Journal articles on the topic '1854-1937'

Two remarkable new species of the genus Barsine Walker, 1854 are described: Barsine qinxiae S.-Y. Huang & Volynkin sp. n. from Zhejiang, Eastern China, and B. jingkuni S.-Y. Huang & Volynkin sp. n. from Sichuan, Western China. The diagnostic comparison is made with Barsine roseata (Walker, 1864), B. hoenei (Reich, 1937) and B. pardalis (Mell, 1922). The lectotype for Miltochrista hoenei Reich, 1937 is designated. Adults and genitalia of the aforementioned taxa are illustrated.

This article is about Marc Chagall’s teacher in Vitebsk, Yehuda Pen (1854-1937), and the school for painters that he established at the turn of the twentieth century. From it, in addition to Chagall, came the likes of El Lissitzky (1890-1941) and Osip Zadkine (1888-1967). It is proposed that in addition to training and enabling these better-known artists to “paint in Yiddish,” Pen, who is hardly known in the West (and who was mysteriously murdered in 1937, at the peak of Stalin’s purges), was himself (while academically trained) a truly and remarkably groundbreaking Jewish, Yiddish painter.

Tubpontania gen. nov. (type species Nematus anomalopterus Förster, 1854), is proposed for the species of the former Pontania crassispina group. Tubpontania anomaloptera (Förster, 1854), comb. nov., = Amauronematus maidli Zirngiebl, 1937, syn. nov., = Nematus (Pontania) tuberculatus Benson, 1953, syn. nov. Other European species of the genus are Tubpontania cyrnea (Liston, 2005) (= Pontania joergenseni Enslin, 1916, syn. nov.; preoccupied by Pontania jörgenseni Strand, 1908), Tubpontania crassispina (Thomson, 1871), comb. nov., Tubpontania purpureae (Cameron, 1884), comb. nov., and Tubpontania nudipectus (Vikberg, 1965), comb. nov. Tubpontania nitidinota sp. nov., closely related to T. nudipectus, is described from Fennoscandia. Furthermore, the following North American species belong here: Tubpontania arctophilae (Benson, 1960), comb. nov., Tubpontania populi (Marlatt, 1896), comb. nov., Tubpontania pumila (Rohwer, 1910), comb. nov., Tubpontania rotundidentata (Zinovjev & Vikberg, 1999), comb. nov. and Tubpontania terminalis (Marlatt, 1896), comb. nov.

The problem of finding bounds for P(A1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ An) based on P(Ak1 ∩ ⋯ ∩ Aki) (1 ≤ k1 < ⋯ < ki ≤ n, i = 1,…,d) goes back to Boole (1854), (1868) and Bonferroni (1937). In this paper upper bounds are presented using methods in graph theory. The main theorem is a common generalization of the earlier results of Hunter, Worsley and recent results of Prékopa and the author. Algorithms are given to compute bounds. Examples for bounding values of multivariate normal distribution functions are presented.

AbstractThe Aethes rubigana complex is shown to comprise four closely related species in the Palearctic region: Eurasian Aethes cnicana (Westwood, 1854), European A. rubigana (Treitschke, 1830), Asiatic A. citreoflava V. I. Kuznetsov, 1966, and A. kyrkii, here described as a new species from northern Finland. A. kyrkii is morphologically most close to A. cnicana, but enzyme electrophoresis revealed complete genetic isolation between them. Descriptions are given of the three species occurring in Europe, and their respective biologies are outlined. Statistical analyses of traits of the forewing are given. The taxonomic status of A. arcticana (Brandt, 1937) is revised.

Barsine Walker, 1854 is one of the largest quadrifid Erebidae genera within subtribe Nudariina (Erebidae, Arctiinae, Lithosiini). It was established for its type species Barsine defecta Walker, 1854 (by subsequent designation, Kirby (1892)) from Nepal. The genus has in the past been treated as a synonym or subgenus of Miltochrista Hübner, [1819] (Hampson 1900; Strand 1917; Reich 1937; Daniel 1951; 1952; 1955; Inoue 1980; Holloway 1982; Fang 1991; 2000; Černý 1995). In 2001, J.D. Holloway revived Barsine as a distinct genus. The genus is widely distributed in eastern and southeastern Palaearctic and Oriental tropics and more than a hundred of valid species and subspecies were worked on by Fang (2000), Holloway (2001), Kaleka (2003), Černý & Pinratana (2009), Černý (1995, 2016), Bucsek (2012, 2014), Dubatolov et al. (2012), Dubatolov & Bucsek (2013), Wu et al. (2013), Kirti & Singh (2015, 2016), Volynkin & Černý (2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d, 2018a, 2018b; 2019), Bayarsaikhan et al. (2018), Joshi et al. (2018), Spitsyn et al. (2018), Volynkin (2018), Volynkin et al. (2018; 2019a; 2019b; 2019c) and Huang et al. (2018).

Distribution data are presented for several species of weevils (Coleoptera: Brentidae, Curculionidae) from Hungary. Ceutorhynchus viridanus Gyllenhal, 1837, Miarus ursinus Abeille de Perrin, 1906, Otiorhynchus ovalipennis Boheman, 1842, Otiorhynchus ropotamus Angelov, 1974, and Pachyrhinus lethierryi (Desbrochers des Loges, 1875) are first recorded from the country. Additionally, recent, unpublished Hungarian records of Alcidodes karelinii (Boheman, 1844), Ceratapion armatum (Gerstaecker, 1854), Curculio gyongyiae Szénási, 2022, Gronops lunatus (Fabricius, 1775), Herpes porcellus (Lacordaire, 1863), Hypera libanotidis (Reitter, 1896), Loborhynchapion amethystinum (Miller, 1857), Otiorhynchus coarctatus Stierlin, 1861, Otiorhynchus juglandis Apfelbeck, 1895, Otiorhynchus lutosus Stierlin, 1858, Otiorhynchus roubali Penecke, 1931, Otiorhynchus winkleri F. Solari, 1937 and Polydrusus crinipes Germann, 2018 are presented.

The paper examines the psychological superiority/inferiority complexes coined by Alfred Adler (1870-1937) in three selected characters from different novels: Mrs. Slipslop from Fielding’s Joseph Andrews (1742), Uncle Toby from Laurence Sterne’s Tristram Shandy (1759) and Mr. Bounderby from Dickens’s Hard Times (1854). These complexes are traced in the characters and associated with how they are induced by the characters’ physical and social deformities. The paper attempts to demonstrate that such psychological complexes in the character make it difficult for him/her to communicate as well as interact with others around them. Such deformities become whimsical obsessions that alienate them from their society and disorder their lives particularly at communication and result in impossibility of mutual understanding. The paper also highlights such complexes on the linguistic level.

El autor trata de definir la actitud del historiador y vascólogo navarro Arturo Campión Jaimebon (1854-1937) en lo concerniente a las hipótesis científicas sobre el sustrato pretérito de la lengua vasca que se barajaban en su época. No se limita a recoger su pensamiento, sino que intenta valorar la certeza de sus tesis y el nivel de conocimientos que se han alcanzado posteriormente, con la intención de comprobar si las monografías posteriores tienen en cuenta algunas de las pioneras intuiciones emitidas por el intelectual fuerista pamplonés. En una época en la que todavía primaba el diletantismo etimológico propio de los autores decimonónicos de Vasconia, las sendas desbrozadas por Urquijo o el propio Campión permiten que la erudición vasca se distancie y purifique de las mistificaciones propugnadas por Astarloa, Chaho o Erro.

New information is provided on the galling fauna from oaks in Santa Fe (Cuajimalpa (Mexico City) obtained from collections on Quercus laeta Liebmann, 1854 and Q. rugosa Née, 1801 (section Quercus), Q. crassipes Humboldt and Bonpland, 1809 and Q. calophylla Schlechtendal and Chamisso, 1830 (section Lobatae). Seven species are cited for the first time: Andricus fusciformis Pujade-Villar, 2014 and A. guanajuatensis Pujade-Villar, 2013; Femuros lusum Kinsey, 1937 and F. repandae Kinsey, 1937; Kokkocynips doctorrosae Pujade-Villar and Melika, 2013; Loxaulus hyalinus Pujade-Villar and Melika, 2014 and Neuroterus fusifex Pujade-Villar, 2016. Of the 12 species originally described from Santa Fe, nine of them are only known in this studied area: Amphibolips cibriani Pujade-Villar, 2011, Andricus breviramuli Pujade-Villar, 2014, A. rochai Pujade-Villar, 2018, A. santafe Pujade-Villar, 2013, Disholcaspis crystalae Pujade-Villar, 2018, Loxaulus laeta Pujade-Villar, 2014, Neuroterus eugeros Pujade-Villar, 2018, N. verrucum Pujade Villar, 2014 and Zapatella polytryposa Pujade-Villar and Fernández-Garzón, 2020. New hosts are provided for some of the mentioned species. Some galls are shown that could constitute species yet to be described. Of all mentioned species, the gall is described and illustrated, and aspects of its biology, hosts and distribution are commented.

Rhagophthalmidae are a small beetle family known from the eastern Palaearctic and Oriental realms. Rhagophthalmidae are closely related to railroad worms (Phengodidae) and fireflies (Lampyridae) with which they share highly modified paedomorphic females and the ability to emit light. Currently, Rhagophthalmidae include 66 species classified in the following 12 genera: Bicladodrilus Pic, 1921 (two spp.), Bicladum Pic, 1921 (two spp.), Dioptoma Pascoe, 1860 (two spp.), Diplocladon Gorham, 1883 (two spp.), Dodecatoma Westwood, 1849 (eight spp.), Falsophrixothrix Pic, 1937 (six spp.), Haplocladon Gorham, 1883 (two spp.), Menghuoius Kawashima, 2000 (three spp.), Mimoochotyra Pic, 1937 (one sp.), Monodrilus Pic, 1921 (two spp. in two subgenera), Pseudothilmanus Pic, 1918 (two spp.), and Rhagophthalmus Motschulsky, 1854 (34 spp.). The replacement name Haplocladon gorhami Kundrata, nom. nov. is proposed for Diplocladon hasseltii Gorham, 1883b (described in subgenus Haplocladon) which is preoccupied by Diplocladon hasseltii Gorham, 1883a. The genus Reductodrilus Pic, 1943 is tentatively placed in Lampyridae: Ototretinae. Lectotypes are designated for Pseudothilmanus alatus Pic, 1918 and P. marginalis Pic, 1918. Interestingly, in the eastern part of their distribution, Rhagophthalmidae have remained within the boundaries of the Sunda Shelf and the Philippines demarcated by the Wallace Line, which separates the Oriental and Australasian realms. This study is intended to be a first step towards a comprehensive revision of the group on both genus and species levels. Additionally, critical problems and prospects for rhagophthalmid research are briefly discussed.

Abstract Within the framework of studies concerning the importance of European manuscript collections for Ibadi history, this article aims at retracing the history of an archive put together by the French scholar Auguste Bossoutrot (1856–1937). This archive gathered a quantity of materials on the Arabic and Berber languages collected during his life. In particular, some of the manuscripts contain parts of a long religious work in Berber (Kitāb al-Barbariyya), discovered in the island of Djerba (Tunisia) among the Ibadi community of the island towards the end of the nineteenth century. This text was firstly discovered and reported to the scientific community by another French scholar, A. De Calassanti-Motylinski (1854–1907), but his untimely death prevented him from publishing it and the whereabouts of the manuscripts that contained it remained unknown until the discovery of Bossoutrot’s papers, which contained the longest extant copy of the work (about 900 pages).

The article turns to one of the most interesting pages in the 101-year history of the sanatorium “Uzkoe” (Federal Research and Clinical Center of Reanimatology and Rehabilitation) through the prism of the life and creative activity of the outstanding Altai artist Grigory Ivanovich Choros-Gurkin (1870-1937). His “Altai” (or «Lake of mountain spirits») painting created in 1916 for the honorary Academician Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946) are one of the brightest pearls of the art collection of the sanatorium “Uzkoe”. Both behind the plot of the painting, where the ancient Oirot legend is intertwined with the comprehension of the secrets of science, and behind the process of creation and the further fate of the canvas itself, an amazing story is hidden which to this day, revealing new facets, disturbs the inquisitive mind of researchers. The main role in this story will belong to “reason and solid analysis”.

Barsine Walker, 1854 is a large genus of lichen-moths (family Erebidae, subfamily Arctiinae, tribe Lithosiini) including about a hundred of described species and widely distributed in Oriental tropics. A number of species is also known from the Russian Far East, Japan, Korea, China and Taiwan. The genus long time was treated as a synonym or a subgenus of Miltochrista Hübner, [1819] (Hampson 1900; Strand 1917; Reich 1937; Daniel 1951; 1952; 1955; Inoue 1980; Holloway 1982; Fang 1991; 2000; Černý 1995), and was revived by Holloway (2001). Many new species of the genus were described during last two decades (Fang 2000; Holloway 2001; Kaleka 2003; Černý & Pinratana 2009; Bucsek 2012; 2014; Dubatolov et al. 2012; Dubatolov & Bucsek 2013; Wu et al. 2013). The genus is under revision by authors of the present paper. During studies of Lithosiini materials collected in Vietnam, an undescribed Barsine species was found. The species is described below.

The review presents the reader with a monograph by a Russian historian and theologian, PhD in Philosophy and Theology, Senior Fellow of the Center for the History of Theology and Theological Education (Orthodox St. Tikhon Humanitarian University) Nikolay N. Pavluchenkov. The book of the scientist (“Theology of Unity: from Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling to the priest Pavel A. Florensky”, 2023) is characterized by the author of the review as a significant contribution to the Russian philosophy studies and, in particular, the heritage of the priest Pavel A. Florensky (1882–1937). Appreciating the impressive textological base of the volume and the fundamental work of its author, the reviewer is trying to reveal the theoretical potential of the work: he discusses not only the methodological prerequisites for the study, but also the prospect of using the latter in the religious and philosophical polemics of the 21st century. Separately, the review raises the question of the problems of explicating the influence of Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775–1854) on certain concepts of Russian thinkers in 18th–20th centuries.

A checklist of Recent and fossil catfishes (Order Siluriformes) is presented, summarizing taxonomic literature published through 2005. From 4624 nominal species group names and 810 genus group names, 3093 species are recognized as valid, and are distributed among 478 genera and 36 families. Distributional summaries are provided for each species, and nomenclatural synonymies, including relevant information on all name-bearing types, are included for all taxa. One new name is proposed herein: Clariallabes teugelsi, as a replacement for Clarias (Allabenchelys) dumerili longibarbis David & Poll, 1937, which is preoccupied by Clarias longibarbis Worthington, 1933, but has been treated as a valid species of Clariallabes by Teugels. Acrochordonichthys melanogaster Bleeker, 1854, is designated as type species of Acrochordonichthys Bleeker, 1857, inasmuch as no earlier valid designation has been found. A new genus Pseudobagarius, is proposed for the “pseudobagarius group” of species formerly placed in Akysis. The status of 228 species group names remains unresolved and 31 names based on otoliths ascribed to catfishes are listed but not placed into the checklist. The current emphasis given to catfish taxonomy at present is likely to result in a dramatic increase in the total number of valid taxa as well as major changes in the membership of some of the higher level taxa recognized here.

Ancistrus Kner, 1854, is the most diverse genus among the Ancistrini (Loricariidae) with 70 valid species showing a wide geographic distribution and great taxonomic and systematic complexity. To date, about 40 Ancistrus taxa have been karyotyped, all from Brazil and Argentina, but the statistic is uncertain because 30 of these reports deal with samples that have not yet been identified at the species level. This study provides the first cytogenetic description of the bristlenose catfish, Ancistrus clementinae Rendahl, 1937, a species endemic to Ecuador, aiming to verify whether a sex chromosome system is identifiable in the species and, if so, which, and if its differentiation is associated with the presence of repetitive sequences reported for other species of the family. We associated the karyotype analysis with the COI molecular identification of the specimens. Karyotype analysis suggested the presence of a ♂ZZ/♀ZW1W2 sex chromosome system, never detected before in Ancistrus, with both W1W2 chromosomes enriched with heterochromatic blocks and 18S rDNA, in addition to GC-rich repeats (W2). No differences were observed between males and females in the distribution of 5S rDNA or telomeric repeats. Cytogenetic data here obtained confirm the huge karyotype diversity of Ancistrus, both in chromosome number and sex-determination systems.

En este trabajo ofrecemos una visión general y pormenorizada de las fundaciones de becas y de la labor social de las mismas en el seminario conciliar de San Isidoro y San Francisco Javier de Sevilla en el período comprendido entre 1931 y 1940. En un primer momento damos una panorámica del seminario de Sevilla en Sanlúcar de Barrameda (1831-1842), en el edificio Maese Rodrigo de Sevilla (1854-1901) y en el Palacio de San Telmo (1901-1998). También de la universidad pontificia de Sevilla y de los seminaristas hispalenses en el colegio español de San José de Roma. En la parte central de nuestro trabajo nos acercamos a la labor social de las becas en el seminario de Sevilla (1931-1940): las fundaciones de becas y de capellanías, las escrituras de algunas fundaciones y las fundaciones de becas con encargo de misas. También la relación de los becarios y una visita pastoral del cardenal Segura al seminario metropolitano de Sevilla en 1938. Pone fin a este estudio un apartado con cinco apéndices: superiores del seminario (1931-1937); secretarios generales y claustro de profesores (1897-1946); nómina y cargos de profesores en 1936; relación de alumnos matriculados en el seminario metropolitano (1931-1939); relación de ingresos y gastos en el seminario en el curso académico 1931-32.

Die hier betrachteten Manuskripte werden teilweise in der Musikbibliothek der Stadt Leipzig, teilweise in der Staatsbibliothek Berlin-Dahlem verwahrt und umfassen Werke von J. S. Bach, G. Böhm, D. Buxtehude, J. P. Kellner, J. L. Krebs, P. Locatelli, J. G. Walther und anderen Komponisten. Sie gehen auf den Kantor Johann Nicolaus Mempell (1713-1747) in Apolda zurück, der möglicherweise ein Schüler von J. P. Kellner war. Johann Gottlieb Preller aus Oberroßla bei Apolda (1727-1786, ab 1753 Kantor und Organist in Dortmund) und vielleicht ein Schüler von J. N. Mempell und J. T. Krebs senior, kombinierte diese Gruppe von Handschriften mit Kopien, die er in den Jahren 1743 bis 1749 selbst angefertigt hatte. Nachfolgende Besitzer waren Daniel Friedrich Eduard Wilsing aus Wesel, ein Urenkel Prellers (bis 1854), und Max Seiffert in Berlin (bis 1904). (Übertragung des englischen Resümees am Ende des Bandes) Erwähnte Artikel: Bernhard Friedrich Richter: Stadtpfeifer und Alumnen der Thomasschule in Leipzig zu Bachs Zeit. BJ 1907, S. 32-78 Reinhold Sietz: Die Orgelkompositionen des Schülerkreises um Johann Sebastian Bach. BJ 1935, S. 33-96 Hermann Keller: Unechte Orgelwerke Bachs. BJ 1937, S. 59-82 Hans Löffler: Die Schüler Joh. Seb. Bachs. BJ 1953, S. 5-28 Karl Anton: Neue Erkenntnisse zur Geschichte der Bachbewegung. BJ 1955, S. 7-44 Friedrich Wilhelm Riedel: Aloys Fuchs als Sammler Bachscher Werke. BJ 1966, S. 83-99

An updated checklist of Croatian flesh flies is presented based on the literature, on material collected from 2004 to 2017, and on specimens in museum collections. The checklist comprises 22 genera and 148 species (two left unnamed), 105 of which are represented by new Croatian records. Twenty-five species are recorded from Croatia with certainty for the first time:Amobiapelopei(Rondani, 1859),ApodacraseriemaculataMacquart, 1854,Craticulinatabaniformis(Fabricius, 1805),Macronychiastriginervis(Zetterstedt, 1838),Metopiacampestris(Fallén, 1810),MiltogrammabrevipilaVilleneuve, 1911,MiltogrammaibericaVilleneuve, 1912,Miltogrammaoestracea(Fallén, 1820),MiltogrammapunctataMeigen, 1824,Oebalia cylindrica(Fallén, 1810),PhyllotelespictipennisLoew, 1844,Senotainiaconica(Fallén, 1810),Taxigrammahilarella(Zetterstedt, 1844),Taxigrammastictica(Meigen, 1830),Agriamonachae(Kramer, 1908),Nyctialugubris(Macquart, 1843), Blaesoxipha (Blaesoxipha) aurulenta Rohdendorf, 1937, Blaesoxipha (Blaesoxipha) batilligera Séguy, 1941, Blaesoxipha (Blaesoxipha) plumicornis (Zetterstedt, 1859), Sarcophaga (Helicophagella) okaliana (Lehrer, 1975), Sarcophaga (Heteronychia) amita Rondani, 1860, Sarcophaga (Heteronychia) ancilla Rondani, 1865, Sarcophaga (Heteronychia) pseudobenaci (Baranov, 1942), Sarcophaga (Myorhina) lunigera Böttcher, 1914 and Sarcophaga (Stackelbergeola) mehadiensis Böttcher, 1912.Taxigrammahilarella,Nyctialugubris,Agriamonachae, Blaesoxipha (Blaesoxipha) aurulenta and Sarcophaga (Heteronychia) amita are recorded from Southeast Europe with certainty for the first time. The species Sarcophaga (Sarcophaga) hennigi Lehrer, 1978 is omitted from the list, as previous records from Croatia are shown to be based on an erroneous synonymy withSarcophaganovakiBaranov, 1941 (= Sarcophaga (Sarcophaga) croatica Baranov, 1941). Blaesoxipha (Blaesoxipha) rufipes (Macquart, 1839) could not be confirmed from Croatia and is not included in the checklist. Three new synonymies are proposed:GolaniaLehrer, 2000 =ThyrsocnemaEnderlein, 1928,syn. nov., Parasarcophaga (Liosarcophaga) kovatschevitchi Strukan, 1970 = Sarcophaga (Liosarcophaga) marshalli Parker, 1923,syn. nov., and Sarcophagasubvicinassp.novaki Baranov, 1941 = Sarcophaga (Sarcophaga) croatica Baranov, 1941,syn. nov.As part of an effort to update the European distributions of all Croatian species, the following new national and regional records are also provided:Miltogrammabrevipila,MiltogrammataeniataMeigen, 1824 and Sarcophaga (Heteronychia) pandellei (Rohdendorf, 1937) new to Greece; Sarcophaga (Liosarcophaga) harpax Pandellé, 1896 and Sarcophaga (Sarcophaga) croatica new to Italy (respectively mainland and mainland and Sicily);Miltogrammaibericanew to Bulgaria and Sardinia;Pterellaconvergens(Pandellé, 1895) new to mainland Italy and Sicily;Nyctialugubrisnew to mainland Italy and Sardinia; Blaesoxipha (Blaesoxipha) litoralis (Villeneuve, 1911) new to Sardinia and thus confirmed for Italy;Apodacraseriemaculata,Macronychiastriginervis,Protomiltogrammafasciata(Meigen, 1824) and Blaesoxipha (Blaesoxipha) ungulata (Pandellé, 1896) new to Sardinia and Sicily;MacronychiadoliniVerves &amp; Khrokalo, 2006,Macronychiapolyodon(Meigen, 1824),Metopiaargyrocephala(Meigen, 1824),Senotainiaalbifrons(Rondani, 1859),Taxigrammamultipunctata(Rondani, 1859),Taxigrammastictica, Blaesoxipha (Blaesoxipha) unicolor (Villeneuve, 1912) and Sarcophaga (Helicophagella) agnata Rondani, 1860 new to Sardinia;Metopodiapilicornis(Pandellé, 1895),Miltogrammaoestracea,MiltogrammarutilansMeigen, 1824,Nyctiahalterata(Panzer, 1798), Blaesoxipha (Blaesoxipha) lapidosa Pape, 1994 and Blaesoxipha (Blaesoxipha) plumicornis new to Sicily.

In 2014, F. A. Nickerl´s manuscript titled Böhmens Tagfalter was unexpectedly discovered during relocation of the entomological department of the National Museum Prague. The find is mainly one of great cultural-historical significance, as it was already published in full in 1837. The publication in question (Nickerl 1837) has a high professional level for its time, and is considered the first scientifically written work in the field of entomology in the Czech Republic. F. A. Nickerl was one of the most important Central European naturalists, being instrumental to the development of entomology and museology in Bohemia. From 1850 he worked as custodian of zoological collections at the Czech Museum in Prague, then later at the Museum of the Kingdom of Bohemia (1854–1919, today the National Museum). Among other things, he was a member of the German natural science association Lotos, which published a (at the time prestigious) journal of the same name, of which he was also the editor. Several species of moths were named in his honor, and he himself described several new Lepidoptera species from Bohemia. He is the author of several publications, of which his Synopsis (Nickerl 1850) which loosely follows (and significantly expands upon) the work discussed here, is most notable. At the same time, he was a person of extraordinary character, which is pointed out by a number of contemporary and later authors, cf. e.g. Tykač (1937). It is due to all of the above that any finding closely related to F. A. Nickerl’s life or work should be considered exceptional and worthy of the attention of our generation.

Lars Schreiber Pedersen: “Eine schreckliche Zeit ist eingebrochen”.H.O. Lange’s correspondence with Adolf Erman 1914‑1919 Taking outset in the comprehensive correspondence between the Egyptologist andchief librarian at the Royal Library from 1901 to 1924, H.O. Lange (1863‑1943), and hisGerman mentor and professor in Egyptology at the University of Berlin, Adolf Erman(1854‑1937), this article focuses on their correspondence during the four years of theFirst World War (1914‑18) and in the first year of peace in 1919.The letters between the long-time colleagues and friends are far from fully preserved,but they still provide a good insight into their views on the predominant talking pointof the time – the war, especially who they held responsible for much of the misery andhorror of the war. Furthermore, the correspondence provides insight into an internationalacademia under pressure, in particular Egyptology, where international researchcollaboration came to a halt at the outbreak of war, and Germany’s longstanding leadingposition within the field was challenged.For the Egyptologist H.O. Lange the time before the outbreak of war in the summerof 1914 had been quite satisfying academically. In March, although he had otherwiseoften felt rather academically isolated in Copenhagen, he had an opportunity to visitErman in Berlin, and at the end of July, Erman presented Lange’s recent scientific workto the members of the Philosophical-Historical Class at the Royal Prussian Academyof Sciences.After the outbreak of war, Lange quickly proclaimed his full loyalty to Erman, andat the same time he stressed the importance of securing peace and unity within thescientific community. This was a task that, probably more than anyone else in the fieldof Egyptology, the Danish Egyptologist felt the need to take on in the following years,and he returned to this again and again in his letters to Erman.Just as for Lange, the outbreak of war in 1914 sparked deep concern for the almostsixty-year-old Erman, who, in a sort of internal exile, decided to intensify work on hismasterpiece, the dictionary of the Egyptian language, which he had started in 1897.However, Erman also felt a degree of optimism and confidence in a German victoryon the battlefield that had also seized many of his countrymen. He welcomedthe national enthusiasm triggered by the outbreak of the war. In early August 1914Germany had declared war on Russia and France, and then invaded neutral Belgium,but in his opinion Germany was the victim, not the aggressor. Like almost all Germanacademics Erman shared the perception that the Entente was primarily responsible forthe outbreak of war, and like them he looked forward to settling the score with theprincipal opponent: Britain. Lars Schreiber Pedersen: “Eine schreckliche Zeit ist eingebrochen”.H.O. Lange’s correspondence with Adolf Erman 1914‑1919Taking outset in the comprehensive correspondence between the Egyptologist andchief librarian at the Royal Library from 1901 to 1924, H.O. Lange (1863‑1943), and hisGerman mentor and professor in Egyptology at the University of Berlin, Adolf Erman(1854‑1937), this article focuses on their correspondence during the four years of theFirst World War (1914‑18) and in the first year of peace in 1919.The letters between the long-time colleagues and friends are far from fully preserved,but they still provide a good insight into their views on the predominant talking pointof the time – the war, especially who they held responsible for much of the misery andhorror of the war. Furthermore, the correspondence provides insight into an internationalacademia under pressure, in particular Egyptology, where international researchcollaboration came to a halt at the outbreak of war, and Germany’s longstanding leadingposition within the field was challenged.For the Egyptologist H.O. Lange the time before the outbreak of war in the summerof 1914 had been quite satisfying academically. In March, although he had otherwiseoften felt rather academically isolated in Copenhagen, he had an opportunity to visitErman in Berlin, and at the end of July, Erman presented Lange’s recent scientific workto the members of the Philosophical-Historical Class at the Royal Prussian Academyof Sciences.After the outbreak of war, Lange quickly proclaimed his full loyalty to Erman, andat the same time he stressed the importance of securing peace and unity within thescientific community. This was a task that, probably more than anyone else in the fieldof Egyptology, the Danish Egyptologist felt the need to take on in the following years,and he returned to this again and again in his letters to Erman.Just as for Lange, the outbreak of war in 1914 sparked deep concern for the almostsixty-year-old Erman, who, in a sort of internal exile, decided to intensify work on hismasterpiece, the dictionary of the Egyptian language, which he had started in 1897.However, Erman also felt a degree of optimism and confidence in a German victoryon the battlefield that had also seized many of his countrymen. He welcomedthe national enthusiasm triggered by the outbreak of the war. In early August 1914Germany had declared war on Russia and France, and then invaded neutral Belgium,but in his opinion Germany was the victim, not the aggressor. Like almost all Germanacademics Erman shared the perception that the Entente was primarily responsible forthe outbreak of war, and like them he looked forward to settling the score with theprincipal opponent: Britain.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review the historic development of the requirements for sub-floor (also known as “basementless space” or “crawl space”) moisture management in the USA, UK and New Zealand (NZ) from 1600s to 1969. Design/methodology/approach The review of 171 documents, including legislation, research papers, books and magazines, identified three time periods where the focus differed: 1849, removal of impure air; 1850–1929, the use of ground cover and thorough ventilation; and 1930–1969, the development of standards. Findings Published moisture management guidance has been found from 1683, but until the 1920s, it was based on the provision of “adequate” ventilation and, in the UK, the use of impermeable ground cover. Specific ventilation area calculations have been available from 1898 in the UK, 1922 in the USA and 1924 in NZ. These are based on the area of ventilation per unit floor area, area of ventilation per unit length of perimeter wall, or a combination of both. However, it was not until 1937 in the USA, 1944 in NZ and after the period covered by this paper in the UK, that numerical values were enforced in codes. Vents requirements started at 1 in. of vent per square foot of floor area (0.7 per cent but first published in the USA with a misplaced decimal point as 7 per cent). The average vent area was 0.69 per cent in USA for 19 cases, 0.54 per cent in NZ for 7 cases and 0.13 per cent in UK for 3 cases. The lower UK vent area requirements were probably due to the use of ground covers such as asphalt or concrete in 1854, compared with in 1908 in NZ and in 1947 in USA. The use of roll ground cover (e.g. plastic film) was first promoted in 1949 in USA and 1960 in NZ. Practical implications Common themes found in the evolution of sub-floor moisture management include a lack of documented research until the 1940s, a lack of climate or site-based requirements and different paths to code requirements in the three countries. Unlike many building code requirements, a lack of sub-floor moisture management seldom leads to catastrophic failure and consequent political pressure for immediate change. From the first published use of performance-based “adequate” ventilation to the first numerical or “deemed to satisfy” solutions, it took 240 years. The lessons from this process may provide guidance on improving modern building codes. Originality/value This is the first time such an evaluation has been undertaken for the three countries.

The Afrotropical taxa of the genus Siccia Walker, 1854 are reviewed and seventy-three new species and three new subspecies are described from mainland Africa: S. kasanka sp. n., S. kuehnei sp. n., S. evrys sp. n., S. mikongo sp. n., S. araios sp. n., S. carinata sp. n., S. synthetia sp. n., S. conicarina sp. n., S. kastanota sp. n., S. bwindi sp. n., S. usambara sp. n., S. laszlogyulai sp. n., S. dilova sp. n., S. perigraphoides sp. n., S. nepa sp. n., S. milesi sp. n., S. violetteae sp. n., S. mago sp. n., S. faucaria sp. n., S. duodecimpunctata mikrotera ssp. n., S. acornuta sp. n., S. foya sp. n., S. kpelle sp. n., S. chilambwe sp. n., S. ziela sp. n., S. processa processa sp. n., S. processa chloma ssp. n., S. ankistro sp. n., S. meyi sp. n., S. megista sp. n., S. kibale sp. n., S. mbeli sp. n., S. nzame sp. n., S. akanthodis sp. n., S. kota sp. n., S. bicultula sp. n., S. mulanjia sp. n., S. tanzaniae sp. n., S. kingstoni sp. n., S. setis sp. n., S. spinulosia sp. n., S. durantei sp. n., S. curvalva sp. n., S. alberti sp. n., S. takanoi sp. n., S. micronodula sp. n., S. margopuncta patterna ssp. n., S. myraina sp. n., S. intermedia sp. n., S. trichota sp. n., S. mumbuluma sp. n., S. kirkspriggsi sp. n., S. smithi sp. n., S. lubumbashia sp. n., S. malfakassa sp. n., S. paraxena sp. n., S. changwena sp. n., S. mukuyu sp. n., S. kundalila sp. n., S. lydiae sp. n., S. hackeri sp. n., S. nyasa sp. n., S. tridens sp. n., S. robusta sp. n., S. ndoki sp. n., S. wologizia sp. n., S. morettoi sp. n., S. aristophanousi sp. n., S. brevicornuta sp. n., S. exilisioides sp. n., S. bilobata sp. n., S. mayombe sp. n., S. comma sp. n., S. semliki sp. n., S. chimanimani sp. n., and S. tsitsikamma sp. n. Two Afrotropical species are transferred from Siccia to Stictane Hampson, 1900: Stictane dudai (Ivinskis & Saldaitis, 2008), comb. nov. from Oman, and Stictane decolorata (Toulgoët, 1954), comb. nov. from Madagascar. The Asiatic genus Aemene Walker, 1854 (along with its junior synonyms Panassa Walker, 1865, Autoceras Felder, 1874, Parasiccia Hampson, 1900, and Hyposiccia Hampson, 1900) is synonymised with Siccia and seventy-seven new combinations are established for the Asiatic species: Siccia agitata (Bucsek, 2014), comb. n., Siccia alba (Hampson, 1914), comb. n., Siccia albisparsa (Hampson, 1898), comb. n., Siccia altaica (Lederer, 1855), comb. n., Siccia amnaea (Swinhoe, 1894), comb. n., Siccia annamica (Dubatolov & Bucsek, 2016), comb. n., Siccia bicornuata (Bucsek, 2020), comb. n., Siccia bucseki (Volynkin, 2021), comb. n., Siccia cernyi (Volynkin, 2021), comb. n. , Siccia chinensis (Daniel, 1951), comb. n., Siccia cinerea (Bucsek, 2020), comb. n., Siccia clarimaculata (Holloway, 2001), comb. n., Siccia coniuncta (Černý, 2009), comb. n., Siccia cortexa (Bucsek, 2012), comb. n., Siccia crustata (Bucsek, 2012), comb. n., Siccia dentata (Wileman, 1911), comb. n., Siccia discrepans (Wileman & West, 1928), comb. n., Siccia eudonioides (Volynkin & Černý, 2017), comb. n., Siccia eugoana (Bucsek, 2014), comb. n., Siccia fukudai (Inoue, 1965), comb. n., Siccia fulvocincta (Hampson, 1900), comb. n., Siccia fumeola (Hampson, 1914), comb. n., Siccia fumosa (Černý, 2009), comb. n., Siccia fusconigra (Bucsek, 2014), comb. n., Siccia fuscus (Bucsek, 2012), comb. n., Siccia glaerea (Bucsek, 2012), comb. n., Siccia gracilisa (Bucsek, 2012), comb. n., Siccia guttulosana (Walker, 1863), comb. n., Siccia hortensis (Černý, 2009), comb. n., Siccia lancea (Bucsek, 2020), comb. n., Siccia languidusa (Bucsek, 2012), comb. n., Siccia laszloi (Volynkin, 2021), comb. n., Siccia maculifascia (Moore, 1878), comb. n., Siccia marginipuncta (Talbot, 1926), comb. n., Siccia mesozonata (Hampson, 1898), comb. n., Siccia micromesozona (Holloway, 2001), comb. n., Siccia minuta (Butler, 1881), comb. n., Siccia mokanshanensis (Reich, 1937), comb. n., Siccia monastyrskii (Dubatolov & Bucsek, 1913), comb. n., Siccia nebulosa (Wileman, 1914), comb. n., Siccia nilgirica (Hampson, 1891), comb. n., Siccia nocturna (Hampson, 1900), comb. n., Siccia obscura (Leech, [1889]), comb. n., Siccia parvula (Fang, 1990), comb. n., Siccia pectinata (Fang, 2000), comb. n., Siccia perirrorata (Hampson, 1903), comb. n., Siccia pseudonigra (Holloway, 2001), comb. n., Siccia punctatissima (Poujade, 1886), comb. n., Siccia punctigera (Leech, 1899), comb. n., Siccia punctilinea (Wileman, 1911), comb. n., Siccia quinquefascia (Hampson, 1891), comb. n. & stat. rev., Siccia robiginis (Bucsek, 2012), comb. n., Siccia sagittifera (Moore, 1888), comb. n., Siccia satellitis (Bucsek, 2012), comb. n., Siccia sausai (Bucsek, 2014), comb. n., Siccia sordida (Butler, 1877), comb. n., Siccia spinivalva (Bucsek, 2020), comb. n., Siccia subterrena (Bucsek, 2012), comb. n., Siccia taeniata (Fixsen, 1887), comb. n., Siccia takahashii (Kishida, 2018), comb. n., Siccia taprobanis Walker, 1854, comb. n., Siccia sinuata (Moore, 1878), comb. n., Siccia tenebrosa (Moore, 1878), comb. n., Siccia terrena (Bucsek, 2012), comb. n., Siccia tripuncta (Wileman, 1910), comb. n., Siccia tripunctata (Bucsek, 2012), comb. n., and Siccia zolotuhini (Dubatolov & Bucsek, 2016), comb. n.; and ten original combinations are restored: Siccia hengshanensis Fang, 2000, comb. rev., Siccia kimurai Kishida, 2010, comb. rev., Siccia minima Hampson, 1900, comb. rev., Siccia punctata Fang, 2000, comb. rev., Siccia nigra van Eecke, 1927, comb. rev., Siccia seriata Hampson, 1900, comb. rev., Siccia stellatus Fang, 2000, comb. rev., Siccia taiwana Wileman, 1911, comb. rev., Siccia likiangensis Daniel, 1951, comb. rev., and Siccia taprobanoides van Eecke, 1927, comb. rev. One Asiatic taxon is restored from the synonymy to species level: Siccia quinquefascia (Hampson, 1891), comb. n. & stat. rev. Siccia shikatai Kishida, 2010 described from Japan is synonymised with Siccia taeniata (Fixsen, 1887), comb. n. Seven taxa are synonymised with Siccia sordida (Butler, 1877): Aemene nigropunctana Saalmüller, 1880, syn. n.; Siccia conformis Hampson, 1914, syn. n.; Siccia punctipennis ab. teitaensis Strand, 1922, syn. n.; Siccia humilis Rothschild, 1924, syn. n.; Siccia arabica Wiltshire, 1983, syn. n.; Afrasura terlineata Durante, 2009, syn. n.; and Siccia bifurcata Hacker, 2016, syn. n. Two synonymies are revised: Siccia caffra Walker, 1854 = Lithosia nigropunctata Wallengren, 1860, syn. rev. and = Melania punctigera Felder, 1874, syn. rev. Lectotypes for Aemene sordida Butler, 1877, Aemene subcinerea Moore, 1878, Aemene modesta Moore, 1878, Aemene nigropunctana Saalmüller, 1880, Siccia sordida form. albescens Draudt, 1914, Aemene quinquefascia Hampson, 1891, Melania punctigera Felder, 1874, Siccia atriguttata Hampson, 1909, Siccia gypsia Hampson, 1914, and Siccia melanospila Hampson, 1911 are designated. A check-list of the Asiatic taxa of the genus is provided. Adults and male and female genitalia of the Afrotropical taxa of the genus are illustrated.

A list of available taxonomic names in Curculionidae: Scolytinae and Platypodinae in familyand genus-groups is given, together with some remarks on unavailable nominal taxa. Comments are provided on their status and nomenclature, and additions and corrections to extant catalogues given, as a first step for their inclusion in the electronic catalogue ‘WTaxa’. Available names, not recognised as such in current published catalogues, are: Mecopelminae Thompson, 1992; Trypodendrina Nunberg, 1954; Archaeoscolytus Butovitsch, 1929; Camptocerus Dejean, 1821; Coccotrypes Eichhoff, 1878 (April); Coptogaster Illiger, 1804; Cosmoderes Eichhoff, 1878 (April); Cryptoxyleborus Wood & Bright, 1992; Cylindra Illiger, 1802; Dendrochilus Schedl, 1963; Dendrocranulus Schedl, 1938; Doliopygus Browne, 1962; Doliopygus Schedl, 1972; Erioschidias Wood, 1960; Ernopocerus Wood, 1954; Idophelus Rye, 1877; Lepicerus Eichhoff, 1878 (April); Lepidocerus Rye, 1880; Miocryphalus Schedl, 1963; Ozopemon Hagedorn, 1910; Phloeoditica Schedl, 1963; Pinetoscolytus Butovitsch, 1929; Pycnarthrum Eichhoff, 1878 (April); Pygmaeoscolytus Butovitsch, 1929; Scolytogenes Eichhoff, 1878 (April); Spinuloscolytus Butovitsch, 1929; Stephanopodius Schedl, 1963; Stylotentus Schedl, 1963; Thamnophthorus Blackman, 1942; Trachyostus Browne, 1962; Treptoplatypus Schedl, 1972; Triarmocerus Eichhoff, 1878 (April); Trypodendrum Agassiz, 1846; Tubuloscolytus Butovitsch, 1929; Xelyborus Schedl, 1939. Unavailable names, not recognised as such in the current published catalogues, are: Chaetophloeini Schedl, 1966; Eidophelinae Murayama, 1954; Mecopelmini Wood, 1966; Strombophorini Schedl, 1960; Tomicidae Shuckard, 1840; Trypodendrinae Trédl, 1907; Acryphalus Tsai & Li, 1963; Adryocoetes Schedl, 1952; Asetus Nunberg, 1958; Carphoborites Schedl, 1947; Charphoborites Schedl, 1947; Cryptoxyleborus Schedl, 1937; Cylindrotomicus Eggers, 1936; Damicerus Dejean, 1835; Damicerus Dejean, 1836; Dendrochilus Schedl, 1957; Dendrocranulus Schedl, 1937; Doliopygus Schedl, 1939; Erioschidias Schedl, 1938; Ernopocerus Balachowsky, 1949; Gnathotrichoides Blackman, 1931; Ipites Karpiński, 1962; Isophthorus Schedl, 1938; Jugocryphalus Tsai & Li, 1963; Landolphianus Schedl, 1950; Mesopygus Nunberg, 1966; Micraciops Schedl, 1953; Miocryphalus Schedl, 1939; Mixopygus Nunberg, 1966; Neohyorrhynchus Schedl, 1962; Neophloeotribus Eggers, 1943; Neopityophthorus Schedl, 1938; Neoxyleborus Wood, 1982; Phloeoditica Schedl, 1962; Platypinus Schedl, 1939; Platyscapulus Schedl, 1957; Platyscapus Schedl, 1939; Pygodolius Nunberg, 1966; Scutopygus Nunberg, 1966; Stephanopodius Schedl, 1941; Stylotentus Schedl, 1939; Taphrostenoxis Schedl, 1965; Tesseroplatypus Schedl, 1935; Thamnophthorus Schedl, 1938; Thylurcos Schedl, 1939; Trachyostus Schedl, 1939; Treptoplatus Schedl, 1939. The name Tesseroceri Blandford, 1896, incorrectly given as “Tesserocerini genuini” in current catalogues, is unavailable as basionym for the family-group name, since it was proposed as a genusgroup name. Resurrected names from synonymy are: Hexacolini Eichhoff, 1878 from synonymy under Ctenophorini Chapuis, 1869 (invalid name because its type genus is a homonym) and given precedence over Problechilidae Eichhoff, 1878 under Art. 24.2; Hylurgini Gistel, 1848 from virtual synonymy under Tomicini C.G. Thomson, 1859 (unavailable name); Afromicracis Schedl, 1959 from synonymy under Miocryphalus Schedl, 1939 (an unavailable name) to valid genus; Costaroplatus Nunberg, 1963 from synonymy under Platyscapulus Schedl, 1957 (an unavailable name) to valid genus; Cumatotomicus Ferrari, 1867 from synonymy under Ips DeGeer, 1775 to valid subgenus of the same; Hapalogenius Hagedorn, 1912 from synonymy under Rhopalopselion Hagedorn, 1909 to valid genus; Pseudips Cognato, 2000, from synonymy under Orthotomicus Ferrari, 1867 to valid genus. New synonyms are: Hexacolini Eichhoff, 1878 (= Erineophilides Hopkins, 1920, syn. nov.); Hypoborini Nuesslin, 1911 (= Chaetophloeini Schedl, 1966, unavailable name, syn. nov.); Scolytini Latreille, 1804 (= Minulini Reitter, 1913, syn. nov.); Afromicracis Schedl, 1959 (= Miocryphalus Schedl, 1963, syn. nov.); Aphanarthrum Wollaston, 1854 (= Coleobothrus Enderlein, 1929, syn. nov.); Coccotrypes Eichhoff, 1878 (April) (= Coccotrypes Eichhoff, 1878 (December), syn. nov.); Cosmoderes Eichhoff, 1878 (April) (= Cosmoderes Eichhoff, 1878 (December), syn. nov.); Cumatotomicus Ferrari, 1867 (=Emarips Cognato, 2001, syn. nov.); Doliopygus Browne, 1962 (=Doliopygus Schedl, 1972, syn. nov.); Eidophelus Eichhoff, 1875 (= Idophelus Rye, 1877, syn. nov.); Hapalogenius Hagedorn, 1912 (= Hylesinopsis Eggers, 1920, syn. nov.); Phloeoborus Erichson, 1836 (= Phloeotrypes Agassiz, 1846, syn. nov.); Pycnarthrum Eichhoff, 1878 (April) (= Pycnarthrum Eichhoff, 1878 (December), syn. nov.); Scolytogenes Eichhoff, 1878 (April) (= Scolytogenes Eichhoff, 1878 (December) = Lepicerus Eichhoff, 1878 (December) = Lepidocerus Rye, 1880, synn. nov.); Trypodendron Stephens, 1830 (=Xylotrophus Gistel, 1848 = Trypodendrum Gistel, 1856, synn. nov.); Xylechinus Chapuis, 1869 (= Chilodendron Schedl, 1953, syn. nov.); Cosmoderes monilicollis Eichhoff, 1878 (April) (= Cosmoderes monilicollis Eichhoff, 1878 (December), syn. nov.); Hylastes pumilus Mannerheim, 1843 (= Dolurgus pumilus Eichhoff, 1868, syn. nov.); Hypoborus hispidus Ferrari, 1867 (= Pycnarthrum gracile Eichhoff, 1878 (April) syn. nov.); Miocryphalus agnatus Schedl, 1939 (= Miocryphalus agnatus Schedl, 1942, syn. nov.); Miocryphalus congonus Schedl, 1939 (= Miocryphalus congonus Eggers, 1940, syn. nov.); Lepicerus aspericollis Eichhoff, 1878 (April) = Lepicerus aspericollis Eichhoff, 1878 (December), syn. nov.); Spathicranuloides moikui Schedl, 1972 (June) (= Spathicranuloides moikui Schedl, 1972 (December), syn. nov.); Triarmocerus cryphalo-ides Eichhoff, 1878 (April) (= Triarmocerus cryphaloides Eichhoff, 1878 (December), syn. nov.); Scolytogenes darvini Eichhoff, 1878 (April) (= Scolytogenes darwinii Eichhoff, 1878 (December), syn. nov.). New type species designations are: Bostrichus dactyliperda Fabricius, 1801 for Coccotrypes Eichhoff, 1878 (April); Triarmocerus cryphaloides Eichhoff, 1878 (April) for Triarmocerus Eichhoff, 1878 (April); Ozopemon regius Hagedorn, 1908 for Ozopemon Hagedorn, 1910 (non 1908); Dermestes typographus Linnaeus, 1758 for Bostrichus Fabricius, 1775 (non Geoffroy, 1762). New combinations are: Afromicracis agnata (Schedl, 1939), A. attenuata (Eggers, 1935), A. ciliatipennis (Schedl, 1979), A. congona (Schedl, 1939), A. dubia (Schedl, 1950), A. elongata (Schedl, 1965), A. grobleri (Schedl, 1961), A. klainedoxae (Schedl, 1957), A. longa (Nunberg, 1964), A. natalensis (Eggers, 1936), A. nigrina (Schedl, 1957), A. nitida (Schedl, 1965), A. pennata (Schedl, 1953) and A. punctipennis (Schedl, 1965) all from Miocryphalus; Costaroplatus abditulus (Wood, 1966), C. abditus (Schedl, 1936), C. carinulatus (Chapuis, 1865), C. clunalis (Wood, 1966), C. cluniculus (Wood, 1966), C. clunis (Wood, 1966), C. costellatus (Schedl, 1933), C. frontalis (Blandford, 1896), C. imitatrix (Schedl, 1972), C. manus (Schedl, 1936), C. occipitis (Wood, 1966), C. pulchellus (Chapuis, 1865), C. pulcher (Chapuis, 1865), C. pusillimus (Chapuis, 1865), C. subabditus (Schedl, 1935), C. turgifrons (Schedl, 1935) and C. umbrosus (Schedl, 1936) all from Platyscapulus; Hapalogenius africanus (Eggers, 1933), H. alluaudi (Lepesme, 1942), H. angolanus (Wood, 1988), H. angolensis (Schedl, 1959), H. arabiae (Schedl, 1975), H. atakorae (Schedl, 1951), H. ater (Nunberg, 1967), H. baphiae (Schedl, 1954), H. brincki (Schedl, 1957), H. confusus (Eggers, 1935), H. decellei (Nunberg, 1969), H. dimorphus (Schedl, 1937), H. dubius (Eggers, 1920), H. emarginatus (Nunberg, 1973), H. endroedyi (Schedl, 1967), H. fasciatus (Hagedorn, 1909), H. ficus (Schedl, 1954), H. fuscipennis (Chapuis, 1869), H. granulatus (Lepesme, 1942), H. hirsutus (Schedl, 1957), H. hispidus (Eggers, 1924), H. horridus (Eggers, 1924), H. joveri (Schedl, 1950), H. kenyae (Wood, 1986), H. oblongus (Eggers, 1935), H. orientalis (Eggers, 1943), H. pauliani (Lepesme, 1942), H. punctatus (Eggers, 1932), H. quadrituberculatus (Schedl, 1957), H. rhodesianus (Eggers, 1933), H. saudiarabiae (Schedl, 1971), H. seriatus (Eggers, 1940), H. squamosus (Eggers, 1936), H. striatus (Schedl, 1957), H. sulcatus Eggers, 1944), H. togonus (Eggers, 1919), H. ugandae (Wood, 1986) and H. variegatus (Eggers, 1936), all from Hylesinopsis. New ranks are: Diapodina Strohmeyer, 1914, downgraded from tribe of Tesserocerinae to subtribe of Tesserocerini; Tesserocerina Strohmeyer, 1914, downgraded from tribe of Tesserocerinae to subtribe of Tesserocerini. New placements are: Coptonotini Chapuis, 1869 from tribe of Coptonotinae to tribe of Scolytinae; Mecopelmini Thompson, 1992, from tribe of Coptonotinae to tribe of Platypodinae; Schedlariini Wood & Bright, 1992, from tribe of Coptonotinae to tribe of Platypodinae; Spathicranuloides Schedl, 1972, from Platypodinae s.l. to Tesserocerina; Toxophthorus Wood, 1962 from Scolytinae incertae sedis to Dryocoetini. Confirmed placements are: Onychiini Chapuis, 1869 to tribe of Cossoninae (including single genus Onychius Chapuis, 1869); Sciatrophus Sampson, 1914 in Cossoninae incertae sedis; Cryphalites Cockerell, 1917 in Zopheridae Colydiinae. Corrected spellings are: Micracidini LeConte, 1876 for Micracini; Phrixosomatini Wood, 1978 for Phrixosomini. Gender agreements are corrected for species of several genera.

Canon and oblivion. The memorials of archaeologyThe article takes its point of departure in the sun chariot; the find itself and its find site at Trundholm bog where it was discovered in 1902. The famous sun chariot, now at the National Museum in Copenhagen, is a national treasure included in the Danish “Cultural Canon” and “History Canon”.The find site itself has alternated bet­ween experiencing intense attention and oblivion. A monument was erected in 1925; a new monument was then created in 1962 and later moved in 2002. The event of 1962 was followed by ceremonies, speeches and songs, and anniversary celebrations were held in 2002, during which a copy of the sun chariot was sacrificed.The memorial at Trundholm bog is only one of several memorials at archaeological find sites in Denmark. Which finds have been commemorated and marked by memorials? When did this happen? Who took the initiative? How were they executed? Why are these finds remembered? What picture of the past do we meet in this canon in stone?Find sites and archaeological memorials have been neglected in archaeology and by recent trends in the study of the history of archaeology. Considering the impressive research on monuments and monumentality in archaeology, this is astonishing. However, memorials in general receive attention in an active research field on the use of history and heritage studies, where historians and ethnologists dominate. The main focus here is, however, on war memorials. An important source of inspiration has been provided by a project led by the French historian Pierre Nora who claims that memorial sites are established when the living memory is threatened (a thesis refuted by the many Danish “Reunion” monuments erected even before the day of reunification in 1920).Translated into Danish conditions, studies of the culture of remembrance and memorials have focused on the wars of 1848-50 and 1864, the Reunion in 1920, the Occupation in 1940-45 and, more generally, on conflicts in the borderland bet­ween Denmark and Germany.In relation to the total number of memorials and public meeting places in Denmark, archaeological memorials of archaeology are few in number, around 1 % of the total. However, they prompt crucial questions concerning the use of the past, on canon and oblivion.“Canon” means rule, and canonical texts are the supposed genuine texts in the Bible. The concept of canon became a topic in the 1990s when Harold Bloom, in “The Western Canon”, identified a number of books as being canonical. In Denmark, canon has been a great issue in recent years with the appearance of the “Danish Literary Canon” in 2004, and the “Cultural Canon” and the “History Canon”, both in 2006. The latter includes the Ertebølle culture, the sun chariot and the Jelling stone. The political context for the creation of canon lists is the so-called “cultural conflict” and the debate concerning immigration and “foreigners”.Canon and canonization means a struggle against relativism and oblivion. Canon means that something ought to be remembered while something else is allowed to be forgotten. Canon lists are constructed when works and values are perceived as being threatened by oblivion. Without ephemerality and oblivion there is no need for canon lists. Canon and oblivion are linked.Memorials mean canonization of certain individuals, collectives, events and places, while others are allowed to be forgotten. Consequently, archaeological memorials constitute part of the canonization of a few finds and find sites. According to Pierre Nora’s thesis, memorials are established when the places are in danger of being forgotten.Whether one likes canon lists or not, they are a fact. There has always been a process of prioritisation, leading to some finds being preserved and others discarded, some being exhibited and others ending up in the stores.Canonization is expressed in the classical “Seven Wonders of the World”, the “Seven New Wonders of the World” and the World Heritage list. A find may be declared as treasure trove, as being of “unique national significance” or be honoured by the publication of a monograph or by being given its own museum.In practice, the same few finds occur in different contexts. There seems to be a consensus within the subject of canonization of valuing what is well preserved, unique, made of precious metals, bears images and is monumental. A top-ten canon list of prehistoric finds from Denmark according to this consensus would probably include the following finds: The sun chariot from Trundholm, the girl from Egtved, the Dejbjerg carts, the Gundestrup cauldron, Tollund man, the golden horns from Gallehus, the Mammen or Bjerringhøj grave, the Ladby ship and the Skuldelev ships.Just as the past may be used in many different ways, there are many forms of memorial related to monuments from the past or to archaeological excavations. Memorials were constructed in the 18th and 19th centuries at locations where members of the royal family had conducted archaeology. As with most other memorials from that time, the prince is at the centre, while antiquity and archaeology create a brilliant background, for example at Jægerpris (fig. 2). Memorials celebrating King Frederik VII were created at the Dæmpegård dolmen and at the ruin of Asserbo castle. A memorial celebrating Count Frederik Sehested was erected at Møllegårdsmarken (fig. 3). Later there were also memorials celebrating the architect C.M. Smith at the ruin of Kalø Castle and Svend Dyhre Rasmussen and Axel Steensberg, respectively the finder and the excavator of the medieval village at Borup Ris.Several memorials were erected in the decades around 1900 to commemorate important events or persons in Danish history, for example by Thor Lange. The memorials were often located at sites and monuments that had recently been excavated, for example at Fjenneslev (fig. 4).A large number of memorials commemorate abandoned churches, monasteries, castles or barrows that have now disappeared, for example at the monument (fig. 5) near Bjerringhøj.Memorials were erected in the first half of the 20th century near large prehistoric monuments which also functioned as public meeting places, for example at Glavendrup, Gudbjerglund and Hohøj. Prehistoric monuments, especially dolmens, were also used as models when new memorials were created during the 19th and 20th centuries.Finally, sculptures were produced at the end of the 19th century sculptures where the motif was a famous archaeological find – the golden horns, the girl from Egtved, the sun chariot and the woman from Skrydstrup.In the following, this article will focus on a category of memorials raised to commemorate an archaeological find. In Denmark, 24 archaeological find sites have been marked by a total of 26 monuments (fig. 6). This survey is based on excursions, scanning the literature, googling on the web and contact with colleagues. The monuments are presented chronological, i.e. by date of erection. 1-2) The golden horns from Gallehus: Found in 1639 and 1734; two monu­ments in 1907. 3) The Snoldelev runic stone: Found in c. 1780; monument in 1915. 4) The sun chariot from Trundholm bog: Found in 1902; monument in 1925; renewed in 1962 and moved in 2002. 5) The grave mound from Egtved: Found in 1921; monument in 1930. 6) The Dejbjerg carts. Found in 1881-83; monument in 1933. 7) The Gundestrup cauldron: Found in 1891; wooden stake in 1934; replaced with a monument in 1935. 8) The Bregnebjerg burial ground: Found in 1932; miniature dolmen in 1934. 9) The Brangstrup gold hoard. Found in 1865; monument in 1935.10-11) Maglemose settlements in Mulle­rup bog: Found in 1900-02; two monuments in 1935 and 1936. 12) The Skarpsalling vessel from Oudrup Heath: Found in 1891; monument in 1936. 13) The Juellinge burial ground: Found in 1909; monument in 1937. 14) The Ladby ship: Found in 1935; monument probably in 1937. 15) The Hoby grave: Found in 1920; monument in 1939. 16) The Maltbæk lurs: Found in 1861 and 1863; monument in 1942. 17) Ginnerup settlement: First excavation in 1922; monument in 1945. 18) The golden boats from Nors: Found in 1885; monument in 1945. 19) The Sædinge runic stone: Found in 1854; monument in 1945. 20) The Nydam boat: Found in 1863; monument in 1947. 21) The aurochs from Vig: Found in 1904; monument in 1957. 22) Tollund Man: Found in 1950; wooden stake in 1968; renewed inscription in 2000. 23) The Veksø helmets: Found in 1942; monument in 1992. 24) The Bjæverskov coin hoard. Found in 1999; monument in 1999. 25) The Frydenhøj sword from Hvidovre: Found in 1929; monument in 2001; renewed in 2005. 26) The Bellinge key: Found in 1880; monument in 2003.Two monuments (fig. 7) raised in 1997 at Gallehus, where the golden horns were found, marked a new trend. From then onwards the find itself and its popular finders came into focus. At the same time the classical or old Norse style of the memorials was replaced by simple menhirs or boulders with an inscription and sometimes also an image of the find. One memorial was constructed as a miniature dolmen and a few took the form of a wooden stake.The finds marked by memorials represent a broader spectrum than the top-ten list. They represent all periods from the Stone Age to the Middle Ages over most of Denmark. Memorials were created throughout the 20th century; in greatest numbers in the 1930s and 1940s, but with none between 1968 and 1992.The inscriptions mention what was found and, in most cases, also when it happened. Sometimes the finder is named and, in a few instances, also the person on whose initiative the memorial was erected. The latter was usually a representative part of the political agency of the time. In the 18th and 19th centuries it was the royal family and the aristocracy. In the 20th century it was workers, teachers, doctors, priests, farmers and, in many cases, local historical societies who were responsible, as seen on the islands of Lolland and Falster, where ten memorials were erected between 1936 and 1951 to commemorate historical events, individuals, monuments or finds.The memorial from 2001 at the find site of the Frydenhøj sword in Hvidovre represents an innovation in the tradition of marking history in the landscape. The memorial is a monumental hybrid between signposting and public art (fig. 8). It formed part of a communication project called “History in the Street”, which involved telling the history of a Copenhagen suburb right there where it actually happened.The memorials marking archaeological finds relate to the nation and to nationalism in several ways. The monuments at Gallehus should, therefore, be seen in the context of a struggle concerning both the historical allegiance and future destiny of Schleswig or Southern Jutland. More generally, the national perspective occurs in inscriptions using concepts such as “the people”, “Denmark” and “the Danes”, even if these were irrelevant in prehistory, e.g. when the monument from 1930 at Egtved mentions “A young Danish girl” (fig. 9). This use of the past to legitimise the nation, belongs to the epoch of World War I, World War II and the 1930s. The influence of nationalism was often reflected in the ceremonies when the memorials were unveiled, with speeches, flags and songs.According to Marie Louise Stig Sørensen and Inge Adriansen, prehistoric objects that are applicable as national symbols, should satisfy three criteria. The should: 1) be unusual and remarkable by their technical and artistic quality; 2) have been produced locally, i.e. be Danish; 3) have been used in religious ceremonies or processions. The 26 archaeological finds marked with memorials only partly fit these criteria. The finds also include more ordinary finds: a burial ground, settlements, runic stones, a coin hoard, a sword and a key. Several of the finds were produced abroad: the Gundestrup cauldron, the Brangstrup jewellery and coins and the Hoby silver cups.It is tempting to interpret the Danish cultural canon as a new expression of a national use of the past in the present. Nostalgia, the use of the past and the creation of memorials are often explained as an expression of crisis in society. This seems reasonable for the many memorials from 1915-45 with inscriptions mentioning hope, consolation and darkness. However, why are there no memorials from the economic crisis years of the 1970s and 1980s? It seems as if the past is recalled, when the nation is under threat – in the 1930s and 40s from expansive Germany – and since the 1990s by increased immigration and globalisation.The memorials have in common local loss and local initiative. A treasure was found and a treasure was lost, often to the National Museum in Copenhagen. A treasure was won that contributed to the great narrative of the history of Denmark, but that treasure has also left its original context. The memorials commemorate the finds that have contributed to the narrative of the greatness, age and area of Denmark. The memorials connect the nation and the native place, the capital and the village in a community, where the past is a central concept. The find may also become a symbol of a region or community, for example the sun chariot for Trundholm community and the Gundestrup cauldron for Himmerland.It is almost always people who live near the find site who want to remember what has been found and where. The finds were commemorated by a memorial on average 60 years after their discovery. A longer period elapsed for the golden horns from Gallehus; shortest was at Bjæverskov where the coin hoard was found in March 1999 and a monument was erected in November of the same year.Memorials might seem an old-fashioned way of marking localities in a national topography, but new memorials are created in the same period as many new museums are established.A unique find has no prominent role in archaeological education, research or other work. However, in public opinion treasures and exotic finds are central. Folklore tells of people searching for treasures but always failing. Treasure hunting is restricted by taboos. In the world of archaeological finds there are no taboos. The treasure is found by accident and in spite of various hindrances the find is taken to a museum. The finder is often a worthy person – a child, a labourer or peasant. He or she is an innocent and ordinary person. A national symbol requires a worthy finder. And the find occurs as a miracle. At the find site a romantic relationship is established between the ancestors and their heirs who, by way of a miracle, find fragments of the glorious past of the nation. A paradigmatic example is the finding of the golden horns from Gallehus. Other examples extend from the discovery of the sun chariot in Trundholm bog to the Stone Age settlement at Mullerup bog.The article ends with a catalogue presenting the 24 archaeological find sites that have been marked with monuments in present-day Denmark.Jes WienbergHistorisk arkeologiInstitutionen för Arkeologi och ­Antikens historiaLunds Universitet

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

1. O direito de propriedade – ou seja, o reconhecimento que a organização da Sociedade (Estado) dispensa aos poderes de alguém sobre coisas – encarta-se, ao nosso ver, no Direito Público e não no Direito Privado.1 É evidente que tal Direito comporta relações tanto de Direito Público quanto de Direito Privado. Entretanto, o direito de propriedade, como aliás sempre sustentou o prof. Oswaldo Aranha Bandeira de Mello é, essencialmente, um direito configurado no Direito Público e – desde logo – no Direito Constitucional Com efeito, basta ver que dependendo do tratamento que for dispensado ao direito de propriedade um Estado será socialista ou capitalista, com todas as implicações jurídicas daí decorrentes. Trata-se, portanto, de um direito nodular à caracterização político-social do Estado e, por isso, de todo o quadro jurídico da sociedade; logo um Direito Público, por excelência. De resto, ao falar-se em função social da propriedade está, ipso facto, fazendo referência à caracterização que o Direito Público lhe irroga. É o Direito Constitucional quem outorga esta fisionomia à propriedade. 2. Ninguém ignora que, de há muito, a propriedade e, pois, os poderes que se lhe consideram correlatos vêm sofrendo progressivo assujeitamento às conveniências sociais. Com isto, por óbvio, os proprietários passam a sofrer constrições cada vez maiores no uso, gozo e disposição dos bens que lhes pertencem. Não se trata, propriamente, de restrições ou limitações ao “direito de propriedade”, mas de restrições ou limitações à propriedade. Deveres – bem disse Renato Alessi – não são de confundir propriedade (ou liberdade) com direito de propriedade (ou direito de liberdade). O direito de propriedade é a expressão juridicamente reconhecida à propriedade. É o perfil jurídico da propriedade. É a propriedade, tal como configurada em dada ordenação normativa. É, em suma, a dimensão ou o âmbito de expressão legítima da propriedade: aquilo que o direito considera como tal. Donde, as limitações ou sujeições de podres do proprietário impostas por um sistema normativo não se constituem em limitações de direitos pois não comprimem nem deprimem o direito de propriedade, mas, pelo contrário, consistem na própria definição desde direito, compõem seu delineamento e, desde modo, lhe desenham os contornos. Na Constituição – e nas leis que lhe estejam conformadas – reside o traçado da compostura daquilo que chamamos de direito de propriedade em tal ou qual país, na época tal ou qual. 3. Pois bem, se é fato que desde períodos recuados têm havido expressivas manifestações de que a propriedade deve ajustar-se a conveniências sociais – e valem como exemplo as velhas disposições urbanísticas para as colônias hispano-americanas ou o instituto do comisso nas concessões de sesmarias e cartas de data, no Brasil-Colônia – ninguém contestará que se está a falar de fenômeno bem mais recente, animado de características perfeitamente específicas, quando nos dias atuas se faz alusão à função social da propriedade. Sem embargo, esta temática já está vivamente posta em causa, pelo menos, desde o começo do século. É memorável a série de conferências proferidas, por Léon Duguit, em 1911, na cidade de Buenos Aires e que foram convertidas em livro, publicado na França em 1912, nas quais este alumiado jurista expunha a concepção de que o proprietário, ao invés de titular de um direito subjetivo, era apenas o detentor da riqueza, de certo modo na condição de gestor de um bem socialmente útil, pois a propriedade devia ser concebida, em si mesma, como uma função social – não como um direito ajustável a uma função social. A Constituição de Weimar, de 1919, dispunham, em seu art. 153, que a propriedade acarreta obrigações para seu titular e que o direito de propriedade acarreta obrigações para seu titular e que o direito de propriedade deve ser exercido no interesse social. 4. Vejamos qual a evolução deste tema nos dispositivos dos vários Textos Constitucionais brasileiros. As Constituições de 1824 e 1891, respectivamente em seus arts. 179, 22 e 72, § 17, simplesmente declaravam garantido o direito de propriedade em toda sua plenitude. É com a Constituição de 1934 que, pela primeira vez, em Lei Magna brasileira, se fez expressa referência as relações entre propriedade e função social. No art. 113, 17, estatui-se ser garantido o direito de propriedade que não poderá ser exercido contra o interesse social ou coletivo. Nota-se que, embora não afiliando a propriedade ao cumprimento de um interesse social, opõe-se a ela uma barreira: a vedação de que o correspondente direito seja utilizado em desacordo com o interesse social ou coletivo. A Carta de 1937 é silente quanto a este tópico, o qual irá ressurgir com a Constituição de 1946. Sobre estatuir que a garantia do direito de propriedade não o resguarda contra a desapropriação por interesse social – além dos casos de necessidade ou utilidade pública – consoante rezava seu art. 141, § 16, explicitamente dispôs, no art. 147, que “o uso da propriedade será condicionado ao bem estar social. A lei poderá com observância do disposto no art. 146, § 16, promover a justa distribuição da propriedade, com igual oportunidade para todos”. Sem dúvida alguma, este preceptivo é um marco jurídico. Com efeito, não apenas se prevê a desapropriação por interesse social, mas se aponta, no aludido art. 147, para um rumo social da propriedade, ao ser prefigurada legislação que lhe assegure justa distribuição, buscando mais que a tradicional igualdade perante a lei, igualdade perante a oportunidade de acesso à propriedade. 5. Nas Cartas de 1967 e 1969, conquanto inexistia este tipo de alusão, ao nosso ver muito prezável, há, contudo, outro avanço na linguagem normativa. De fora parte a reiteração da expropriabilidade de bens por interesse social – tal como referido na Constituição de 1946 – sobre vir suposta uma modalidade de desapropriação específica para imóveis rurais, em certas condições, com pagamento em títulos da dívida pública, resgatáveis em parcelas anuais e sucessivas ao longo de 20 anos (art. 157, §§ da Carta de 1967 e 161 e §§ da Carta de 1969), ambas proclamam explicitamente a “função social da propriedade”. Fazem-no em termos que podem ser considerados enfáticos, pois a Carta de 1967, no art. 157 e a de 1969, no art. 160, declaram ser finalidade da ordem social realizar entre outros princípios arrolados, o da “função social propriedade” (item III dos citados versículos). Já agora, portanto, não se trata apenas de coibir o uso antissocial da propriedade, mas o de fazer com que cumpra tal função, já que esta passa a ser um bem jurídico conaturalmente definido, a nível constitucional, como teleologicamente orientado para este destino. 6. Surge aqui o primeiro dentre os quatro tópicos que, nesta exposição, nos propomos a aflorar com base no direito posto, a saber: 1) a propriedade é uma função social ou é direito que deve cumprir uma função social? 2) em nosso sistema podem ser distinguidos como direitos autônomos, o direito de propriedade e o direito de usar dela? 3) dever-se-á entender por função social apenas o destino economicamente útil do bem ou com tal locução quer-se significar, demais disso, a possibilidade de operar um projeto de “justiça social”, substanciável – à moda do que referia a Constituição de 1946 – com propósito de favorecer a ampliação do acesso de todos à propriedade, gerando iguais oportunidades aos indivíduos ou concorrendo para ensejá-las? 4) cabem apenas limitações à propriedade, isto é, vedações ao uso insatisfatório dela à luz da função social, ou podem ser impostas injunções positivas para exigir que se engaje nesta linha de interesse? 7. Consideremos o primeiro tópico. Estamos em crer que, ao lume do direito positivo constitucional, a propriedade ainda está claramente configurada como um direito que deve cumprir uma função social e não como sendo pura e simplesmente uma função social, isto é, bem protegido tão só na medida em que a realiza. Deveras, a entender-se que o protegido é a propriedade função-social, ter-se-ia, consequentemente, que concluir ausente a proteção jurídica a ou às propriedades que não estivessem cumprindo função social. Estas, pois, deveriam ser suscetíveis de serem perdidas, sem qualquer indenização, toda e cada vez que fosse demonstrável seu desajuste à função social que deveriam preencher. Ora, o art. 161 da Carta do País, prevê desapropriação, mediante indenização, embora através dos aludidos títulos da dívida pública, para os imóveis rurais incursos nesta modalidade expropriatória. Pois bem, quais são eles? São – na dicção deste preceito – os que “contrariem o acima disposto”, isto é, o disposto no art. 160, o qual, justamente, conforme se disse, consagra a “função social da propriedade” (entre outros interesses a que a ordem econômico-social deve servir). Ergo, existe proteção também para a propriedade que contrarie a função social, conquanto tal proteção seja menos completa, pois, neste caso, a indenização devida não se apura segundo o “justo” perquirível ao lume do valor efetivo do imóvel, mas segundo os critérios que a lei estabelecer e far-se-á “em títulos especiais da dívida pública, resgatáveis no prazo de vinte anos, em parcelas anuais e sucessivas...”, tudo como dispõe o referido art. 161. 8. Diga-se de passagem que o Supremo Tribunal Federal, adversando às escâncaras a letra e o espírito do regramento constitucional, vem entendendo que, mesmo nestes casos, há de buscar-se um justo valor indenizatório aferível pelo valor de mercado. Nisto, o STF rejeitou a linguagem clara do art. 161 que remeteu o justo ao critério legal (“justa indenização segundo os critérios que a lei estabelecer”) sendo que existe lei regulando a forma de apurá-lo – o Dec.-lei 554, de 25.4.69 – como ignorou olimpicamente a ressalva do art. 153. § 22. É que este preceptivo, após estabelecer a justa indenização como regra para os casos de desapropriação, fez explícita ressalva ao disposto no art. 161. 9. De toda sorte – mesmo prescindindo da arbitrariedade interpretativa praticada pela Suprema Corte – é inegável que o art. 161 impede a intelecção de que a propriedade utilizada em descompasso com a função social carece de proteção jurídica. Donde, não ser acolhível o entendimento de que, em nosso direito, a propriedade é uma função, à falta do que assujeita-se, nos termos das leis existentes ou que se editem, às medidas conformadoras ou a eventual desapropriação. 10. O segundo tópico também não pode, ao nosso ver, ensejar resposta consentânea com as posições mais avançadas na matéria. É dizer: não cabe admitir, em face do direito brasileiro, a possibilidade de se considerar – como o fazer os direitos espanhol e italiano, por exemplo – que o direito de propriedade e o direito de usar da propriedade em sua manifestação edilícia, são direitos distintos, autônomos. Não é possível considerar que o direito de construir é uma “concessão” do Poder Público, por consistir em algo diverso do direito de propriedade. Deveras, ao declarar que é garantido o direito de propriedade, o Texto Constitucional certamente assegurou algo mais que uma palavra oca, que um som vazio, que um sem-sentido. Donde, é forçoso reconhecer que existe um conteúdo mínimo significativo ao qual se reportou a Carta do País. Se não fora assim, inexistiria garantia constitucional da propriedade, mas apenas – e eventualmente – garantia legal, pois as normas deste escalão atribuiriam (ou não) e na medida em que bem quisessem o sentido e a extensão do direito de propriedade. Não há como negar que à Lei assiste amplo espaço para delinear o direito de propriedade, mas, à toda evidência, haverá de existir um conteúdo mínimo que se tem por referido pela Carta Constitucional. O qual não pode ser desconhecido ou deprimido. 11. Qual seria este conteúdo mínimo? Ao pronunciar-se o som “propriedade” todos entendem que está sendo feita alusão à possibilidade de usar, gozar e dispor de uma coisa. Donde, ter-se-á de entender que o Texto Constitucional, ao servir-se deste vocábulo, aludiu a sua significação corrente. Sendo as palavras meios de comunicação e havendo a Lei Maior se valido de uma palavra que possui um sentido usual, uma vez que não a redefiniu, forçosamente haverá se utilizado dela na acepção que se lhe atribuiu correntemente. Logo, o direito de usar do bem e de nele edificar, assim como o direito de dispor, são expressões do direito de propriedade, dele inseparáveis, pois é o plexo destes poderes de uso, gozo e disposição que, em sua unidade, recebe o nome de direito de propriedade. Elididos estes podres, nada mais restaria. Daí a impossibilidade de considerar direitos autônomos, distinguíveis, o direito de propriedade e o direito de construir, de usar, de gozar ou de dispor do bem. 12. De outro lado, com dizer que a “função social da propriedade” é princípio basilar da ordem econômica e social, a Carta do País deixou explícito que a propriedade e que, portanto, todas as suas expressões naturais – o uso, o gozo e a disposição do bem – não só podem, mas devem, ser regulados de maneira tal qual se assujeitem às conveniências sociais e que se alinhem nesta destinação, de tal modo que a propriedade cumpra efetivamente uma função social. E aqui entramos em um tópico fundamental, a ser considerado como terceiro ponto que nos propusemos referir. Afinal, que é função social da propriedade? 13. Perante a imposição constitucional de que a ordem econômica e social realize o princípio da “função social da propriedade”, cabem, em tese, as seguintes distintas intelecções sobre o significado desta “função social” que lhe é exigida. Numa primeira acepção, considerar-se-á que a “função social da propriedade” consiste em que esta deva cumprir um destino economicamente útil, produtivo, de maneira a satisfazer as necessidades sociais preenchíveis pela espécie tipológica (ou pelo menos não poderá ser utilizada de modo a contraditar estes interesses), cumprindo, dessarte, às completas, sua vocação natural, de molde a canalizar as potencialidades residentes no bem em proveito da coletividade (ou, pelo menos, não poderá ser utilizada de modo a adversá-las). Em tal concepção do que seria a função social da propriedade, exalça-se a exigência de que o bem seja posto em aptidão para produzir sua utilidade específica, ou, quando menos, que seu uso não se faça em desacordo com a utilidade social. Nesta primeira acepção – distintamente de outro possível entendimento sobre função social da propriedade, sobre o qual se falará mais além – não se põem em pauta exigências de uma ordem social mais justa em relação aos economicamente hipossuficientes, não se coloca a temática de um maior equilíbrio ou nivelamento dos vários segmentos da sociedade; em uma palavra, não há preocupações com a chamada Justiça Distributiva. Função social da propriedade é tomada como necessidade de que o uso da propriedade responda a uma plena utilização, otimizando-se ou tendendo-se a otimizar os recursos disponíveis em mãos dos proprietários ou, então, impondo-se que as propriedades em geral não possam ser usadas, gozadas e suscetíveis de disposição, em contradita com estes mesmos propósitos de proveito coletivo. 14. É desta linha, por exemplo – para referir instituições vetustas – a previsão, nas concessões de sesmaria e cartas de data ao tempo do Brasil-Colônia, de que as terras não demarcadas e cultivas revertessem à Coroa (comisso), para serem redistribuídas a quem lhes desse destino produtivo, isto é, socialmente útil. Do mesmo modo, a Lei Imperial 601, 1850 e seu Regulamento, 1.318, de 1854 – normas que cumpriram função fundamental em matéria fundiária – prestigiaram ao máximo, nas revalidações de propriedade e legitimações de posse, a efetiva utilização da terra, vale dizer, sua preposição em atividade produtiva. A legislação vigente sobre reforma agrária (Lei 4.504, de 30.11.64) também privilegia este aspecto – da aplicação produtiva da terra – pois exclui das desapropriações embasadas no arr. 161 da Carta do País as “empresas rurais”, isto é, os imóveis economicamente aproveitados de acordo com os padrões regularmente estabelecidos. Assim, ainda aqui o que prepondera é uma concepção de fundo social da propriedade ligada à atribuição de um destino útil a ela. Advirta-se, entretanto, que o art. 161 comporta desapropriações por títulos em hipóteses muito mais amplas, posto que, conforme dantes se disse, tem incidência possível em quaisquer casos nos quais a propriedade territorial rural contrarie as diretrizes do art. 160, o qual, sobre referir a função social da propriedade, encampa ainda os princípios da “valorização do trabalho como condição da dignidade humana” (item II), “harmonia e solidariedade entre as categoriais sociais de produção” (item IV), “repressão do abuso do poder econômico, caracterizado pelo domínio dos mercados, eliminação da concorrência e aumento arbitrário dos lucros” (item V) e “expansão das oportunidades de emprego” (item VI). 15. É certo, contudo, que mesmo a perspectiva restrita sobre o alcance da expressão função social propriedade – vinculando-a tão só ao destino produtivo do bem – já permitiria adotar, caso se desejasse fazê-lo deveras, uma série de providencias aptas a conformá-la ao proveito coletivo. Assim, exempli gratia, a instituição de uma pesada e progressiva tributação sobre imóveis rurais e urbanos ociosos ou insatisfatoriamente utilizados, a proteção legal a posses produtivas sobre prédios rústicos inaproveitados por seus titulares ou sobre terrenos urbanos estocados para valorização e não edificados, seriam providências confortadas pela noção de função social da propriedade, mesmo que disto se tenha uma visão atreladas tão somente à sua aplicação útil. É verdade, consoante observação feita anteriormente, que o sistema legal não pode negar proteção à propriedade alheiada de um destino socialmente útil, pena de transmudar a propriedade em mera função social, ao invés de reconhece-la como um direito que se deve ajustar tal função, mas sem dúvida pode agravar os que se recusam a tal submissão, estimulando-os, pois, a se vergarem ao intento constitucional. 16. À expressão “função social da propriedade” pode-se também atribuir outro conteúdo, vinculando a objetivos de Justiça Social; vale dizer, comprometido com o projeto de uma sociedade mais igualitária ou menos desequilibrada – como é o caso do Brasil – no qual o acesso à propriedade e o uso dela sejam orientados no sentido de proporcionar ampliação de oportunidades a todos os cidadãos independentemente da utilização produtiva que porventura já esteja tendo. Nesta hipótese, seriam cabíveis providencias normativas que tomassem por norte estes objetivos, ensejando, e.g., desapropriações com o fito de promover o acesso à propriedade, rural ou urbana, dos sem-terra ou sem habitação, facultando disposições legais defensivas da melhoria das condições de vida dos hipossuficientes, como a participação dos empregados nos frutos, ou nos lucros de qualquer empreendimento promovido por pessoa jurídica ou física com o concurso de assalariados. 17. Parece fora de dúvida que a expressão “função social da propriedade” comporta não apenas o primeiro sentido, a que dantes se aludiu, mas também esta segunda acepção a que ora estamos reportando. Com efeito, se alguma hesitação pudesse existir tanto a isto, bastaria uma simples inspeção visual no art. 160 da Carta do País – antas vezes referido – para verificar-se que nele está explicitamente afirmado ser finalidade da ordem econômico e social realizar o desenvolvimento nacional e a justiça social. Ora bem, uma vez que estas finalidades hão de ser realizadas com base, entre outros princípios, no da “função social da propriedade” (item III), é óbvio que esta foi concebida tomando em conta objetivos de justiça social. De passagem observa-se que seria equivocado supor que entre “desenvolvimento nacional” e justiça social” haja sido priorizado o primeiro, pelo fato de – na redação do art. 160 – ter sido mencionado antes. Como bem anotou Eros Grau, tal precedência é puramente redacional, não trazendo consigo outra implicação. Aliás, basta examinar os diversos itens do preceptivo em causa para ver que apontam sobretudo para o tópico da justiça social. Assim, o que se deverá depreender dele é que o “desenvolvimento nacional” terá de se realizar de modo obediente à justiça social, ou seja, concorrendo para realiza-la. Não é ela que se atrelará ao desenvolvimento. É o desenvolvimento que se atrelará a este projeto de justiça. 18. O último dentre os quatro tópicos incialmente referidos, põe em causa a questão de saber-se se, em nome da função social da propriedade, cabe tão só a edição de regras proibitivas que obstem o uso antissocial da propriedade ou se, demais disso, há a possibilidade de impor ao dominus, através de lei, comportamentos ativos que se alinhem na direção do proveito social. Do quanto se disse até aqui já é possível inferir que consideramos exequível – revendo nisto anterior posicionamento sobre a matéria – também esta imposição legal de sujeições da propriedade a um compromisso positivo com a função social. Então, parece-nos cabível, por exemplo, a previsão de obrigações de construir, impostas ao proprietários de terrenos ociosos, ou a de coloca-los no mercado em prazo fixo, ou mesmo a de sujeitar-se a empreendimentos de remodelação urbana, à moda do que se estabelece no direito espanhol. 19. Sem embargo, cumpre ressalvar que a imposição de obrigações de fazer tem de ater-se a limites muito cautelosos para não se transmudar em instrumento de perseguições pessoais ou políticas ou ainda em veículo de favorecimento de interesses de grupos. Além disso é preciso convir que tais providencias podem igualmente ser fonte de maiores desajustes sociais quando incidem sobre segmentos da população que inobstante dispondo de propriedades muitas vezes carecem de meios para lhe dar destinação mais produtiva. Assim é que, inobstante nos pareçam compatíveis com o Texto Constitucional, para não se converterem em fórmulas que terminariam por desvirtuar a alvejada “função social da propriedade”, hão de ser compostas com critérios de aturado precado, sem o que redundariam, elas mesmas, em disposições inconstitucionais, seja por atentarem contra as garantias do cidadão arroladas no art. 153 ou decorrentes do sistema (como refere o § 36 do mesmo artigo), seja por terminarem assumindo o vetor antagônico à justiça social. Assim, apenas um exame caso por caso autorizaria a concluir se as injunções positivas guardariam ou não afinidade com o regramento constitucional. Feita essa necessária ressalva, convém esclarecer porque considerarmos aberta a possibilidade da lei impor a este propósito obrigações de agir, além das meras proibições coibitivas de uso antissocial da propriedade. É que, na Carta vigente, tal como na de 1967, não se fala apenas, como ocorria em 1946, em “condicionamento” da propriedade ao bem-estar social ou na proibição de seu exercício em contradita ao interesse social coletivo, como dizia a Constituição de 1934. Fala-se, muito claramente, que a “função social” da propriedade é princípio de toda ordem econômica e social. Logo, à propriedade atribui-se o caráter de um direito vocacionado a atender à finalidade do desenvolvimento econômico e da justiça social. Segue-se que o Estado pode pretender dos proprietários que concorram nesta direção – e não apenas que se abstenham de adversar esta diretriz (1986).

Bu çalışma ile Adıyaman ili kurbağa ve sürüngen envanterinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Adıyaman'da 19 familyaya ait toplam 49 tür (yedi kurbağa, dört kaplumbağa, bir kör kertenkele, 12 kertenkele ve 25 yılan türü) tespit edilmiştir. Bu çalışma ile, Blanus alexandri (Sindaco et al, 2014), Mediodactylus orientalis (Stepánek, 1937), Mediodactylus heterocercus (Blanford, 1874), Eryx jaculus (Linnaeus, 1758), Dolichophis jugularis (Linnaeus, 1758), Dolichophis schmidti (Nikolsky, 1909), Eirenis decemlineatus (Dumérıl, Bibron & Duméril, 1854), Elaphe sauromates (Pallas, 1811), Platyceps collaris (Müller, 1878), Hemorrhois nummifer (Reuss, 1834), Hemorrhois ravergieri (Ménétries, 1832) ve Natrix tesellata (Laurenti, 1768) türleri Adıyaman için ilk kez kaydı verilmiştir.

Abstract The postburial interval (PBI) can be inferred by using necrophagous insects colonizing the buried corpse. In different seasons, the species composition and succession of necrophagous insects on swine carrion (0.5–0.75 kg) buried at the depths of 30 cm and 60 cm in a Populus alba var. pyramidalis (Bunge, 1854) (Salicales: Salicaceae) grove of Shenyang, China from 2017 to 2019 were investigated. A total of 21 species of necrophagous insects belonging to 5 orders, 17 families were collected. Among them, the species of Phoridae and Platystomatidae were dominant at burial depth of 30 cm and 60 cm in summer and autumn. The species composition and time of colonization of necrophagous insects on the buried baits varied with seasons. Platystoma mandschuricum (Enderlein, 1937) (Diptera: Platystomatidae) and Aleochara puberula (Klug, 1833) (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae), the first arriving insects in spring, occurred on the baits for the longest time, from early June to early December. This work could provide reference data for the PBI estimation in Shenyang and similar geographical areas.

All species of thecate and athecate hydroids (excl. Stylasteridae) from Greenland and Iceland are reviewed. The revision is based predominantly on new material collected during various expeditions, but also on types and material used by previous authors. It includes also samples from the north of Greenland (Pearyland), a locality from which no hydrozoans were known so far. These samples produced the northernmost records for hydroids (82°N): Obelia longissima, Lafoea dumosa, and Boreohydra simplex. The genus Clava is transferred to the Family Hydractiniidae. The name Cordylophoridae Lendenfeld, 1885 is used for the remaining species formerly held in the same family as Clava. The gonophores of Halisiphonia arctica are free medusae. Halisiphonia is therefore removed from the Lafoeidae and referred to the family Hebellidae Fraser, 1912. New records for Greenland are: Boreohydra simplex Westblad, 1937; the polyp phase of Euphysa aurata Forbes, 1848; Eudendrium islandicum Schuchert, 2000; Acaulis primarius Stimpson, 1854; Campanulina pumila (Clark, 1875); Sertularia schmidti Kudelin, 1914; Sertularia similis Clark 1877; Thuiaria articulata (Pallas, 1766); and Thuiaria sachalini Kudelin, 1914. New records for Iceland are: Rhizogeton nudum Broch, 1903; Rhizorhagium roseum Sars, 1874; Hydractinia allmanii Bonnevie, 1898; Coryne loveni (M. Sars, 1846); Sarsia producta (Wright, 1858); Filellum serratum (Clarke, 1879); Halecium birulai Spassky, 1929; and Symplectoscyphus bathyalis Vervoort, 1972.