Journal articles on the topic '1851-1905'

Types of five of the six Plecoptera species described by Émile Blanchard and the holotype of the single stonefly described by Jules François Mabille were discovered in the National Museum Prague, Czech Republic. The identity of P. myrmidon Mabille, 1891 and P. pictetii Blanchard, 1854 are confirmed as Potamoperla myrmidon and Pictetoperla gayi (Pictet, 1841), respectively. Perla virescentipennis Blanchard, 1851 is considered as Diamphipnopsis virescentipennis comb. n., with Diamphipnosis samali Illies, 1960 syn. n. as a junior subjective synonym, and Diamphipnoa chillanae nom. n. is proposed for D. virescentipennis sensu Illies 1960. Lectotypes are designated for three species: Nemoura rufescens Blanchard, 1851 is redescribed as Austronemoura rufescens (Blanchard, 1851) comb. n., with Perla infuscata Blanchard, 1851 syn. n. and Perla blanchardi Jakobson & Bianchi, 1905 syn. n. designated as junior subjective synonyms, whereas Perla stictica Blanchard, 1851 is treated as Neonemura stictica (Blanchard, 1851) comb. n., nomen dubium. Paralectotypes of these three species belong to further four taxa. Due to the missing syntypes, Perla lineatocollis Blanchard, 1851 is treated as a nomen dubium of uncertain suborder assignment. Specimens of the Blanchard collections that cannot regarded as types are enumerated belonging to six species. Recent collections of 15 species from Chile are also reported.

The examination of the type series of the poorly known Cyclograpsus lophopus Nobili, 1905, which was originally placedin the varunid genus, Cyclograpsus H. Milne Edwards, 1837, has revealed that it belongs instead to the family SesarmidaeDana, 1851. A new genus is also described for C. lophopus because of its very distinct morphological characters, e.g. entire and nearly circular contour of the carapace with trigonal ocular peduncles, and short and flattened ambulatory legs.

The Brazilian expeditions REVIZEE Central Fishery and Campos Basin Deep Sea Environmental Project collected samples from the southwestern Atlantic, between depths from 200 to 2200m. These expeditions sampled three Plesionika Bate, 1888 species: Plesionika edwardsii (Brandt, 1851), P. ensis (A. Milne Edwards, 1881) and P. miles (A. Milne Edwards, 1883). Besides that, one species of Stylopandalus Coutiére, 1905, a genus never recorded on Brazilian coast before, was collected. These four pandalids were redescribed and figured.

Familielivets mest intime rum henligger normalt i et historisk mørke, men enkelte gange kommer vi alligevel indenfor. Kilderne er sparsomme, fordi myndighederne ikke har interesseret sig videre for at dokumentere familiernes hverdag – medmindre noget var galt. Kun når det var tilfældet, som for eksempel i voldssager og børneværnssager, åbnes dørene ind til privatsfæren. Forfatterne følger i denne artikel tre voldsramte familier med henblik på at komme helt tæt på deres hverdag og de udfordringer, volden kunne medføre for familierne i form af myndighedernes indblanding, naboernes nysgerrige blikke og ægtefællernes egne bristede forventninger til en hverdag, der ikke levede op til idealet. Volden har således gennem tiden presset familier på andre planer end det rent fysiske.

This article discusses the origins and early development of Chinese documentaries. Cinematography in almost all countries began with documentaries, because from the very beginning cinema existed as a means of recording. Chinese documentaries, which appeared in 1905, are no exception either. Documentaries reveal the history of Chinese cinematography. The first film produced by the Chinese was a piece from the Beijing Opera. The development of science and technology, especially photography, created necessary preconditions for the invention of cinema. In 1839, a photography emerged. In 1840, a reduction in exposure time was invented. In 1851, a photograph with moving person and an animal was taken. In 1851, the first photograph was taken. In 1878, a camera roll was invented. In 1888, the French physiologist Dules Marey presented the French Academy of Sciences with the world’s first film camera. In 1888, the film was invented. In 1892, Mr. Marei’s assistant showed moving photographs on the screen. On 28 December 1895, the Frenchman Louis Lumière in one of the cafes of Paris officially showed his films: «The doors of the factory», «The arrival of the train» etc. It is believed that in different countries of the world that this show started the era of cinematography. In early 1896, Lumière hired more than 20 people as assistants, and sent them around the world to show his film. At this time, China, India and Japan had their first film screenings. In addition, Lumière had sent many cameramen around the world to shoot the film, including to China. Therefore, the earliest films about China were not made by the Chinese themselves, but by foreign entrepreneurs. Under the influence of «Western Shadow Theatre» the Chinese also began their attempts in film production organization. In 1905, the Chinese made their first silent film in Beijing.

A new species of the hermit crab genus Diogenes Dana, 1851 (Diogenidae), D. canaliculatus, is described and illustrated on the basis of material from off the Kerala State, southern India. It is referred to the D. edwardsii (De Haan, 1849) species group, and compared with D. bicristimanus Alcock, 1905, D. fasciatus Rahayu & Forest, 1995, D. laevicarpus Rahayu, 1996 and D. moosai Rahayu & Forest, 1995. The characteristically sculptured left chela and the unarmed dorsal margins of the propodi of the second and third pereopods distinguish the new species from these congeners.

This paper brings a series of contributions to the taxonomy of the Zethini: description of a new species, Zethus denticlypeus Lopes, sp. n.; description of the female of Z. anomalus Cooper, 1999; description of the males of Z. angustior Bohart & Stange, 1965, Z. clypeolaris Bohart & Stange, 1965, Z. satanicus Bohart & Stange, 1965 and Argentozethus willinki Stange, 1979; synonymy of Discoelius argentinus Brèthes, 1905 under Z. dicomboda Spinola, 1851; and rearrangements for the species of Raphiglossoides Giordani Soika, 1936, with Raphiglossoides minutus (Gusenleitner, 2000) (= R. aethiopicus Giordani Soika, 1936) and R. gibbus (Gusenletiner, 2000) n. comb.

The manipulation of the image of Afro-descendants in XIX century travel narratives accounts for certain ideological practices. This essay does not only reflect on the representation of the Other. It also seeks to explore the ambivalence that occurs in the contact zones as well as discursive strategies used to depict Otherness. The recurrent portrayals of these populations turn out to be revealing because of all the ideas, attitudes and prejudice they convey. How do these rhetorical mechanisms come into play and what tensions do they inscribe? We will attempt to reflect on these issues through the exploration and comparison of travel accounts written by four travelers: Alexander Von Humboldt (1769-1859), Flora Tristán (1803-1844), Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and Miguel Cané (1851-1905). Keywords: Ambivalence, Travel literature, Post-colonialism, Identity, Representation, Race, Diaspora.

In France during the period 1830–1905, the very boundaries of the debate on the social question were dictated by a foreign example, the English Poor Law. French fears of national public assistance programmes were grounded in a widespread disdain for the Poor Law. In this article I examine many of the major French works on charity and assistance written between the 1830s and 1900s and the debates surrounding reform proposals. I argue that the opponents of compulsory, tax-financed public assistance created a negative image of the English Poor Law in order to discredit attempts to introduce, first, the ‘right to assistance’ in 1848–1851, and later, bills providing for free medical assistance for the poor and aid to the elderly indigent in the 1890s and 1900s. I conclude with a discussion of how the proponents of mandatory, national assistance programmes defeated a carefully orchestrated and misleading public relations campaign led by some of the opponents of social welfare during the 1890s and 1900s.

Die Lectotypen der folgenden Arten wurden festgelegt: Dodecastichus heydeni Stierlin, 1861; Otiorhynchus (Acunotus) lutosus Stierlin, 1858; O. (Amosilnus) oberti Faust, (1886); O. (Arammichnus) dobrutschae Stierlin, 1882; O. (Aranihus) misellus Stierlin, 1861; O. (Aranihus) riguus Stierlin, 1883; O. (Choilisanus) affinis Hochhuth, 1847; O. (Choilisanus) caroli Stierlin, 1893; O. (Choilisanus) caucasicus Stierlin, 1872; O. (Choilisanus) schoenherri Stierlin, 1877; O. (Choilisanus) viridisetosus Stierlin, 1905; O. (Egydelenus) jaltensis Formanek, 1926; O. (Elechranus) banaticus Stierlin, 1861; O. (Elechranus) chalceus Stierlin, 1861; O. (Elechranus) roubali Penecke, 1931; O. (Ergiferanus) mus Stierlin, 1862; O. (Lolatismus) chaudoiri Hochhuth, 1851; O. (Lolatismus) depressus Stierlin, 1875; O. (Melasemnus) brevipennis Stierlin, 1892; O. (Melasemnus) crucirostris Hochhuth, 1851; O. (Meriplodus) laconicus Kirsch, 1880; O. (Mitomiris) astutus (Faust, 1886); O. (Mitomiris) laniger Faust, 1887; O. (Namertanus) pseudomias Hochhuth, 1847; O. (Nihus) proximus Stierlin, 1861; O. (Nubidanus) punctirostris Stierlin, 1883; O. (Nubidanus) ruminalis Faust, 1894; O. (Osmobodes) rutilipes Hochhuth, 1851; O. (Osmobodes) tenuimanus Faust, 1890; O. (Osmobodes) venalis Faust, 1888; O. (Otiomimus) desbrochersi Stierlin, 1883; O. (Otiorhynchus) amabilis Stierlin, 1861; O. (Otiorhynchus) auropupillatus Stierlin, 1861; O. (Otiorhynchus) delatus Faust, 1899; O. (Otiorhynchus) latissimus Stierlin, 1861; O. (Otiorhynchus) scaberrimus Stierlin, 1861; O. (Otiorhynchus) steppensis Faust, 1888; O. (Otismotilus) auroguttatus Stierlin, 1879; O. (Paracryphiphorus) nuncius Faust, 1890; O. (Petalorrhynchus) crinitarsis Stierlin, 1861; O. (Phalantorrhynchus) patruelis Stierlin, 1861; O. (Phalantorrhynchus) planidorsis Stierlin, 1886; O. (Pliadonus) schneideri Stierlin, 1876; O. (Tournieria) siewersi Faust, 1888; O. (Podonebistus) alaianus Stierlin, 1886; O. (Podonebistus) bleusei Faust, 1899; O. (Podonebistus) cylindricus Stierlin, 1877; O. (Podonebistus) nefandus Faust, 1888; O. (Podonebistus) prostratus Heyden, 1886; O. (Podonebistus) subparallelus Stierlin, 1893; O. (Prototis) popovi Faust, 1888; O. (Provadilus) carbonarius Hochhuth, 1847; O. (Pseudocryphiphorus) argillosus Hochhuth, 1851; O. (Pseudocryphiphorus) irritabilis (Faust, 1886); O. (Pseudocryphiphorus) zebei Stierlin, 1861; O. (Rimenostolus) auripes Stierlin, 1875; O. (Rusnepranus) arenosus Stierlin, 1861; O. (Rusnepranus) heerii Stierlin, 1858; O. (Stupamacus) erroneus (Faust, 1886); O. (Stupamacus) infensus Faust, 1888; O. (Stupamacus) pilosulus Penecke, 1928; O. (Tournieria) cornicinus Stierlin, 1861; O. (Tournieria) emgei Stierlin, 1887; O. (Tournieria) lubriculus Faust, 1890; O. (Udonedus) koenigi Faust, 1888; O. (Urorrhynchus) truncatus Stierlin, 1861; O. (Zariedus) hystericus Faust, 1892; O. (Zariedus) sedulus Faust, 1894. Neotypen von O. (Amosilnus) pityophilus Gistel, 1857 und von O. (Postaremus) gelidus Gistel, 1857 wurden ausgewählt. Die folgenden neuen Synonyme (Synonyme in eckigen Klammern) wurden begründet: O. velutinus Germar, 1824 [= O. desbrochersi Stierlin, 1896 (nicht O. desbrochersi Stierlin, 1883)]; O. laconicus Kirsch, 1880 [= O. oertzeni Stierlin, 1883]; O. nodosus (O. F. Müller, 1754) [= O. gelidus Gistel, 1857]; O. lavandus Germar, 1824 [= O. pityophilus Gistel, 1857]; O. proximus Stierlin, 1861 [= O. depilis Smreczynski, 1959]; O. parvicollis Gyllenhal, 1834 [= O. riguus Stierlin, 1883]; O. caucasicus Stierlin, 1872 [= O. viridisetosus Stierlin, 1905]. Otiorhynchus erroneus (Faust, 1886) erhielt einen neuen Status. Otiorhynchus affinis Hochhuth ist kein Synonym von O. incivilis Faldermann, 1838; O. auroguttatus Stierlin ist kein Synonym von O. heerii Stierlin, 1858 und ist zu übertragen aus O. (Rusnepranus) Reitter, 1912 in O. (Otismotilus) Reitter, 1912. Neue Kombinationen sind: Otiorhynchus (Rimenostolus) auripes Stierlin aus O. (Panorosemus) Reitter, 1913; O. (Rusnepranus) heerii Stierlin aus O. (Otismotilus) Reitter, 1912; O. (Stupamacus) infensus Faust aus O. (Microphalantus) Reitter, 1912; O. (Elechranus) roubali Penecke aus O. (Cryphiphorus) Stierlin, 1883; O. (Pliadonus) siewersi Faust, 1888 aus O. (Melasemnus) Reitter, 1912; O. (Podonebistus) alaianus Stierlin, O. (Cryphiphorus) argillosus Hochhuth, O. (Lolatismus) depressus Stierlin, O. (Ergiferanus) mus Stierlin, O. (Podonebistus) prostratus Heyden, O. (Pliadonus) schneideri Stierlin, und O. (Osmobodes) venalis Faust, alle diese sind als species incertae sedis aufgelisted.Nomenklatorische Handlungenheydeni (Stierlin, 1861) (Dodecastichus), Lectotype described as Otiorhynchus heydenidebilis Smreczynski, 1959 (Otiorhynchus), syn. n. of Otiorhynchus (Nihus) proximus Stierlin, 1861oertzeni Stierlin, 1883 (Otiorhynchus), syn. n. of Otiorhynchus (Meriplodus) laconicus Kirsch, 1880lutosus Siterlin, 1858 (Otiorhynchus (Acunotus)), Lectotypeoberti (Faust, 1886) (Otiorhynchus (Amosilnus)), Lectotype described as Brachyrrhinus obertipityophilus Gistel, 1857 (Otiorhynchus (Amosilnus)), Neotype; syn. n. of Otiorhynchus lavander Germar, 1824dobrutschae Stierlin, 1882 (Otiorhynchus (Arammichnus)), Lectotypemisellus Stierlin, 1861 (Otiorhynchus (Aranihus)), Lectotyperiguus Stierlin, 1883 (Otiorhynchus (Aranihus)), Lectotype; syn. n. of Otiorhynchus parvicollis Gyllenhal, 1834affinis Hochhuth, 1847 (Otiorhynchus (Choilisanus)), Lectotype; stat. rev. now a valid speciescaroli Stierlin, 1893 (Otiorhynchus (Choilisanus)), Lectotypecaucasicus Stierlin, 1872 (Otiorhynchus (Choilisanus)), Lectotypeschoenherri Stierlin, 1877 (Otiorhynchus (Choilisanus)), Lectotype now a synonym of Otiorhynchus caucasicus Stierlin, 1872viridisetosus Stierlin, 1905 (Otiorhynchus (Choilisanus)), Lectotype; syn. n. of Otiorhynchus caucasicus Stierlin, 1872jaltensis Formanek, 1926 (Otiorhynchus (Egydelenus)), Lectotypebanaticus Stierlin, 1861 (Otiorhynchus (Elechranus)), Lectotypechalceus Stierlin, 1861 (Otiorhynchus (Elechranus)), Lectotyperoubali Penecke, 1931 (Otiorhynchus (Elechranus)), Lectotype; comb. n. hitherto Otiorhynchus (Cryphiphorus) roubalimus Stierlin, 1862 (Otiorhynchus (Ergiferanus)), Lectotype; comb. n. hitherto Otiorhynchus muschaudoiri Hochhuth, 1851 (Otiorhynchus (Lolatismus)), Lectotypedepressus Stierlin, 1875 (Otiorhynchus (Lolatismus)), Lectotype; comb. n. hitherto Otiorhynchus depressusbrevipennis Stierlin, 1892 (Otiorhynchus (Melasemnus)), Lectotypecrucirostris Hochhuth, 1851 (Otiorhynchus (Melasemnus)), Lectotype now a synonym of Otiorhynchus ovalipennis Boheman, 1843laconicus Kirsch, 1880 (Otiorhynchus (Meriplodus)), Lectotypeastutus (Faust, 1886) (Otiorhynchus (Mitomiris)), Lectotype described as Brachyrrhinus (Tournieria) astutuslaniger Faust, 1887 (Otiorhynchus (Mitomiris)), Lectotypepseudomias Hochhuth, 1847 (Otiorhynchus (Namertanus)), Lectotypeproximus Stierlin, 1861 (Otiorhynchus (Nihus)), Lectotypepunctirostris Stierlin, 1883 (Otiorhynchus (Nubidanus)), Lectotyperuminalis Faust, 1894 (Otiorhynchus (Nubidanus)), Lectotyperutilipes Hochhuth, 1851 (Otiorhynchus (Osmobodes)), Lectotype now a synonym of Otiorhynchus cribrosicollis Boheman, 1843tenuimanus Faust, 1890 (Otiorhynchus (Osmobodes)), Lectotypevernalis Faust, 1888 (Otiorhynchus (Osmobodes)), Lectotype; comb. n. hitherto Otiorhynchus vernalisdesbrochersi Stierlin, 1883 (Otiorhynchus (Otiomimus)), Lectotypeamabilis Stierlin, 1861 (Otiorhynchus (Otiorhynchus)), Lectotype now a synonym of Otiorhynchus amplipennis Fairmaire, 1859auropupillatus Stierlin, 1861 (Otiorhynchus (Otiorhynchus)), Lectotypedelatus Faust, 1899 (Otiorhynchus (Otiorhynchus)), Lectotypelatissimus Stierlin, 1861 (Otiorhynchus (Otiorhynchus)), Lectotypescaberrimus Stierlin, 1861 (Otiorhynchus (Otiorhynchus)), Lectotypesteppensis Faust, 1888 (Otiorhynchus (Otiorhynchus)), Lectotype now a synonym of Otiorhynchus concinnus Gyllenhal, 1834auroguttatus Stierlin, 1879 (Otiorhynchus (Otismutilus)), Lectotype; stat. n.; comb. n. now a valid species; hitherto Otiorhynchus (Rusnepranus) auroguttatusnuncius Faust, 1890 (Otiorhynchus (Paracryphiphorus)), Lectotypecrinitarsis Stierlin, 1861 (Otiorhynchus (Petalorrhynchus)), Lectotype now a synonym of Otiorhynchus cupreosparsus (Fairmaire, 1859)patruelis Stierlin, 1861 (Otiorhynchus (Phalantorrhynchus)), Lectotypeplanidorsis Stierlin, 1886 (Otiorhynchus (Phalantorrhynchus)), Lectotype now a synonym of Otiorhynchus moestus Gyllenhal, 1834schneideri Stierlin, 1876 (Otiorhynchus (Pliadonus)), Lectotype; comb. n. hitherto Otiorhynchus schneiderisiewersi Faust, 1888 (Otiorhynchus (Pliadonus)), Lectotype, comb. n. hitrherto Otiorhynchus (Melasemnus) siewersialaianus Stierlin, 1886 (Otiorhynchus (Podonebistus)), Lectotype; comb. n. hitherto Otiorhynchus alaianusbleusei Faust, 1899 (Otiorhynchus (Podonebistus)), Lectotypecylindricus Stierlin, 1877 (Otiorhynchus (Podonebistus)), Lectotypenefandus Faust, 1888 (Otiorhynchus (Podonebistus)), Lectotypeprostratus Heyden, 1886 (Otiorhynchus (Podonebistus)), Lectotype; comb. n. hitherto Otiorhynchus prostratussubparallelus Stierlin, 1893 (Otiorhynchus (Podonebistus)), Lectotype; syn. n. of Otiorhynchus (Podonebistus) cylindricus Stierlin, 1877gelidus Gistel, 1857 (Otiorhynchus (Postaremus)), Neotype; syn. n. of Otiorhyrhynchus nodosus (O. F. Müller, 1754)popovi Faust, 1888 (Otiorhynchus (Prototis)), Lectotypecarbonarius Hochhuth, 1847 (Otiorhynchus (Provadilus)), Lectotypeargillosus Hochhuth, 1851 (Otiorhynchus (Pseudocryphiphorus)), Lectotypeirritabilis (Faust, 1886) (Otiorhynchus (Pseudocryphiphorus)), Lectotype described as Brachyrrhinus irritabiliszebei Stierlin, 1861 (Otiorhynchus (Pseudocryphiphorus)), Lectotypeauripes Stierlin, 1875 (Otiorhynchus (Rimenostolus)), Lectotype; comb. n. hitherto Otiorhynchus (Panorosemus) auripesarenosus Stierlin, 1861 (Otiorhynchus (Rusnepranus)), Lectotypeheerii Stierlin, 1858 (Otiorhynchus (Rusnepranus)), Lectotype; comb. n. hitherto Otiorhynchus (Otismotilus) heeriierroneus (Faust, 1886) (Otiorhynchus (Stupamacus)), Lectotype; stat. n. now a valid speciesinfensus Faust, 1888 (Otiorhynchus (Stupamacus)), Lectotype; comb. n. hitherto Otiorhynchus (Microphalantus) infensuspilosulus Penecke, 1928 (Otiorhynchus (Stupamacus)), Lectotype now a synonym of Otiorhynchus clavalis Apfelbeck, 1922cornicinus Stierlin, 1861 (Otiorhynchus (Tournieria)), Lectotypeemgei Stierlin, 1887 (Otiorhynchus (Tournieria)), Lectotypelubriculus Faust, 1890 (Otiorhynchus (Tournieria)), Lectotypekoenigi Faust, 1888 (Otiorhynchus (Udonedus)), Lectotypetruncatus Stierlin, 1861 (Otiorhynchus (Urorrhynchus)), Lectotypehystericus Faust, 1892 (Otiorhynchus (Zariedus)), Lectotypesedulus Faust, 1894 (Otiorhynchus (Zariedus)), Lectotype

<p class="kasia"><span>Erazm Piltz (1851–1929), jeden z liderów stronnictwa „realistów”, zaliczany do tzw. nurtu „ugody” z Rosją uważał, że po powstaniu 1863 r. nie ma szans na suwerenność Polski. Wszystkie próby obrony, a następnie jej odzyskania środkami militarnymi skończyły się klęską. Każde kolejne powstanie zagraża zagładą narodu, a państwa zachodnie nie udzielą pomocy militarnej, gdyż nie zdecydują się na wojnę z zaborcami. Nie dojdzie też do konfliktu między nimi. Dlatego był przekonany, że należy legalnymi środkami starać się o zapewnienie jak najlepszych warunków bytu narodu w każdym z zaborów. Szanse na jego poprawę w Królestwie Polskim widział jedynie w przypadku zreformowania ustroju Rosji, szczególnie w czasie rewolucji 1905–1907, będącej efektem wojny rosyjsko-japońskiej. Podobnie w latach I wojny światowej opowiadał się za takim rozwiązaniem. Z czasem jego poglądy zaczęły ewoluować i od rewolucji 1917 r. dostrzegał szansę na odbudowę suwerenności, lecz także pod egidą Rosji. Opcję tę porzucił po przewrocie bolszewickim z listopada 1917 r. Od tej pory w ramach Komitetu Narodowego Polskiego działał na rzecz uzyskania niepodległości, a w II Rzeczypospolitej, pełniąc szereg funkcji w dyplomacji, starał się wpływać na umocnienie jej pozycji międzynarodowej.</span></p>

Lorsque l'on étudie le fonctionnement des réseaux de famille et de parenté, la question la plus importante, et pourtant la moins étudiée, est de savoir dans quelle mesure ces systèmes de soutien sont affectés par les conditions démographiques dans le passé. Nous commençons par examiner les changements rapides démographiques intervenus, surtout en matière de mortalité et de fécondité, dans l'Angleterre de l'époque victorienne et rappellons à quel point les cohortes nées dans les années 1851–1855 et 1901–1905 ont pu connaître des conditions démographiques différentes. L'accent est mis sur l'impact que des conditions démographiques modifiées ont pu avoir sur le fonctionnement des réseaux familiaux et le soutien apporté par la parenté. Les modèles de parenté subissent des modifications au cours de la vie, ces changements étant étudiés au niveau des individus, grâce à un programme informatique de simulation, intitulé CAMSIM. Cet exercice de simulation a permis de reconstituer les effets que les modifications de fécondité et de mortalité ont pu entraîner sur le nombre et le type de parents vivants, auxquels un individu peut faire théoriquement appel pour l'aider, è un âge donné.

Penthicodes celebica n. sp., is described from Sulawesi, P. warleti n. sp. from India (Assam) and P. caja malayana n. ssp. from peninsular Malaysia. They are compared with the allied species of the subgenus Ereosoma Kirkaldy, 1906, as treated by Nagai & Porion (1996): P. astraea (Stål, 1864), P. atomaria (Weber, 1801) P. bimaculata (Schmidt, 1905), P. caja (Walker, 1851), P. pulchella (Guérin-Méneville, 1838), P. quadrimaculata Lallemand, 1963, P. rugulosa (Stål, 1870) and P. variegata (Guérin-Méneville, 1829). Penthicodes quadrimaculata is removed from synonymy with P. bimaculata. Male genitalia of all treated species are illustrated and described. New geographical records, distribution maps, behaviour data and photographs of habitus are given. An illustrated identification key to all 12 species of the genus, including P. farinosa and P. nicobarica, is proposed. Penthicodes basigera (Walker, 1870) is transferred to the genus Scamandra Stål, 1863 and the new combination Scamandra basigera (Walker, 1870) n. comb. is proposed. The subgenus Ereosoma is regarded as heterogenous and the species are separated in 2 new species-groups on the base of the male genitalia and colour pattern: group astraea+ (astraea, bimaculata, caja, celebica, quadrimaculata, rugulosa and variegata) and group atomaria+ (atomaria, pulchella, warleti).

This is the first review of the helminth fauna of the moor frog Rana arvalis Nilsson, 1842 from the Volga river basin (Russia). The article summarizes the authors’ and literature data on the helminthic fauna of this species. The method of complete helminthological dissection was used. Thirthy-eight helminth species were recorded from three classes: Cestoda (1), Trematoda (28), and Chromadorea (9). Nine helminth species are new to the moor frog in Russia: trematodes Gorgodera varsoviensis Sinitzin, 1905, Strigea falconis Szidat, 1928, larvae, Neodiplostomum spathoides Dubois, 1937, larvae, Tylodelphys excavata (Rudolphi, 1803), larvae, Pharyngostomum cordatum (Diesing, 1850), larvae, Astiotrema monticelli Stossich, 1904, larvae and Encyclometra colubrimurorum (Rudolphi, 1819), larvae, nematodes Strongyloides spiralis Grabda-Kazubska, 1978 and Icosiella neglecta (Diesing, 1851). The cestode Spirometra erinacei (Rudolphi, 1918), larvae were observed of this amphibian species in the Volga basin for the first time. The nematodes Rhabdias bufonis, Oswaldocruzia filiformis, Cosmocerca ornata and the trematode Haplometra cylindracea form the core of the helminth fauna of the moor frog. Information on species of helminths includes systematic position, localization, areas of detection, type and scheme of life cycle, geographical distribution, and degree of specificity to host amphibians.

New replacement names and synonymies are proposed for Neotropical Tachinidae, mainly from Brazil. The following 13 new replacement names are proposed for junior secondary homonyms: Jurinella neobesa, new name for Jurinella obesa (Townsend, 1928) (preocc. Wiedemann, 1830); Archytas wulpianus, new name for Archytas nigrocalyptratus (Wulp, 1888) (preocc. Macquart, 1846); Calodexia neofumosa, new name for Calodexia fumosa (Townsend, 1917) (preocc. Townsend, 1912); Calodexia bigoti, new name for Calodexia flavipes (Bigot, 1889) (preocc. Schiner, 1868); Eucelatoria paracarinata, new name for Eucelatoria carinata (Townsend, 1927) (preocc. Townsend, 1919); Eucelatoria currani, new name for Eucelatoria carinata (Curran, 1926) (preocc. Townsend, 1919); Lixophaga opsiangusta, new name for Lixophaga angusta (Townsend, 1927:294) (preocc. Townsend, 1927:284); Lixophaga thompsoniana, new name for Lixophaga fumipennis (Thompson, 1968) (preocc. Townsend, 1927); Lixophaga townsendiana, new name for Lixophaga fumipennis (Townsend, 1928) (preocc. Townsend, 1927); Myiopharus argentata, new name for Myiopharus argentescens (Townsend, 1935) (preocc. Townsend, 1927); Phyllophilopsis disgracilis, new name for Phyllophilopsis gracilis (Townsend, 1927) (preocc. Townsend, 1919); Phasia townsendiana, new name for Phasia brasiliana (Townsend, 1937) (preocc. Townsend, 1929); and Phasia aurodysderci, new name for Phasia dysderci (Townsend, 1940) (preocc. Townsend, 1938). And the two following synonymies are proposed (reinstated): Jurinella ambigua (Macquart, 1851) = Jurinella obesa (Wiedemann, 1830); and Archytas analis (Macquart, 1843) = Archytas analis (Fabricius, 1905).

In 1913, an article in a Russian missionary journal compared two “very typical representatives” of Islamic studies in Russia: İsmail Bey Gaspıralı (1851–1914) and Nikolai Ivanovich Il'minskii (1822–1891). Nothing could better symbolize the two opposing points of view about the past, present and future of the Muslims of Russia in 1913. Il'minskii was a Russian Orthodox missionary whose ideas and efforts had formed the imperial perceptions and policies about the Muslims of the Russian empire in the late Tsarist period, while Gaspıralı was a Muslim educator and publisher whose ideas and efforts had shaped the Muslim society per se in the same period. Il'minskii, beginning in the 1860s, and Gaspıralı, beginning in the 1880s, developed two formally similar but inherently contradictory programs for the Muslims of the Russian empire. Schooling and the creation of a literary language or literary languages constituted the hearts of both of their programs. Besides their own efforts, both Gaspıralı and Il'minskii had a large number of followers that diligently worked to put their programs into practice among the Muslims of Russia. As a result of the inherent contradiction of these programs, a bitter controversy developed between what we may call the Il'minskii and Gaspıralı groups, which particularly intensified after the revolution of 1905. In this article, I will discuss the underlying causes and development of this controversy by focusing on the role of language in the programs of Gaspıralı and Il'minskii. Then, I will conclude my article with an evaluation of the legacies of these two individuals in their own time and beyond.

Two species of Paguristes Dana, 1851 occurring in New Zealand waters, P. pilosus H. Milne Edwards, 1836 and P. setosus H. Milne Edwards, 1848, were the sources of errors and considerable confusion for many years. The misunderstanding regarding the identities of these taxa was further compounded by Filhol (1885) when he published a description of P. setosus Filhol, 1885, not realizing that this species had previously been published by H. Milne Edwards (1848) [see Forest & McLaughlin (2000: 77) for a historical account]. In his revision of the Anomura of New Zealand, Thomson (1899) redescribed Filhol’s Pagurus setosus, assigning it to his new genus Stratiotes Thomson as the type species. Although Alcock (1905) and Thompson (1930) expressed doubt about the validity of Stratiotes, it was not until Forest & McLaughlin (2000) reviewed all of the New Zealand species assignable to Paguristes, that Stratiotes was placed in synonymy with Dana’s taxon. However, when Rahayu (2005) found the gill number of Paguristes species in the collection of the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris variable, she restricted Paguristes to species having 13 pairs of gills and reinstated Stratiotes for species with only 12 pairs. Unfortunately Stratiotes Thomson recently was found to be a junior homonym of Stratiotes Putzeys, 1846, (Coleoptera) and a replacement name became necessary. Areopaguristes is proposed as the replacement name; from the Greek Ares, the God of War, in combination with Paguristes. As Stratiotes means soldier, the proposed replacement name maintains the original sense of combat, while identifying the genus as closely allied to Paguristes s.s.; gender masculine. The type species, Pagurus setosus, is unchanged.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to contribute for the special number Protest and Activism With(out) Organisation. Design/methodology/approach Elisée Reclus (1830-1905) wrote in 1851 that “anarchy is the highest expression of order”. This statement, clashing with the bourgeois commonplaces on anarchy as chaos, anticipated the theories, elaborated collectively by the anarchist geographers Reclus, Pëtr Kropotkin (1842-1921), and Léon Metchnikoff (1838-1888), on mutual aid and cooperation as the bases of a society more rationally organised than the State and capitalist one. If a (minority) part of the anarchist movement, in the following decades, assumed this sort of “natural order” to argue that there was no necessity of a political organisation, many militants stated on the contrary the necessity of a formal anarchist (or anarcho-syndicalist) organisation to prepare the revolution and to put in practice the principle of an horizontal and federalist society starting from daily life. Findings The author’s main argument is that the idea of a public and formalized anarchist organisation has been consistent with the claims of the anarchist geographers for the possibility of an ordered anarchist society and that it was a very geographical conception, as the spatial and territorial activity patterns of anarchist individuals, groups, and federations was a central issue among anarchist organisers. Originality/value Drawing on present literature on geography and anarchism and on the multidisciplinary transnational turn of anarchist studies, the author addresses, through primary sources, the contentions and openings of the organisational question in anarchism from Reclus, Kropotkin, and Metchnikoff to the anarchist federations of present day, and its links with the issue of constructive anarchism and with the problem of violence.

The intuitions and imagination of human visionaries about the infinite possibilities of scientific research and technology are creatively haunting the quest of our species to expand knowledge in the micro-cosmos and the vast space. Since 19th century French writer Jules Verne (1828-1905) and English writer Mary Shelley (1797-1851) had already traced the path to our days and beyond.They were followed by an infinite series of great intuitionists, who were not mere futurists like H.G. Wells, Ray Bradbury, Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Isaac Asimov, Arthur Clarke, John Brunner and many more. Scientific endeavors and achievements transform the qualities of life and foster social institutions in various ways. The paper deals with a prevailing technological phenomenon, the scientific capacity of gene-editing, promoting thus the emergence of a virtual novel identity. The new achievements in sciences encourage the expression of human free-will allowing for physical and other enhancements or alterations, in reference to biological and technological features that may lead to a new bio-techno-identity (let us call it BTI). The paper reflects on the issue of “enhancing” the established concepts for defining a human being and a human person; it also puts forward the possibility of conducting a theoretical and field researchexamining -and evaluating- the issue and the mechanisms of BTI formation,reassessing all traditional qualities and novel characteristics attributed to humans by the applications of Biotechnology.The issue is eventually approached under the standpoints of Ethical Philosophy, Sociology, Biology, Orthodox Theology and Law. The analysis discusses intuitions in sci-fi literature and cinematography in comparison to reality i.e. the multitude of assisted reproduction technologies, embryonic and genetic labs, implants and even cloning in Western Societies.

Abstract Jakub Chlebowski (Jakub Frydman) (1905-1969) was a distinguished professor of internal medicine and skillful organizer of health care system in Bialystok region in the North east Poland. He graduated medicine in 1929 and worked at local university in prewar Vilnius. During World War Two, arrested by the Soviets and exiled to Siberian work camps he managed to return to Poland with Kosciuszko Division of Polish Army. Then, he continued to serve as a military and university medical doctor in Cracow and Lodz, finally to take over position of director of Internal Diseases Department in 1951 in Bialystok, holding an office of rector magnificus of Medical University of Bialystok from 1959 to 1962. Chlebowski trained generations of internal medicine specialists, who later became eminent representatives of emerging branches of internal medicine as distinct subspecialties in the field of cardiology, endocrinology and gastroenterology in Bialystok. In course of anti-Semitic campaign during March Events in 1968, he was disposed from the post of director of the university hospital department. Constantly harassed, he immigrated with the family to Israel to die in public traffic accident in 1969. Jakub Frydman, who survived not only hunger of food, but also metaphorical “hunger of humanity” during World War Two, turned out to be as good and useful as daily bread for Polish community after wartime. He was so devoted in this action, that he even changed his surname into Chlebowski (Polish: Chleb=English: Bread). In this way, due to similar experience and experience-shaped mentality, Chlebowski could be counted among medical authorities of the time, the individuals with such a high moral standard as Janusz Korczak (1878 or 1879-1942) or Julian Kramsztyk (1851-1926).

Three sympatric morphs of Pseudomallada prasinus (Burmeister, 1839) were hybridized in search of reproductively separated species. In addition, 26 morphological and biological traits were recorded for living and preserved specimens of the three morphotypes. Cross-breeding experiments showed that the prasinoid morph “marianus” is a different species from either the “greenhead” or “sulfurhead” morphs. All three are morphologically and biologically distinct. “Greenhead” and “sulfurhead” are small to medium sized and deposit eggs singly, without obligatory diapause in the second instar. In most specimens of these two smaller “prasinus” morphs there is a red or brown suture below the antennae, which can fade with age or preservation. P. “marianus” is a large species, depositing bundled eggs, with an obligatory diapause in about half of the L2. In none of the collected or reared P. “marianus” was a red or brown suture below the eyes observed. The forewing sizes of the type specimens of Chrysopa prasina Burmeister, 1839, C. coerulea Brauer, 1851, and C. marianus Navás, 1915 differ significantly from those of C. aspersa Wesmael, 1841 and other, later synonymized type specimens such as C. sachalinensis Matsumura, 1911, C. burri Navás, 1914, C. caucasica Navás, 1914, or C. vernalis Navás, 1926. This strongly suggests that the “marianus” morph is the real P. prasinus and the “greenhead” and “sulfurhead” morphs correspond to P. aspersus or one of the later synonymized species with smaller wing size.Pseudomallada marianus (Navás, 1905) is confirmed as a synonym of P. prasinus, depositing bundled eggs, whereas smaller prasinoid morphs, depositing single eggs, are not P. prasinus—and are morphologically distinct from P. abdominalis (Brauer, 1856). Pseudomallada aspersus (Wesmael, 1841) is a valid species, but at this point it is not possible to assign it to one of the prasinoid morphs because most of the live color traits are not discernible in old type specimens. A diagnostic description of the “real” P. prasinus can separate almost all P. prasinus specimens, even in museum collections, from P. aspersus (likely to be the “greenhead” morph) and the Mediterranean “sulfurhead”.

The checklist of European Gelechiidae covers 865 species, belonging to 109 genera, with three species records which require confirmation. Further, it is the first checklist to include a complete coverage of proved synonyms of species and at generic level. The following taxonomic changes are introduced: Pseudosophronia constanti (Nel, 1998) syn. nov. of Pseudosophronia exustellus (Zeller, 1847), Metzneria expositoi Vives, 2001 syn. nov. of Metzneria aestivella (Zeller, 1839); Sophronia ascalis Gozmány, 1951 syn. nov. of Sophronia grandii Hering, 1933, Aproaerema incognitana (Gozmány, 1957) comb. nov., Aproaerema cinctelloides (Nel &amp; Varenne, 2012) comb. nov., Aproaerema azosterella (Herrich-Schäffer, 1854) comb. nov., Aproaerema montanata (Gozmány, 1957) comb. nov., Aproaerema cincticulella (Bruand, 1851) comb. nov., Aproaerema buvati (Nel, 1995) comb. nov., Aproaerema linella (Chrétien, 1904) comb. nov., Aproaerema captivella (Herrich-Schäffer, 1854) comb. nov., Aproaerema semicostella (Staudinger, 1871) comb. nov., Aproaerema steppicola (Junnilainen, 2010) comb. nov., Aproaerema cottienella (Nel, 2012) comb. nov., Ptocheuusa cinerella (Chrétien, 1908) comb. nov., Pragmatodes melagonella (Constant, 1895) comb. nov., Pragmatodes albagonella (Varenne &amp; Nel, 2010) comb. nov., Pragmatodes parvulata (Gozmány, 1953) comb. nov., Oxypteryx nigromaculella (Millière, 1872) comb. nov., Oxypteryx wilkella (Linnaeus, 1758) comb. nov., Oxypteryx ochricapilla (Rebel, 1903) comb. nov., Oxypteryx superbella (Zeller, 1839) comb. nov., Oxypteryx mirusella (Huemer &amp; Karsholt, 2013) comb. nov., Oxypteryx baldizzonei (Karsholt &amp; Huemer, 2013) comb. nov., Oxypteryx occidentella (Huemer &amp; Karsholt, 2011) comb. nov., Oxypteryx libertinella (Zeller, 1872) comb. nov., Oxypteryx gemerensis (Elsner, 2013) comb. nov., Oxypteryx deserta (Piskunov, 1990) comb. nov., Oxypteryx unicolorella (Duponchel, 1843) comb. nov., Oxypteryx nigritella (Zeller, 1847) comb. nov., Oxypteryx plumbella (Heinemann, 1870) comb. nov., Oxypteryx isostacta (Meyrick, 1926) comb. nov., Oxypteryx helotella (Staudinger, 1859) comb. nov., Oxypteryx parahelotella (Nel, 1995) comb. nov., Oxypteryx graecatella (Šumpich &amp; Skyva, 2012) comb. nov.; Aproaerema genistae (Walsingham, 1908) comb. rev., Aproaerema thaumalea (Walsingham, 1905) comb. rev.; Dichomeris neatodes Meyrick, 1923 sp. rev.; Caryocolum horoscopa (Meyrick, 1926) stat. rev.; Ivanauskiella occitanica (Nel &amp; Varenne, 2013) sp. rev.; Apodia martinii Petry, 1911 sp. rev.; Caulastrocecis cryptoxena (Gozmány, 1952) sp. rev. Following Article 23.9.2 ICZN we propose Caryocolum blandella (Douglas, 1852) (Gelechia) nom. protectum and Caryocolum signatella (Eversmann, 1844) (Lita) nom. oblitum.

A new species of Neotropical social wasp, Protopolybia lidiae Santos & Silveira, sp. nov. (Brazil: Pará) is described and illustrated. The hitherto unknown male of P. minutissima (Spinola, 1851) and the nest of P. clypeata Santos, Silveira & Carpenter, 2015, are described. Additional information on nest variation and new collection records are presented for other species of the exigua species-group.

England in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was no stranger to migrants and, inevitably, migrants were not always warmly received. They were often stigmatised for their perceived differences of language, religion and behaviour, and were blamed for a range of social ills including crime and low wages. In this article I examine print news reporting in six English port cities from c1850 to 1911. I focus on the ways in which crime reporting in particular characterised both offenders and victims, and the extent to which migrant origin was considered a relevant characteristic to report. It is argued that for the most part migrant origin was not widely mentioned in crime reports in regional newspapers, though there were periods when migrant origin was increasingly foregrounded and these coincided with times when migration to England was becoming increasingly politicised, especially before and immediately after the passing of the Aliens Act in 1905.

In accordo con le disposizioni del codice internazionale di Nomenclatura Zoologica, vengono proposte otto azioni allo scopo di salvaguardare la stabilità della nomenclatura attuale di alcune specie della tribù Tychiini. seguendo le indicazioni dell’Articolo 23.9.1,<em> Sibinia subelliptica</em> Desbrochers, 1873 è considerato <strong>nomen protectum</strong> e <em>Gymnetron schaumi</em> Becker, 1864 è considerato <strong>nomen</strong> <strong>oblitum</strong>; <em>Sibinia phalerata</em> Gyllenhal, 1836 è considerato <strong>nomen protectum</strong> e <em>Sibinia</em> <em>centromaculata</em> Villa &amp; Villa, 1835 è considerato <strong>nomen</strong> <strong>oblitum</strong>. Essendo presenti le condizioni richieste dall’articolo 75.3, vengono designati i neotipi dei seguenti taxa: <em>Sibinia</em> <em>centromaculata</em> Villa &amp; Villa, 1835; <em>Sybines</em> <em>pulchellus</em> Desbrochers, 1875. Sono inoltre stabiliti i lectotypi di: <em>Gymne­</em> <em>tron</em> <em>schaumi</em> Becker, 1864; <em>Sibinia attalica</em> Gyllenhal var. <em>lateralis</em> Desbrochers, 1895; <em>Sibinia cinctella</em> Desbrochers, 1898; <em>Sibinia pozuelica</em> Fuente, 1910; <em>Tychius barceloni­cus</em> Desbrochers, 1908; <em>Tychius edentatus</em> Desbrochers, 1895; <em>Tychius</em> <em>pallidicornis</em> Desbrochers, 1875; <em>Tychius parvulus</em> Stephens, 1831; <em>Tychius seductor</em> Desbrochers, 1908. Vengono proposte le seguenti nuove sinonimie: <em>Sibinia bipunctata</em> Kirsch, 1870 =<em> Sibi­nia postsignata</em> Voss, 1971<strong> n. syn</strong>.; <em>Sibinia</em> <em>exigua</em> Faust = <em>Sibinia</em> <em>cinctella</em> Desbrochers, 1898 <strong>n. syn</strong>.; <em>Sibinia femoralis</em> Germar, 1824 = <em>Sibinia attalica</em> var. <em>lateralis</em> Desbrochers, 1895<strong> n. syn</strong>. = <em>Sibinia consanguinea</em> Desbrochers, 1895 <strong>n. syn</strong>. = <em>Sibinia attalica</em> var. <em>curtula</em> Desbrochers, 1907 n. syn. = <em>Sibinia</em> <em>dilataticollis</em> Desbrochers, 1907 <strong>n. syn</strong>.= <em>Sibinia</em> <em>seducta</em> Desbrochers, 1907 <strong>n. syn.</strong> = <em>Sibinia pozuelica</em> Fuente, 1910 <strong>n. syn</strong>.; <em>Si­binia pici</em> Desbrochers = <em>Sibinia otiosa</em> Hustache, 1944 <strong>n. syn.</strong> = <em>Sibinia</em> <em>praeventa</em> Hustache, 1944 <strong>n. syn</strong>.; <em>Sibinia subelliptica</em> Desbrochers, 1873 = <em>Sibinia schaumei</em> Desbrochers, 1895 <strong>n</strong>. <strong>syn</strong>.; <em>Sibinia unicolor</em> Fåhraeus, 1843 = <em>Sybines pulchellus</em> Desbrochers, 1875 <strong>n. syn</strong>. = <em>Sibinia ochreata</em> Schilsky, 1912 <strong>n. syn.</strong> = <em>Sibinia sobrina</em> Voss, 1936 <strong>n. syn</strong>.; <em>Sibinia variata</em> Gyllenhal, 1836 = <em>Sibinia rubripes</em> Desbrochers, 1907 <strong>n. syn</strong>.; <em>Sibi­nia</em> <em>viscariae</em> (Linnaeus) = <em>Sibinia submeticollis</em> Desbrochers, 1908<strong> n. syn</strong>.; <em>Tychiusar­ gentatus</em> Chevrolat, 1859 = <em>Tychius dimidiatipennis</em> Desbrochers, 1873 <strong>n. syn.</strong> = <em>Tychius argenteosquamosus</em> Desbrochers, 1908 <strong>n. syn</strong>. = <em>Tychius seductor</em> Desbrochers, 1908<strong> n. syn</strong>.; <em>Tychius</em> <em>medicaginis</em> C. Brisout, 1862 = <em>Tychius griseus</em> Petri, 1915 (non Schaeffer, 1908) <strong>n. syn</strong>.; <em>Tychius breviusculus</em> Desbrochers, 1873 = <em>Tychius humeralis</em> Desbrochers, 1908 <strong>n.</strong> <strong>syn</strong>.; <em>Tychius cinnamomeus</em> Kiesenwetter, 1851 = <em>Tychius</em> <em>adspersus</em> Desbrochers, 1908 <strong>n. syn</strong>. = <em>Tychius barcelonicus</em> Desbrochers, 1908 <strong>n. syn</strong>.; <em>Tychius cu­prifer</em> (Panzer, 1799) = <em>Myllocerus subcostatus</em> Kolenati, 1858 <strong>n. syn</strong>.; <em>Tychius cuprinus</em> Rosenhauer, 1856 = <em>Tychius tuberculirostris</em> Hustache, 1944 <strong>n. syn.</strong>; <em>Tychius dieckmanni</em> Caldara, 1986 = <em>Lepidotychius babaevi</em> Bajtenov &amp; Soyunov, 1990<strong> n. syn</strong>.; <em>Tychius ele­gantulus</em> C. Brisout, 1862 = <em>Tychius pulcher</em> Pic, 1925 <strong>n. syn.</strong>; <em>Tychius elongatulus</em> Desbrochers, 1897 = <em>Tychius longitarsis</em> Desbrochers, 1898 <strong>n. syn</strong>.; <em>Tychius grenieri</em> C. Brisout, 1861 = <em>Tychius sparsus</em> Hustache, 1944; <em>Tychius</em> <em>immaculicollis</em> Desbrochers, 1907 = <em>Tychius</em> <em>elegans</em> Desbrochers, 1896 (non Brullé, 1832) = <em>Tychius ifranensis</em> Hustache, 1944 <strong>n. syn</strong>. = <em>Tychius kocheri</em> Hustache, 1944 <strong>n.</strong> <strong>syn</strong>. = <em>Tychius teluetensi</em>s Hustache, 1944<strong> n. syn.</strong>; <em>Tychius</em> <em>lautus</em> Gyllenhal, 1836 = <em>Tychius</em> <em>obductus</em> Hochhuth, 1851 <strong>n</strong>. <strong>syn</strong>. = <em>Tychius cilicensis</em> Pic<em>,</em> 1905<strong> n. syn</strong>.; <em>Tychius oschianus</em> Faust, 1885 = <em>Tychius pubicol­lis</em> Petri, 1915 <strong>n. syn</strong>.; <em>Tychius</em> <em>pardalis</em> Escalera, 1914 = <em>Tychius</em> <em>circulatus</em> Hustache, 1944 <strong>n.</strong> <strong>syn</strong>.; <em>Tychius picirostris</em> (Fabricius, 1787) = s<em>Tychius parvulus</em> Stephens, 1831 <strong>n. syn</strong>.; <em>Tychius polylineatus</em> (Germar, 1824) = <em>Tychius orbiculatus</em> Hustache, 1944 <strong>n. syn.</strong>; <em>Tychius stephensi</em> Schoenherr, 1836 = <em>Tychius pallidicornis</em> Desbrochers, 1875<strong> n. syn</strong>. Sono considerati nomi infrasubspecifici e pertanto non utilizzabili: <em>Sibinia attalica</em> Gyllenhal var. <em>unicolor</em> Desbrochers, 1895: 102 (non Fåhraeus, 1843); <em>Sibinia attalica</em> subsp. <em>tibiella</em> var. <em>desbordesi</em> Hoffmann, 1954;<em> Tychius pusillus</em> var. <em>inermis</em> Hoffmann, 1954. <em>Sibinia</em> <em>suturella</em> Motschulsky, 1858 (non Fårhaeus, 1843) viene trasferita al genere <em>Smicronyx</em>.

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

This article details how one newspaper The New York Times portrayed Russian Jews between 1851 and 1905 and seeks to answer how and why there were certain periods of time that reporting on Russian Jews peaked in the newspaper. The results demonstrated that during time periods of significant immigration of Russian Jews to the United States, namely 1881-1882, 1890-1893, and 1903-1905, The New York Times reported significantly more about Jewish persecution in Russia. The results also demonstrate that news stories about Russia may have appealed to American citizens, particularly when the portrayal of Russia was either sensationalized or negative. The methods used were analysis of historical The New York Times newspaper articles as well as quantification of articles used through categorizing by date of publication. For example, in the 1870s 6 articles related to Russian Jews were published in The New York Times, 80 in the 1880s, 170 in the 1890s, and 407 between 1900 and 1905. The extent of which Americans were interested in Russia is subject for later research by comparison to how other newspapers portrayed Russia during this same immigration period. This research only focuses on one source as a baseline to discover trends in reporting within an individual source.

Oniticellini Kolbe, 1905 is a paucispecific tribe of the scarab beetle subfamily Scarabaeinae. The tribe is composed of 256 described species worldwide, while from India, 26 species were recorded to date. Beetles belonging to this tribe are commonly known as paracoprid dung beetles and perform some remarkable ecological functions. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of knowledge on the occurrence of these beetles in the mega diverse tropical forests of the Himalayan foothills located in the north of the West Bengal state of India. A first faunistic account of the tribe Oniticellini Kolbe, 1905 from Baikunthapur Forest, located at the Himalayan foothills of the West Bengal state of India is presented. A total of five species of the tribe distributed over two genera Tiniocellus and Liatongus were recorded during multiple surveys of the scarab fauna of the Forest. All taxa were recorded for the first time from the area, while Tiniocellus spinipes (Roth, 1851) is a new record for the West Bengal State of India. Additionally, a preliminary checklist of Indian species of the tribe is also provided.

Abstract A list of species of Rutelinae from Bahia state, Northeastern Brazil, is presented. The list is based on specimens deposited in Brazilian collections. The list includes 4 tribes, 23 genera, 101 species and 17 subspecies. The genera Byrsopolis Burmeister, 1844, Pseudodorysthetus Soula, 2008 and Trizogeniates Ohaus, 1917 are recorded for the first time in Bahia and Northeastern Brazil. Thirty species are newly recorded in Bahia: Areoda espiritosantensis Ohaus, 1905, B. laticollis Burmeister, 1855, Bolax flavolineata (Mannerheim, 1829), Chlorota abdominalis Ohaus, 1926, C. espiritosantensis Ohaus, 1912, Dorysthetus espiritosantensis Ohaus, 1905, D. fulgidus (Waterhouse, 1881), Leucothyreus acanthurus Ohaus, 1917, L. albopilosus Ohaus, 1917, L. campestris Burmeister, 1855, L. cayapo Ohaus, 1931, L. duplopunctatus Frey, 1976, L. eligius Ohaus, 1918, L. fluminensis Ohaus, 1918, L. iridipennis Ohaus, 1917, L. lucipetens Ohaus, 1931, L. occipitalis Ohaus, 1931, L. pallefactus Ohaus, 1924, L. paulista Ohaus, 1917, L. punctulatus Blanchard, 1851, L. suturalis Laporte, 1840, L. trochantericus Ohaus, 1917, L. verticalis Ohaus, 1924, Macraspis cincta (Drury, 1872), Paranomala tricostulata (Ohaus, 1897), P. violacea (Burmeister, 1844), Pseudodorysthetus calcaratus (Spinola, 1835), and Trizogeniates planipennis Ohaus, 1917. Pelidnota unicolor unicolor (Drury, 1778) is recorded for the first time in Bahia. Fourteen species are identified and will be described in subsequent papers: 10 of Leucothyreus MacLeay, 1819, 2 of Lobogeniates Ohaus, 1917 and 1 species of Byrsopolis Burmeister, 1844 and Pelidnota MacLeay, 1819. Rutelini is the richest tribe with 16 genera and 49 species. The information presented in the list generates an important set of knowledge regarding the diversity of Rutelinae of Bahia and Brazil and provides the basis for conducting future research within the group.

IntroductionSydney’s Garden Palace was a magnificent building with a grandeur that dominated the skyline, stretching from the site of the current State Library of New South Wales to the building that now houses the Sydney Conservatorium of Music. The Palace captivated society from its opening in 1879. This article outlines the building of one of Sydney’s early structural icons and how, despite being destroyed by fire after three short years in 1882, it had an enormous impact on the burgeoning colonial community of New South Wales, thus building a physical structure, pride and a suite of memories.Design and ConstructionIn February 1878, the Colonial Secretary’s Office announced that “it is intended to hold under the supervision of the Agricultural Society of New South Wales an international Exhibition in Sydney in August 1879” (Official Record ix). By December the same year it had become clear that the Agricultural Society lacked the resources to complete the project and control passed to the state government. Colonial Architect James Barnet was directed to prepare “plans for a building suitable for an international exhibition, proposed to be built in the Inner Domain” (Official Record xx). Within three days he had submitted a set of drawings for approval. From this point on there was a great sense of urgency to complete the building in less than 10 months for the exhibition opening the following September.The successful contractor was John Young, a highly experienced building contractor who had worked on the Crystal Palace for the 1851 London International Exhibition and locally on the General Post Office and Exhibition Building at Prince Alfred Park (Kent 6). Young was confident, procuring electric lights from London so that work could be carried out 24 hours a day, to ensure that the building was delivered on time. The structure was built, as detailed in the Colonial Record (1881), using over 1 million metres of timber, 2.5 million bricks and 220 tonnes of galvanised corrugated iron. Remarkably the building was designed as a temporary structure to house the Exhibition. At the end of the Exhibition the building was not dismantled as originally planned and was instead repurposed for government office space and served to house, among other things, records and objects of historical significance. Ultimately the provisional building materials used for the Garden Palace were more suited to a temporary structure, in contrast with those used for the more permanent structures built at the same time which are still standing today.The building was an architectural and engineering wonder set in a cathedral-like cruciform design, showcasing a stained-glass skylight in the largest dome in the southern hemisphere (64 metres high and 30 metres in diameter). The total floor space of the exhibition building was three and half hectares, and the area occupied by the Garden Palace and related buildings—including the Fine Arts Gallery, Agricultural Hall, Machinery Hall and 10 restaurants and places of refreshment—was an astounding 14 hectares (Official Record xxxvi). To put the scale of the Garden Palace into contemporary perspective it was approximately twice the size of the Queen Victoria Building that stands on Sydney’s George Street today.Several innovative features set the building apart from other Sydney structures of the day. The rainwater downpipes were enclosed in hollow columns of pine along the aisles, ventilation was provided through the floors and louvered windows (Official Record xxi) while a Whittier’s Steam Elevator enabled visitors to ascend the north tower and take in the harbour views (“Among the Machinery” 70-71). The building dominated the Sydney skyline, serving as a visual anchor point that welcomed visitors arriving in the city by boat:one of the first objects that met our view as, after 12 o’clock, we proceeded up Port Jackson, was the shell of the Exhibition Building which is so rapidly rising on the Domain, and which next September, is to dazzle the eyes of the world with its splendours. (“A ‘Bohemian’s’ Holiday Notes” 2)The DomeThe dome of the Garden Palace was directly above the intersection of the nave and transept and rested on a drum, approximately 30 metres in diameter. The drum featured 36 oval windows which flooded the space below with light. The dome was made of wood covered with corrugated galvanised iron featuring 12 large lattice ribs and 24 smaller ribs bound together with purlins of wood strengthened with iron. At the top of the dome was a lantern and stained glass skylight designed by Messrs. Lyon and Cottier. It was light blue, powdered with golden stars with wooden ribs in red, buff and gold (Notes 6). The painting and decorating of the dome commenced just one month before the exhibition was due to open. The dome was the sixth largest dome in the world at the time. During construction, contractor Mr Young allowed visitors be lifted in a cage to view the building’s progress.During the construction of the Lantern which surmounts the Dome of the Exhibition, visitors have been permitted, through the courtesy of Mr. Young, to ascend in the cage conveying materials for work. This cage is lifted by a single cable, which was constructed specially of picked Manilla hemp, for hoisting into position the heavy timbers used in the construction. The sensation whilst ascending is a most novel one, and must resemble that experienced in ballooning. To see the building sinking slowly beneath you as you successively reach the levels of the galleries, and the roofs of the transept and aisles is an experience never to be forgotten, and it seems a pity that no provision can be made for visitors, on paying a small fee, going up to the dome. (“View from the Lantern of the Dome Exhibition” 8)The ExhibitionInternational Exhibitions presented the opportunity for countries to express their national identities and demonstrate their economic and technological achievements. They allowed countries to showcase the very best examples of contemporary art, handicrafts and the latest technologies particularly in manufacturing (Pont and Proudfoot 231).The Sydney International Exhibition was the ninth International Exhibition and the colony’s first, and was responsible for bringing the world to Sydney at a time when the colony was prosperous and full of potential. The Exhibition—opening on 17 September 1879 and closing on 20 April 1880—had an enormous impact on the community, it boosted the economy and was the catalyst for improving the city’s infrastructure. It was a great source of civic pride.Image 1: The International Exhibition Sydney, 1879-1880, supplement to the Illustrated Sydney News Jan. 1880. Image credit: Mitchell Library, State Library of NSW (call no.: DL X8/3)This bird’s eye view of the Garden Palace shows how impressive the main structure was and how much of the Gardens and Domain were occupied by ancillary buildings for the Exhibition. Based on an original drawing by John Thomas Richardson, chief engraver at the Illustrated Sydney News, this lithograph features a key identifying buildings including the Art Gallery, Machinery Hall, and Agricultural Hall. Pens and sheds for livestock can also be seen. The parade ground was used throughout the Exhibition for displays of animals. The first notable display was the International Show of Sheep featuring Australian, French and English sheep; not surprisingly the shearing demonstrations proved to be particularly popular with the community.Approximately 34 countries and their colonies participated in the Exhibition, displaying the very best examples of technology, industry and art laid out in densely packed courts (Barnet n.p.). There were approximately 14,000 exhibits (Official Record c) which included displays of Bohemian glass, tapestries, fine porcelain, fabrics, pyramids of gold, metals, minerals, wood carvings, watches, ethnographic specimens, and heavy machinery. Image 2: “Meet Me under the Dome.” Illustrated Sydney News 1 Nov. 1879: 4. Official records cite that between 19,853 and 24,000 visitors attended the Exhibition on the opening day of 17 September 1879, and over 1.1 million people visited during its seven months of operation. Sizeable numbers considering the population of the colony, at the time, was just over 700,000 (New South Wales Census).The Exhibition helped to create a sense of place and community and was a popular destination for visitors. On crowded days the base of the dome became a favourite meeting place for visitors, so much so that “meet me under the dome” became a common expression in Sydney during the Exhibition (Official Record lxxxiii).Attendance was steady and continuous throughout the course of the Exhibition and, despite exceeding the predicted cost by almost four times, the Exhibition was deemed a resounding success. The Executive Commissioner Mr P.A. Jennings remarked at the closing ceremony:this great undertaking […] marks perhaps the most important epoch that has occurred in our history. In holding this exhibition we have entered into a new arena and a race of progress among the nations of the earth, and have placed ourselves in kindly competition with the most ancient States of the old and new world. (Official Record ciii)Initially the cost of admission was set at 5 shillings and later dropped to 1 shilling. Season tickets for the Exhibition were also available for £3 3s which entitled the holder to unlimited entry during all hours of general admission. Throughout the Exhibition, season ticket holders accounted for 76,278 admissions. The Exhibition boosted the economy and encouraged authorities to improve the city’s services and facilities which helped to build a sense of community as well as pride in the achievement of such a fantastic structure. A steam-powered tramway was installed to transport exhibition-goers around the city, after the Exhibition, the tramway network was expanded and by 1905–1906 the trams were converted to electric traction (Freestone 32).After the exhibition closed, the imposing Garden Palace building was used as office space and storage for various government departments.An Icon DestroyedIn the early hours of 22 September 1882 tragedy struck when the Palace was engulfed by fire (“Destruction of the Garden Palace” 7). The building – and all its contents – destroyed.Image 3: Burning of the Garden Palace from Eaglesfield, Darlinghurst, sketched at 5.55am, Sep 22/82. Image credit: Mitchell Library, State Library of NSW (call no.: SSV/137) Many accounts and illustrations of the Garden Palace fire can be found in contemporary newspapers and artworks. A rudimentary drawing by an unknown artist held by the State Library of New South Wales appears to have been created as the Palace was burning. The precise time and location is recorded on the painting, suggesting it was painted from Eaglesfield, a school on Darlinghurst Road. It purveys a sense of immediacy giving some insight into the chaos and heat of the tragedy. A French artist living in Sydney, Lucien Henry, was among those who attempted to capture the fire. His assistant, G.H. Aurousseau, described the event in the Technical Gazette in 1912:Mister Henry went out onto the balcony and watched until the Great Dome toppled in; it was then early morning; he went back to his studio procured a canvas, sat down and painted the whole scene in a most realistic manner, showing the fig trees in the Domain, the flames rising through the towers, the dome falling in and the reflected light of the flames all around. (Technical Gazette 33-35)The painting Henry produced is not the watercolour held by the State Library of New South Wales, however it is interesting to see how people were moved to document the destruction of such an iconic building in the city’s history.What Was Destroyed?The NSW Legislative Assembly debate of 26 September 1882, together with newspapers of the day, documented what was lost in the fire. The Garden Palace housed the foundation collection of the Technological and Sanitary Museum (the precursor to the Powerhouse Museum, now the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences), due to open on 1 December 1882. This collection included significant ethnological specimens such as Australian Indigenous artefacts, many of which were acquired from the Sydney International Exhibition. The Art Society of New South Wales had hung 300 paintings in preparation for their annual art exhibition due to open on 2 October of that year, all of these paintings consumed by fire.The Records of the Crown Lands Occupation Office were lost along with the 1881 Census (though the summary survived). Numerous railway surveys were lost, as were: £7,000 worth of statues, between 20,000 and 30,000 plants and the holdings of the Linnean Society offices and museum housed on the ground floor. The Eastern Suburbs Brass Band performed the day before at the opening of the Eastern Suburbs Horticultural Society Flower show; all the instruments were stored in the Garden Palace and were destroyed. Several Government Departments also lost significant records, including the: Fisheries Office; Mining Department; Harbour and Rivers Department; and, as mentioned, the Census Department.The fire was so ferocious that the windows in the terraces along Macquarie Street cracked with the heat and sheets of corrugated iron were blown as far away as Elizabeth Bay. How Did The Fire Start?No one knows how the fire started on that fateful September morning, and despite an official enquiry no explanation was ever delivered. One theory blamed the wealthy residents of Macquarie Street, disgruntled at losing their harbour views. Another was that it was burnt to destroy records stored in the basement of the building that contained embarrassing details about the convict heritage of many distinguished families. Margaret Lyon, daughter of the Garden Palace decorator John Lyon, wrote in her diary:a gentleman who says a boy told him when he was putting out the domain lights, that he saw a man jump out of the window and immediately after observed smoke, they are advertising for the boy […]. Everyone seems to agree on his point that it has been done on purpose – Today a safe has been found with diamonds, sapphires and emeralds, there were also some papers in it but they were considerably charred. The statue of her majesty or at least what remains of it, for it is completely ruined – the census papers were also ruined, they were ready almost to be sent to the printers, the work of 30 men for 14 months. Valuable government documents, railway and other plans all gone. (MLMSS 1381/Box 1/Item 2) There are many eyewitness accounts of the fire that day. From nightwatchman Mr Frederick Kirchen and his replacement Mr John McKnight, to an emotional description by 14-year-old student Ethel Pockley. Although there were conflicting accounts as to where the fire may have started, it seems likely that the fire started in the basement with flames rising around the statue of Queen Victoria, situated directly under the dome. The coroner did not make a conclusive finding on the cause of the fire but was scathing of the lack of diligence by the authorities in housing such important items in a building that was not well-secured a was a potential fire hazard.Building a ReputationA number of safes were known to have been in the building storing valuables and records. One such safe, a fireproof safe manufactured by Milner and Son of Liverpool, was in the southern corner of the building near the southern tower. The contents of this safe were unscathed in contrast with the contents of other safes, the contents of which were destroyed. The Milner safe was a little discoloured and blistered on the outside but otherwise intact. “The contents included three ledgers, or journals, a few memoranda and a plan of the exhibition”—the glue was slightly melted—the plan was a little discoloured and a few loose papers were a little charred but overall the contents were “sound and unhurt”—what better advertising could one ask for! (“The Garden Palace Fire” 5).barrangal dyara (skin and bones): Rebuilding CommunityThe positive developments for Sydney and the colony that stemmed from the building and its exhibition, such as public transport and community spirit, grew and took new forms. Yet, in the years since 1882 the memory of the Garden Palace and its disaster faded from the consciousness of the Sydney community. The great loss felt by Indigenous communities went unresolved.Image 4: barrangal dyara (skin and bones). Image credit: Sarah Morley.In September 2016 artist Jonathan Jones presented barrangal dyara (skin and bones), a large scale sculptural installation on the site of the Garden Palace Building in Sydney’s Royal Botanic Garden. The installation was Jones’s response to the immense loss felt throughout Australia with the destruction of countless Aboriginal objects in the fire. The installation featured thousands of bleached white shields made of gypsum that were laid out to show the footprint of the Garden Palace and represent the rubble left after the fire.Based on four typical designs from Aboriginal nations of the south-east, these shields not only raise the chalky bones of the building, but speak to the thousands of shields that would have had cultural presence in this landscape over generations. (Pike 33)ConclusionSydney’s Garden Palace was a stunning addition to the skyline of colonial Sydney. A massive undertaking, the Palace opened, to great acclaim, in 1879 and its effect on the community of Sydney and indeed the colony of New South Wales was sizeable. There were brief discussions, just after the fire, about rebuilding this great structure in a more permanent fashion for the centenary Exhibition in 1888 (“[From Our Own Correspondents] New South Wales” 5). Ultimately, it was decided that this achievement of the colony of New South Wales would be recorded in history, gifting a legacy of national pride and positivity on the one hand, but on the other an example of the destructive colonial impact on Indigenous communities. For many Sydney-siders today this history is as obscured as the original foundations of the physical building. What we build—iconic structures, civic pride, a sense of community—require maintenance and remembering. References“Among the Machinery.” The Sydney Mail and New South Wales Advertiser 10 Jan. 1880: 70-71.Aurousseau, G.H. “Lucien Henry: First Lecturer in Art at the Sydney Technical College.” Technical Gazette 2.III (1912): 33-35.Barnet, James. International Exhibition, Sydney, 1880: References to the Plans Showing the Space and Position Occupied by the Various Exhibits in the Garden Palace. Sydney: Colonial Architect’s Office, 1880.“A ‘Bohemian’s’ Holiday Notes.” The Singleton Argus and Upper Hunter General Advocate 23 Apr. 1879: 2.Census Department. New South Wales Census. 1881. 3 Mar. 2017 <http://hccda.ada.edu.au/pages/NSW-1881-census-02_vi>. “Destruction of the Garden Palace.” Sydney Morning Herald 23 Sep. 1882: 7.Freestone, Robert. “Space Society and Urban Reform.” Colonial City, Global City, Sydney’s International Exhibition 1879. Eds. Peter Proudfoot, Roslyn Maguire, and Robert Freestone. Darlinghurst, NSW: Crossing P, 2000. 15-33.“[From Our Own Correspondents] New South Wales.” The Age (Melbourne, Vic.) 30 Sep. 1882: 5.“The Garden Palace Fire.” Sydney Morning Herald 25 Sep. 1882: 5.Illustrated Sydney News and New South Wales Agriculturalist and Grazier 1 Nov. 1879: 4.“International Exhibition.” Australian Town and Country Journal 15 Feb. 1879: 11.Kent, H.C. “Reminiscences of Building Methods in the Seventies under John Young. Lecture.” Architecture: An Australian Magazine of Architecture and the Arts Nov. (1924): 5-13.Lyon, Margaret. Unpublished Manuscript Diary. MLMSS 1381/Box 1/Item 2.New South Wales, Legislative Assembly. Debates 22 Sep. 1882: 542-56.Notes on the Sydney International Exhibition of 1879. Melbourne: Government Printer, 1881.Official Record of the Sydney International Exhibition 1879. Sydney: Government Printer, 1881.Pike, Emma. “barrangal dyara (skin and bones).” Jonathan Jones: barrangal dyara (skin and bones). Eds. Ross Gibson, Jonathan Jones, and Genevieve O’Callaghan. Balmain: Kaldor Public Arts Project, 2016.Pont, Graham, and Peter Proudfoot. “The Technological Movement and the Garden Palace.” Colonial City, Global City, Sydney’s International Exhibition 1879. Eds. Peter Proudfoot, Roslyn Maguire, and Robert Freestone. Darlinghurst, NSW: Crossing Press, 2000. 239-249.“View from the Lantern of the Dome of the Exhibition.” Illustrated Sydney News and New South Wales Agriculturalist and Grazier 9 Aug. 1879: 8.