål, 1870 = D. vicarius Horváth, 1893, syn. nov.; Parantestia (Chromantestia) cincticollis (Schaum, 1853) = Parantestia (Chromantestia) modesta (Horváth, 1893), syn. nov. = Parantestia (Chromantestia) cincticollis var. bergrothiana Kirkaldy, 1909, syn. nov.; Cosmopepla cruciaria Stål, 1872 = Stollia crucifera Horváth, 1893, syn. nov. Rhynocoris katangensis Schouteden, 1929 (Reduviidae), erroneously considered as junior synonym of Rhynocoris dudae by MALDONADO CAPRILES (1990), must be considered valid species. Type locality of the species described based on material collected by Emil Holub is discussed. New records are provided for Edocla albipennis (Namibia), Homoeocerus fuscicornis (Angola) and Parantestia cincticollis (Republic of the Congo).

As part of a current revision of the Australasian and Pacific orb-weaving spider fauna (family Araneidae Clerck, 1757), a number new combinations are proposed in the generaAcroaspisKarsch, 1878 (3 species),CarepalxisL. Koch, 1872 (1 species),CyclosaMenge, 1866 (5 species), andNeosconaSimon, 1864 (7 species):Acroaspislancearia(Keyserling, 1887),comb. n.,A.mamillana(Keyserling, 1887),comb. n.,A.scutifer(Keyserling, 1886),comb. n.,Carepalxisfurcifera(Keyserling, 1886),comb. n.;Cyclosaanatipes(Keyserling, 1887),comb. n.;Cyclosaapoblepta(Rainbow, 1916),comb. n.;Cyclosaargentaria(Rainbow, 1916),comb. n.;Cyclosalichensis(Rainbow, 1916),comb. n.;Cyclosapoweri(Rainbow, 1916),comb. n.;Neosconadecolor(L. Koch, 1871),comb. n.;Neosconaenucleata(Karsch, 1879),comb. n.;Neosconaflavopunctata(L. Koch, 1871),comb. n.;Neosconafloriata(Hogg, 1914),comb. n.;Neosconagranti(Hogg, 1914),comb. n.;Neosconainusta(L. Koch, 1871),comb. n.; andNeosconanotanda(Rainbow, 1912),comb. n.The following two Australian species, currently placed inAraneus, are not Araneidae but comb-footed spiders (family Theridiidae Sundevall, 1833):Anelosimusdianiphus(Rainbow, 1916),comb. n.andTheridionxanthostichus(Rainbow, 1916),stat. and comb. n.The following six species are considerednumina dubiaas their type material is immature or otherwise unidentifiable (e.g. partly destroyed):AraneusacachmenusRainbow, 1916;AraneusagastusRainbow, 1916;AraneusexsertusRainbow, 1904;AraneussuavisRainbow, 1899;Carepalxiscoronata(Rainbow, 1896); andHeurodesturritusKeyserling, 1886.Heurodesfratellus(Chamberlin, 1924) is considered anomen dubiumandHeurodesporcula(Simon, 1877) is returned toEriovixiaArcher, 1951,Eriovixiaporcula(Simon, 1877).Type material of predominantly Australian species described by E. v. Keyserling (1 species), W. J. Rainbow (10 species), A. T. Urquhart (8 species), and C. A. Walckenaer (2 species) is here considered destroyed or otherwise lost. As it is impossible to identify these species from their original descriptions and considering the known spider fauna from their respective type localities, they are all considerednumina dubia:AnepsiacrinitaRainbow, 1893;Epeiradiabrosis(Walckenaer, 1841);EpeiradiversicolorRainbow, 1893;EpeirafictaRainbow, 1896;EpeirahamiltoniRainbow, 1893;Epeiralacrymosa(Walckenaer, 1841);EpeiraleaiRainbow, 1894;EpeiramortoniUrquhart, 1891;EpeiranotacephalaUrquhart, 1891;EpeiraobscurtaUrquhart, 1893;EpeiraphalerataUrquhart, 1893;EpeirapronubaRainbow, 1894;EpeirararaKeyserling, 1887;EpeirasingularaUrquhart, 1891;Epeirasub-flavidaUrquhart, 1893;EpeirasimilarisRainbow, 1896 (=AraneusurquhartiRoewer, 1942 replacement name);EpeiraventriosaUrquhart, 1891; andEpeiraviridulaUrquhart, 1891.

Leptocoris arabicus new species (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Rhopalidae: Serinethinae) is described based on 55 specimens of both sexes collected in various localities of southern Oman and southeastern Yemen; a hypothesis is proposed as to its host plant. The new species is close to Leptocoris amictus Germar, 1838 and to Leptocoris ruber Göllner-Scheiding, 1980, new status, due to the presence of a produced horned process along the posterior ventral margin of the genital capsule. It is distinguished from both by differences in colour pattern and morphology. An informal L. amictus species-subgroup is proposed to accommodate these three species within the Leptocoris hexophthalmus species-group sensu Göllner-Scheiding (1980). The following new faunistic records are also provided: L. amictus from Ethiopia, Mozambique and Zambia; L. ruber from Central African Republic. The occurrence of L. chevreuxi (Noualhier, 1893) in Oman is confirmed. The list of all available species-group names assigned to Leptocoris Hahn, 1833 (gender masculine) and their synonyms is compiled and the gender agreement is corrected in the species names when appropriate. The nomenclatural problem concerning Leptocoris living on Marshall Islands discovered by Kerzhner (2003) is discussed and the following corrections are provided: Leptocoris rufus rufus Hahn, 1833, new status = Leptocoris lariversi Usinger, 1952, new synonymy, and Leptocoris rufus isolatus (Distant, 1914) new status.

The wolf spider (Lycosidae Sundevall, 1833) genusArtoriaThorell, 1877 is revised for New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, Australia, to include 34 species, 21 of which are new to science:A.albopilata(Urquhart, 1893),A.altaFramenau 2004,A.beaurysp. n.,A.barringtonensissp. n.,A.belfordensissp. n.,A.berenice(L. Koch, 1877),A.bondisp. n.,A.boodereesp. n.,A.comleroisp. n.,A.corowasp. n.,A.equipalussp. n.,A.extraordinariasp. n.,A.flavimanaSimon, 1909,A.gloriosa(Rainbow, 1920),A.grahammilledgeisp. n.,A.helensmithaesp. n.,A.howquaensisFramenau, 2002,A.kanangrasp. n.,A.kerewongsp. n.,A.lineata(L. Koch, 1877),A.marootasp. n.,A.mckayiFramenau, 2002,A.mungosp. n.,A.munmorahsp. n.,A.myallensissp. n.,A.quadrataFramenau, 2002,A.slatyerisp. n.,A.streperasp. n.,A.taeniiferaSimon, 1909,A.teraniasp. n.,A.triangularisFramenau, 2002,A.ulrichiFramenau, 2002,A.victoriensisFramenau, Gotch & Austin, 2006, andA.wilkieisp. n.LycosapruinosaL. Koch, 1877, currently listed inArtoria, is considered a nomen dubium.Artoriaare largely forest dwellers, although some species have preferences for more open areas such as riparian or coastal environments or grasslands. Consequently, the genus mainly occurs east and west along the Great Dividing Range, although some species can be found into the Riverina, Cobar Peneplain and Darling Riverine Plains IBRA regions to the west.

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.

An invasive seed-beetle species cowpea weevil Callosobruchus phaseoli (Gyllenhal, 1833), was found in the south-eastern Kazakhstan (Almaty city) for the first time. Its areal includes India (species origin), South and Central America, Europe, Middle East (Israel), North Africa, Arabian Peninsula, Far East, China, Japan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Burma, Philippines, Hawaiian Islands, Australia, and Oceania. Damaged plants are adzuki bean Vigna angularis (Willd.) Ohwi & H. Ohashi (1969), mung bean Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek, broad bean Vicia faba Linnaeus, 1753, pea Pisum sativum Linnaeus, 1753, pigeon pea Cajanus cajan (L.) Huth, 1893, hyacinth bean Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet, 1826, Wisteria sp., lima bean Phaseolus lunatus Linnaeus, 1753, common bean Phaseolus vulgaris Linnaeus, 1753 and other species of beans, chickpea Cicer arietinum Linnaeus, 1753, Sesbania sp., rattlepod Crotalaria spectabilis Roth., lupine Lupinus sp. Emerged beetles immediately mate and begin to lay eggs on the same day. Beetle damage both in field and in storage. We were not able to find the species during the monitoring of agriculture lands and natural landscapes near the city. We assumed that the invasion occurred recently and the species did not have time to spread outside Almaty. Since C. phaseoli was discovered in Almaty, which is a transit crossroad for many trade routes, further species distribution should be predicted. The most probable corridor for further invasion of cowpea weevil in Kazakhstan is the south and southeast parts of the country, namely Almaty, Zhambyl, Turkestan, and Kyzylorda oblast's.

Spirostreptus digitus sp. nov. is described based on specimens from Tanzania, and the genus Spirostreptus Brandt, 1833 is discussed, as is the higher classification of the family Spirostreptidae. Gonopod illustrations of S. heros Porat, 1872, and S. tripartitus Cook & Collins, 1893, are provided for comparison with the new, morphologically very distinct species. Analocostreptus Silvestri, 1910, is suggested as the valid genus name for the species currently being placed in Spirostreptus sensu auctorum, nec Brandt, 1833, and 32 nominal species of Spirostreptus are placed in new combinations with Analocostreptus, viz., Analocostreptus amandus (Attems, 1914), comb. nov., Analocostreptus biconus (Attems, 1934), comb. nov., Analocostreptus bonifatius (Attems, 1914), comb. nov., Analocostreptus castaneus (Attems, 1934), comb. nov., Analocostreptus cornutus (Attems, 1934), comb. nov., Analocostreptus damasus (Attems, 1953), comb. nov., Analocostreptus dartevellei (Attems, 1953), comb. nov., Analocostreptus dentiger (Attems, 1953), comb. nov., Analocostreptus garambanus (Chamberlin, 1927), comb. nov., Analocostreptus gregorius (Attems, 1914), comb. nov., Analocostreptus ineptus (Kraus, 1958), comb. nov., Analocostreptus informis (Attems, 1938), comb. nov., Analocostreptus makarius (Attems, 1914), comb. nov., Analocostreptus manyemanus (Attems, 1927), comb. nov., Analocostreptus manyemanus biserialis (Attems, 1938), comb. nov., Analocostreptus medjensis (Chamberlin, 1927), comb. nov., Analocostreptus micromelas (Saussure & Zehntner, 1902), comb. nov., Analocostreptus missionarius (Attems, 1953), comb. nov., Analocostreptus montivagus (Karsch, 1881), comb. nov., Analocostreptus multisulcatus (Demange, 1957), comb. nov., Analocostreptus pancratius (Attems, 1914), comb. nov., Analocostreptus pavani (Demange, 1981), comb. nov., Analocostreptus phthisicus (Saussure & Zehntner, 1902), comb. nov., Analocostreptus pictus (Saussure & Zehntner, 1902), comb. nov., Analocostreptus rolini (Silvestri, 1897), comb. nov., Analocostreptus sculptus (Saussure & Zehntner, 1902), comb. nov., Analocostreptus semilunaris (Peters, 1855), comb. nov., Analocostreptus servatius (Attems, 1914), comb. nov., Analocostreptus tetricus (Attems, 1934), comb. nov., Analocostreptus tiburtius (Attems, 1953), comb. nov., Analocostreptus triangulicollis (Attems, 1934), comb. nov., Analocostreptus versicolor (Saussure & Zehntner, 1902), comb. nov. and Analocostreptus yambatanus (Attems, 1934), comb. nov. Illustrations of the gonopods of A. ibanda (Silvestri, 1907), type-species of Analocostreptus, are provided, and the species is recorded as new for Kenya.

Eleven species of aquatic true bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) are newly recorded for Cephalonia Island (Greece)—Gerromorpha: Hydrometra stagnorum (Linnaeus, 1758), Microvelia pygmaea (Dufour, 1833), Velia mariae Tamanini, 1971, Gerris argentatus Schummel, 1832, G. costae (Herrich-Schäffer, 1850), G. lacustris (Linnaeus, 1758); Nepomorpha: Corixa affinis Leach, 1817, Anisops crinitus Brooks, 1951, A. sardeus Herrich-Schäffer, 1849, Notonecta maculata Fabricius, 1794, Plea minutissima Leach, 1817—where only a few species have been recorded. The most notable records are: Anisops crinitus, which in Europe was known only from the island of Corfu (Greece) and Spain (until recently under the name A. marazanofi Poisson, 1966), and Velia mariae, whose distribution is still poorly known. Velia rivulorum (Fabricius, 1775), V. currens (Fabricius, 1794), and Anisops canariensis Nouahlier, 1893 (currently A. debilis canariensis), from old literature records, are excluded from the fauna of the Ionian Islands. Similarly, N. glauca glauca Linnaeus, 1758 is excluded from the fauna of Cephalonia and Corfu. The first record of Hydrometra gracilenta Horváth, 1899 from Corfu and for the Ionian Islands is provided. Microvelia pygmaea and Gerris maculatus Tamanini, 1946 are newly recorded for Lefkada Island. An annotated list of the Gerromorpha, Nepomorpha, and Leptopodomorpha of the Ionian Islands also is given.

The Australian phasmid fauna has been revised prior to publication of a field guide by the same authors. Six new genera are described: Austrosipyloidea Brock & Hasenpusch, Cornicandovia Hasenpusch & Brock, Davidrentzia Brock & Hasenpusch, Micropodacanthus Brock & Hasenpusch, Paratropidoderus Brock & Hasenpusch and Spinosipyloidea Hasenpusch & Brock. Sixteen new species from various parts of Australia are described and figured: Candovia robinsoni Brock & Hasenpusch, Rhamphosipyloidea palumensis Hasenpusch & Brock, Scionecra milledgei Hasenpusch & Brock, Sipyloidea brevicerci Hasenpusch & Brock, Sipyloidea garradungensis Hasenpusch & Brock, Sipyloidea larryi Hasenpusch & Brock, Sipyloidea lewisensis Hasenpusch & Brock, Sipyloidea rentzi Brock & Hasenpusch, Sipyloidea whitei Brock & Hasenpusch, Spinosipyloidea doddi Hasenpusch & Brock [all Necrosciinae], Pachymorpha spinosa Brock & Hasenpusch [Pachymorphinae], Davidrentzia valida Brock & Hasenpusch [Platycraninae], Micropodacanthus mouldsi Brock & Hasenpusch, Micropodacanthus sztrakai Brock & Hasenpusch, Paratropidoderus spinosus Brock & Hasenpusch and Podacanthus keyi Brock & Hasenpusch [Tropidoderinae]. A number of new combinations are proposed, new synonyms and incorrect synonymy corrected following detailed examination of type and other material: 1. (Lonchodinae): Austrocarausius Brock, 2000: Carausius macerrimus Brunner, 1907 is a new synonym of Austrocarausius nigropunctatus (Kirby, 1896). Denhama Werner, 1912: D. austrocarinata (Otte & Brock, 2005), D. longiceps (Brunner, 1907), D. striata (Sjöstedt, 1918) and D. eutrachelia (Westwood, 1859) are transferred from Hyrtacus Stål, 1875, the latter species also removed from synonymy with Hyrtacus coenosa (Gray, 1833). D. gracilis (Sjöstedt, 1918), a former Marcenia species, is also transferred. Hyrtacus Stål, 1875 (= Marcenia Sjöstedt, 1918 syn. n.): H. caurus (Tepper, 1905) comb. n. transferred from Lonchodes Gray, 1835 (three new synonyms also reported for this species: Bacillus peristhenellus Tepper, 1905, Hyrtacus cunctatrix (Sjöstedt, 1918) and Hyrtacus nigrogranulosus Sjöstedt, 1918). Marcenia frenchi (Wood-Mason, 1877) is a new synonym of Hyrtacus tuberculatus Stål, 1875. 2. (Necrosciinae): Austrosipyloidea Brock & Hasenpusch, gen. n.: A. carterus (Westwood, 1859) comb. n., transferred from Sipyloidea Brunner, 1893 (= Sipyloidea filiformis Redtenbacher, 1908 syn. n.). Candovia Stål, 1875 is removed from synonymy with Hyrtacus, along with the type species, C. coenosa. This has resulted in all former Australian species placed in Parasipyloidea Redtenbacher, 1908 being transferred to Candovia i.e. C. aberrata (Brunner, 1907) comb. n., C. annulata (Brunner, 1907) comb. n., C. granulosa (Brunner, 1907) comb. n., C. pallida (Sjöstedt, 1918), comb. n., C. spurcata (Brunner, 1907) comb. n. and C. strumosa (Redtenbacher, 1908) comb. n. In addition, C. evoneobertii (Zompro & Adis, 2001) comb. n. and C. peridromes (Westwood, 1859) comb. n. (including its new synonyms Clitarchus longipes Brunner, 1907, Bacunculus tener Brunner, 1907 and E. cercatus (Redtenbacher, 1908)) are transferred from Echetlus Stål, 1875. Cornicandovia Hasenpusch & Brock gen n.: C. australica (Redtenbacher, 1908) comb. n. Sipyloidea Brunner, 1893: S. bella (Tepper, 1905) comb. n. (new synonym S. ovabdita Rentz & John, 1987) is transferred from Necroscia Serville, 1838, S. caeca Sjöstedt, 1918 rev. stat., is removed from synonymy with Sipyloidea carterus (Westwood, 1859). Rhamphosipyloidea Redtenbacher, 1908: R. queenslandica (Sjöstedt, 1918) comb. n. is transferred from Sipyloidea, also removed from synonymy with carterus. 3. (Pachymorphinae): Pachymorpha Gray, 1835: P. pasithoe (Westwood, 1859) is a new synonym of P. simplicipes Serville, 1838. 4. (Eurycanthinae). Eurycantha Boisduval, 1835: E. sifia (Westwood, 1859) is a new synonym of E. calcarata Lucas, 1870. 5. (Phasmatinae): Vetilia Stål, 1875 is a new synonym of Acrophylla Gray, 1835, resulting in the transfer of these species to Acrophylla: A. enceladus (Gray, 1835) comb. n. and A. thoon (Stål, 1875) comb. n. Vetilia ligia Redtenbacher, 1908 is a new synonym of Acrophylla wuelfingi Redtenbacher, 1908. A. paula (Tepper, 1905) and A. aliena Redtenbacher, 1908 are new synonyms of A. nubilosa Tepper, 1905. A. caprella (Westwood, 1859) comb. n. is transferred from Ctenomorpha Gray, 1833. Anchiale Stål, 1875 (= Ctenomorphodes Karny, 1923 syn. n.), resulting in the transfer of A. briareus (Gray, 1834) comb. n. and A. tessulata (Gray, 1835) which is renamed Anchiale austrotessulata name nov., as tessulata Gray is preoccupied by Anchiale tessulata (Goeze, 1778). Austroclonistria Redtenbacher, 1908 is a new synonym of Arphax Stål, 1875, as A. serrulataa Redtenbacher, 1908) is a new synonym of Arphax dolomedes (Westwood, 1859). Ctenomorpha Gray, 1833: Paractenomorpha macrotegmus (Tepper, 1887) is confirmed as a synonym of Ctenomorpha marginipennis Gray, 1833. Hermarchus Stål, 1875: H. polynesicus Redtenbacher, 1908 is a new synonym of H. insignis (Kaup, 1871). Paronchestus Redtenbacher, 1908: P. cornutus (Tepper, 1905) comb. n. is transferred from Acrophylla Gray, 1835 and P. pasimachus (Westwood, 1859) from Onchestus Stål, 1875. 6. (Platycraninae): Megacrania batesii (Kirby, 1896) is removed from synonymy with Megacrania alpheus (Westwood, 1859). 7. (Tropidoderinae): Didymuria Kirby 1904: D. virginea Stål, 1875 is removed from synonymy with D. violescens (Leach, 1814). Lysicles Stål, 1877: L. periphanes (Westwood, 1859) comb. n. is transferred from Echetlus Stål, 1875. Tropidoderus Gray 1835: T. michaelseni Werner, 1912 is removed from synonymy with T. childrenii (Gray, 1833). 8. (Xeroderinae): Cooktownia Sjöstedt, 1918 becomes a new synonym of Xeroderus Gray, 1835, as Cooktownia plana Sjöstedt, 1918 is a new synonym of Xeroderus kirbii Gray, 1835.Lectotypes are designated for Clitarchus longipes Brunner, 1907, Sipyloidea filiformis Redtenbacher, 1908 and Vetilia ligula Redtenbacher, 1908.As a result of this work, there are now 104 Australian species (+ 1 subspecies) and in order to facilitate further research on these insects, an updated checklist is provided, also a detailed bibliography.

Dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) are considered as an indicator group of habitat modifications. However, little is known about the indicative value of dung beetles for changes in tropical island karst ecosystems of Vietnam. We sampled dung beetles along the gradient of forest disturbances from primary forests to old secondary forests (> 15 years since abandonment), young secondary forests (< 10 years since abandonment) and Acacia plantations (< 10 years old) in Cat Ba National Park, Hai Phong Province. Our main aim is to detect dung-beetle species that could be used as potential indicator species of habitat changes. In total, 10 dung-beetle species were identified as potential indicator species of different forest types in Cat Ba National Park based on the indicator value (IndVal) of Dufrêne & Legendre (1997). Four species were identified as true specialists in old secondary forests including Onthophagus phanaeiformis (Boucomont, 1914), Sisyphus neglectus (Gory, 1833), Copris szechouanicus (Balthasar, 1958), and Onthophagus dorsofasciatus (Fairmaire, 1893). Three species, comprising Onthophagus sp1., Synapsis tridens (Sharp, 1881), and Onthophagus trituber (Wiedemann, 1823) could be considered as the indicator species of primary forests. Caccobius unicornis (Fabricius, 1798) and Onthophagus jeannelianus (Paulian, 1945) were indicator species of young secondary forests; Onthophagus luridipennis (Boheman, 1858) was the indicator of Acacia plantations. In the following, we gave an annotated and illustrated checklist of the indicator dung-beetle species that may be broadly useful for habitat monitoring and conservations in Cat Ba National Park.

The following new taxonomic and nomenclatural acts are provided: New revalidated name: the name nagaoiNakane 1983 is resurrected from the synonymy of A. maculifer Saunders 1873 as a valid specific name of Agrilusnagaoi. New synonyms: 47 new synonyms are proposed in the genus Agrilus: annoi Baudon, 1968 (synonym ofnavarrei Baudon, 1965); biasoni Baudon, 1968 (synonym of shaumaae Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963);brigitteae Baudon, 1968 (synonym of cochinchinae Obenberger, 1924); canidius Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963(synonym of coloratus Kerremans, 1894); champasak Jendek, 2000 (synonym of ardoini Descarpentries &Villiers, 1963); chounramanyi Baudon, 1965 (synonym of auripilis Deyrolle, 1864); cuneatus Jendek, 2009(synonym of palii Baudon, 1968); damoiselli Baudon, 1968 (synonym of sikkimensis Obenberger, 1928); deuveiBaudon, 1965 (synonym of perlisensis Fisher, 1936); emeritus Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963 (synonym ofperlisensis Fisher, 1936); favieri Baudon, 1961 (synonym of cochinchinae Obenberger, 1924); forquerayi Baudon,1968 (synonym of inops Kerremans, 1892); gagneuxi Baudon, 1968 (synonym of beatissimus Descarpentries &Villiers, 1963); gardneri Théry, 1928 (synonym of mixtus Kerremans, 1892); giraudi Baudon, 1965 (synonym ofbirmanicus Kerremans, 1892); goichetae Baudon, 1965 (synonym of rivalieri Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963);gouyei Baudon, 1965 (synonym of inops Kerremans, 1892); haniquei Baudon, 1965 (synonym of weyersiKerremans, 1900); jarrensis Baudon, 1968 (synonym of coloratus Kerremans, 1894); kandyanus Théry, 1904(synonym of repercussus Kerremans, 1893); korbi Abeille de Perrin, 1897 (synonym of auricollis Kiesenwetter,1857); laurenconi Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963 (synonym of auroapicalis Kurosawa, 1957); lebisiDescarpentries & Villiers, 1963 (synonym of ardoini Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963); legrosi Descarpentries &Villiers, 1963 (synonym of tsacasi Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963); leguayi Baudon, 1965 (synonym of simplexKerremans, 1894); lessei Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963 (synonym of colasi Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963);lindryi Baudon, 1968 (synonym of loupyi Baudon, 1968); lloydae Baudon, 1968 (synonym of miwai Obenberger,1936); lukesi Obenberger, 1936 (synonym of modicus Kerremans, 1892); minusculus Marseul, 1866 (synonym ofotiosus Say, 1833); morelae Baudon, 1968 (synonym of milo Obenberger, 1936); moreli Baudon, 1968 (synonymof coomani Bourgoin, 1925); mouricouae Baudon, 1965 (synonym of inops Kerremans, 1892); nginni Baudon,1968 (synonym of cochinchinae Obenberger, 1924); parizotae Baudon, 1968 (synonym of syrphus Descarpentries& Villiers, 1963); roscidulus Abeille de Perrin, 1897 (synonym of elegans Mulsant & Rey, 1863); rousselataeBaudon, 1968 (synonym of lacroixi Obenberger, 1936); ruteri Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963 (synonym ofjarrigei Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963); samyi Baudon, 1968 (synonym of suturaalba Deyrolle, 1864);sedonensis Baudon, 1968 (synonym of sommailae Baudon, 1965); siva Obenberger, 1916 (synonym of repercussusKerremans, 1893); souvannavongsi Baudon, 1968 (synonym of perlisensis Fisher, 1936); syrdarjensis Obenberger,1928 (synonym of vaginalis Abeille de Perrin, 1897); theodasi Baudon, 1968 (synonym of simoninaeDescarpentries & Villiers, 1963); thevadensis Baudon, 1968 (synonym of truncatipennis Descarpentries & Villiers,1967); tokatensis Obenberger, 1924 (synonym of auricollis Kiesenwetter, 1857); ukrainensis Obenberger, 1936(synonym of croaticus Abeille de Perrin, 1897).Lectotype designations: 43 lectotype designations are proposed (types are cited in the original combination and rank):Agrilus ambiguus Kerremans, 1895; A. amphion Obenberger, 1935; A. ampliatus Kerremans, 1900; A. anachlorusObenberger, 1924; A. angustulus variety bicoloratus Abeille de Perrin, 1893; A. atomus Kerremans, 1914; A. atratulus Obenberger, 1924; A. balnearis Kerremans, 1914; A. belides Obenberger, 1936; A. brahma Obenberger, 1916; A.

The genus Taxilejeunea (Spruce 1884: 212) Stephani (1889: 262) was originally described as Lejeunea subgenus Taxilejeunea Spruce (1884: 212). Spruce (1884) included 15 species in this subgenus, including the type species Lejeunea pterigonia (Lehm. & Lindenb.) Montagne (1840: 337) [basionym Jungermannia pterigonia Lehm. & Lindenb. in Lehmann (1834: 44)]. Schiffner (1893), when treating the genus Taxilejeunea, included five species namely, Taxilejeunea sulphurea (Lehm. & Lindenb. in Lehmann 1833: 14) Stephani (1890b: 142), T. pterigonia (Lehm. & Lindenb.) Stephani (1890b: 142), T. tenera (Swartz 1788: 143) Stephani (1890a: 98), T. affinis (Lindenb. & Gottsche in Gottsche et al. 1847: 748) Stephani (1890b: 141) and T. lumbricoides (Nees 1830: 40) Stephani (1890b: 141). Since then, many species have been added to the genus (Stephani 1912-1917, 1917-1924, Stotler & Crandall-Stotler 1977, Yano 1984, Fulford & Sharp 1990), especially from South America. All together 218 species names in Taxilejeunea are listed in Index Hepaticarum (Geissler & Bischler 1990, see also Reiner-Drehwald 2005). No detailed account is available on the genus except by Eifrig (1936) who provided a treatment of 26 species from Indomalesia. Recent molecular studies have proved that Taxilejeunea is not a good genus and is nested in Lejeunea (Wilson et al. 2007, Dong et al. 2013, Gradstein 2013, Heinrichs et al. 2013). Earlier, Mizutani (e.g. 1970) showed that various Asian species of Taxilejeunea should be returned to Lejeunea. A review of the species reported or described as Taxilejeunea is very necessary. Söderstöm et al. (2015) gave an account of the validation dates of generic names published by Spruce (1884) as subgenera and revised the publication dates of all species names. In the present paper, we deal only with the Taxilejeunea species recorded from India.

The classification of Microhoriini Bonadona, 1974 is revised. Five genera are recognized: Aulacoderus LaFerté-Sénectère, 1849, Falsophilus Kejval, 2015, Liparoderus LaFerté-Sénectère, 1849, Microhoria Chevrolat, 1877, and Neocrohoria Telnov, 2019. (i) New species: Microhoria almukalla Kejval, sp. nov. (Yemen), M. anahita Kejval, sp. nov. (Iran), M. antalya Kejval, sp. nov. (Turkey), M. bacillisternum Kejval, sp. nov. (Iran), M. cervi Kejval, sp. nov. (Oman), M. fergana Kejval, sp. nov. (Kyrgyzstan), M. garavuti Kejval, sp. nov. (Tajikistan), M. gibbipennis Kejval, sp. nov. (Turkey), M. halophila Kejval, sp. nov. (Turkey), M. hazara Kejval, sp. nov. (Afghanistan), M. heracleana Kejval, sp. nov. (Greece), M. impavida Kejval, sp. nov. (Turkey), M. kabulensis Kejval, sp. nov. (Afghanistan), M. kermanica Kejval, sp. nov. (Iran), M. pahlavi Kejval, sp. nov. (Iran), M. persica Kejval, sp. nov. (Iran), M. strejceki Kejval, sp. nov. (Tajikistan), M. sawda Kejval, sp. nov. (Saudi Arabia), and M. sulaimanica Kejval, sp. nov. (Pakistan, Uzbekistan). (ii) New synonymies: Microhoria Chevrolat, 1877 = Clavicomus Pic, 1894 syn. nov. = Tenuicomus Pic, 1894 syn. nov.; Microhoria depressa (LaFerté-Sénectère, 1849) = Anthicus mollis Desbrochers des Loges, 1875 syn. nov.; Microhoria edmondi (Pic, 1893) = Anthicus spinosus Pic, 1912 syn. nov.; Microhoria globipennis (Pic, 1897) = Anthicus globipennis quercicola Sahlberg, 1913 syn. nov.; Microhoria luristanica (Pic, 1911) = Anthicus pietschmi Pic, 1938 syn. nov.; Microhoria ottomana (LaFerté-Sénectère, 1849) = Anthicus merkli Pic, 1897 syn. nov.; Microhoria pinicola (Reitter, 1889) = Microhoria feroni Bonadona, 1960 syn. nov.; Microhoria posthuma (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931) = Anthicus fumeoalatus Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931 syn. nov.; Microhoria truncatipennis (Pic, 1897) = Anthicus mouzafferi Pic, 1910 syn. nov. (iii) Status changes. Anthicus tauricus var. inobscura Pic, 1908 is raised to species level as Microhoria inobscura (Pic, 1908) stat. nov.; Anthicus truncatus var. decoloratus Pic, 1897 is removed from synonymy with Anthicus truncatus Pic, 1895 and raised to species level as Microhoria decolorata (Pic, 1897) stat. restit. (iv) New combinations: Microhoria disconotata (Pic, 1907) comb. nov., M. fossicollis (LaFerté-Sénectère, 1849) comb. nov., M. gestroi (Pic, 1895) comb. nov., M. irregularis (Pic, 1932) comb. nov., M. lividipes (Desbrochers des Loges, 1875) comb. nov., M. marginicollis (Pic, 1951) comb. nov., M. nystii (LaFerté-Sénectère, 1849) comb. nov., M. schimperi (Pic, 1898) comb. nov., M. semiviridis (Pic, 1951) comb. nov., M. strandi (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931) comb. nov., and M. yemenita (Nardi, 2004) comb. nov., all from Anthicus Paykull, 1798. Microhoria abscondita (Telnov, 2000) comb. nov., M. adusta (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931) comb. nov., M. afghana (Telnov, 2010) comb. nov., M. almorae (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931) comb. nov., M. ambusta (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931) comb. nov., M. angulifer (Pic, 1893) comb. nov., M. anomala (Telnov, 1998) comb. nov., M. antinorii (Pic, 1894) comb. nov., M. apicordiger (Bonadona, 1954) comb. nov., M. aquatilis (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931) comb. nov., M. assamensis (Pic, 1907) comb. nov., M. assequens (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931) comb. nov., M. atrata (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931) comb. nov., M. austriaca (Pic, 1901) comb. nov., M. bicarinifrons (Pic, 1892) comb. nov., M. biguttata (Bonadona, 1964) comb. nov., M. brevipilis (Pic, 1893) comb. nov., M. bruckii (Kiesenwetter, 1870) comb. nov., M. brunneipes (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931) comb. nov., M. caeruleicolor (Pic, 1906) comb. nov., M. callima (Baudi di Selve, 1877) comb. nov., M. comes (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931) comb. nov., M. cordata (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931) comb. nov., M. curticeps (Pic, 1923) comb. nov., M. dichrous (LaFerté-Sénectère, 1849) comb. nov., M. doderoi (Pic, 1902) comb. nov., M. erythraea (Pic, 1899) comb. nov., M. erythrodera (Marseul, 1878) comb. nov., M. feai (Pic, 1907) comb. nov., M. fugax (LaFerté-Sénectère, 1849) comb. nov., M. fugiens (Marseul, 1876) comb. nov., M. garze (Telnov, 2018) comb. nov., M. gigas (Pic, 1899) comb. nov., M. gravida (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931) comb. nov., M. harmandi (Pic, 1899) comb. nov., M. hauseri (Pic, 1906) comb. nov., M. henoni (Pic, 1892) comb. nov., M. heydeni (Marseul, 1879) comb. nov., M. himalayana (Pic, 1909) comb. nov., M. hummeli (Pic, 1933) comb. nov., M. immaculipennis (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931) comb. nov., M. inabsoluta (Telnov, 2003) comb. nov., M. indeprensa (Telnov, 2000) comb. nov., M. kabyliana (Pic, 1896) comb. nov., M. kejvali (Telnov, 1999) comb. nov., M. kham (Telnov, 2018) comb. nov., M. kocheri (Pic, 1951) comb. nov., M. kuluensis (Pic, 1914) comb. nov., M. lepidula (Marseul, 1876) comb. nov., M. longiceps (LaFerté-Sénectère, 1849) comb. nov., M. longicornis (Uhmann, 1983) comb. nov., M. manifesta (Pic, 1907) comb. nov., M. martinezi (Pic, 1932) comb. nov., M. muguensis (Telnov, 2000) comb. nov., M. nigrocyanella (Marseul, 1877) comb. nov., M. nigrofusca (Telnov, 2000) comb. nov., M. nigroterminata (Pic, 1909) comb. nov., M. notatipennis (Pic, 1909) comb. nov., M. olivierii (Desbrochers des Loges, 1868) comb. nov., M. optabilis LaFerté-Sénectère, 1849) comb. nov., M. paganettii (Pic, 1909) comb. nov., M. phungi (Pic, 1926) comb. nov., M. picea (LaFerté-Sénectère, 1849) comb. nov., M. plagiostola (Bonadona, 1958) comb. nov., M. plicatipennis (Pic, 1936) comb. nov., M. posthuma (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931) comb. nov., M. postimpressa (Pic, 1938) comb. nov., M. postluteofasciata (Pic, 1938) comb. nov., M. prolatithorax (Pic, 1899) comb. nov., M. proterva (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931) comb. nov., M. ragusae (Pic, 1898) comb. nov., M. semidepressa (Pic, 1893) comb. nov., M. separatithorax (Pic, 1914) comb. nov., M. shibatai (Nomura, 1962) comb. nov., M. schrammi Pic, 1913) comb. nov., M. sikkimensis (Pic, 1907) comb. nov., M. sinensis (Pic, 1907) comb. nov., M. spinipennis (Pic, 1898) comb. nov., M. sporadica (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931) comb. nov., M. striaticollis (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931) comb. nov., M. subpicea (Pic, 1914) comb. nov., M. tersa (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931) comb. nov., M. tonkinensis (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1928) comb. nov., M. truncatella (LaFerté-Sénectère, 1849) comb. nov., M. turgida (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1928) comb. nov., M. uhagoni (Pic, 1904) comb. nov., M. uniformis (Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931) comb. nov., M. variabilis (Telnov, 2003) comb. nov., M. weigeli (Telnov, 2000) comb. nov., M. versicolor (Kiesenwetter, 1866) comb. nov., M. wuyishanensis (Nardi, 2004) comb. nov., and Nitorus niger (Uhmann, 1996) comb. nov., all from Clavicomus Pic, 1894. Microhoria agriliformis (Pic, 1893) comb. nov., M. alfierii (Pic, 1923) comb. nov., M. angelinii (Degiovanni, 2012) comb. nov., M. babaulti (Pic, 1921) comb. nov., M. barnevillei (Pic, 1892) comb. nov., M. armeniaca (Pic, 1899) comb. nov., M. bonnairii (Fairmaire, 1883) comb. nov., M. cyanipennis (Grilat, 1886) comb. nov., M. depressa (LaFerté-Sénectère, 1849) comb. nov., M. dolichocephala (Baudi di Selve, 1877) comb. nov., M. duplex (Nardi, 2004) comb. nov., M. edmondi (Pic, 1893) comb. nov., M. escalerai (Pic, 1904) comb. nov., M. finalis (Telnov, 2003) comb. nov., M. fuscomaculata (Pic, 1893) comb. nov., M. insignita (Pic, 1906) comb. nov., M. luristanica (Pic, 1911) comb. nov., M. meloiformis (Reitter, 1890) comb. nov., M. mesopotamica (Pic, 1912) comb. nov., M. ocreata (LaFerté-Sénectère, 1847) comb. nov., M. olivacea (LaFerté-Sénectère, 1849) comb. nov., M. ottomana (LaFerté-Sénectère, 1849) comb. nov., M. pallicra (Dufour, 1849) comb. nov., M. paralleliceps (Reitter, 1890) comb. nov., M. paupercula (LaFerté-Sénectère, 1847) comb. nov., M. platiai (Degiovanni, 2000) comb. nov., M. siccensis (Normand, 1950) comb. nov., M. subaerea (Reitter, 1890) comb. nov., M. subcaerulea (Pic, 1906) comb. nov., M. subsericea (Pic, 1898) comb. nov., M. tarifana (Pic, 1904) comb. nov., M. tibialis (Waltl, 1835) comb. nov., M. velox (LaFerté-Sénectère, 1849) comb. nov., M. viridipennis (Pic, 1899) comb. nov., and M. viturati (Pic, 1893) comb. nov., all from Tenuicomus Pic, 1894. Microhoria decolorata (Pic, 1897) comb. nov. and M. truncata (Pic, 1895) comb. nov. from Stricticomus Pic, 1894. Microhoria truncatipennis (Pic, 1897) comb. nov. from Anthelephila Hope, 1833. (v) Lectotype designations. Lectotypes are designated for the following species: Anthicus depressus LaFerté-Sénectère, 1849, A. edmondi Pic, 1893, A. luristanicus Pic, 1911, A. merkli Pic, 1897, A. mouzafferi Pic, 1910, A. pietschmi Pic, 1938, A. pinicola Reitter, 1889, A. posthumus Krekich-Strassoldo, 1931, and A. spinosus Pic, 1912.

Bernard Cohn once called the imperial point of view the “view from the boat”. There were other boats as well.In 1893, the sovereign state of Johor adopted the OttomanMedjelle (Meḏj̱elle-yi Aḥkām-i˚ḥʿAdliyye, the civil code applied in the Ottoman Empire since 1877), being the only state among the Muslim sultanates of the Malay Peninsula to do so. In 1895, Johor promulgated a Constitution(Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Johor), being the first state in Southeast Asia to do so. This article takes this moment, of the intersection of two types of law from quite disparate sources, as a point of departure for tracing the pathways by which law made its way from one corner of the globe to another. Taking nineteenth century Johor as our vantage point provides a new optic for mapping law's geography and temporality and for exploring the logics of law's itinerancy and its locality. The travels of law were always material, and often embodied; on ships sailing the Indian Ocean between Johor and Cairo were diplomats, merchants, pilgrims, and lawyers faced with new pressures and new possibilities; in the growing traffic in letters and newspaper reports between London and New York, Tokyo and Constantinople, were debates about empire and culture, power and authenticity; in personal relationships made possible by the technologies of nineteenth century cosmopolitanism, were similarly worldly dramas of deception and demands for justice. In the 2 short years between the adoption of theMedjelleand the Constitution in Johor, the sultan of Johor, Abu Bakar (1833–1895), typified this mobility and interconnection. In his travels across the Indian Ocean to the Near East and Europe; in his appearance in diplomatic communiques in London, Constantinople and Washington D.C.; in his prominence as a figure of exoticism and intrigue in the newspapers and the courts of the English-speaking world, the sultan not only embodied law's movements in a figurative way, he was also himself a key carrier of the law, and one of its signal articulators.

Modern electrochemistry is generally regarded as having its origins in the work of the Italian scientists Galvani (1737 – 1798) and Volta (1745 – 1827). Their discoveries led directly to the invention (1799) by Volta of the voltaic pile, a primitive form of what we now call a battery. This invention greatly facilitated electrical experimentation and quickly led to a host of other electrochemical discoveries such as the electrolysis of water (Nicholson and Carlisle in 1800, although it was first demonstrated in 1789 by Deiman and van Troostwijk using an electrostatic generator), isolation of elemental alkali and alkaline earth metals (Davy, 1807–1808) and electroplating (Brugnatelli, 1805). The work of Davy (1778 – 1829) and of Faraday (1791 – 1867) greatly advanced the understanding of electrochemistry and Faraday’s laws of electrolysis (1833) put the field on a quantitative basis. This was followed by a long succession of electrochemical discoveries that has continued to the present. Scientists such as Daniell (1790 – 1845), Grove (1811 – 1896), Leclanché (1839 – 1882) and Planté (1834 – 1889) made early improvements to batteries; of course, research and development of batteries remains an important area of electrochemistry. Historically, batteries were the primary source of electric current until practical electric dynamos became available in about 1870. Electroplating developed as a practical technology from about 1840, initially for electrodeposition of copper on printing plates. From 1893 to 1948, the international standard for electric current was based on electrodeposition of silver. Furthermore, an electrochemical cell invented by Weston (1850 – 1936) was adopted as the reference standard for voltage in 1903 and remained so until 1990 when it was replaced by a Josephson junction standard. The science of electrochemistry experienced rapid growth from the 19th century on, with major contributions from European scientists including Kohlrausch (1840 – 1910), Ostwald (1853 – 1932), Arrhenius (1859 – 1927), Tafel (1862 – 1918), Nernst (1864 – 1941), and Heyrovský (1890 – 1967), to mention but a few. In this talk, I will attempt to trace the evolution of electrochemistry and discuss some of the major landmarks and the European scientists who made important contributions. I will also comment on how equipment and methodology have changed over the last half-century.

The genus Harpalus, Latreille, 1802, is the largest ground beetle genus of the tribe Harpalini and one of the most diverse genera of Carabidae (more than 400 described species). The definition and taxonomic boundaries of the genus, as well as previously proposed classifications, all based on regional faunas, are briefly reviewed in this paper from a historical perspective. The classification of the genus Harpalus proposed herein is based, for the first time, on a comparative morphological study of the world fauna and covers all the described species. The genus is divided into seventy subgenera combined into nineteen subgroups and ten groups; thirty-six subgenera are newly described: Afroharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus fulvicornis Thunberg, 1806), Hyloharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus laevipes Zetterstedt, 1828), Sinoharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus puetzi Kataev et Wrase, 1997), Macroharpalus subg. n. (type species Erpeinus major Motschulsky, 1850), Meroharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus fulvilabris Mannerheim, 1853), Ameroharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus spadiceus Dejean, 1829), Drymoharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus atratus Latreille, 1804), Caucasoharpalus subg. n. (type species Omaseus aeneipennis Faldermann, 1836), Calathoderus subg. n. (type species Harpalus potanini Tschitschérine, 1906), Isoharpalus subg. n. (type species Carabus serripes Quensel, 1806), Psammoharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus kozlovi Kataev), 1993, Platyharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus ventralis LeConte, 1848), Asioharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus nigrans Morawitz, 1862), Anamblystus subg. n. (type species Carabus latus Linnaeus, 1758), Homaloharpalus subg. n. (type species Carabus tardus Panzer, 1796), Bactroharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus cautus Dejean, 1829), Diaharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus vittatus Gebler, 1833), Mesoharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus gisellae Csiki, 1932), Eremoharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus remboides Solsky, 1874) Oreoharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus famelicus Tschitschérine, 1898), Hypsoharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus arnoldii Kataev, 1988), Anophonus subg. n. (type species Ophonus cyanopterus Tschitschérine, 1897), Haloharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus salinulus Reitter, 1900), Megaharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus stoetznerianus Schauberger, 1932), Aristoharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus ingenuus Tschitschérine, 1898), Cycloharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus pulvinatus Ménétries, 1848), Euryharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus cisteloides Motschulsky, 1844), Brachyharpalus subg. n. (type species Carabus autumnalis Duftschmid, 1812), Hemipangus subg. n. (type species Harpalus klapperichi Jedlička, 1955), Mauriharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus cardoni Antoine, 1922), Caloharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus cupreus Dejean, 1829), Baryharpalus subg. n. (type species Carabus dimidiatus Rossi, 1790), Heteroharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus metallinus Ménétries, 1839), Idioharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus numidicus Bedel, 1893), Pachyharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus crates Bates, 1883) and Paraharpalus subg. n. (type species Harpalus oblitus Dejean, 1829). A detailed morphological description of the genus, diagnoses, composition and distribution of all supraspecific taxa with brief biotopic notes are given.

The tribes Goniaderini Lacordaire, 1859 and Lupropini Lesne, 1926 within the tenebrionid subfamily Lagriinae Latreille, 1825 have previously been shown to be non-monophyletic by molecular phylogenetic analyses. The tribes and constituent genera are here reviewed and redefined morphologically. As part of tribal redefinitions, we establish PrateiniNew Tribe with type genus Prateus LeConte, 1862. We reestablish the subtribe Phobeliina Ardoin, 1961 Revised Status, which is transferred from Goniaderini and placed as a subtribe of Lagriini Latreille, 1825 where it is comprised of Phobelius Blanchard, 1842, and Rhosaces Champion, 1889 (previously in Lagriini: Statirina Blanchard, 1845). The fossil tribe Archaeolupropini Nabozhenko, Perkovsky, & Nazarenko, 2023 is transferred from Lagriinae to Tetratomidae: Tetratominae Billberg, 1820. Keys to extant tribes and subtribes of Lagriinae and genera of Goniaderini, Lupropini, and Prateini are provided. Generic and species-level changes from this work are as follows: Prateini is comprised of the following 15 genera: Antennoluprops Schawaller, 2007, Ardoiniellus Schawaller, 2013, Bolitrium Gebien, 1914, Enicmosoma Gebien, 1922, Indenicmosoma Ardoin, 1964, Iscanus Fauvel, 1904, Kuschelus Kaszab, 1982, Lorelopsis Champion, 1896, Mesotretis Bates, 1872, Microcalcar Pic, 1925, Micropedinus Lewis, 1894, Paratenetus Spinola, 1845, Prateus, Terametus Motschulsky, 1869, and Tithassa Pascoe, 1860. Lorelus Sharp, 1876 is Returned to Synonymy with Prateus, resulting in the following 49 New Combinations: Prateus angulatus (Doyen & Poinar, 1994), P. angustulus (Champion, 1913), P. armatus (Montrouzier, 1860), P. biroi (Kaszab, 1956), P. blairi (Kaszab, 1955), P. brevicornis (Champion, 1896), P. breviusculus (Champion, 1913), P. caledonicus (Kaszab, 1982), P. carolinensis (Blair, 1940), P. chinensis (Kaszab, 1940), P. clarkei (Kulzer, 1957), P. crassicornis (Broun, 1880), P. crassepunctatus (Kaszab, 1982), P. cribricollis (Kaszab, 1940), P. curvipes (Champion, 1913), P. dybasi (Kulzer, 1957), P. fijianus (Kaszab, 1982), P. fumatus (Lea, 1929), P. glabriventris (Kaszab, 1982), P. greensladei (Kaszab, 1982), P. guadeloupensis (Kaszab, 1940), P. hirtus (Kaszab, 1982), P. ivoirensis (Ardoin, 1969), P. kanak (Kaszab, 1986), P. kaszabi (Watt, 1992), P. laticornis (Watt, 1992), P. latulus (Broun, 1910), P. longicornis (Kaszab, 1982), P. mareensis (Kaszab, 1982), P. marginalis (Broun, 1910), P. niger (Kaszab, 1982), P. norfolkianus (Kaszab, 1982), P. obtusus (Watt, 1992), P. ocularis (Fauvel, 1904), P. opacus (Watt, 1992), P. palauensis (Kulzer, 1957), P. politus (Watt, 1992), P. priscus (Sharp, 1876), P. prosternalis (Kaszab, 1982), P. pubescens (Broun, 1880), P. pubipennis (Lea, 1929), P. punctatus (Watt, 1992), P. quadricollis (Broun, 1886), P. queenslandicus (Kaszab, 1986), P. rugifrons (Champion, 1913), P. solomonis (Kaszab, 1982), P. tarsalis (Broun, 1910), P. unicornis (Kaszab, 1982), and P. watti (Kaszab, 1982). Microlyprops Kaszab, 1939 is placed as a New Synonym of Micropedinus resulting in the following New Combinations: Micropedinus ceylonicus (Kaszab, 1939) and M. maderi (Kaszab, 1940). LorelopsisRevised Status is revalidated as a genus and eight species formerly in Lorelus are transferred to it resulting in the following six New Combinations: Lorelopsis bicolor (Doyen, 1993), L. glabrata (Doyen, 1993), L. exilis (Champion, 1913), L. foraminosa (Doyen & Poinar, 1994), L. minutulis (Doyen & Poinar, 1994), L. trapezidera (Champion, 1913), and L. wolcotti (Doyen, 1993). Lorelopsis pilosa Champion, 1896 becomes a Restored Combination. In Goniaderini, Aemymone Bates, 1868 Revised Status and Opatresthes Gebien, 1928 Revised Status, which were recently considered as subgenera of Goniadera Perty, 1832, are restored as valid genera based on new character analysis resulting in the following New Combinations: Aemymone hansfranzi (Ferrer & Delatour, 2007), A. simplex (Fairmaire, 1889), A. striatipennis (Pic, 1934) and Restored Combinations: Aemymone cariosa (Bates, 1868), A. crenata Champion, 1893, and A. semirufa Pic, 1917. Gamaxus Bates, 1868 is Returned to Synonymy with Phymatestes Pascoe, 1866, and the type species Gamaxus hauxwelli Bates, 1868 is placed as a New Synonym of Phymatestes brevicornis (Lacordaire, 1859). The following seven genera are placed as New Synonyms of Anaedus Blanchard, 1842: Microanaedus Pic, 1923, Pengaleganus Pic, 1917, Pseudanaedus Gebien, 1921, Pseudolyprops Fairmaire, 1882, Spinolyprops Pic, 1917, Spinadaenus Pic, 1921, and Sphingocorse Gebien, 1921. Fourteen species described by Pic in Aspisoma Duponchel & Chevrolat, 1841 (not Aspisoma Laporte, 1833) are returned to Tenebrionidae as valid species of Anaedus. These synonymies necessitate the following 51 New Combinations: Anaedus albipes (Gebien, 1921), A. amboinensis (Kaszab, 1964), A. amplicollis (Fairmaire, 1896), A. anaedoides (Gebien, 1921), A. angulicollis (Gebien, 1921), A. angustatus (Pic, 1921), A. australiae (Carter, 1930), A. bartolozzii (Ferrer, 2002), A. beloni Fairmaire, 1888), A. biangulatus (Gebien, 1921), A. borneensis (Pic, 1917), A. carinicollis (Gebien, 1921), A. conradti (Gebien, 1921), A. cribricollis (Schawaller, 2012), A. gabonicus (Pic, 1917), A. himalayicus (Kaszab, 1965), A. inaequalis (Pic, 1917), A. jacobsoni (Gebien, 1927), A. lateralis (Pic, 1917), A. latus (Pic, 1917), A. longeplicatus (Gebien, 1921) , A. maculipennis (Schawaller, 2011), A. major (Pic, 1917), A. nepalicus (Kaszab, 1975), A. nigrita (Gebien, 1927), A. notatus (Pic, 1923), A. pakistanicus (Schawaller, 1996), A. pinguis (Gebien, 1927), A. punctatus (Carter, 1914), A. raffrayi (Pic, 1917), A. rufithorax (Pic, 1917), A. rufus (Pic, 1917), A. serrimargo (Gebien, 1914), A. sumatrensis (Pic, 1917), A. terminatus (Gebien, 1921), A. testaceicornis (Pic, 1921), A. testaceipes (Pic, 1917), A. thailandicus (Schawaller, 2012), A. trautneri (Schawaller, 1994); and 13 restored combinations: Anaedus boliviensis (Pic, 1934), A. claveri (Pic, 1917), A. diversicollis (Pic, 1917), A. elongatus (Pic, 1934), A. guyanensis (Pic, 1917), A. holtzi (Pic, 1934), A. inangulatus (Pic, 1934), A. inhumeralis (Pic, 1917), A. mendesensis (Pic, 1917), A. minutus (Pic, 1917), A. rufimembris (Pic, 1932), A. rufipennis (Pic, 1917), A. subelongatus (Pic, 1932). The new synonymies with Anaedus necessitate the following six New Replacement NamesAnaedus maculipennis (for Spinolyprops maculatus Kulzer, 1954), A. grimmi (for Aspisoma forticornis Pic, 1917), A. minimus (for Anaedus minutus Pic, 1938), A. merkli (for Anaedus diversicollis Pic, 1938), A. ottomerkli (for Anaedus lateralis Pic, 1923), A. schawalleri (for Anaedus nepalicus Schawaller, 1994). Capeluprops Schawaller, 2011 is removed from Lupropini and provisionally placed in Laenini Seidlitz, 1895. Plastica Waterhouse, 1903 is transferred from Apocryphini Lacordaire, 1859 to Laenini. Paralorelopsis Marcuzzi, 1994 is removed from Lupropini and provisionally placed in Lagriinae incertae sedis. Pseudesarcus Champion, 1913 is transferred from Lagriinae incertae sedis to Diaperinae incertae sedis. Falsotithassa Pic, 1934 is transferred from Lupropini to Leiochrinini Lewis, 1894 (Diaperinae). Mimocellus Wasmann, 1904 is transferred from Lupropini to Tenebrionidae incertae sedis, and likely belongs in either Diaperinae or Stenochiinae.

Настоящая работа является первым общим описанием на русском языке двух некрополей Кампокиаро (Кампобассо, Италия) – Виченне и Морионе, датируемых последней третью VII в. – началом VIII в. Культурное содержание некрополей показывает прочные связи с населением центральноазиатского происхождения. Важнейшим признаком некрополей являются захоронения с конем, соответствующие евразийскому кочевому погребальному обряду. Автор поддержал выводы европейских исследователей о том, что с большой долей вероятности некрополи оставлены булгарами дукса–гаштальда Алзеко, зафиксированными Павлом Диаконом в VIII в. на территориях Бояно, Сепино и Изернии. Аналогии некрополей Кампокиаро с погребениями Аварского каганата показывают присутствие в аварском обществе булгар со схожим погребальным обрядом. Из тысяч погребений с конем, оставленных аварским населением, булгарам могла принадлежать большая часть. Авары и булгары составляли основу и правящую верхушку каганата. Народ Алзеко являлся той частью булгар, которая в 631 г. боролась за каганский престол, что указывает на высокое положение булгар и их большое количество. После поражения эта группа булгар мигрировала последовательно в Баварию, Карантанию и Италию. Несколько десятков лет проживания в венедской, а затем в лангобардской и романской среде привели к гетерогенности погребального инвентаря, но не изменили сам обряд. Булгары лангобардского королевства составляли новый военный слой, который представлял из себя профессиональную кавалерию, получивший землю. Эта конная дружина является ранним примером европейского феодального воинского и социального сословия, которое станет называться рыцарством. Библиографические ссылки Акимова М.С. Материалы к антропологии ранних болгар // Генинг В.Ф., Халиков А.Х. Ранние болгары на Волге (Больше–Тарханский могильник). М.: Наука, 1964. С. 177–191. Амброз А.К. Кинжалы VI – VIII вв, с двумя выступами на ножнах // СА. 1986. № 4. С. 53–73. Безуглов С.И., Ильюков Л.С. Памятник позднегуннской эпохи в устье Дона // Средневековые древности Дона / Ред. Ю.К. Гугуев. М.–Иерусалим: Мосты и культуры, 2007. C. 25–48. Бешевлиев В. Пръвобългарите. История, бит и култура. Пловдив: Фондация «Българско историческо наследство», 2008. 505 с. Гавритухин И.О., Иванов А.Г. Погребение 552 Варнинского могильника и некоторые вопросы изучения раннесредневековых культур Поволжья // Пермский мир в раннем средневековье / Отв. ред. А.Г. Иванов. Ижевск: УИИЯЛ УрО РАН, 1999. С. 99–159. Добиаш–Рождественская О.А. Ранний фриульский минускул и одна из проблем жизни и творчества лангобардского историка VIII в. // Вспомогательные исторические дисциплины / Под ред. А. С. Орлова. М.; Л.: Изд–во АН СССР, 1937. С. 109–140. Засецкая И.П. Культура кочевников южнорусских степей в гуннскую эпоху (конец IV–V вв.). СПб.: АО "Эллипс", 1994. 221 с. Казанский М.М. Оногуры в постгуннское время на Дону // Дивногорский сборник / Труды музея-заповедника «Дивногорье». Вып. 6. / под ред. А. З. Винникова. Воронеж: Изд.– полигр. центр «Научная книга», 2016. С. 96–111. Казанский М.М. Хронологические индикаторы степных древностей постгуннского времени в Восточной Европе // НАВ. 2019. Т. 18 (2). С. 109–124. Кардини Ф. Истоки средневекового рыцарства // Пер. с ит. В.П. Гайдук / Общ. ред. В.И. Уколова, Л.А. Котельникова. М.: Прогресс, 1987. 384 с. Комар А.В., Кубышев А.И., Орлов Р.С. Погребения кочевников VI–VII вв. из Северо–Западного Приазовья // Степи Европы в эпоху средневековья. Т. 5. Хазарское время / Гл.ред. А.В.Евглевский Донецк: ДонНУ, 2006. С. 245–376. Кондукторова Т.С. Антропологическая характеристика черепов из Верхнего Чир–Юртовского могильника в Дагестане // ВА. 1967. Вып. 25. С. 117–129. Красильников К.И. Могильник древних болгар у с. Желтое на Северском Донце // Проблеми на прабългарската история и култура. София: БАН, Нац. Археол. институт с музей филиал Шумен, Аргес, 1991. Т. 2. С. 62–81. Красильников К.И., Красильникова Л.И. Могильник у с. Лысогоровка – новый источник по этноистории степей Подонцовья раннего средневековья // Степи Европы в эпоху средневековья. Т 4. Хазарское время / Гл.ред. А.В. Евглевский. Донецк: ДонНУ, 2005. С. 187–244. Красильников К.И., Руженко А.А. Погребение хирурга на древнеболгарском могильнике у с. Желтое // СА. 1981. № 2. С. 282–289. Кузнецова Т.И. Павел Диакон. Из «Истории лангобардов» // Памятники средневековой латинской литературы IV–IX веков / Отв. ред. М. Е. Грабарь-Пассек и М. Л. Гаспаров. М.: Наука, 1970. С. 243–257. Медникова М.Б. Трепанации у древних народов Евразии. М.: Научный мир, 2001. 304 с. Мингазов Ш.Р. Болгары Алзеко в Баварии, Карантании и Италии как пример автономной части этнокультурной общности // Восточная Европа в древности и средневековье. Античные и средневековые общности: XXIX Чтения памяти члена-корреспондента АН СССР В.Т. Пашуто. Москва, 19–21 апреля 2017 / Отв. Ред. Е. А. Мельникова. М: Институт всеобщей истории РАН, 2017. С. 160–164. Мингазов Ш.Р. Следы взаимовлияния европейской и азиатской социокультурных моделей: булгары в Италии (VI–VIII вв.) // Восточная Европа в древности и средневековье. Сравнительные исследования социокультурных практик: XXXII Чтения памяти члена корреспондента АН СССР В.Т. Пашуто. Москва, 15–17 апреля 2020 / Отв. Ред. Е. А. Мельникова. М.: Институт всеобщей истории РАН, 2020. С. 162–166. Нестеров С.П. Конь в культах тюркоязычных племен Центральной Азии в эпоху средневековья. Новосибирск: Наука. Сиб. отд–ие АН СССР, 1990. 143 с. Павел Диакон. История лангобардов / Пер. с лат., ст. Ю.Б. Циркина. СПб.: Азбука–классика, 2008. 318 с. Решетова И.К. Население донецко–донского междуречья в раннем средневековье: Палеоантропологическое исследование. СПб.: Нестор–История, 2015. 132 с. Решетова И.К. Описание индивидов с трепанированными черепами среди носителей Салтово–маяцкой культуры: медицинская практика или культ? // Этнографическое обозрение. 2012. № 5. С. 151–157. Ронин В.К. «История лангобардов» Павла Диакона // Свод древнейших письменных известий о славянах / Отв. ред. Л. А. Гиндин, Г. Г. Литаврин. М.: Издательская фирма «Восточная литература» РАН, 1995. Т. II. С. 480–501. Ронин В.К. Так называемая Хроника Фредегара // Свод древнейших письменных известий о славянах / Отв. ред. Л. А. Гиндин, Г. Г. Литаврин. М.: Издательская фирма «Восточная литература» РАН, 1995. Т. II. С. 364–397. Трифонов Ю.И. Об этнической принадлежности погребений с конем древнетюркского времени (в связи с вопросом о структуре погребального обряда тюрков–тугю // Тюркологический сборник 1972. / Отв. ред. А.Н. Кононов. М.: Наука, 1973. С. 351–374. Храпунов И.Н., Казанский М.М. Погребение № 114 на могильнике Нейзац (предгорный Крым) и древности кочевников Северного Причерноморья второй половины V — первой половины VI в. // КСИА. Вып. 238. М.: ИА РАН, 2015. С. 170–194. Шишманов И. Българите в “Orlando furioso” и въ по–старата френска драма // Български преглед. VI. Кн. 8. София: Придворна печатница, 1900. Година С. 67–84. Ceglia V. Campochiaro. La necropoli di Vicenne // L’oro degli Avari: popolo delle steppe in Europa. Milano: Inform, 2000. P. 212–221. Ceglia V. Campochiaro: la necropoli altomedievale di Vicenne (CB) // V Settimana beni culturali. Tutela. Catalogo della mostra. Matrice: Soprintendenza archeologica e per i beni ambientali, architettonici, artistici e storici del Molise, 1989. P. 63–67. Ceglia V. Interventi di recupero dei siti sparsi e necropolis // Conoscenze. Campobasso: Soprintendenza archeologica e per i beni ambientali, architettonici, artistici e storici del Molise, 1994. Vol. 7. P. 17–20. Ceglia V. La Necropoli altomedioevale di Vicenne nel Comune di Campochiaro // Almanacco del Molise. Campobasso: Habacus Edithore,1989. Ed. 21, vol. II. P. 153–158. Ceglia V. La necropoli di Campochiaro (Italia) // Roma e i Barbari. La nascita di un nuovo mondo. Catalogo della Mostra (Venezia, 26 gennaio –20 luglio 2008) / A cura di J.J. Aillagon. Milano: Skira, 2008. P. 469–475. Ceglia V. Lo scavo della necropoli di Vicenne // Conoscenze. Campobasso: Soprintendenza archeologica e per i beni ambientali, architettonici, artistici e storici del Molise, 1988. Vol. 4. P. 31–48. Ceglia V. Necropoli di Vicenne // Studi sull’Italia dei Sanniti. Milano: Electa, 2000. P. 298–302. Ceglia V. Presenze funerarie di eta altomedievale in Molise. Le necropoli di Campochiaro e la tomba del cavaliere // I Longobardi del Sud. Roma: Giorgio Bretschneider Editore, 2010. P. 241–255. Ceglia V. Tomba bisoma 88 della necropoli di Campochiaro, localita Morrione // Il futuro dei longobardi. L 'Italia e la costruzione dell' Europa di Carlo Magno / A cura di С. Bertelli, G.P. Brogiolo. Milano: Skira, 2000. P. 80–81. Ceglia V. Varietа di infl ussi culturali nelle necropoli di Campochiaro. Considerazioni preliminari / I beni culturali nel Molise. Il Medioevo / A cura di De Benedittis G. Campobasso: Istituto regionale per gli studi storici del Molise “V. Cuoco”, 2004. P. 79–86. Ceglia V., Genito B. La necropoli altomedievale di Vicenne a Campochiaro // Samnium: Archeologia del Molisе. Roma: Quasar, 1991. P. 329–334. Ceglia V., Marchetta I. Nuovi dati dalla necropoli di Vicenne a Campochiaro // La trasformazione del mondo romano e le grandi migrazioni. Nuovi popoli dall'Europa settentrionale e centro–orientale alle coste del Mediterraneo / A cura di C. Ebanista, M. Rotili. Napoli: Tavolario Edizioni, 2012. P. 217–238. Chronicarum quae dicuntur Fredegarii Scholastici libri IV // MGH, Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum / Ed. B. Krusch. Hannoverae: Impensis bibliopolii hahniani, 1888. T. 2. P. 1-193. Constitutiones et Acta Publica Imperatorum et Regum // MGH, Rerum Germanicarum Medii Aevi / Ed. L. Weiland. Hannoverae, Impensis bibliopolii hahniani, 1893. T. I, №. 333. P. 472–477. Curta F. Ethnicity in the Steppe Lands of the Northern Black Sea Region During The Early Byzantine Times // Archaeologia Bulgarica. 2019. T. ХХIII. P. 33–70. De Benedittis G. Di alcuni materiali altomedievali provenienti dal Molise centrale ed il problema topografi co della necropoli di Vicenne // Conoscenze. Campobasso: Soprintendenza archeologica e per i beni ambientali, architettonici, artistici e storici del Molise, 1988. Vol. 4. P. 103–108. De Benedittis G. Introduzione // Samnium: Archeologia del Molisе. Roma: Quasar, 1991. P. 325–328. De Marchi P.M. Modelli insediativi "militarizzati" d'eta longobarda in Lombardia // Citta, castelli, campagne nel territori di frontiera (secoli 6–7). Mantova: SAP Societa Archeologica S.r.l., 1995. P. 33–85. De Vingo P. Avari e slavi nel Friuli altomedievale secondo l’Historia Langobardorum di Paolo Diacono // Paolo Diacono e il Friuli alto medievale (secc. VI– X). Spoleto: Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2001. P. 807–815. Ditten H. Protobulgaren und Germanen im 5.–7. Jahrhundert (vor der Grundung des ersten bulgarischen Reiches) // Bulgarian Historical Review. София: Институт за исторически изследвания, 1980. Vol. VIII, 3. P. 51–77. Donceva–Petkova L. Zur ethnischen Zugehörigkeit einiger Nekropolen des 11. Jahrhunderts in Bulgarien // Post–Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium / Ed. J. Henning. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. Vol. 2. S. 643–660. Ebanista C. Gli usi funerari nel ducato di Benevento: alcune considerazioni sulle necropoli campane e molisane di VI–VIII secolo // Archeologia e storia delle migrazioni: Europa, Italia, Mediterraneo fra tarda eta romana e alto medioevo (Giornate sulla tarda antichita e il medioevo, 3). Cimitile: Tavolario Edizioni, 2011. P. 337–364. Ebanista С. Tradizioni funerarie nel ducato di Benevento: l’apporto delle popolazioni alloctone // Nekropoli Longobarde in Italia. Atti del Convegno Internazionale 26–28.09.2011. Trento: Castello del Buonconsiglio, monumenti e collezioni provinciali, 2014. P. 445–471. Fedele A. La deposizione del cavallo nei cimiteri longobardi: dati e prime osservazioni // Archeologia dei Longobardi: dati e metodi per nuovi percorsi di analisi (Archeologia Barbarica, 1). Mantova: SAP Societa Archeologica s.r.l., 2017. P. 59–82. Fedele A., Marchetta I., Colombo D. Ritualita e rappresentazione funeraria nelle tombe di Vicenne (Campochiaro, CB). Una sintesi // Prima e dopo Alboino sulle trace dei Longobardi. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi Cimitile–Nola–Santa Maria Capua Vetere. Cimitile: Guida, 2019. P. 295–314. Genito B. Archaeology of the Early medieval nomads in Italy: the horse–burials in Molise (7th century) south–central Italy // Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der Steppe in 6.–7. Jh. / Hrsg. C. Balint (Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, IX). Budapest: Archaologisches Institut der UAW, 2000. P. 229–247. Genito B. Il Molise nell’altomedioevo: tra Mediterraneo ed Eurasia. Un’occasione perduta? // Miti e popoli del Mediterraneo antico. Scritti in onore di Gabriella d'Henry. Salerno: Tipografi a Fusco, 2014. P. 279–292. Genito B. Materiali e problemi // Conoscenze. Campobasso: Soprintendenza archeologica e per i beni ambientali, architettonici, artistici e storici del Molise, 1988. Vol. 4. P. 49–67. Genito B. Sepolture con cavallo da Vicenne (CB): un rituale nomadico di origine centroasiatica // I Congresso Nazionale di Archeologia Medievale (Pisa 29–31 maggio 1997) / A cura di S. Gelichi. Firenze: All'Insegna del Giglio, 1997. P. 286–289. Genito B. Tombe con cavallo a Vicenne // Samnium: Archeologia del Molisе. Roma: Quasar, 1991. P. 335–338. Giostra C. Il ducato longobardo di Ivrea: la grande necropoli di Borgomasino // Per il Museo di Ivrea. Lasezione archeologica del Museo Civico P.A. Garda / A cura di A. Gabucci, L. Pejrani Baricco, S. Ratto. Firenze: All’Insegna Giglio, 2014. P. 155–176. Hersak E. Vulgarum dux Alzeco // Casopis za zgodovino in narodopisje. Maribor: Izdajata univerza v Mariboru in Zgodovinsko drustvo v Mariboru, 2001. Let. 72 (37), 1–2. S. 269–278. Hodgkin T. Italy and her Invaders. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895. Vol. VI. 636 p. Jozsa L., Fothi E. Trepanalt koponyak a Karpat–medenceben (a leletek szambavetele, megoszlasa es lelohelyei) // Folia Anthropologica. Szombathely: Balogh es Tarsa Kft, 2007. T. 6. O. 5–18. Koch A. Uberlegungen zum Transfer von Schwerttrag– und –kampfesweise im fruhen Mittelalter am Beispiel chinesischer Schwerter mit p–förmigen Tragriemenhaltern aus dem 6.–8. Jahrhundert n. Chr. // Jahrbucher des Romisch–Germanischen Zentralmuseums. Mainz: RGZM, 1998. Bd. 45. S. 571–598. Kruger K.–H. Zur «beneventanischen» Konzeption der Langobardengeschichte des Paulus Diakonus // Fruhmittelalterliche studien. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1981. Bd. 15. P. 18–35. La Rocca C. Tombe con corredi, etnicita e prestigio sociale: l’Italia longobarda del VII secolo attraverso l’interpretazione archeologica // Archeologia e storia dei Longobardi in Trentino. Mezzolombardo: Comune di Mezzolombardo, 2009. P. 55–76. La Salvia V. La diffusione della staffa nell’area merovingia orientale alla luce delle fonti archeologiche // Temporis Signa. Spoleto: Fondazione Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo, 2007. Vol. 2. P. 155–171. Laszlo O. Detailed Analysis of a Trepanation from the Late Avar Period (Turn of the 7th–8th Centuries—811) and Its Signifi cance in the Anthropological Material of the Carpathian Basin // International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. Published online in Wiley Online Library, 2016. Vol. 26–2. P. 359–365. Marchetta I. Ceramica ed Ethnos nelle tombe di Vicenne (Campochiaro, CB): il ritual funerario attraverso l’analisi del corredo vascolare // Le forme della crisi. Produzioni ceramiche e commerce nell’Italia centrale tra Romani e Longobardi (III–VIII sec. d.C.) / A cura di E. Cirelli, F. Diosono, H. Patterson. Bologna: Ante Quem, 2015. P. 663–671. Marchetta I. Il carattere composito del regno: le necropoli di Campochiaro (Campobasso) (cat. II.36–40) // Longobardi. Un popolo che cambia la storia. Schede mostra / A cura di G.P. Brogiolo, F. Marazzi, C. Giostra. Milano, Skira, 2017. P. 54–58. Mednikova M.B. Prehistoric Trepanations in Russia: Ritual or Surgical? // Trepanation: History, Discovery, Theory / Eds. R. Arnott, S. Finger, S. Smith C. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, 2003. P. 163–174. Muratori L.A. Antiquitates Italicae medii Aevi, sive Dissertationes. Mediolani: Ex Typographia societatis Palatinae, 1740. T. III. 1242 coll.Pasqui U. Documenti per la storia della citta di Arezzo nel medio evo. Arezzo: G.P. Vieusseux, 1899. Vol. I. 576 p. Pauli historia Langohardorum // MGH. Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. VI–IX / Ed. G. Waitz. Hannoverae: Impensis bibliopolii hahniani, 1878. Bd. I. P. 12–187. Pieri S. Toponomastica della Toscana meridionale (valli della Fiora, dell ‘Ombrone, della Cecina e fi umi minori) e dell‘Arcipelago Toscano. Siena: Accademia senese degli intronati, 1969. 472 p. Pohl W. Die Awaren. Ein Steppenvolk im Mittelalter. 567–822. Munchen: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1988. 529 p. Polverari A. Una Bulgaria nella Pentapoli. Longobardi, Bulgari e Sclavini a Senigallia. Senigallia: Pierfederici, 1969. 41 p. Premuzic Z., Rajic Sikanjic P., Rapan Papesa A. A case of Avar period trepanation from Croatia // Anthropological Review. Published online by De Gruyter, 2016. Vol. 79 (4). P. 471–482. Provesi C. Cavalli e cavalieri in Italia nell'Alto Medioevo (secc. V–X): studio della simbologia equestre attraverso fonti narrative, documentarie e archeologiche. Tesi di Dottorato. Venezia, 2013. Provesi C. I cavalieri e le loro donne, uno studio dei corredi funerari di VI–VII secolo // Univ. Degli studi di Verona. Verona, 2013. Доступно по URL: https://www.yumpu.com/it/document/view/16247410/chiara–provesi–scuola–superiore–di–studi–storici–geografi ci–(Дата обращения 04.12.2020) Provesi C. Uomini e cavalli in Italia meridionale da Cassiodoro ad Alzecone // Ipsam Nolam barbari vastaverunt: l’Italia e il Mediterraneo occidentale tra il V secolo e la metа del VI. Cimitile: Tavolario Edizioni, 2010. P. 97–111. Repetti E. Dizionario geografi co fi sico storico della Toscana. Firenze: Presso L’autore e editore, 1833. Vol. 1. 846 p. Rotili M. I Longobardi migrazioni, etnogenesi, insediamento // I Longobardi del Sud. Roma: Giorgio Bretschneider Editore, 2010. P. 1–77. Rubini M, Zaio P. Warriors from the East. Skeletal evidence of warfare from a Lombard–Avar cemetery in Central Italy (Campochiaro, Molise, 6th–8th Century AD) // Journal of Archaeological Science. Published online by Elsevier, 2011. Vol. 38. Issue 7. P. 1551–1559. Rubini M. Gli Avari in Molise. La necropoli di Campochiaro Morrione // ArcheoMolise. Associazione culturale ArcheoIdea. Isernia: Associazione culturale ArcheoIdea, 2009. T. II (apr.–giu. 2009). Р. 17–25. Rubini M. Il popolamento del Molise durante l’alto medioevo // I beni culturali nel Molise. Il Medioevo / A cura di De Benedittis G. Campobasso: Istituto regionale per gli studi storici del Molise “V. Cuoco”, 2004. P. 151–162. Sabatini F. Rifl essi linguistici della dominazione longobarda nell’Italia mediana e meridionale // Aristocrazie e societa fra transizione romano–germanica e alto medioevo. San Vitaliano: Tavolario Edizioni, 2015. P. 353–441. Sarno E. Campobasso da castrum a citta murattiana. Roma: Aracne, 2012. 324 p. Schneider F. Regestum Volaterranum. Regesten der Urkunden von Volterra (778–1303). Roma: Ermanno Loescher, 1907. 448 p. Staffa A.R. Una terra di frontiera: Abruzzo e Molise fra VI e VII Secolo // Citta, castelli, campagne nei territori di frontiera (secoli VI–VII) / A cura di G.P. Brogiolo. Мantova: Padus, 1995. P. 187–238. Staffa A.R. Bizantini e Longobardi fra Abruzzo e Molise (secc. VI–VII) / I beni culturali nel Molise. Il Medioevo / A cura di De Benedittis G. Campobasso: Istituto regionale per gli studi storici del Molise “V. Cuoco”, 2004. P. 215–248. Tomka P. Die Bestattungsformen der Awaren // Hunnen und Awaren. Reitervolker aus dem Osten. Burgenlandische Landesausstellung 1996 Schloss Halbturn vom 26. April bis 31. Oktober 1996. Begleitbuch und Katalog / Ed. F. Daim. Eisenstadt: Burgenland, Landesregierung, 1996. S. 384–387. Tornesi M. Presenze alloctone nell’Italia centrale: tempi, modalita e forme dell’organizzazione territorial nell’Abruzzo altomediale. Tesi di Dottorato. Roma: Sapienza universita’ di Roma, 2012. 275 p. Valenti M. Villaggi nell’eta delle migrazioni // I Longobardi. Dalla caduta dell’Impero all’alba dell’Italia / A cura di G.P. Brogiolo, A. Chavarria Arnau. Catalogo della mostra (Torino 28 settembre 2007–6 gennaio 2008). Milano: Silvana Editoriale, 2007. P. 151–158. Villa L. Il Friuli longobardo е gli Avari // L'oro degli Avari. Popolo delle steppe in Europa. Milano: Inform, 2000. P. 187–189. Wattenbach W. Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter. Berlin: Verlag von Wilhelm Hertz, 1858. Vol. I. 478 p. Wattenbach W., Levison W., Lowe H. Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter. Vorzeit und Karolinger. Weimar: Hermann Bohlaus nachfolger, 1953, Heft II. P. 157–290.

Some brachyuran crabs from the Pliocene of a new outcrop nearby Borgomanero (Novara, Piedmont, NW Italy) are reported. This study allows us to recognize a peculiar brachyuran crabs assemblage including: Macropipus cf. M. tuberculatus Prestandrea, 1833 (Polybiidae Ortmann, 1893), first report for this species from the Pliocene fossil record, and an indeterminate representative of Mursia Leach in Desmarest, 1822 (Calappidae De Haan, 1833), genus never recorded previously in the Mediterranean basin. Finally, a single chela is referred to Calappa sp. (Calappidae De Haan, 1833).

AbstractThis essay investigates three women’s cross-dressed service in the military. Hannah Snell (1723-92) served as a British marine and fought the French in India. Deborah Sampson Gannet (1760-1827) fought the British in the American Wars of Independence and Pauline Cushman (1833-1893) claimed to have disguised herself for the Union during the American Civil War. These three are, by no means, the only women to claim action and remuneration as male combatants (Jelinek 53-62),1 when the legal extent of women’s engagement was as unpaid camp followers. However, all three gave accounts of their military exploits to the public through biographies and solo performances on stage.

The types of nominal species of Diapriinae in the collection of the Natural History Museum, London, are catalogued. Lectotypes are designated for the following taxa: Diapria peraffinis Ashmead, 1896; D. smithii Ashmead, 1896; Galesus bipunctatus Ashmead,1894; G. (G.) foersteri var. nigricornis Kieffer, 1911; G. sexpunctatus Ashmead, 1893; G. walkeri Kieffer, 1907; Idiotypa nigriceps Kieffer, 1909; I. nigriceps Kieffer, 1911; I. pallida Ashmead, 1893; I. pallida Ashmead, 1894; Paramesius angustipennis Kieffer, 1911; P. cameroni Kieffer, 1911; Phaenopria cameroni Kieffer, 1911; P. halterata Kieffer, 1911; P. magniclavata Ashmead, 1896; Tropidopsis clavata Ashmead, 1893; T. clavata Ashmead, 1894. New combinations are proposed: Aneuropria bifurcata comb. nov. for Mantara bifurcata Dodd, 1920; Basalys quadridens comb. nov. for Microgalesus quadridens Kieffer, 1912; Coptera cratocerus comb. nov. for Galesus cratocerus Cameron, 1912; Coptera sexpunctata comb. nov. for Galesus sexpunctatus Ashmead, 1893; Doliopria magniclavata comb. nov. for Phaenopria magniclavata Ashmead, 1896; Spilomicrus aterrimus comb. nov. for Hoplopria aterrima Dodd, 1920; Spilomicrus campbellanus comb. nov. for Antarctopria campbellana Yoshimoto, 1964; Spilomicrus coelopae comb. nov. for Antarctopria coelopae Early, 1978; Spilomicrus diomedeae comb. nov. for Antarctopria diomedeae Early, 1978; Spilomicrus helosciomyzae comb. nov. for Malvina helosciomyzae Early & Horning, 1978; Spilomicrus insulae comb. nov. for Malvina insulae Early, 1980; Spilomicrus latigaster comb. nov. for Antarctopria latigaster Brues in Tillyard, 1920; Spilomicrus punctatus comb. nov. for Malvina punctata Cameron, 1889; Spilomicrus rekohua comb. nov. for Antarctopria rekohua Early, 1978; Trichopria bouceki comb. nov. for Oxypria bouceki Masner, 1959; Trichopria nigriceps comb. nov. for Tropidopria nigriceps Ashmead, 1894; Trichopria nigriceps comb. nov. for Xyalopria nigriceps Kieffer, 1907; Trichopria spinosiceps comb. nov. for Acidopria spinosiceps Dodd, 1920; Trichopria walkeri comb. nov. for Diapria walkeri Dalla Torre 1890. New replacement names are proposed: Coptera mosselensis nom. nov. for C. nigricornis Nixon, 1930 preocc.; Coptera pijiguaorum nom. nov. for C. sexpunctata Montilla & García, 2008 preocc.; Spilomicrus kozlovi nom. nov. for S. punctatus Kozlov, 1978 preocc.; Trichopria fluminis nom. nov. for T. nigriceps (Kieffer, 1907) preocc.; T. thermarum nom. nov. for T. nigriceps (Kieffer, 1913) preocc. New specific synonyms are proposed: Basalys cursitans (Kieffer, 1911) = B. pedisequa (Kieffer, 1911) syn. nov. (the former removed from synonymy with B. parvus Thomson, 1858); B. iphicla Nixon, 1980 = B. macroptera (Kieffer, 1911) syn. nov.; Coptera bipunctata (Ashmead, 1894) = C. sexpunctata (Ashmead, 1893) syn. nov.; Idiotypa nigriceps Kieffer, 1911 = I. nigriceps Kieffer, 1909 syn. nov.; I. pallida Ashmead, 1894 = I. pallida Ashmead, 1893 syn. nov.; Psilus nigricornis (Kieffer, 1911) = P. fuscipennis (Curtis, 1831) syn. nov.; P. walkeri (Kieffer, 1907) = P. fuscipennis (Curtis, 1831) syn. nov.; T. bouceki (Masner, 1959) = T. conotoma (Kieffer, 1911) syn. nov.; Trichopria halterata (Kieffer, 1911) = T. halterata (Kieffer, 1909) syn. nov. New generic synonyms are proposed: Antarctopria Brues in Tillyard, 1920 = Spilomicrus Westwood, 1832 syn. nov.; Malvina Cameron, 1889 = Spilomicrus Westwood, 1832 syn. nov.; Mantara Dodd, 1920 = Aneuropria Kieffer, 1905 syn. nov.; Microgalesus Kieffer, 1912 = Basalys Westwood, 1833 syn. nov.; Xyalopria Kieffer, 1907 = Trichopria Ashmead, 1893 syn. nov. (Xyalopria is removed from synonymy with Megaplastopria Ashmead, 1903). A brief account of some aspects of the history of these types is given.

Abstract Background The Red Sea contains thousands of kilometers of fringing reef systems inhabited by clownfish and sea anemones, yet there is no consensus regarding the diversity of host anemone species that inhabit this region. We sought to clarify a historical record and recent literature sources that disagree on the diversity of host anemone species in the Red Sea, which contains one endemic anemonefish, Amphiprion bicinctus Rüppell 1830. Results We conducted 73 surveys spanning ~ 1600 km of coastline from the northern Saudi Arabian Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and encountered seven species of host anemones, six of which hosted A. bicinctus. We revise the list of symbionts for A. bicinctus to include Stichodactyla haddoni (Saville-Kent, 1893) and Stichodactyla mertensii Brandt, 1835 which were both observed in multiple regions. We describe Red Sea phenotypic variability in Heteractis crispa (Hemprich & Ehrenberg in Ehrenberg, 1834) and Heteractis aurora (Quoy & Gaimard, 1833), which may indicate that these species hybridize in this region. We did not encounter Stichodactyla gigantea (Forsskål, 1775), although the Red Sea is the type locality for this species. Further, a thorough review of peer-reviewed literature, occurrence records, and misidentified basis of record reports dating back to the early twentieth century indicate that it is unlikely that S. gigantea occurs in the Red Sea. Conclusions In sum, we present a new guide for the host anemones of the Red Sea, revise the host specificity of A. bicinctus, and question whether S. gigantea occurs in the central and western Indian Ocean.

Introduction Cookbooks are an exceptional written record of what is largely an oral tradition. They have been described as “magician’s hats” due to their ability to reveal much more than they seem to contain (Wheaton, “Finding”). The first book printed in Germany was the Guttenberg Bible in 1456 but, by 1490, printing was introduced into almost every European country (Tierney). The spread of literacy between 1500 and 1800, and the rise in silent reading, helped to create a new private sphere into which the individual could retreat, seeking refuge from the community (Chartier). This new technology had its effects in the world of cookery as in so many spheres of culture (Mennell, All Manners). Trubek notes that cookbooks are the texts most often used by culinary historians, since they usually contain all the requisite materials for analysing a cuisine: ingredients, method, technique, and presentation. Printed cookbooks, beginning in the early modern period, provide culinary historians with sources of evidence of the culinary past. Historians have argued that social differences can be expressed by the way and type of food we consume. Cookbooks are now widely accepted as valid socio-cultural and historic documents (Folch, Sherman), and indeed the link between literacy levels and the protestant tradition has been expressed through the study of Danish cookbooks (Gold). From Apicius, Taillevent, La Varenne, and Menon to Bradley, Smith, Raffald, Acton, and Beeton, how can both manuscript and printed cookbooks be analysed as historic documents? What is the difference between a manuscript and a printed cookbook? Barbara Ketchum Wheaton, who has been studying cookbooks for over half a century and is honorary curator of the culinary collection in Harvard’s Schlesinger Library, has developed a methodology to read historic cookbooks using a structured approach. For a number of years she has been giving seminars to scholars from multidisciplinary fields on how to read historic cookbooks. This paper draws on the author’s experiences attending Wheaton’s seminar in Harvard, and on supervising the use of this methodology at both Masters and Doctoral level (Cashman; Mac Con Iomaire, and Cashman). Manuscripts versus Printed Cookbooks A fundamental difference exists between manuscript and printed cookbooks in their relationship with the public and private domain. Manuscript cookbooks are by their very essence intimate, relatively unedited and written with an eye to private circulation. Culinary manuscripts follow the diurnal and annual tasks of the household. They contain recipes for cures and restoratives, recipes for cleansing products for the house and the body, as well as the expected recipes for cooking and preserving all manners of food. Whether manuscript or printed cookbook, the recipes contained within often act as a reminder of how laborious the production of food could be in the pre-industrialised world (White). Printed cookbooks draw oxygen from the very fact of being public. They assume a “literate population with sufficient discretionary income to invest in texts that commodify knowledge” (Folch). This process of commoditisation brings knowledge from the private to the public sphere. There exists a subset of cookbooks that straddle this divide, for example, Mrs. Rundell’s A New System of Domestic Cookery (1806), which brought to the public domain her distillation of a lifetime of domestic experience. Originally intended for her daughters alone, Rundell’s book was reprinted regularly during the nineteenth century with the last edition printed in 1893, when Mrs. Beeton had been enormously popular for over thirty years (Mac Con Iomaire, and Cashman). Barbara Ketchum Wheaton’s Structured Approach Cookbooks can be rewarding, surprising and illuminating when read carefully with due effort in understanding them as cultural artefacts. However, Wheaton notes that: “One may read a single old cookbook and find it immensely entertaining. One may read two and begin to find intriguing similarities and differences. When the third cookbook is read, one’s mind begins to blur, and one begins to sense the need for some sort of method in approaching these documents” (“Finding”). Following decades of studying cookbooks from both sides of the Atlantic and writing a seminal text on the French at table from 1300-1789 (Wheaton, Savouring the Past), this combined experience negotiating cookbooks as historical documents was codified, and a structured approach gradually articulated and shared within a week long seminar format. In studying any cookbook, regardless of era or country of origin, the text is broken down into five different groupings, to wit: ingredients; equipment or facilities; the meal; the book as a whole; and, finally, the worldview. A particular strength of Wheaton’s seminars is the multidisciplinary nature of the approaches of students who attend, which throws the study of cookbooks open to wide ranging techniques. Students with a purely scientific training unearth interesting patterns by developing databases of the frequency of ingredients or techniques, and cross referencing them with other books from similar or different timelines or geographical regions. Patterns are displayed in graphs or charts. Linguists offer their own unique lens to study cookbooks, whereas anthropologists and historians ask what these objects can tell us about how our ancestors lived and drew meaning from life. This process is continuously refined, and each grouping is discussed below. Ingredients The geographic origins of the ingredients are of interest, as is the seasonality and the cost of the foodstuffs within the scope of each cookbook, as well as the sensory quality both separately and combined within different recipes. In the medieval period, the use of spices and large joints of butchers meat and game were symbols of wealth and status. However, when the discovery of sea routes to the New World and to the Far East made spices more available and affordable to the middle classes, the upper classes spurned them. Evidence from culinary manuscripts in Georgian Ireland, for example, suggests that galangal was more easily available in Dublin during the eighteenth century than in the mid-twentieth century. A new aesthetic, articulated by La Varenne in his Le Cuisinier Francois (1651), heralded that food should taste of itself, and so exotic ingredients such as cinnamon, nutmeg, and ginger were replaced by the local bouquet garni, and stocks and sauces became the foundations of French haute cuisine (Mac Con Iomaire). Some combinations of flavours and ingredients were based on humoral physiology, a long held belief system based on the writings of Hippocrates and Galen, now discredited by modern scientific understanding. The four humors are blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. It was believed that each of these humors would wax and wane in the body, depending on diet and activity. Galen (131-201 AD) believed that warm food produced yellow bile and that cold food produced phlegm. It is difficult to fathom some combinations of ingredients or the manner of service without comprehending the contemporary context within they were consumeSome ingredients found in Roman cookbooks, such as “garum” or “silphium” are no longer available. It is suggested that the nearest substitute for garum also known as “liquamen”—a fermented fish sauce—would be Naam Plaa, or Thai fish sauce (Grainger). Ingredients such as tea and white bread, moved from the prerogative of the wealthy over time to become the staple of the urban poor. These ingredients, therefore, symbolise radically differing contexts during the seventeenth century than in the early twentieth century. Indeed, there are other ingredients such as hominy (dried maize kernel treated with alkali) or grahams (crackers made from graham flour) found in American cookbooks that require translation to the unacquainted non-American reader. There has been a growing number of food encyclopaedias published in recent years that assist scholars in identifying such commodities (Smith, Katz, Davidson). The Cook’s Workplace, Techniques, and Equipment It is important to be aware of the type of kitchen equipment used, the management of heat and cold within the kitchen, and also the gradual spread of the industrial revolution into the domestic sphere. Visits to historic castles such as Hampton Court Palace where nowadays archaeologists re-enact life below stairs in Tudor times give a glimpse as to how difficult and labour intensive food production was. Meat was spit-roasted in front of huge fires by spit boys. Forcemeats and purees were manually pulped using mortar and pestles. Various technological developments including spit-dogs, and mechanised pulleys, replaced the spit boys, the most up to date being the mechanised rotisserie. The technological advancements of two hundred years can be seen in the Royal Pavilion in Brighton where Marie-Antoinin Carême worked for the Prince Regent in 1816 (Brighton Pavilion), but despite the gleaming copper pans and high ceilings for ventilation, the work was still back breaking. Carême died aged forty-nine, “burnt out by the flame of his genius and the fumes of his ovens” (Ackerman 90). Mennell points out that his fame outlived him, resting on his books: Le Pâtissier Royal Parisien (1815); Le Pâtissier Pittoresque (1815); Le Maître d’Hôtel Français (1822); Le Cuisinier Parisien (1828); and, finally, L’Art de la Cuisine Française au Dix-Neuvième Siècle (1833–5), which was finished posthumously by his student Pluméry (All Manners). Mennell suggests that these books embody the first paradigm of professional French cuisine (in Kuhn’s terminology), pointing out that “no previous work had so comprehensively codified the field nor established its dominance as a point of reference for the whole profession in the way that Carême did” (All Manners 149). The most dramatic technological changes came after the industrial revolution. Although there were built up ovens available in bakeries and in large Norman households, the period of general acceptance of new cooking equipment that enclosed fire (such as the Aga stove) is from c.1860 to 1910, with gas ovens following in c.1910 to the 1920s) and Electricity from c.1930. New food processing techniques dates are as follows: canning (1860s), cooling and freezing (1880s), freeze drying (1950s), and motorised delivery vans with cooking (1920s–1950s) (den Hartog). It must also be noted that the supply of fresh food, and fish particularly, radically improved following the birth, and expansion of, the railways. To understand the context of the cookbook, one needs to be aware of the limits of the technology available to the users of those cookbooks. For many lower to middle class families during the twentieth century, the first cookbook they would possess came with their gas or electrical oven. Meals One can follow cooked dishes from the kitchen to the eating place, observing food presentation, carving, sequencing, and serving of the meal and table etiquette. Meal times and structure changed over time. During the Middle Ages, people usually ate two meals a day: a substantial dinner around noon and a light supper in the evening (Adamson). Some of the most important factors to consider are the manner in which meals were served: either à la française or à la russe. One of the main changes that occurred during the nineteenth century was the slow but gradual transfer from service à la française to service à la russe. From medieval times to the middle of the nineteenth century the structure of a formal meal was not by “courses”—as the term is now understood—but by “services”. Each service could comprise of a choice of dishes—both sweet and savoury—from which each guest could select what appealed to him or her most (Davidson). The philosophy behind this form of service was the forementioned humoral physiology— where each diner chose food based on the four humours of blood, yellow bile, black bile, or phlegm. Also known as le grand couvert, the à la française method made it impossible for the diners to eat anything that was beyond arm’s length (Blake, and Crewe). Smooth service, however, was the key to an effective à la russe dinner since servants controlled the flow of food (Eatwell). The taste and temperature of food took centre stage with the à la russe dinner as each course came in sequence. Many historic cookbooks offer table plans illustrating the suggested arrangement of dishes on a table for the à la française style of service. Many of these dishes might be re-used in later meals, and some dishes such as hashes and rissoles often utilised left over components of previous meals. There is a whole genre of cookbooks informing the middle class cooks how to be frugal and also how to emulate haute cuisine using cheaper or ersatz ingredients. The number dining and the manner in which they dined also changed dramatically over time. From medieval to Tudor times, there might be hundreds dining in large banqueting halls. By the Elizabethan age, a small intimate room where master and family dined alone replaced the old dining hall where master, servants, guests, and travellers had previously dined together (Spencer). Dining tables remained portable until the 1780s when tables with removable leaves were devised. By this time, the bread trencher had been replaced by one made of wood, or plate of pewter or precious metal in wealthier houses. Hosts began providing knives and spoons for their guests by the seventeenth century, with forks also appearing but not fully accepted until the eighteenth century (Mason). These silver utensils were usually marked with the owner’s initials to prevent their theft (Flandrin). Cookbooks as Objects and the World of Publishing A thorough examination of the manuscript or printed cookbook can reveal their physical qualities, including indications of post-publication history, the recipes and other matter in them, as well as the language, organization, and other individual qualities. What can the quality of the paper tell us about the book? Is there a frontispiece? Is the book dedicated to an employer or a patron? Does the author note previous employment history in the introduction? In his Court Cookery, Robert Smith, for example, not only mentions a number of his previous employers, but also outlines that he was eight years working with Patrick Lamb in the Court of King William, before revealing that several dishes published in Lamb’s Royal Cookery (1710) “were never made or practis’d (sic) by him and others are extreme defective and imperfect and made up of dishes unknown to him; and several of them more calculated at the purses than the Gôut of the guests”. Both Lamb and Smith worked for the English monarchy, nobility, and gentry, but produced French cuisine. Not all Britons were enamoured with France, however, with, for example Hannah Glasse asserting “if gentlemen will have French cooks, they must pay for French tricks” (4), and “So much is the blind folly of this age, that they would rather be imposed on by a French Booby, than give encouragement to an good English cook” (ctd. in Trubek 60). Spencer contextualises Glasse’s culinary Francophobia, explaining that whilst she was writing the book, the Jacobite army were only a few days march from London, threatening to cut short the Hanoverian lineage. However, Lehmann points out that whilst Glasse was overtly hostile to French cuisine, she simultaneously plagiarised its receipts. Based on this trickling down of French influences, Mennell argues that “there is really no such thing as a pure-bred English cookery book” (All Manners 98), but that within the assimilation and simplification, a recognisable English style was discernable. Mennell also asserts that Glasse and her fellow women writers had an enormous role in the social history of cooking despite their lack of technical originality (“Plagiarism”). It is also important to consider the place of cookbooks within the history of publishing. Albala provides an overview of the immense outpouring of dietary literature from the printing presses from the 1470s. He divides the Renaissance into three periods: Period I Courtly Dietaries (1470–1530)—targeted at the courtiers with advice to those attending banquets with many courses and lots of wine; Period II The Galenic Revival (1530–1570)—with a deeper appreciation, and sometimes adulation, of Galen, and when scholarship took centre stage over practical use. Finally Period III The Breakdown of Orthodoxy (1570–1650)—when, due to the ambiguities and disagreements within and between authoritative texts, authors were freer to pick the ideas that best suited their own. Nutrition guides were consistent bestsellers, and ranged from small handbooks written in the vernacular for lay audiences, to massive Latin tomes intended for practicing physicians. Albala adds that “anyone with an interest in food appears to have felt qualified to pen his own nutritional guide” (1). Would we have heard about Mrs. Beeton if her husband had not been a publisher? How could a twenty-five year old amass such a wealth of experience in household management? What role has plagiarism played in the history of cookbooks? It is interesting to note that a well worn copy of her book (Beeton) was found in the studio of Francis Bacon and it is suggested that he drew inspiration for a number of his paintings from the colour plates of animal carcasses and butcher’s meat (Dawson). Analysing the post-publication usage of cookbooks is valuable to see the most popular recipes, the annotations left by the owner(s) or user(s), and also if any letters, handwritten recipes, or newspaper clippings are stored within the leaves of the cookbook. The Reader, the Cook, the Eater The physical and inner lives and needs and skills of the individuals who used cookbooks and who ate their meals merit consideration. Books by their nature imply literacy. Who is the book’s audience? Is it the cook or is it the lady of the house who will dictate instructions to the cook? Numeracy and measurement is also important. Where clocks or pocket watches were not widely available, authors such as seventeenth century recipe writer Sir Kenelm Digby would time his cooking by the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer. Literacy amongst protestant women to enable them to read the Bible, also enabled them to read cookbooks (Gold). How did the reader or eater’s religion affect the food practices? Were there fast days? Were there substitute foods for fast days? What about special occasions? Do historic cookbooks only tell us about the food of the middle and upper classes? It is widely accepted today that certain cookbook authors appeal to confident cooks, while others appeal to competent cooks, and others still to more cautious cooks (Bilton). This has always been the case, as has the differentiation between the cookbook aimed at the professional cook rather than the amateur. Historically, male cookbook authors such as Patrick Lamb (1650–1709) and Robert Smith targeted the professional cook market and the nobility and gentry, whereas female authors such as Eliza Acton (1799–1859) and Isabella Beeton (1836–1865) often targeted the middle class market that aspired to emulate their superiors’ fashions in food and dining. How about Tavern or Restaurant cooks? When did they start to put pen to paper, and did what they wrote reflect the food they produced in public eateries? Conclusions This paper has offered an overview of Barbara Ketchum Wheaton’s methodology for reading historic cookbooks using a structured approach. It has highlighted some of the questions scholars and researchers might ask when faced with an old cookbook, regardless of era or geographical location. By systematically examining the book under the headings of ingredients; the cook’s workplace, techniques and equipment; the meals; cookbooks as objects and the world of publishing; and reader, cook and eater, the scholar can perform magic and extract much more from the cookbook than seems to be there on first appearance. References Ackerman, Roy. The Chef's Apprentice. London: Headline, 1988. Adamson, Melitta Weiss. Food in Medieval Times. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood P, 2004. Albala, Ken. Eating Right in the Renaissance. Ed. Darra Goldstein. Berkeley: U of California P, 2002. Beeton, Isabella. Beeton's Book of Household Management. London: S. Beeton, 1861. Bilton, Samantha. “The Influence of Cookbooks on Domestic Cooks, 1900-2010.” Petit Propos Culinaires 94 (2011): 30–7. Blake, Anthony, and Quentin Crewe. Great Chefs of France. London: Mitchell Beazley/ Artists House, 1978. Brighton Pavilion. 12 Jun. 2013 ‹http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/interactive/2011/sep/09/brighton-pavilion-360-interactive-panoramic›. Cashman, Dorothy. “An Exploratory Study of Irish Cookbooks.” Unpublished Master's Thesis. M.Sc. Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology, 2009. Chartier, Roger. “The Practical Impact of Writing.” Trans. Arthur Goldhammer. A History of Private Lives: Volume III: Passions of the Renaissance. Ed. Roger Chartier. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap P of Harvard U, 1989. 111-59. Davidson, Alan. The Oxford Companion to Food. New York: Oxford U P, 1999. Dawson, Barbara. “Francis Bacon and the Art of Food.” The Irish Times 6 April 2013. den Hartog, Adel P. “Technological Innovations and Eating out as a Mass Phenomenon in Europe: A Preamble.” Eating out in Europe: Picnics, Gourmet Dining and Snacks since the Late Eighteenth Century. Eds. Mark Jacobs and Peter Scholliers. Oxford: Berg, 2003. 263–80. Eatwell, Ann. “Á La Française to À La Russe, 1680-1930.” Elegant Eating: Four Hundred Years of Dining in Style. Eds. Philippa Glanville and Hilary Young. London: V&A, 2002. 48–52. Flandrin, Jean-Louis. “Distinction through Taste.” Trans. Arthur Goldhammer. A History of Private Lives: Volume III : Passions of the Renaissance. Ed. Roger Chartier. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap P of Harvard U, 1989. 265–307. Folch, Christine. “Fine Dining: Race in Pre-revolution Cuban Cookbooks.” Latin American Research Review 43.2 (2008): 205–23. Glasse, Hannah. The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy; Which Far Exceeds Anything of the Kind Ever Published. 4th Ed. London: The Author, 1745. Gold, Carol. Danish Cookbooks: Domesticity and National Identity, 1616-1901. Seattle: U of Washington P, 2007. Grainger, Sally. Cooking Apicius: Roman Recipes for Today. Totnes, Devon: Prospect, 2006. Hampton Court Palace. “The Tudor Kitchens.” 12 Jun 2013 ‹http://www.hrp.org.uk/HamptonCourtPalace/stories/thetudorkitchens› Katz, Solomon H. Ed. Encyclopedia of Food and Culture (3 Vols). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2003. Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1962. Lamb, Patrick. Royal Cookery:Or. The Complete Court-Cook. London: Abel Roper, 1710. Lehmann, Gilly. “English Cookery Books in the 18th Century.” The Oxford Companion to Food. Ed. Alan Davidson. Oxford: Oxford U P, 1999. 277–9. Mac Con Iomaire, Máirtín. “The Changing Geography and Fortunes of Dublin’s Haute Cuisine Restaurants 1958–2008.” Food, Culture & Society 14.4 (2011): 525–45. Mac Con Iomaire, Máirtín, and Dorothy Cashman. “Irish Culinary Manuscripts and Printed Cookbooks: A Discussion.” Petit Propos Culinaires 94 (2011): 81–101. Mason, Laura. Food Culture in Great Britain. Ed. Ken Albala. Westport CT.: Greenwood P, 2004. Mennell, Stephen. All Manners of Food. 2nd ed. Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1996. ---. “Plagiarism and Originality: Diffusionism in the Study of the History of Cookery.” Petits Propos Culinaires 68 (2001): 29–38. Sherman, Sandra. “‘The Whole Art and Mystery of Cooking’: What Cookbooks Taught Readers in the Eighteenth Century.” Eighteenth Century Life 28.1 (2004): 115–35. Smith, Andrew F. Ed. The Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink. New York: Oxford U P, 2007. Spencer, Colin. British Food: An Extraordinary Thousand Years of History. London: Grub Street, 2004. Tierney, Mark. Europe and the World 1300-1763. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1970. Trubek, Amy B. Haute Cuisine: How the French Invented the Culinary Profession. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2000. Wheaton, Barbara. “Finding Real Life in Cookbooks: The Adventures of a Culinary Historian”. 2006. Humanities Research Group Working Paper. 9 Sep. 2009 ‹http://www.phaenex.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/HRG/article/view/22/27›. Wheaton, Barbara Ketcham. Savouring the Past: The French Kitchen and Table from 1300-1789. London: Chatto & Windus, 1983. White, Eileen, ed. The English Cookery Book: Historical Essays. Proceedings of the 16th Leeds Symposium on Food History 2001. Devon: Prospect, 2001.