Journal articles on the topic '1902-1938'

Nogodinid genera Issidius Puton, 1898 and Morsina Melichar, 1902 are revised. Iranissus Dlabola, 1980 is placed in synonymy under Issidius Puton and Hadjia Dlabola, 1981, Philbyella China, 1938 and Rileyopsis Bergevin, 1917—under Morsina Melichar. Philbyella adeiba Badawy, El Hamouly et Sawaby, 2011 is placed in synonymy under Ph. elba Linnavuori, 1973. The lectotypes are designated for Issus rotundiceps Lethierry, 1887 and Morsina persica Melichar, 1902. The photos of type specimens of Morsina persica Melichar, 1902, Hadjia quadrifasciata Dlabola, 1981, and H. nerii Dlabola, 1981 are given.

The enigmatic millipede assassin bug genus Xenorhyncocoris Miller, 1938 is revised. Previously known species, X. caraboides Miller, 1938, X. princeps Miller, 1949 and X. schoenitzeri Putshkov & Bérenger, 1999, are diagnosed and photographed. A new species, X. attractivus sp. nov., is described based on male and female specimens from northeastern Borneo. The male of Xenorhyncocoris is reported for the first time, revealing the extreme sexual dimorphism present in the genus. The diagnosis of Xenorhyncocoris is extended in order to make it applicable to the new discovery, and a female-based key to species of the genus is updated. Relationships among Xenorhyncocoris and Vilius Stål, 1863, Neozirta Distant, 1919 and Schottus Distant, 1902 are briefly discussed.

The article deals with depictions of a looser private group associated with the writer Karel Čapek (1895–1938). The company as a group was captured in three drawings by the artist and writer Adolf Hoffmeister (1902–1973), which he dated to 1927. The public is most familiar with the drawing called Pátečníci [Friday Men], best visually representing the topic. The artist also made other drawings associated with the Friday Men.

New and rare species of the Gamasida (Acari) in the Polish fauna, recorded in ‘Bagno Stawek’ Reserve (Tuchola Forest, northern Poland)As a result of 3-year studies of gamasid mites (Acari) from ‘Bagno Stawek’ Reserve (in the Zaborski Landscape Park), 4 rare species were identified:Platyseius subglaber(Oudemans, 1903),Stylochirus giganteus(Willmann, 1938),Uroobovella minima(Koch, 1841), andVeigaia transisalae(Oudemans, 1902). Among them,S. giganteusis new to the fauna of Poland.

The article is based on the publication of autobiographical materials of the Siberian poet Konstantin Alekseevich Besedin (1902–1938). Three versions of the autobiography were sent by him in 1922–1923 to the bibliographer Pavel Yakovlevich Zavolokin (1878–1941), who collected information for a reference publication dedicated to poets of peasant and proletarian origin. Materials from the Siberian and Metropolitan state and private archives allow to clarify and comment on the information contained in these essays-self-portraits.

The fossil bivalvian fauna established in the Topola Formation, the Zelenka section, Northeastern Bulgaria was studied. Six taxa from the species group are described: Obsoletiforma cf. pseudosemisulcata (Andrussov, 1902), Obsoletiforma cf. balcicense (Gillet, 1938), Obsoletiforma cf. centopleura (Andrussov, 1902), Obsoletiforma sp. (aff. obsoleta Eichwald, 1830), Obsoletiforma sp. (aff. lucinoidea Paramonova, 1977), and Inaequicostata sp. (aff. barboti R. Hoernes, 1874). Two of them – O. сentopleura, and O. lucinoidea are announced for the first time in Bulgaria. One taxon is determined at generic level – Obsoletiforma sp. The stratigraphic position of the section in the upper part of the middle (Bessarabian) substage of the Sarmatian (s.l.) stage was determined as the upper part of the interval zone Cryptomactra pseudotellina-Cryptomactra pesanseris and/or lowerest part of the local taxon-range zone Obsoletiforma balcicense. The factors of the abiotic environments and their influence on the presence of the bivalvian fauna in the section are clarified.

Diplommatinidae Pfeiffer, 1857 is a speciose family of minute operculate land snails that includes more than 500 extant species occurring mainly in Southeastern Asia and northern Oceania with some species in tropical America and, arguably, in Madagascar (Kobelt 1902; Wenz 1938-1939; Haas 1961; Egorov. 2013; Yamazaki et al. 2013; Neubert & Bouchet 2015; Nurinsiyah & Hausdorf 2017; Páll-Gergely et al. 2017a; Greke, 2017). The fossil record of Diplommatinidae is very sparse; it was recorded from the Miocene of Poland (Harzhauser & Neubauer 2018) and four species were recently described from Cretaceous Burmese amber, being the oldest known diplommatinids (Yu et al. 2018; Hirano et al. 2019; Bullis et al. 2020).

The Development of the Communication Technology and Its Contributions to the British Administration and Society in Straits Settlements 1902-1938 ABSTRACT A communication system is an important element in facilitating the administration as well as providing communication facilities to the local community. The economic development and changes in the British administration system in the Straits Settlements led the British administration to introduce a modern communication system in the Straits Settlements to facilitate the transmission of information. Most of the previous research on communication is focusing on the development of the transportation system as compared to the communication system. Hence, the objective of this study is to identify the efforts taken by the British in developing communication technology in the Straits Settlements dan its contributions to the administration and the local community. The methodology used for this study is qualitative. The analysis is based on the historical method by making primary sources the main source of analysis. Among the files that were referred to are colonial files CO273 Colonial Office: Straits Settlements Original Correspondence and CO275 Colonial Office: Straits Settlements Sessional Papers. This research shows that there are various efforts taken by the British in the Straits Settlements to develop a perfect and efficient communication system. This includes efforts to improvise the telephone and telegraph facilities by upgrading existing cables of communication. The telephone and telegraph cables were added all over the Straits Settlements which subsequently widened the network of communication to the other Malay States. Wireless technology was also introduced in Singapore and Penang to provide communication that is modern and sophisticated during that era. The transformation in the communication system in the Straits Settlements has contributed to the smooth running of the administration as well as bringing social and economic benefits. Keywords: Communication technology, British administration, Straits Settlements, social service, disseminating information.

Helena z Walewskich (1881–1956) i Antoni (1868–1952) Siemiątkowscy herbu Jastrzębiec byli właścicielami majątków Wojsławice i Tymienice do wybuchu II wojny światowej. Ich siedzibą był pałac w Wojsławicach zbudowany w latach 1900–1902, skąd zostali usunięci we wrześniu 1939 r. Jeden z synów, Józef Siemiątkowski (1904–1939), zamieszkiwał wraz z żoną Cvetaną vel Tseną (1911–1983) i dziećmi Heleną ur. 1936 r. i Antonim (1938–2011) w XIX-wiecznym dworku w Tymienicach. Ślub ich odbył się w Sofii w 1934 r. Wraz z wybuchem wojny przenieśli się do Warszawy, gdyż Józef został powołany do wojska. Część I opowieści o rodzinie Siemiątkowskich przedstawia tragiczne losy tego małżeństwa. 24 września 1939 r. Józef Siemiątkowski poniósł śmierć w walkach z Niemcami na przedpolach Warszawy, w Kazuniu. Jego żona Cvetana wyjechała z dziećmi do Bułgarii. Gdy po wojnie rodzeństwo wróciło do Polski czekało je trudne życie w nieprzyjaznej powojennej rzeczywistości.

This article examines contributions of the chief economic statistician and socialist activist Ludwik Landau (1902–1944) that empirically investigated Poland’s underdevelopment in the framework of world capitalist economy. Landau pioneered a structural approach to measure the global gap between rich and poor countries in 1938–9, when such a synthetic view was largely unimaginable. Landau’s main work in international comparative statistics,World Economy, scholarly elaborated his socialist views on the necessity of non-capitalist development for Poland and other poor regions in agrarian Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America. I argue that the Polish experience bestowed epistemic advantage in understanding the non-industrialised world and became a starting point from which to explore underdevelopment globally. This article concludes with a discussion of the political and epistemic significance of Landau’s work and how it figures in the larger history of development and statistical measurement of the world.

Type studies and illustrated descriptions are given of the tropical African Lactarius (Russulaceae) species described by Hennings (1902) and Beeli (1927–1936) which were not included in Heim's monographs (1938, 1955). L. badius Verbeken nom. nov., L. russulaeformis (Beeli) Verbeken comb. nov. and L. kalospermus (Beeli) Verbeken & Walleyn comb. nov. are proposed. L. congolensis Beeli is shown to be an earlier name for both L. craterelloides R. Heim & Gooss.-Font. and L. unicolor Gooss.-Font. & R. Heim which are identical, L. russulaeformis is an earlier name for L. pellicularis R. Heim, L. annulatoangustifolius (Beeli) Buyck is an earlier name for L. pandani R. Heim, and both L. pandani f. intermedius and L. pandani f. pallidus are concluded to be synonyms of L. pelliculatus (Beeli) Buyck. L. zenkeri (Henn.) Singer is neotypified and L. goossensiae Beeli and Lactarius sesemotani (Beeli) Buyck are lectotypified. Finally, Lentinus clitocyboides Henn. is not based on Lactarius, as suggested by Pegler (1983), but on Russula.

Florence Rena Sabin received her MD from the Johns Hopkins University in 1900. She was one of the first women to become a medical intern at Johns Hopkins and worked for the year of her internship (1900–01) under William Osler. At Johns Hopkins from y>1902 to 1925, Sabin studied embryology and histology with mentor Franklin Mall. She became the first woman professor of histology at an American school. Recruited to the Rockefeller Institute (1925), she focused on tuberculosis immunology, tubercle-bacillus biochemistry and haematology. She was the first woman department head at the Rockefeller and, in 1925, the first woman elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Settling in Colorado in 1938, she entered public health, emphasizing tuberculosis control. She received the Trudeau Award in 1945 and the Lasker Award in 1951. Her experience with tuberculosis under Osler's tutelage defined the shape of her work in basic tuberculosis research and in public health.

In the Indo-West Pacific, intertidal slugs of the genus Platevindex Baker, 1938 are common in mangrove forests, where they typically live on the roots and trunks of mangrove trees. These slugs are easily distinguished from most onchidiids by their hard notum and narrow foot, but despite their large size and abundance, species diversity and geographic distributions have remained a mystery. With the aid of new collections from across the entire Indo-West Pacific, the taxonomy of Platevindex is revised using an integrative approach (natural history field observations, re-examination of type specimens, mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences, and comparative anatomy). In this monograph, nine species of Platevindex are recognized, including one new to science: P. amboinae (Plate, 1893), P. applanatus (Simroth, 1920) comb. nov., P. aptei Goulding & Dayrat sp. nov., P. burnupi (Collinge, 1902) comb. nov., P. coriaceus (Semper, 1880), P. latus (Plate, 1893), P. luteus (Semper, 1880), P. martensi (Plate, 1893) and P. tigrinus (Stoliczka, 1869) comb. nov. Five species names are recognized as junior synonyms, four of which are new, and two Platevindex names are regarded as nomina dubia. One new subspecies is also recognized: P. coriaceus darwinensis Goulding & Dayrat subsp. nov. Most species were previously known only from the type material and many new geographic records are provided across the Indo-West Pacific, from South Africa to the West Pacific (Japan, New Ireland and New Caledonia).

O objetivo do trabalho é analisar um documento elaborado pela então diretora do Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro, Heloisa Alberto Torres (1895-1977), que propôs fazer um estudo sobre o estado das ciências naturais e da antropologia com a finalidade de reestruturar a pesquisa científica em função do desenvolvimento econômico, político e social do Brasil. O documento foi enviado ao reitor da Universidade do Brasil, Pedro Calmon (1902-1985), em 1946, ao fim do Estado Novo e da Segunda Guerra Mundial, quando a diretora foi reempossada no cargo que exercia desde 1938. De acordo com o documento, o papel político das ciências naturais e da antropologia deveria ser exercido nos marcos teóricos da Ecologia, que se chocavam, no entanto, com as demandas políticas de exploração desmedida dos recursos naturais. As ideias da diretora do Museu Nacional acabaram por se limitar a projetos institucionais, levados a efeito pela política internacional de cooperação científica, que facilitou a circulação dos cientistas e beneficiou a pesquisa com financiamento interno e externo.

Abstract Árpád Mezei (1902-1998) was a Hungarian art theoretician and psychologist. In the 1940s he was co-founder of the Európai Iskola (European School), the most important assembly of progressive Hungarian artists and art theoreticians of the period. His readings in art theory and his friendship with the Surrealist painter and writer Marcel Jean (who lived in Budapest in the period between 1938 and 1945) had a strong impact on his intellectual profile: he co-authored with Marcel Jean three volumes that became important for the understanding of the international Surrealist movement. The paper analyses Mezei’s concepts and tries to reconstruct his interpretative framework where several aspects of culture including mythology, history, literature, art and history of architecture communicate with each other, and hybridity is one of the key concepts. Being used to describe contemporary shifts in culture and identity by authors like Peter Burke, hybridity is of great interest to contemporary culture. The paper points out possible links between late Surrealist theories of hybridity and contemporary culture.

Harry Beal Torrey was born on 22 May 1873 in Boston, Massachusetts. Two years later his family moved to Oakland, California. Torrey earned B.S. and M.S. degrees in zoology from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1895 and 1898 respectively, a Ph.D. in zoology from Columbia University in 1903, and an M.D. from the Medical College of Cornell University in 1927. He began his academic career as a marine biologist, investigating taxonomy, reproduction, morphology, development, regeneration, and behaviour of cnidarians of the west coast of the United States, but his research interests soon shifted to experimental biology and endocrinology. He eventually entered the field of medicine, specializing in public health, and served as a physician and hospital administrator. Torrey held academic positions at the University of California, Berkeley (1895–1912), the Marine Biological Association of San Diego (1903–1912), Reed College (1912–1920), the University of Oregon (1920–1926), and Stanford University (1928–1938). Following retirement from academia, he served as Director of the Children’s Hospital of the East Bay, Oakland, California, from 1938 to 1942. In retirement, he continued an association with the University of California at Berkeley, near his home. Of 84 publications by him listed herein, 31 dealt with coelenterates. This paper focuses on his early research on coelenterate biology, and especially his contributions to taxonomy of hydroids. He was author or coauthor of six genera and 48 species-group taxa of Cnidaria, and he also described one new species each of Ctenophora and Phoronida. Although he abandoned systematic work early in his career, his most widely cited publication is a taxonomic monograph on hydroids of the west coast of North America, published in 1902. He died, at age 97, on 9 September 1970.

Cel artykułu to prezentacja poezji Natalii Liwyckiej-Chołodnej w przed-wojennych tłumaczeniach Józefa Łobodowskiego. Głównym założeniem jest wskazanie przesłanek, którymi kierował się tłumacz w wyborze utworu, przedstawienie właściwości warsztatu poetyckiego i omówienie dokonanych przez niego translacji. Natalia Liwycka--Chołodna (1902–2005) zaliczana do grona tzw. szkoły praskiej ponad 20 lat była związana z Polską. W Warszawie opublikowano dwa tomy jej poezji Вогонь і попіл (Ogień i popiół, 1934) oraz Сім літер (Siedem liter, 1937). W okresie międzywojennym jej dorobek był polskiemu czytelnikowi mało znany. Kilka tłumaczeń jej wczesnej poezji pojawiało się w latach 1934–1938 w „Sygnałach”, „Biuletynie Polsko-Ukraińskim” i czasopiśmie „Wołyń”. Ich autorami byli Tadeusz Hollender i Józef Łobodowski, który opublikował trzy prze-kłady: На розквітлі акації грона (Srebrny księżyc akację ogarnął), На розпуттях(Rue Racine) i На могилі (Nad grobem). Lubelski poeta sięgnął po utwory bliskie jego autorskiej poezji i poglądom politycznym. Omówione translacje są przykładem ekwiwa-lencji dynamicznej, charakteryzuje je energia i osobiste zaangażowanie tłumacza. Zwraca on uwagę na adekwatność semantyczną, ale nie rezygnuje z autorskiej poetyzacji tek-stu. W jego przekładach można odnaleźć wiele elementów mających na celu pobudzenie wyobraźni polskiego czytelnika.

AbstractThe spider genus Peucetia includes 54 species of medium-sized and widely distributed spiders. The majority of its species occurs in the tropical regions, of which only the African fauna has been recently revised. In the Neotropical Region 26 species were described, of which 17 are here synonymyzed. Peucetia tranquillini Mello-Leitão 1922, P. rubrigastra Mello-Leitão 1929, P. meridionalis Mello-Leitão 1929, P. villosa Mello-Leitão 1929, and P. viridisternis Mello-Leitão 1945 are considered junior synonyms of P. flava Keyserling 1877. Eight names, Peucetia similis Keyserling 1877, P. amazonica Mello-Leitão 1929, P. heterochroma Mello-Leitão 1929, P. maculipedes Piza 1938, P. trivittata Mello-Leitão 1940, P. duplovittata Mello-Leitão 1941, and P. roseonigra Mello-Leitão 1943 and Tapinillus argentinus Mello-Leitão 1941 are considered junior synonyms of P. rubrolineata Keyserling 1877. Both senior species are extremelly common, occurring from Colombia to northern Argentina. Peucetia macroglossa Mello-Leitão 1929, recorded only from Central Brazilian Amazonia and Guyana is considered a senior synonym of P. melloleitaoi Caporiacco 1947. Two species occur from Southern USA to northern Colombia: Peucetia viridans (Hentz 1832) and P. longipalpis F. O. P.-Cambridge 1902. The former is recognized as a senior synonym of P. poeyi (Lucas 1857), P. bibranchiata F. O. P.- 1902 and P. rubricapilla Petrunkevitch 1925 and the later as a senior synonym of P. cauca Lourenço 1990. Peucetia viridis (Blackwall 1858), known from Africa, southern Spain and Middle East is newly recorded from the West Indies. One new species, Peucetia cayapa sp. n., is described and illustrated based on males and females from Ecuador and Peru. Peucetia caldensis Garcia-Neto 1989, from Brazil, is transferred to Tapinillus Simon 1898. The type specimens of three species, P. quadrilineata Simon 1891 and P. thalassina (C. L. Koch 1847) from Central America, and P. smaragdina Mello-Leitão 1941 from Colombia are probably lost. Since their original descriptions are not sufficiently clear for their recognition, they are considered nomina dubia.

In the small, idyllic German Evangelical Cemeteryin Prague-Strašnice, a simple tombstone stands in the back row of graves, dedicated to the memory of “Dr. Heinrich Rauchberg, Professor at the German University in Prague, 1860–1938” and his wife Freia (1874–1939) (see Figures 1 and 2). When the Viennese-born demographer passed away, he left behind him an impressive professional career in the Habsburg monarchy and later in Czechoslovakia: he published a massive body of professional studies in population statistics and was an important figure at the German University in Prague, where he founded the Institute of Political Science in 1898 and served as dean of the Faculty of Law (1902–3, 1916–17, and 1926–27) and as university rector (1911–12). Outside the academic realm, Rauchberg was also involved in a broad range of activities. In 1890, for instance, he headed the Austrian census, in which the Hollerith electric counting machine was employed for the first time in Europe; Franz Kafka, his student in 1905, would later craft a literary monument to Rauchberg, the machine expert, in the short story “In the Penal Colony.” Especially after the establishment of the Czechoslovak Republic in 1918, Rauchberg became a familiar figure among the local German minority, particularly because of his radio broadcasts on legal questions; his frequent articles in the German-speaking press on current issues; his numerous public lectures on social topics; his tireless engagement with housing assistance, tenant protection, and social insurance; and his involvement in the German League of Nations Union in the Czechoslovak Republic, which he cofounded in 1922. In short, he was a scholar very much in the public eye.

The Rev. (Chief) Samuel Ojo, better known as Ojo Bada of Saki, who died in 1992 at the reputed age of 117, was a very versatile person indeed. A Babalawo (“diviner”) converted to a Baptist pastor and a carpenter who became a schoolteacher, he was also to graduate from a storyteller to the author of over fifty essays, pamphlets, and books. He became a Christian in 1902, received his elementary education from 1907 to 1913, and attended the Baptist Theological Seminary at Ogbomoso from 1924 to 1926. His life after 1926 revolved around the Church, as a founder of several churches and a pastor, and in education as a teacher. He took the chieftaincy title of Bada, following in his father's footsteps in 1937. His title, church, and school duties brought him more contacts with the government, first as a member of the Oyo Divisional Council from 1938 to 1958, later a member of the Oyo Provincial Council from 1959 to 1963, and finally a member of the House of Chiefs from 1961 to 1965. For his community service he received the MBE (Member of the British Empire) in 1963 and became a Justice of Peace in 1965. He devoted his spare time to writing.

Summary The logic of language and the philosophy of language in 20th-century Poland ran in two mainstreams, the so-called Lvov-Warsaw school and and that of phenomenological thought. The former was dominant, the latter was represented mainly by the work of Roman Ingarden (1903–1970). Among works of the Lvov-Warsaw school, the present paper considers the most important achievements of its founder, Kazimierz Twardowski (1866–1938), and the oldest generation of his disciples: Leśniewski (1886–1939), Kotarbiński (1886–1981), Ajdukiewicz (1890–1963), and Izydora Dąmbska (1904–1983), as well as Alfred Tarski (1902–1983) who, in philosophy, was a disciple of Jan Łukasiewicz (1878–1956), Leśniewski and Kotarbiński. The paper is limited to the discussion of the most important of their reflections on natural language, in particular to what is most characteristic of them: elaborated and deep analyses of semantic sections connected with epistemological ones, and pragmatic sections connected with psychological ones, all presented with great attention to clarity, precision and comprehensibility of formulations. Major semantic conceptions of Ingarden were also mentioned: the theory of meaning as a relation between an intending object and an intentional object, as well as semantic differences between a name, verb and sentence.

AbstractThe musical language of George Enescu (1881-1955) is sprinkled with symbolic valences that carry the imprint of the Romanian musical culture. For more than half of a century (57 years), Enescu wrote musical works inspired by the folkloric tradition. Between the Romanian Poem, written when he was 16 (in 1897) and the Chamber Symphony, when he was 73 (in 1954), Enescu also composed: Romanian Rhapsody No. 1 (A major), op. 11 (in 1901), Romanian Rhapsody No. 2 (D major), op. 11 (in 1902), Sonata for piano and violin No. 3, A minor (in 1926), Caprice Roumain, for violin and orchestra (in 1928), Orchestral Suite No. 3 (From the country), op. 27, D major (in 1938) and the programmatic suite Impresii din copilărie [Impressions of Childhood for violin and piano], op. 28 in D major (composed in 1940). The paper presents the temporal-spatial structure of the musical masterpiece which reveals a cyclical thinking based on a presentation of the exterior images, followed by the interior images and a return to the exterior. And by an extrapolation of meanings, I created an analogy with the stages of life: childhood, maturity and old age. This article also deals with elements of the musical language used by George Enescu in a manner that reveals a re-created Romanian folklore in a way which bears the imprint of personality and originality of the composer.

В статье речь идет о научной и организационной работе выдающегося геолога Дмитрия Ивановича Мушкетова (1882–1938), сына геолога и географа, замечательного путешественника Ивана Васильевича Мушкетова (1850–1902). Работа Д.И. Мушкетова была тесно связана со многими научными организациями Санкт-Петербурга-Ленинграда (Горный институт, Геологический комитет, Институт прикладной геофизики, Сейсмологический и Геологический институты АН СССР и др.). В годы великих социальных потрясений ему удалось раскрыть свои таланты и профессиональную подготовленность как тектонисту, сейсмологу, геофизику, организатору науки, директору Горного института, председателю Геологического комитета первой трети ХХ века. Фактически продолжив труды отца на основе новых методов, он стал одним из основоположников систематического изучения и геологического картографирования Средней Азии. В 1928 г. он организовал проведение 3-го Всесоюзного геологического съезда в Ташкенте, который посетило много зарубежных специалистов. Сделан акцент на последовательной деятельности Д. И. Мушкетова по расширению международного сотрудничества в области геологических наук. После большого перерыва, мировой войны и революций в Европе он активно участвовал в сессиях Международного геологического конгресса в Бельгии, Испании, ЮАР и его деятельность способствовала достижению столь актуального консенсуса для международных проектов и исследований. Он добился проведения сессии Международного геологического конгресса в Москве в 1937 г. Эффективность его усилий конструктивно проявилась при создании (1928–1931) Ассоциации по изучению четвертичного периода Европы (современный Международный союз по изучению четвертичного периода, INQUA). Его жизнь трагически оборвалась в период большого террора в СССР.

The results of an extensive examination of northeast Pacific muricid gastropods ranging from Aleutian Islands, Alaska, to mid-Baja California, is presented. Two new genera and 26 new species are described: In Pagodulinae: Abyssotrophon fusiformis n. sp., A. newmani n. sp., Boreotrophon cascadiensis n. sp., B. cordellensis n. sp., B. cortesianus n. sp., B. obesus n. sp., B. subapolyonis n. sp., B. vancouverensis n. sp., B. aleuticus n. sp., B. pseudotripherus n. sp., B. santarosensis n. sp., B. tannerensis n. sp. In Trophoninae: Warenia, n. gen., Scabrotrophon buldirensis n. sp, S. kantori n. sp., S. lima n. sp., S. macleani n. sp., S. moresbyensis n. sp., S. norafosterae n. sp., S. trifidus n. sp., Nipponotrophon exquisitus n. sp. In Ocenebrinae: Paciocinebrina n. gen., Nucella angustior n. sp., Paciocinebrina benitoensis n. sp., P. macleani n. sp., P. neobarbarensis n. sp., P. pseudomunda n. sp., P. thelmacrowae n. sp. New synonymy: Boreotrophon kamchatkanus Dall, 1902 (+ Trophonopsis nanus Ergorov, 1994); Paciocinebrina atropurpurea (Carpenter, 1865) (+ Tritonalia interfossa var. clathrata Dall, 1919, Ocinebra rubra Baker, 1891, Tritonalia tracheia Dall, 1919); P. barbarensis (Gabb, 1865) (+ Tritonalia interfossa var. beta Dall, 1919, Ocenebra keenae Bormann, 1946); P. circumtexta (Stearns, 1871) (+ Ocinebra circumtexta var. aurantia Stearns, 1895, Tritonalia circumtexta var. citrica Dall, 1919, Tritonalia lurida var. rotunda Dall, 1919); P. foveolata (Hinds, 1844) (+Tritonalia epiphanea Dall, 1919, Tritonalia fusconotata Dall, 1919); P. gracillima (Stearns, 1871) (+ Tritonalia gracillima var. obesa Dall, 1919, Ocinebra stearnsi Hemphill, 1911); P. interfossa (Carpenter, 1864) (+ Tritonalia interfossa alpha Dall, 1921); P. lurida (Middendorff, 1848) (+ Vitularia aspera Baird, 1863), P. sclera (Dall, 1919) (+ Coralliophila (Pseudomurex) kincaidi Dall, 1919). Generic assignments are changed for the following taxa: Boreotrophon kamchatkanus Dall, 1902; Warenia elegantula (Dall, 1907); Scabrotrophon stuarti (E.A. Smith, 1880); Paciocinebrina atropurpurea (Carpenter, 1865), P. barbarensis (Gabb, 1865), P. circumtexta (Stearns, 1871), P. crispatissima (Berry, 1953), P. foveolata (Hinds, 1844), P. fraseri (Oldroyd, 1920), P. gracillima (Stearns, 1871), P. grippi (Dall, 1911), P. interfossa (Carpenter, 1864), P. lurida (Middendorff, 1848), P. minor (Dall, 1919), P. munda (Carpenter, 1864), P. seftoni (Chace, 1958), P. sclera (Dall, 1919). Boreotrophon alborostratus Taki, 1938, is reinstated. Abyssotrophon Egorov, 1993 and Nodulotrophon Habe & Ito, 1965 are here assigned to Pagodulinae Barco et al., 2012, based on radula morphology.

Five new species of the nudibranch genus Okenia Menke, 1830 (Goniodorididae) are described from Australian waters and the anatomy of another ten species from Australia and the Indo-West Pacific are described. Okenia purpurata sp. nov. and O. vena sp. nov. are reported from northern New South Wales where they feed on the bryozoan Amathia tortuosa Tenison Woods, 1880. Okenia mellita sp. nov. is reported from New South Wales, and a pair of species, O. hallucigenia sp. nov.and O. stellata sp. nov. are reported from various locations in northern Australia where they both feed on the bryozoan Pleurotoichus clathratus (Harmer, 1902). Okenia virginiae Gosliner, 2004 is reported for the first time from Australia as is the Atlantic species Okenia zoobotryon (Smallwood, 1910). Anatomical information for O. barnardi Baba, 1937, O. hiroi (Baba, 1938) and O. mija Burn, 1967 is provided for the first time, as is further information on O. plana Baba, 1960 and O. pilosa (Bouchet and Ortea, 1983) from Australia and Hong Kong. New observations on the bryozoan prey of various species is reported: O. mija feeding on Amathia wilsoni Kirkpatrick, 1888, O. zoobotryon on Zoobotryon verticillatum (delle Chiaje,1828), O. hiroi on an unnamed species of Integripelta Gordon, Mawatari & Kajihara, 2002, O. plana on Membranipora membranacea (Linnaeus, 1767), Jellyella tuberculata (Bosc, 1802) and Cryptosula pallasiana (Moll, 1803). Okenia japonica Baba, 1949 and O. purpureolineata Gosliner, 2004 are reported feeding on the same unidentified species of Amathia Lamouroux, 1812.

Turkish students could attend courses at the Communist University of Workers of the East (Kommunisticheskii Universitet Trudiashchikhsia Vostoka, KUTV) since its opening in 1921. Nazim Hikmet (1902–1963), who would later emerge as the first Turkish futurist poet, arrived at KUTV with his friends in 1922. It was during his studies in Moscow that he began experimenting with free verse and reformation of the traditional language of Turkish poetry. The intellectual stimulation of Turkish students occurred through communication with other foreign students, regular excursions to museums and trips to different cities, work practice in Soviet factories, close acquaintance with the culture and life of Soviet people. According to the published memoirs of Zehra Kosova (1910–2001) who studied at KUTV in the mid-1930s, one can clearly imagine the learning process and everyday life of students who had their families with them in Moscow. Like many other foreign university graduates she was forced to leave her child in the USSR, in order to ‘build socialism in the East’ and conduct underground work in her homeland. For the period 1921–1938, about four hundred members of the Turkish Communist Party (TCP) and leaders of the political left were educated at the KUTV. Particularly in the TCP, the most productive groups of students were those, who studied in Moscow between 1926 and 1939. During this period, the foreign sector of the KUTV was under the direct control of the Comintern. Many of the graduates from this period were illegally employed in leading positions of the Turkish Communist Party.

The ants of the genus Leptomyrmex (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), commonly called ‘spider ants’, are distinctive members of the ant subfamily Dolichoderinae and prominent residents of intact wet forest and sclerophyll habitats in eastern Australia, New Caledonia and New Guinea. This revision redresses pervasive taxonomic problems in this genus by using a combination of morphology and molecular data to define species boundaries and clarify nomenclature. Twenty-seven Leptomyrmex species are recognized and are informally split into two groups: the macro-Leptomyrmex (21 species), and its sister group, the micro-Leptomyrmex (six species). Nine subspecies are elevated to species status: L. cnemidatus Wheeler 1915, L. geniculatus Emery 1914, L. melanoticus Wheeler 1934, L. nigriceps Emery 1914, L. rothneyi Forel 1902, L. ruficeps Emery 1895, L. rufipes Emery 1895, L. rufithorax Forel 1915 and L. tibialis Emery 1895. Nineteen new synonymies are proposed (senior synonyms listed first): L. cnemidatus Wheeler 1915 = L. erythrocephalus venustus Wheeler 1934 = L. erythrocephalus brunneiceps Wheeler 1934; L. darlingtoni Wheeler 1934 = L. darlingtoni fascigaster Wheeler 1934 = L. darlingtoni jucundus Wheeler 1934; L. erythrocephalus (Fabricius 1775) = L. froggatti Forel 1910 =4 · Zootaxa 2688 © 2010 Magnolia PressL. erythrocephalus mandibularis Wheeler 1915 = L. erythrocephalus unctus Wheeler 1934 = L. erythrocephalus clarki Wheeler 1934; L. fragilis (F. Smith 1859) = L. fragilis femoratus Santschi 1932 = L. fragilis maculatus Stitz 1938 = L. wheeleri Donisthorpe 1948; L. melanoticus Wheeler 1934 = L. contractus Donisthorpe 1947; L. niger Emery 1900 = L. lugubris Wheeler 1934; L. rufipes Emery 1895 = L. quadricolor Wheeler 1934; L. rufithorax Forel 1915 = L. erythrocephalus basirufus Wheeler 1934; L. tibialis Emery 1895 = L. nigriventris hackeri Wheeler 1934; L. varians Emery 1895 = L. erythrocephalus decipiens Wheeler 1915 = L. varians angusticeps Santschi 1929; L. wiburdi Wheeler 1915 = L. wiburdi pictus Wheeler 1915. Tools for identification of the macro-Leptomyrmex species include a revised species-level key based on the worker caste, keys to males in Australia and New Guinea, full descriptions of workers, images of known workers, males and queens, and illustration of male genitalia. Phylogenetic relationships among the macroand micro- Leptomyrmex species are discussed, as is the status of a putative fossil relative.

A list of Curculionoidea (Nemonychidae, Anthribidae, Rhynchitidae, Attelabidae, Brentidae, Apionidae, Nanophyidae, Brachyceridae, Curculionidae, Erirhinidae, Raymondionymidae, Dryoph-thoridae, Scolytidae, Platypodidae) thus far known from Italy is drawn up, updating that by Abbazzi et al. published in 1995. Distributional data of each species are given for broad regions such as northern, central, southern Italy, Sicily and Sardinia. New synonymies are: Acentrotypus laevigatus (Kirby, 1808) (= A. brunnipes (Boheman, 1839), syn.nov.), Ceutorhynchus talickyi Korotyaev, 1980 (= C. strejceki Dieckmann, 1981, syn. nov.), Ceutorhynchus pallipes Crotch,1866 (= Curculio minutus Reich, 1797 not Drury, [1773], syn. nov.; = Curculio contractus Marsham, 1802 not Fourcroy, 1785, syn. nov.), Dodecastichus consentaneus (Boheman, 1843) (= D. c. latialis (Solari & Solari, 1915), syn. nov.; = D. c. dimorphus (Solari & Solari, 1915), syn. nov.; = D. c. pentricus Di Marco & Osella, 2001, syn. nov.), Dodecastichus dalmatinus (Gyllenhal, 1843) (= D. d. lauri (Stierlin, 1861), syn. nov.), Dodecastichus mastix (Olivier, 1807) (= D. m. perlongus (Solari & Solari, 1915), syn. nov.; = D. m. scabrior (Reitter, 1913), syn. nov.), Dorytomus Germar, 1817 (= D. subgen. Chaetodorytomus Iablokov-Khnzorian, 1970, syn. nov.; = D. subgen. Euolamus Reitter, 1916, syn. nov.; = D. subgen. Olamus Reitter, 1916, syn. nov.), Exapion Bedel, 1887 (= Ulapion Ehret, 1997, syn. nov.), Larinus ursus (Fabricius, 1792) (= L. carinirostris Gyllenhal, 1837, syn. nov.; = L. genei Boheman, 1843, syn. nov.), Lixini Schönherr, 1823 (= Rhinocyllini Lacordaire, 1863, syn. nov.), Metacinops rhinomacer Kraatz, 1862 (= M. calabrus Stierlin, 1892, syn. nov.), Microplontus nigrovittatus (Schultze,1901) (= Ceutorhynchus subfasciatus Chevrolat, 1860 not Schönherr, 1826, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus amicalis cenomanus Colonnelli & Magnano, nom. nov. (= O. a. lessinicus (Osella, 1983) not O. lessinicus Franz, 1938, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus anophthalmoides omeros nom. nov. (= O. a. istriensis (F. Solari, 1955) not Germar, 1824, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus anthracinus (Scopoli, 1763) (= O. calabrus Stierlin, 1880, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus armadillo (Rossi, 1792) (= O. halbherri Stierlin, 1890, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus clibbianus Colonnelli & Magnano, nom. nov. (= O. judicariensis (Osella, 1983) not Reitter, 1913, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus cornicinus Stierlin, 1861 (= Curculio laevigatus Fabricius, 1792 not Paykull, 1792, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus fortis Rosenhauer, 1847 (= O. fortis valarsae Reitter, 1913, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus nodosus (O. F. Müller, 1764) (= O. nodosus comosellus Boheman, 1843, syn. nov.; = O. nodosus gobanzi Gredler, 1868, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus pupillatus Gyllenhal, 1834 (= O. p. angustipennis Stierlin, 1883, syn. nov.; = O. venetus F. Solari, 1947, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus serradae Colonnelli & Magnano, nom. nov. (= O. carinatus (Osella 1983) not (Paykull, 1792), syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus strigirostris Boheman, 1843 (= O. aterrimus : Di Marco & Osella, 2002 not Boheman, 1843, syn. nov.; = O. calvus Fiori, 1899, syn. nov.), O. sulcatus (Fabricius, 1775) (= O. linearis Stierlin, 1861, syn. nov.), Otiorhynchus tenebricosus (Herbst, 1784) (= O. olivieri Abbazzi & Osella, 1992, syn. nov.), Phrydiuchus augusti Colonnelli, nom. nov. (= Ceuthorrhynchus speiseri Schultze, 1897 not C. speiseri Frivaldszkyi, 1894, syn. nov.), Phyllobius maculicornis Germar, 1824 (= P. m. lucanus Solari & Solari, 1903, syn. nov.), Phyllobius pyri (Linné, 1758) (= P. vespertinus (Fabricius, 1792), syn. nov.), Polydrusus subgen. Chaerodrys Jacquelin du Val, [1854] (= P. subgen. Metadrosus Schilsky, 1910, syn. nov.), Polydrusus subgen. Eudipnus C. G. Thomson, 1859 (= P. subgen. Chrysoyphis Gozis, 1882, syn. nov.; P. subgen. Thomsoneonymus Desbrochers, 1902, syn. nov.), Polydrusus subgen. Eurodrusus Korotyaev & Meleshko, 1997 (= P. subgen. Neoeustolus Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal, 1999, syn. nov.), Polydrusus armipes Brullé, 1832 (= P. a. faillae Desbrochers, 1859, syn. nov.), Pseudomyllocerus invreae invreae (F. Solari, 1948) (= Curculio cinerascens Fabricius, 1792 not [Gmelin], 1790], syn. nov. ), Zacladus Reitter, 1916 (= Z. subgen. Amurocladus Korotyaev, 1997, syn. nov.; = Z. subgen. Angarocladus Korotyaev, 1997, syn. nov.; = Z. subgen. Gobicladus Korotyaev, 1997, syn. nov.; = Z. subgen. Scythocladus Korotyaev, 1997, syn. nov.). New placements are: Amalini Wagner, 1936 as a tribe from synonymy under Ceutorhynchini; Acentrotypus Alonso-Zarazaga, 1990, Aizobius Alonso-Zarazaga, 1990, Aspidapion Schilsky, 1901, Catapion Schilsky, 1906, Ceratapion Schilsky, 1901, Cistapion Wagner, 1924,Cyanapion Bokor, 1923, Diplapion Reitter, 1916, Eutrichapion Reitter, 1916, Exapion Bedel, 1887, Helianthemapion Wagner, 1930, Hemitrichapion Voss, 1959, Holotrichapion Györffy, 1956, Ischnopterapion Bokor, 1923, Ixapion Roudier & Tempère,1973, Kalcapion Schilsky, 1906, Lepidapion Schilsky, 1906, Melanapion Wagner, 1930, Mesotrichapion Györffy, 1956, Metapion Schilsky, 1906, Omphalapion Schilsky, 1901, Onychapion Schilsky, 1901, Oryxolaemus AlonsoZarazaga, 1990, Osellaeus Alonso-Zarazaga, 1990, Perapion Wagner, 1907, Phrissotrichum Schilsky, 1901, Pirapion Reitter, 1916, Protapion Schilsky, 1908, Pseudapion Schilsky, Pseudoperapion Wagner, 1930, Pseudoprotapion Ehret, 1990, Pseudostenapion Wagner, 1930, Rhodapion AlonsoZarazaga, 1990, Squamapion Bokor, 1923, Stenopterapion Bokor, 1923, Synapion Schilsky, 1902, Taeniapion Schilsky, 1906, Trichopterapion Wagner, 1930, all as genera from subgenera of Apion Herbst, 1797; Aspidapion subgen. Koestlinia Alonso-Zarazaga, 1990 and Phryssotrichum subgen. Schilskyapion Alonso-Zarazaga, 1990 from synonymy with Apion Herbst, 1797; Phyllobius italicus Solari & Solari, 1903 and Phyllobius reicheidius Desbrochers, 1873, both from subspecies of P. pyri (Linné, 1758); Mogulones aubei (Boheman, 1845) as a valid species from synonymy with M. talbum (Gyllenhal, 1837); Styphlidius italicus Osella, 1981 as species from subspecies of S. corcyreus (Reitter, 1884). Otiorhynchus subgen. Presolanus Pesarini, 2001 is here selected over O. subgen. Pesolanus Pesarini, 2001, alternative original spelling, here rejected. The incorrect original spelling Otiorhynchus nocturnus peetzi Franz, 1938 is emended in O. n. peezi. New combination are: Eremiarhinus (Depresseremiarhinus) dilatatus (Fabricius, 1801), comb. nov.; Eremiarinus (Pseudorhinus) impressicollis (Boheman, 1834) jarrigei (Roudier, 1959); E. (Pseudorhinus) impressicollis luciae (Ragusa, 1883), comb. nov.; E. (Pseudorhinus) impressicollis peninsularis (F. Solari, 1940), comb. nov.; E. (Pseudorhinus) laesirostris (Fairmaire, 1859), comb. nov., all resulting from the new placement of Depresseremiarhinus Pic, 1914 and of Pseudorhinus Melichar, 1923 as subgenera of Eremiarhinus Fairmaire, 1876. The subfamilial name Phytonominae Gistel, 1848 is used as valid over Hyperinae Marseul, 1863. Nomenclatural changes published from 1992 to date, and affecting Italian weevils are also listed.

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

Emily Hahn and Katharine Fowler challenged gender barriers decades ahead of modern feminism, and, together with other pioneering women geologists, they provide inspiration for all. They met at the University of Wisconsin in 1925. Hahn had chosen engineering because a professor said women can not be engineers. Rejecting an office-only mining career, she then found her ultimate calling as writer and world traveler, spending two years in the Belgian Congo (1931-33) and eight in China (1935-43). During the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong, she had a daughter by a British officer, whom she married in 1945. Fowler came from Bryn Mawr College to Wisconsin to compete in a men's world. They forced acceptance as the first women to take a mining geology field trip and a topographic mapping field course. Later, in disguise, Fowler gained admission to a Black Hills mine and then did Ph.D. field work alone in Wyoming. After an African Geological Congress, she worked in the Sierra Leone bush (1931-33) and then began teaching at Wellesley College (1935). She attended a 1937 Soviet Union Geological Congress, taking harrowing field trips in the Caucusus Mountains and Siberia. From 1938, she and her new husband, Harvard geologist Marland Billings, collaborated in important New England research.

In the present monograph, the taxonomy of the species of the genus Maladera Mulsant & Rey, 1871 from China is revised. We recorded 224 valid species for China, including 152 species new to science: Maladera allonitens Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. anhuiensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. apicalis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. aptera Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. baii Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. baishaoensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. bansongchana Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. baoxingensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. bawanglingana Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. bawanglingensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. beibengensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. beidouensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. bikouensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. breviclava Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. bubengensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. businskyorum Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. chenzhouana Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. constellata Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. crenatotibialis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. crenolatipes Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. daanensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. dadongshanica Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. dahongshanica Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. dajuensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. danfengensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. dayaoshanica Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. diaolinensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. emeifengensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. enigma Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. erlangshanica Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. eshanensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. excisilabrata Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. fangana Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. fangchengensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. fencli Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. fengyangshanica Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. fereobscurata Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. filigraniforceps Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. flavipennis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. fuanensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. guangdongana Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. guangzhaishanica Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. guanxianensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. guanxiensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. guomenshanensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. guomenshanica Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. gusakovi Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. haba Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. habashanensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. hajeki Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. hansmalickyi Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. hongyuanensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. houzhenziensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. hsui Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. huanianensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. hubeiensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. hui Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. hunanensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. hunuguensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. hutiaoensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. jaroslavi Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. jatuai Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. jiangi Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. jingdongensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. jinggangshanica Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. jinghongensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. jiucailingensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. jizuana Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. juntongi Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. juxianensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. kalawensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. kryschanowskii Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. kubeceki Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. laocaiensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. lianxianensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. liaochengensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. liwenzhui Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. longruiensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. luoxiangensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. lushanensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. lushuiensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. maguanensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. maoershana Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. mupingensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. nabanensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. nanlingensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. nanpingensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. ninglangensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. panyuensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. parabrunnescens Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. paradetersa Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. paranitens Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. paraserripes Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. parobscurata Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. peregoi Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. pieli Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. pingchuanensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. pseudoconsularis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. pseudoegregia Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. pseudoexima Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. pseudofuscipes Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. pseudonitens Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. pseudosenta Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. pui Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. putaodiensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. qianqingtangensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. queinneci Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. riberai Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. robustula Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. rubriventris Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. rufonitida Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. rufopaca Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. sanqingshanica Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. serratiforceps Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. shaluishanica Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. shangraoensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. shaowuensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. shenglongi Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. shengqiaoae Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. shiniushanensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. shiruguanensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. shiwandashanensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. shoumanensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. sinobiloba Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. snizeki Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. songi Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. taiyangheensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. tengchongensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. tiachiensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. tiammushanica Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. tiani Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. tianzushanica Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. tongzhongensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. trifidiforceps Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. uncipenis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. wandingana Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. weni Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. wipfleri Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. wulaoshanica Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. wuliangshanensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. wupingensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. xingkei Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. xingkeyangi Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. xinqiaoensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. xuezhongi Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. yakouensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. yangi Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. yibini Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. yipinglangensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. yongrenensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. yunnanica Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n., M. zhejiangensis Ahrens, Fabrizi & Liu, sp. n. The work also resulted in nine new combinations and 17 new synonyms: Maladera (subgenus Omaladera Reitter, 1896) (= Cephaloserica Brenske, 1900, syn. n.; = Coronoserica Brenske, 1902, syn. n.); Maladera formosae (Brenske, 1898) (= Autoserica castanea Arrow, 1913, syn. n.; = Serica korgei Petrovitz, 1967, syn. n.); Maladera motschulskyi (Brenske, 1897) (= Autoserica furcillata Brenske, 1897, syn. n.; Serica schoenfeldti Murayama, 1937, syn. n.); Maladera pallida (Burmeister, 1855) comb. n. (= Maladera ludipennis Miyake, Yamaguchi & Aoki 2002, syn. n.); Maladera renardi (Ballion, 1870) (= Serica delicta Brenske, 1897, syn. n.); Maladera secreta (Brenske, 1897) (= Autoserica cruralis Frey, 1972, syn. n.); Maladera verticalis (Fairmaire, 1888) (= Autoserica hiekei Frey, 1972, syn. n.); Maladera futschauana (Brenske, 1897) (= Autoserica atavana Brenske, 1902, syn. n.; = Autoserica montivaga Moser, 1915, syn. n.); Maladera aureola (Murayama, 1938) (= Maladera liotibia Nomura, 1974, syn. n.); Maladera brunnescens (Frey, 1972) comb. n., Maladera exima (Arrow, 1946) comb. n., Maladera gansuensis (Miyake & Yamaya, 2001) comb. n., Maladera nigrobrunnea (Moser, 1926) comb. n., Maladera orientalis (Motschulsky, 1858) (= Serica salebrosa Brenske, 1897, syn. n.; =Autoserica davidis Brenske, 1898, syn. n.; = Serica mirabilis Brenske, 1894, syn. n.), Maladera punctulata (Frey, 1972) comb. n., Maladera rotunda (Arrow, 1946) comb. n., Maladera serripes (Moser, 1915) comb. n., Maladera senta (Brenske, 1897) (= Autoserica subspinosa Brenske, 1898, syn n.); Maladera spissigrada (Brenske, 1897) (= Serica nakayamai Murayama, 1938, syn. n.); Maladera tibialis (Brenske, 1898) comb. n. The lectotypes of the following species were designated: Autoserica furcillata Brenske, 1897, A. cariniceps Moser, 1915, A. diversipes Moser, 1915, A. flammea Brenske, 1898, A. fuscipes Moser, 1915, A. gibbiventris Brenske, 1897, A. hongkongica Brenske, 1898, A. obscurata Moser, 1915, A. piceola Moser, 1915, Serica delicta Brenske, 1897, S. exigua Brenske, 1894, S. nigrobrunnea Moser, 1926, S. orientalis Motschulsky, 1858, S. pallida Burmeister, 1855, S. salebrosa Brenske, 1897, and S. sibirica Brenske, 1897. Keys to the subgenera and species groups of Maladera, as well as a key to the species within each species-group are provided. Furthermore, we provide maps of the species distribution, as well as illustrations of the habitus and male genitalia.

The genus Olios Walckenaer, 1837 is revised, a generic diagnosis is given and an identification key to eight species groups is provided. Olios in its revised sense includes 87 species and is distributed in Africa, southern Europe and Asia. Three species groups are revised in this first part, an identification key to species for each group is provided, five new species are described and all included species are illustrated. The Olios argelasius-group includes O. argelasius Walckenaer, 1806, O. canariensis (Lucas, 1838), O. pictus (Simon, 1885), O. fasciculatus Simon, 1880 and O. kunzi spec. nov. (male, female; Namibia, Zambia, South Africa); it is distributed in the Mediterranean region, northern Africa including Canary Islands, in the Middle East, South Sudan, East Africa, and southern Africa. The Olios coenobitus-group includes O. angolensis spec. nov. (male; Angola), O. coenobitus Fage, 1926, O. denticulus spec. nov. (male; Java), O. erraticus Fage, 1926, O. gambiensis spec. nov. (male, female; Gambia), O. milleti (Pocock, 1901b), O. mordax (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1899) and O. pusillus Simon, 1880; it is distributed in Africa (Gambia, Angola, Tanzania, Madagascar) and Asia (India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia: Java). The Olios auricomis-group includes only O. auricomis (Simon, 1880), distributed in Africa south of 10°N. Other species groups are introduced briefly and will be revised in forthcoming revisions. The Olios correvoni-group includes currently O. claviger (Pocock, 1901a), O. correvoni Lessert, 1921, O. correvoni choupangensis Lessert, 1936, O. darlingi (Pocock, 1901a), O. faesi Lessert, 1933, O. freyi Lessert, 1929, O. kassenjicola Strand, 1916b, O. kruegeri (Simon, 1897a), O. quadrispilotus (Simon, 1880) comb. nov., O. lucieni comb. nov. nom. nov., O. sjostedti Lessert, 1921 and O. triarmatus Lessert, 1936; it is distributed in Africa (Zimbabwe, Tanzania incl. Zanzibar, Angola, Congo, Central Africa, South Africa, Botswana; O. darlingi was recorded from Zimbabwe and Botswana and not from South Africa). The Olios rossettii-group includes: O. baulnyi (Simon, 1874), O. bhattacharjeei (Saha & Raychaudhuri, 2007), O. brachycephalus Lawrence, 1938, O. floweri Lessert, 1921, O. jaldaparaensis Saha & Raychaudhuri, 2007, O. japonicus Jäger & Ono, 2000, O. kolosvaryi (Caporiacco, 1947b) comb. nov., O. longipes (Simon, 1884b), O. lutescens (Thorell, 1894), O. mahabangkawitus Barrion & Litsinger, 1995, O. obesulus (Pocock, 1901b), O. rossettii (Leardi, 1901), O. rotundiceps (Pocock, 1901b), O. sericeus (Kroneberg, 1875), O. sherwoodi Lessert, 1929, O. suavis (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1876), O. tarandus (Simon, 1897d), O. tener (Thorell, 1891) and O. tiantongensis (Zhang & Kim, 1996); it is distributed in the Mediterranean region, in Africa (especially eastern half) and Asia (Middle East and Central Asia to Japan, Philippines and Java). The Olios nentwigi-group includes O. diao Jäger, 2012, O. digitatus Sun, Li & Zhang, 2011, O. jaenicke Jäger, 2012, O. muang Jäger, 2012, O. nanningensis (Hu & Ru, 1988), O. nentwigi spec. nov. (male, female; Indonesia: Krakatau), O. perezi Barrion & Litsinger, 1995, O. scalptor Jäger & Ono, 2001 and O. suung Jäger, 2012; it is distributed in Asia (Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Taiwan, Indonesia, Philippines), Papua New Guinea and Mariana Islands. Olios diao is newly recorded from Cambodia and Champasak Province in Laos. The Olios stimulator-group includes O. admiratus (Pocock, 1901b), O. hampsoni (Pocock, 1901b), O. lamarcki (Latreille, 1806) and O. stimulator Simon, 1897c; it is distributed in Africa (Madagascar, Seychelles), Middle East and South Asia (United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Maldives, Sri Lanka). The Olios hirtus-group includes O. bungarensis Strand, 1913b, O. debalae (Biswas & Roy, 2005), O. ferox (Thorell, 1892), O. hirtus (Karsch, 1879a), O. igraya (Barrion & Litsinger, 1995) comb. nov., O. menghaiensis (Wang & Zhang, 1990), O. nigrifrons (Simon, 1897b), O. punctipes Simon, 1884a, O. punctipes sordidatus (Thorell, 1895), O. pyrozonis (Pocock, 1901b), O. sungaya (Barrion & Litsinger, 1995) comb. nov., O. taprobanicus Strand, 1913b and O. tikaderi Kundu et al., 1999; it is distributed in South, East and Southeast Asia (Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar, China, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines). Nineteen synonyms are recognised: Nisueta Simon, 1880, Nonianus Simon, 1885, both = Olios syn. nov.; O. spenceri Pocock, 1896, O. werneri (Simon, 1906a), O. albertius Strand, 1913a, O. banananus Strand, 1916a, O. aristophanei Lessert, 1936, all = O. fasciculatus; O. subpusillus Strand, 1907c = O. pusillus; O. schonlandi (Pocock, 1900b), O. rufilatus Pocock, 1900c, O. chiracanthiformis Strand, 1906, O. ituricus Strand, 1913a, O. isongonis Strand, 1915, O. flavescens Caporiacco, 1941 comb. nov., O. pacifer Lessert, 1921, all = O. auricomis; Olios sanguinifrons (Simon, 1906b) = O. rossettii Leardi, 1901; O. phipsoni (Pocock, 1899), Sparassus iranii (Pocock, 1901b), both = O. stimulator; O. fuligineus (Pocock, 1901b) = O. hampsoni. Nine species are transferred to Olios: O. gaujoni (Simon, 1897b) comb. nov., O. pictus comb. nov., O. unilateralis (Strand, 1908b) comb. nov. (all three from Nonianus), O. affinis (Strand, 1906) comb. nov., O. flavescens Caporiacco, 1941 comb. nov., O. quadrispilotus comb. nov., O. similis (Berland, 1922) comb. nov. (all four from Nisueta), O. sungaya (Barrion & Litsinger, 1995) comb. nov., O. igraya (Barrion & Litsinger, 1995) comb. nov. (both from Isopeda L. Koch 1875). Olios lucieni nom. nov. comb. nov. is proposed for Nisueta similis Berland, 1922, which becomes a secondary homonym. The male of O. quadrispilotus comb. nov. is described for the first time. Sixteen species are currently without affiliation to one of the eight species groups: O. acolastus (Thorell, 1890), O. alluaudi Simon, 1887a, O. batesi (Pocock, 1900c), O. bhavnagarensis Sethi & Tikader, 1988, O. croseiceps (Pocock, 1898b), O. durlaviae Biswas & Raychaudhuri, 2005, O. gentilis (Karsch, 1879b), O. gravelyi Sethi & Tikader, 1988, O. greeni (Pocock, 1901b), O. inaequipes (Simon 1890), O. punjabensis Dyal, 1935, O. ruwenzoricus Strand, 1913a, O. senilis Simon, 1880, O. somalicus Caporiacco, 1940, O. wroughtoni (Simon, 1897c) and O. zulu Simon, 1880. Five of these species are illustrated in order to allow identification of the opposite (male) sex and to settle their systematic placement. Thirty-seven species are considered nomina dubia, mostly because they were described from immatures, three of them are illustrated: O. abnormis (Blackwall, 1866), O. affinis (Strand, 1906) comb. nov., O. africanus (Karsch, 1878), O. amanensis Strand, 1907a, O. annandalei (Simon, 1901), O. bivittatus Roewer, 1951, O. ceylonicus (Leardi, 1902), O. conspersipes (Thorell, 1899), Palystes derasus (C.L. Koch, 1845) comb. nov., O. detritus (C.L. Koch, 1845), O. digitalis Eydoux & Souleyet, 1842, O. exterritorialis Strand, 1907b, O. flavovittatus (Caporiacco, 1935), O. fugax (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1885), O. guineibius Strand, 1911c, O. guttipes (Simon, 1897a), O. kiranae Sethi & Tikader, 1988, O. longespinus Caporiacco, 1947b, O. maculinotatus Strand, 1909, O. morbillosus (MacLeay, 1827), O. occidentalis (Karsch, 1879b), O. ornatus (Thorell, 1877), O. pagurus Walckenaer, 1837, O. patagiatus (Simon, 1897b), O. praecinctus (L. Koch, 1865), O. provocator Walckenaer, 1837, O. quesitio Moradmand, 2013, O. quinquelineatus Taczanowski, 1872, O. sexpunctatus Caporiacco, 1947a, Heteropoda similaris (Rainbow, 1898) comb. rev., O. socotranus (Pocock, 1903), O. striatus (Blackwall, 1867), O. timidus (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1885), Remmius variatus (Thorell, 1899) comb. nov., O. vittifemur Strand, 1916b, O. wolfi Strand, 1911a and O. zebra (Thorell, 1881). Eighty-nine species are misplaced in Olios but cannot be affiliated to any of the known genera. They belong to the subfamilies Deleninae Hogg, 1903, Sparassinae Bertkau, 1872 and Palystinae Simon, 1897a, nineteen of them are illustrated: O. acostae Schenkel, 1953, O. actaeon (Pocock, 1898c), O. artemis Hogg, 1915, O. atomarius Simon, 1880, O. attractus Petrunkevitch, 1911, O. auranticus Mello-Leitão, 1918, O. benitensis (Pocock, 1900c), O. berlandi Roewer, 1951, O. biarmatus Lessert, 1925, O. canalae Berland, 1924, O. caprinus Mello-Leitão, 1918, O. chelifer Lawrence, 1937, O. chubbi Lessert, 1923, O. clarus (Keyserling, 1880), O. coccineiventris (Simon, 1880), O. corallinus Schmidt, 1971, O. crassus Banks, 1909, O. debilipes Mello-Leitão, 1945, O. discolorichelis Caporiacco, 1947a, O. erroneus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1890, O. extensus Berland, 1924, O. fasciiventris Simon, 1880 , O. feldmanni Strand, 1915, O. fimbriatus Chrysanthus, 1965, O. flavens Nicolet, 1849, O. fonticola (Pocock, 1902), O. formosus Banks, 1929, O. francoisi (Simon, 1898a), O. fulvithorax Berland, 1924, O. galapagoensis Banks, 1902, O. gaujoni (Simon, 1897b) comb. nov., O. giganteus Keyserling, 1884, O. hoplites Caporiacco, 1941, O. humboldtianus Berland, 1924, O. insignifer Chrysanthus, 1965, O. insulanus (Thorell, 1881), O. keyserlingi (Simon, 1880), O. lacticolor Lawrence, 1952, O. lepidus Vellard, 1924, O. longipedatus Roewer, 1951, O. machadoi Lawrence, 1952, O. macroepigynus Soares, 1944, O. maculatus Blackwall, 1862, O. marshalli (Pocock, 1898a), O. mathani (Simon, 1880), O. minensis Mello-Leitão, 1917, O. monticola Berland, 1924, O. mutabilis Mello-Leitão, 1917, O. mygalinus Doleschall, 1857, O. mygalinus cinctipes Merian, 1911, O. mygalinus nirgripalpis Merian, 1911, O. neocaledonicus Berland, 1924, O. nigristernis (Simon, 1880), O. nigriventris Taczanowski, 1872, O. oberzelleri Kritscher, 1966, O. obscurus (Keyserling, 1880), O. obtusus F.O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1900, O. orchiticus Mello-Leitão, 1930, O. oubatchensis Berland, 1924, O. paraensis (Keyserling, 1880), O. pellucidus (Keyserling, 1880), O. peruvianus Roewer, 1951, O. pictitarsis Simon, 1880, O. plumipes Mello-Leitão, 1937, O. princeps Hogg, 1914, O. pulchripes (Thorell, 1899), O. puniceus (Simon, 1880), O. roeweri Caporiacco, 1955a, O. rubripes Taczanowski, 1872, O. rubriventris (Thorell, 1881), O. rufus Keyserling, 1880, O. sanctivincenti (Simon, 1898b), O. similis (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1890), O. simoni (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1890), O. skwarrae Roewer, 1933, O. spinipalpis (Pocock, 1901a), O. stictopus (Pocock, 1898a), O. strandi Kolosváry, 1934, O. subadultus Mello-Leitão, 1930, O. sulphuratus (Thorell, 1899), O. sylvaticus (Blackwall, 1862), O. tamerlani Roewer, 1951, O. tigrinus (Keyserling, 1880), O. trifurcatus (Pocock, 1900c), O. trinitatis Strand, 1916a, O. velox (Simon, 1880), O. ventrosus Nicolet, 1849, O. vitiosus Vellard, 1924 and O. yucatanus Chamberlin, 1925. Seventeen taxa are transferred from Olios to other genera within Sparassidae, eight of them are illustrated: Adcatomus luteus (Keyserling, 1880) comb. nov., Eusparassus flavidus (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1885) comb. nov., Palystes derasus (C.L. Koch, 1845) comb. nov., Heteropoda similaris (Rainbow, 1898) comb. rev., Remmius variatus (Thorell, 1899) comb. nov., Nolavia audax (Banks, 1909) comb. nov., Nolavia antiguensis (Keyserling, 1880) comb. nov., Nolavia antiguensis columbiensis (Schmidt, 1971) comb. nov., Nolavia fuhrmanni (Strand, 1914) comb. nov., Nolavia helva (Keyserling, 1880) comb. nov., Nolavia stylifer (F.O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1900) comb. nov., Nolavia valenciae (Strand, 1916a) comb. nov., Nungara cayana (Taczanowski, 1872) comb. nov., Polybetes bombilius (F.O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1899) comb. nov., Polybetes fasciatus (Keyserling, 1880) comb. nov., Polybetes hyeroglyphicus (Mello-Leitão, 1918) comb. nov. and Prychia paalonga (Barrion & Litsinger, 1995) comb. nov. One species is transferred from Olios to the family Clubionidae Wagner, 1887: Clubiona paenuliformis (Strand, 1916a) comb. nov.

Background. А history of the development of the human community is at the same time a history of the relationship between men and women, their role in society, in formation of mindset, development of science, technology and art. A woman’s path to the recognition of her merits is a struggle for equality and inclusion in all sectors of public life. Originated with particular urgency in the twentieth century, this set of problems gave impetus to the study of the female phenomenon in the sociocultural space. In this context, the disclosure of the direct contribution of talented women to art and their influence on its development has become of special relevance. The purpose of the article is to summarize segmental of information that highlights the contribution of women to the treasury of world art, their creative and inspiring power. Analytical, historical-biographical and comparative studying methods were applied to reveal the gender relationships in art and the role of woman in them as well as in the sociocultural space in general. The results from this study present a panorama of gifted women from the world of art and music who paved the way for future generations. Among them are: A. Gentileschi (1593–1653), who was the first woman admitted to The Florence Academy of Art; M. Vigee Le Brun (1755–1842), who painted portraits of the French aristocracy and later became a confidant of Marie-Antoinette; B. Morisot (1841–1895), who was accepted by the impressionists in their circle and repeatedly exhibited her works in the Paris Salon; F. Caccini (1587–1640), who went down in history as an Italian composer, teacher, harpsichordist, author of ballets and music for court theater performances; J. Kinkel (1810–1858) – the first female choral director in Germany, who published books about musical education, composed songs on poems of famous poets, as well as on her own texts; F. Mendelssohn (1805–1847) – German singer, pianist and composer, author of cantatas, vocal miniatures of organ preludes, piano pieces; R. Clark (1886–1979) – British viola player and composer who created trio, quartets, compositions for solo instruments, songs on poems of English poets; L. Boulanger (1893–1918) became the first woman to receive Grand Prix de Rome; R. Tsekhlin (1926–2007) – German harpsichordist, composer and teacher who successfully combined the composition of symphonies, concerts, choral and vocal opuses, operas, ballets, music for theatrical productions and cinema with active performing and teaching activities, and many others. The article emphasise the contribution of women-composers, writers, poetesses to the treasury of world literature and art. Among the composers in this row is S. Gubaidulina (1931), who has about 30 prizes and awards. She wrote music for 17 films and her works are being performed by famous musicians around the world. The glory of Ukrainian music is L. Dychko (1939) – the author of operas, oratorios, cantatas, symphonies, choral concertos, ballets, piano works, romances, film music. The broad famous are the French writers: S.-G. Colette (1873–1954), to which the films were devoted, the performances based on her novels are going all over the world, her lyrics are being studied in the literature departments. She was the President of the Goncourt Academy, Chevalier of the Legion of Honour, a square in the center of Paris is named after her. Also, creativity by her compatriot, L. de Vilmorin (1902–1969), on whose poems С. Arrieu, G. Auric, F. Poulenc wrote vocal miniatures, is beloved and recognized as in France as and widely abroad. The article denotes a circle of women who combined the position of a selfsufficient creator and a muse for their companion. M. Verevkina (1860–1938) – a Russian artist, a representative of expressionism in painting, not only helped shape the aesthetic views of her husband A. Yavlensky, contributing to his art education, but for a long time “left the stage” for to not compete with him and help him develop his talent fully. Furthermore, she managed to anticipate many of the discoveries as for the use of light that are associated with the names of H. Matisse, A. Derain and other French fauvist. F. Kahlo (1907–1954), a Mexican artist, was a strict critic and supporter for her husband D. Rivera, led his business, was frequently depicted in his frescoes. C. Schumann (1819–1896) was a committed promoter of R. Schumann’s creativity. She performed his music even when he was not yet recognized by public. She included his compositions in the repertoire of her students after the composer lost his ability to play due to the illness of the hands. She herself performed his works, making R. Schumann famous across Europe. In addition, Clara took care of the welfare of the family – the main source of finance was income from her concerts. The article indicates the growing interest of the twentieth century composers to the poems of female poets. Among them M. Debord-Valmore (1786–1859) – a French poetess, about whom S. Zweig, P. Verlaine and L. Aragon wrote their essays, and her poems were set to music by C. Franck, G. Bizet and R. Ahn; R. Auslender (1901–1988) is a German poetess, a native of Ukraine (Chernovtsy city), author of more than 20 collections, her lyrics were used by an American woman-composer E. Alexander to write “Three Songs” and by German composer G. Grosse-Schware who wrote four pieces for the choir; I. Bachmann (1926–1973) – the winner of three major Austrian awards, author of the libretto for the ballet “Idiot” and opera “The Prince of Hombur”. The composer H. W. Henze, in turn, created music for the play “Cicadas” by I. Bachmann. On this basis, we conclude that women not only successfully engaged in painting, wrote poems and novels, composed music, opened «locked doors», destroyed established stereotypes but were a powerful source of inspiration. Combining the roles of the creator and muse, they helped men reach the greatest heights. Toward the twentieth century, the role of the fair sex representatives in the world of art increased and strengthened significantly, which led Western European culture to a new round of its evolution.

This overview of the Luciolinae addresses the fauna of S. E. Asia including India, Sri Lanka, China, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, the Republic of Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, and the Australopacific area of Australia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, New Caledonia, Vanuatu and Fiji.Of the 28 genera now recognised in the Luciolinae we address 27 genera from the study area as defined above, including three new genera which are described herein, and 222 species including 13 species newly described herein. Photuroluciola Pic from Madagascar is the only Luciolinae genus not addressed here. A key to genera is presented. Keys to species are either included here or referenced in existing literature. Twelve genera have had no new taxonomic decisions made nor are any new species records listed, and are addressed in an abbreviated fashion, with short diagnoses and plates of features of life stages: Aquatica Fu et al. 2010, Australoluciola Ballantyne 2013, Convexa Ballantyne 2009, Emeia Fu et al. 2012a, Inflata Boontop 2015, Lloydiella Ballantyne 2009, Missimia Ballantyne 2009, Pteroptyx Olivier 1902, Pyrophanes Olivier 1885, Sclerotia Ballantyne 2016, Triangulara Pimpasalee 2016, and Trisinuata Ballantyne 2013. Abscondita Ballantyne 2013 contains 8 species, and includes new records for Abs. anceyi (Olivier 1883), Abs. chinensis (L.) (which is newly synonymised with Luciola succincta Bourgeois), Abs. terminalis (Olivier 1883) including a first record from both Laos and Thailand, and Abs. perplexa (Walker 1858). Luciola pallescens Gorham 1880 is transferred to Abscondita and the pronotal colour range is addressed from a wide range of localities. Abs. berembun Nada sp. nov. and Abs. jerangau Nada sp. nov. are described from Malaysia. Hooked bursa plates are described for pallescens and berembun. Aquilonia Ballantyne 2009 is expanded to include 3 species. Gilvainsula Ballantyne 2009, represented by two species from the south eastern coast of New Guinea is synonymised under Aquilonia Ballantyne 2009, which is briefly redescribed and keyed from: Aquil. costata (Lea) from northern Australia, including many new records, Aquil. messoria (Ballantyne) comb. nov. and Aquil. similismessoria (Ballantyne) comb. nov. Asymmetricata Ballantyne 2009 now includes 4 species. As. bicoloripes (Pic 1927) comb. nov. and As. humeralis (Walker 1858) comb. nov. are transferred from Luciola, with L. doriae Olivier 1885, L. impressa Olivier 1910b and L. notatipennis Olivier 1909a newly synonymised with As. humeralis. Luciola aemula Olivier 1891 is synonymised with As. ovalis (Hope 1831). The variation in the extent of the anterior median emargination of the light organ in ventrite 7, and the possibility of a bipartite light organ in males of As. circumdata (Motsch. 1854) is explored. Females of both As. circumdata and As. ovalis (Hope 1831) are without bursa plates and the distinctively shaped median oviduct plate in each is described. Records from Thailand are recorded for both As. circumdata and As. ovalis. Atyphella Olliff 1890 now contains 28 species with 4 transferred from other genera, and one new species: Aty. abdominalis (Olivier 1886) comb. nov. and Aty. striata (Fabricius 1801) comb. nov. are transferred from Luciola, with Aty. carolinae Olivier 1911b and Aty. rennellia (Ballantyne 2009) comb. nov. transferred from Magnalata Ballantyne 2009. Atyphella telokdalam Ballantyne sp. nov. from Indonesia is described herein. Atyphella is now known from records in the Philippines and Indonesia as well as Australia and New Guinea. Colophotia Motschulsky 1853 is considered here from seven species for which intact types can be located for three. An abbreviated revision based on the United States National Museum collection only is presented, with specimens of C. bakeri Pic 1924, C. brevis Olivier 1903a, C. plagiata (Erichson 1834) and C. praeusta (Eschscholtz 1822) redescribed, using where possible features of males, females and larvae. Colophotia particulariventris Pic 1938 is newly synonymised with C. praeusta. Colophotia miranda Olivier 1886 and L. truncata Olivier 1886 are treated as species incertae sedis. Curtos Motschulsky 1845 includes 19 species with suggestions made, but not yet formalised, for the possible transfer of the following seven species from Luciola: Luciola complanata Gorham 1895, L. costata Pic 1929, L. delauneyi Bourgeois 1890, L. deplanata Pic 1929, L. extricans Walker 1858, L. multicostulata Pic 1927 and L. nigripes Gorham 1903. Curtos is not revised here. Emarginata Ballantyne gen nov. is described for E. trilucida (Jeng et al. 2003b) comb. nov., transferred from Luciola and characterised by the emarginated elytral apex. An extended range of specimens from Thailand is listed. Kuantana Ballantyne gen. nov. from Selangor, Malaysia is described from K. menayah gen. et sp. nov. having bipartite light organs in ventrite 7 and an asymmetrical tergite 8 which is not emarginated on its left side. Female has no bursa plates. Luciola Laporte 1833 s. stricto as defined by a population of the type species Luciola italica (L. 1767) from Pisa, Italy, is further expanded and considered to comprise the following19 species: L. antipodum (Bourgeois 1884), L. aquilaclara Ballantyne 2013, L. chapaensis Pic 1923 which is synonymised with L. atripes Pic 1929, L. curtithorax Pic 1928, L. filiformis Olivier 1913c, L. horni Bourgeois 1905, L. hypocrita Olivier 1888, L. italica (L. 1767), L. kagiana Matsumura 1928, L. oculofissa Ballantyne 2013, L. pallidipes Pic 1928 which is synonymised with L. fletcheri Pic 1935, L. parvula Kiesenwetter 1874, L. satoi Jeng & Yang 2003, L. tuberculata Yiu 2017, and two species treated as near L. laticollis Gorham 1883, and near L. nicollieri Bugnion 1922. The following are described as new: L. niah Jusoh sp. nov., L. jengai Nada sp. nov. and L. tiomana Ballantyne sp. nov. Luciola niah sp. nov. female has two wide bursa plates on each side of the bursa. Luciola s. lato (as defined here) consists of 36 species. Twenty-seven species formerly standing under Luciola have been assigned to other genera or synonymised. Seven species are recommended for transfer to Curtos, and 32 species now stand under species incertae sedis. Magnalata Ballantyne is reduced to the type species M. limbata and redescribed. Medeopteryx Ballantyne 2013 is expanded to 20 species with the addition of two new combinations, Med. semimarginata (Olivier 1883) comb. nov. and Med. timida (Olivier 1883) comb. nov., both transferred from Luciola, and one new species, Med. fraseri Nada sp. nov. from Malaysia. The range of this genus now extends from Australia and the island of New Guinea to SE Asia. Medeopteryx semimarginata females have wide paired bursa plates. Pygoluciola Wittmer 1939 now includes 19 species with 5 new species: P. bangladeshi Ballantyne sp. nov., P. dunguna Nada 2018, P. matalangao Ballantyne sp. nov. (scored by the code name ‘Jeng Matalanga’ in Ballantyne & Lambkin 2013), P. phupan Ballantyne sp. nov. and P. tamarat Jusoh sp. nov. Six species are transferred from Luciola: P. abscondita (Olivier 1891) comb. nov., P. ambita (Olivier 1896) comb. nov., P. calceata (Olivier 1905) comb. nov., P. insularis (Olivier 1883) comb. nov., P. nitescens (Olivier 1903b) comb. nov. and P. vitalisi (Pic 1934) comb. nov., and redescribed from males, and includes female reproductive anatomy for P. nitescens comb. nov. and P. dunguna, both of which have hooked bursa plates. Serratia Ballantyne gen. nov. is erected for S. subuyania gen. et sp. nov. and characterised by the serrate nature of certain antennal flagellar segments in the male. The following 37 species listed under species incertae sedis are further explored: Colophotia miranda Olivier 1886, Lampyris serraticornis Boisduval 1835, Luciola angusticollis Olivier 1886, L. antennalis Bourgeois 1905, L. antica (Boisduval 1835), L. apicalis (Eschscholtz 1822), L. aurantiaca Pic 1927, L. bicoloriceps Pic 1924, L. binhana Pic 1927, L. bourgeoisi Olivier 1895, L. dilatata Pic 1929, L. exigua (Gyllenhall 1817), L. exstincta Olivier 1886, L. fissicollis Fairmaire 1891, L. flava Pic 1929, L. flavescens (Boisduval 1835), L. fukiensis Pic 1955, L. immarginata Bourgeois 1890, L. incerta (Boisduval 1835), L. infuscata (Erichson 1834), L. intricata (Walker 1858), L. japonica (Thunberg 1784), L. klapperichi Pic 1955, L. lata Olivier 1883, L. limbalis Fairmaire 1889, L. marginipennis (Boisduval 1835), L. melancholica Olivier 1913a, L. robusticeps Pic 1928, L. ruficollis (Boisduval 1835), L. spectralis Gorham 1880, L. stigmaticollis Fairmaire 1887, L. tincticollis Gorham 1895, L. trivandrensis Raj 1947, L. truncata Olivier 1886, L. vittata (Laporte 1833) Pteroptyx atripennis Pic 1923 and P. curticollis Pic 1923. While phylogenetic analyses indicate their distinctiveness, no further taxonomic action is taken with Luciola cruciata Motschulsky 1854 and L. owadai Sâtô et Kimura 1994 from Japan given the importance of the former as a national icon. Analyses also indicate that Lampyroidea syriaca Costa 1875 belongs in Luciola s. str. A much wider taxonomic analysis of this genus including all the species is necessary before any further action can be taken.

The cardiac surgery is the youngest surgical specialty that has emerged in the early period of the 20th century. Surprisingly, however, it is also the first surgical specialty that seems to be the first to disappear in a way or another in the second half of the 21st century. Even if the optimists consider this will never happen, it is expected that cardiac surgery will suffer a radical metamorphosis, which makes the realists say that this field of surgery will actually disappear.Before the beginning of the 20th century, the surgeons around the world have been convinced that human heart is untouchable. Remarkable surgeons of the 19th century like Theodor Billroth – the founder of the Viennese school of surgery- said in 1863 that “ Any surgeon that dares to perform surgery on the heart will fail and will lose the appreciation of his colleagues” [1]. This statement reveals the general opinion of that time, that the human heart is the center of the soul, of life itself and therefore it should never be touched. Considering this, Sharman stated in 1902 in „The American Journal of Medical Association” : “even though the heart lies at a few centimeters beneath the skin, it took 2400 years for surgery to reach this distance” [2].Ironically, the same year that English surgeon Stephan Paget stated that “probably the human heart is boundary that nature set for any kind of surgery -1896- was also the year when Ludwig Rehn, a German surgeon from Frankfurt, managed to successfully repair a right ventricular wound, signing the birth certificate of the cardiac surgery [3]. Since then the myth that the human heart can’t be touched by surgeons vanished and the sacred center of the heart has been opened…Two distinct periods of cardiac surgery can be identified over the next 100 years. The first period is the so called “surgery on a closed heart”, before the invention of extracorporeal circulation. In this heroic period, the first interventions that involved the pericardium were performed.In the first years of the 20th century, Alexis Carell imagined the experimental basis of cardio-vascular surgery. He invented the vascular sutures, demonstrated the possibility of organ transplantation and imagined coronary surgery. As recognition of his fundamental work he received the Nobel prize for medicine and physiology in 1912. Although he never performed surgery on humans, Alexis Carell remains to this day the first surgeon in history that was awarded with this prestigious prize [4].Surgery of the pericardium started in 1920 with Ludwig Rehn and Ferdinand Sauerbruch [5]. The first surgical approach of the aortic valve was realized by Theodor Tyffier in Paris in 1912 [6]. He succeeded to enlarge an aortic stenosis through a purse on the anterior wall of the aorta. In 1923, in Boston, USA, Elliot Cuttler realized the first instrumental mitral valve valvulotomy on a 12 year old girl [7]. Using a specially modified forceps, and the apex of the left ventricle as the initial approach, he managed to successfully open the mitral valve commissures and then to close the incision on the left ventricle. The first digital mitral valve commissurotomy through the left appendage was performed in 1925 by Sir Henry Soutar[8]. Catastrophic results ( 90% mortality) lead surgeons to abandon this procedure for the next 25 years. In 1948, Charles P. Bailey (Philadelphia), Dwight E. Harken (Boston) and Russell Brock (London) realized the first successful mitral valve commissurotomy [9,10].The first ligature of patent arterial duct was performed by Robert Edward Gross. This procedure took place at Harvard Medical School and Children’s Hospital from Boston, Massachusetts, in 1938 [11].Palliative treatment of the Fallot tetralogy started with the first systemic-pulmonary shunt,realized by Alfred Blalock in 1944 at John Hopkins Hospital [12]. The idea of subclavio-pulmonaryanastomosis was born with the contribution of Hellen Taussig, founder of pediatric cardiology.Treatment of aortic coarctation was independently realized by Edward Gross and Clarance Crafoord in 1945. Both surgeons managed to excised the diseased segment of the aorta and then performed an end to end anastomosis of the aorta [13].Sir Thomas Holmes-Sellors in 1947 and Russel Brock in 1948 realized the first pulmonary valvevalvulotomy [10].In our country, professor Nicolae Hortolomei was the first to perform surgery on the heart atColtea Hospital. He legated a patent arterial duct, excised an aortic coarctation and successfullyrealized in 1953 a digitally mitral valve commissurotomy [14].The second period of cardiac surgery began with the developing of the extracorporeal circulation.This technology allowed stopping the heart and keeping the patient alive, using a device thatmanage to circulate and oxygenate the blood. This ensemble composed of a pomp and anoxygenator was called “the extracorporeal circulation machine” and made possible the future development of “open cardiac surgery”.In 1946 Wilfred G. Bigelow (Toronto, Canada ), demonstrated the role of hypothermia inincreasing the tissue resistance to hypoxemia. This concept is fundamental in the development of extracorporeal circulation [15]. The first procedure on an open heart was realized by John Lewis from University of Minnesota, Mineapolis USA, on 2 september 1952. He used profund hypotermia and occlusion of the caval veins, without using extracorporeal circulation. Using this technique he closed an interatrial septal defect in a 6 year old boy. Time was his biggest limitation, because the heart could not be stoped for more than 8-10 minutes.On 6 may 1953, John H. Gibbon realised the first open heart surgery using an extracorporealcirculation machine [16]. He succesfully closed and interatrial septal deffect on an 18 years old girl.Unfortunatly he lost the following 4 patients, and he decided to abandon this king of surgery after20 years of research.A year later, on the 26th of March 1954 at „University of Minesotta” from Mineapolis USA, C.Walton Lillehei closed an inteventricluar septal defect on a child using the so called “crossedcirculation technique”. In this procedure, he connected the patient’s circulaton to his fathercirculation, trying to repoduce the fetal circulation [17]. Using this technique he operated 45patients, being the first surgeon that closed ventricular septal defects, corrected the commonatrioventricular canal and treated the Fallot tetralogy. Finding a compatible match for the “cross circulation” was the biggest limit of this technique. This method was untill the developement of liver and renal transplant, the only kind of surgery that could reach 200% mortality rate and was abandoned later due to ethical considerations.Starting from 1955, John Kirkling (Mayo Clinic), used the extracorporeal circulation machine(pomp - oxigenator) [18]. He used the Mayo-Gibbon-IBM type, and this technology began to beused all over the world.In Romania, the first surgical procedure on the heart using an extracorporeal circulation machinewas realized in 1961 at Fundeni Hospital (Bucharest). A remarkable team composed of professor Voinea Marinescu and professor Dan Setlacec, closed an atrial septal defect on an 18 years old boy.The extracorporeal machine was handled by Marian Ionescu, and the anesthesia was managed by professor George Litarczek. The patient is still living.Surgery of the cardiac valves started in 1960 when Albert Starr realized the first mitral valvereplacement [19].Without a doubt coronary artery bypass grafting is the most widly spread type of cardiac surgery.Initially introduced by Michael DeBakey and later perfected by Renee Favaloro in 1960, thisprocedure remains one of the most frequent and best studied type of surgery in medicine [20].A crucial moment in the history of cardiac surgery is represented by the first cardiac transplanton human performed by Christian Barnard in 1967[21]. This achievement consecrate cardiacsurgery as a high performace field and made the cardiac surgen a public figure. In this moment, thelove story between cardiac surgery and media started. Most probably the majority of active cardiac surgeons of this generation owe Christiaan Barnard their option for choosing this field and this medical specialty her huge succes.It is considered that the maximum moment of cardiac surgery is the year 1986 when worldwide over 2000 procedures on the open heart were performed daily.But new discoveries started to appear in the cardiovascular field. In the 70s percutaneous procedures were invented. Andreas Gruntzig realized in 1977 the first coronary angioplasty and coronary stents were implanted in 1986 by Puel and Sigwart. Development on interventional cardiology was exponential and nowadays at the European Association of Cardiothoracic Surgery simposium about the future of cardiac surgery, 90% of the cardiac surgeons stated that they would prefer the coronary stent over coronar artery bypass grafting surgery if they would have to choose as patients.Starting with 2003 when was realised the first transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), the exclusive field of cardiac valve surgery is partialy claimed by interventional cardiology [23].The field of aortic anevrisms and acute dissections falls from cardiac surgery also to interventional cardiology after the developement of endoaortic stent grafts [24,25].As a consequence the number of coronary artery bypass grating procedures falls 28% between 1997 and 2004 in the USA. Meanwhile coronary percutaneos procedures rises with 121% [24,28]. Also it is possible that for the first time in history, the number of cardiac surgeons will decrease untill 2020 [24.28].But cardiac surgery extends in to new fields in order to survive. For exemple, one of the future aspect is the treatment of cardiac insuffiency. It is estimated that over 5 milion americans have cardiac insuffiency [26] and cardiac transplantation is the solution for these patients. Unfortunately, the number of donors falls, and this is no longer an effective solution. Multiple devices are designed in order to help the heart, ranging from univentricular asist devices to artificial hearts. This devices can act as a bridge to cardiac transplantation or they can be the solution for patients that are not eligible for cardiac transplantation.Surgical treatment of atrial fibrilation remains a solid options for patients with this disease which have a high risk of emboly or progression to cardiac insufficiency [27].The field of corection of congenital cardiac malformations lessens because of early diagnostic and possibility to end the pregnancy. But there are surgical treatments for children that are born with complex congenital heart malformations with optimal results.The development of minimally invasive techniques, robotics and hybrid ones represents the response of cardiac surgery to interventional cardiology.Apparently, cardiac surgery and interventional cardiology are merging. More and more patients are heald in hybrind operating rooms, using hybrid techniques. The concept of “heart teams” emerges- a team made of cardiologists, cardiac surgeons and cardiac anesthesiologists. Probably, in the future will exist only a cardiologist-cardiac surgeon or a cardiac surgeon-cardiologist, either way a specialist in cardiovascular medicine.The conclusion isn’t pessimistic. As long as there will be patients, doctors will be needed. It remains to be seen if they will be surgeons, interventional cardiologists or just cardiologists.Certainly, general anesthesia, opeaning the mediastinum through median sternotomy using an electic saw and circulating the patients blood through the extracorporeal circulation machine, not to mention stopping the heart, isn’t the future.But introducing needls in arteries, wires in the aorta and pen sprins into the coronary isn’t also the future.Without a doubt, the future belongs to physicians that will cure cardiovascular disease with pills or even better just with advices...

The fossil bivalvian fauna established in the Topola Formation, the Zelenka section, Northeastern Bulgaria was studied. Six taxa from the species group are described: Obsoletiforma cf. pseudosemisulcata (Andrussov, 1902), Obsoletiforma cf. balcicense (Gillet, 1938), Obsoletiforma cf. centopleura (Andrussov, 1902), Obsoletiforma sp. (aff. obsoleta Eichwald, 1830), Obsoletiforma sp. (aff. lucinoidea Paramonova, 1977), and Inaequicostata sp. (aff. barboti R. Hoernes, 1874). Two of them – O. сentopleura, and O. lucinoidea are announced for the first time in Bulgaria. One taxon is determined at generic level – Obsoletiforma sp. The stratigraphic position of the section in the upper part of the middle (Bessarabian) substage of the Sarmatian (s.l.) stage was determined as the upper part of the interval zone Cryptomactra pseudotellina-Cryptomactra pesanseris and/or lowerest part of the local taxon-range zone Obsoletiforma balcicense. The factors of the abiotic environments and their influence on the presence of the bivalvian fauna in the section are clarified.

Com os objetivos de contribuir para compreensão de um importante momento na história do ensino de leitura e escrita no Brasil, focaliza-se neste artigo, as contribuições da atuação profissional e a produção didática, dos professores formados pela Escola Normal de São Paulo, R. R. Dordal (1854-1938) e C. A. G. Cardim (1875-1938), no segundo “momento da história” da alfabetização do Brasil. Mediante abordagem histórica centrada em pesquisa documental e bibliográfica, desenvolvida por meio da utilização de procedimentos de localização, recuperação, reunião, seleção e ordenação de fontes documentais, elaboraram-se dois instrumentos de pesquisa, os quais resultaram os documentos: Bibliografia de e sobre R. R. Dordal e, Bibliografia de e sobre Dordal. A análise das referências de textos que integram cada um dos documentos mencionados contribuiu tanto para a compreensão de aspectos relevantes da atuação profissional e produção didática desses professores, em especial, como autores de cartilhas para o ensino inicial de leitura e escrita, a saber: Cartilha Moderna [1902], de Ramon Roca, e Cartilha Infantil [1909?], de Gomes Cardim, ambas baseadas no método analítico para o ensino da leitura; quanto da importância da elaboração de instrumentos de pesquisa na etapa inicial de pesquisa histórica em educação, principalmente para o desenvolvimento de pesquisas correlatas sobre o tema.

This article examines the interpersonal tensions between co-editors Auguste Fickert (1855–1910) and Marie Lang (1858–1934) to show how internal editorial conflict can stimulate transnational editorial relations. By placing the disagreement within the larger context of the international women’s movement at the turn of the century, I argue that Fickert’s vision on women’s organizations differed from Lang’s: Fickert fostered the transnational role of the periodical press, whereas Lang invested in a local approach. Although conflict has been considered a constitutive aspect of the periodical press, it has not been examined before in light of German feminist periodicals, such as Dokumente der Frauen (1899–1902), which Fickert co-edited for some time with Lang and Rosa Mayreder (1858–1938) and Neues Frauenleben (1902–17), of which she was the sole editor from 1902 to 1910. This article traces Fickert’s transnational collaborations. More specifically, it takes her connection to Finnish-born female editor, Maikki Friberg (1861–1927), as a case in point to demonstrate how her personal and professional relationship with Friberg resonates through the pages of Dokumente and increasingly so, Neues Frauenleben. I will show how Fickert’s new periodical, Neues Frauenleben, benefited from her collaboration with Friberg especially, and resulted in a myriad of transnational connections that were mainly — but not only — Nordic. By taking the periodical as a locus of personal and professional conflict and collaboration, this article thus sheds light on an under-researched link between female editorship and transnationality.

Em 1902, três anos antes dos Exames para o Serviço Público (o chamado sistema Keju) serem abolidos pela corte Qing, Yang Yinhang (1878-1945) e seus colegas formados no Japão fundaram a Escola Pública de Xijin, uma das primeiras experiências do novo estilo de escola pública no distrito de Wuxi. Suas atividades foram auxiliadas por membros da família Yang Yinhang, incluindo seus dois tios, os estudiosos originários da pequena nobreza Yang Fanfu e Yang Zhixun, e sua irmã Yang Yinyu (1884-1938), que mais tarde se tornaria a primeira reitora na história moderna da China. Essa esquecida rede social da família Yang em Wuxi por volta de 1902 é significativa para compreender como esses intelectuais chineses, que estavam originalmente envolvidos no sistema Keju, assumiram as reformas educacionais e implementaram uma agenda de reforma estatal. Focalizaram corajosamente suas experiências transnacionais em um campo no qual a ideia de “educação moderna” era ainda vaga. Esse artigo argumenta que, antes de que a corte Qing anunciasse o sistema escolar padrão para substituir o sistema Keju, a família Yang e suas conexões sociais formaram uma pioneira força de novos professores em Wuxi que não só mudaram profundamente a natureza do conhecimento e da educação e o papel social do professor na era Qing tardia, mas também anteciparam transformações da ética social e da ideia de gênero existentes na era republicana.

This article attempts to study the idea of the ‘Other’ according to John Dos Passos (1896-1970) and John Steinbeck (1902-1968). The researcher has analyzed the position of the two authors towardsmajor post-war issues. Throughout the article, the researcher highlights numerous social, racial, gender, political, and economic issues that arose as a result of the aftermath of the First World War. The appropriation of the New Historicist theory enablesus to make a historical and literary diagnosis of John Dos Passosand Steinbeck’s fiction. The researcher has endeavored to demonstrate that both Dos Passos and Steinbeck share the same idea, position, and vision towards a fragmented, class-based, ‘white supremacist’ and capitalist post-war America. The following novels have been analyzed from the perspective of racial and gender discrimination for the purpose of the research: Steinbeck’s Tortilla Flat (1935), Of Mice and Men (1937), The Grapes of Wrath (1939); and Dos Passos’ trilogy U.S.A (1938).This paper also explores another post-war theme - the proletariat vs. big business struggle.The proletariat theme is an influential part of Dos Passos’ fictional trilogy and Steinbeck’s epic novel The Grapes of Wrath. The researcher endeavours to demonstrate that the two authors share the idea that postwar America is composed of two-nations - ‘proletariat’ and the privileged.

El siguiente material es el resultado de dos viajes de reconocimiento a las ruinas de Seibal, Petén, Guatemala, durante la temporada de secas de 1961 por los miembros del Proyecto Altar de Sacrificios de la Universidad de Harvard. En febrero, John Graham y Timothy Fiske visitaron el lugar durante el reconocimiento de Graham a las inscripciones jeroglíficas del área del Río Pasión. Durante ese recorrido descubrieron un sistema de caminos (Caminos 1, II y III) y las estelas 14, 15 y 16. Estos descubrimientos y otros datos que ellos proporcionaron, los llevaron a la conclusión de que el mapa hecho por Maler (1902) y reproducido por Morley (1938) no estaba completo ni era muy exacto. La visita tuvo que acortarse por las lluvias, pero después, en la misma temporada, Graham regresó para completar el estudio de los textos jeroglíficos. El autor lo acompañó en este viaje con el objeto de hacer algunos pozos estratigráficos de sondeo para obtener un muestrario de la cerámica del sitio. Pasamos cinco días en Seibal durante los cuales hicimos seis pozos y recogimos otros dos muestrarios de material del escombro de la Estructura A-3 y de la plataforma de las Estelas 14-16. Al mismo tiempo el autor hizo un nuevo mapa del lugar usando una brújula Brunton y ayudándose con el uso ocasional de una cinta métrica. Presentamos aquí el mapa y el material cerámico. Los textos jeroglíficos y los nuevos monumentos esculpidos los publicará Graham en su sección del informe final de Altar de Sacrificios.

At the start of the twentieth century, many young Australian artists travelled abroad to expand their art education and to gain exposure to the modern art movements of Europe. Most of these artists were active members of artist associations such as the Victorian Artists Society or the New South Wales Society of Artists. Male artists from Victoria were generally also members of the Melbourne Savage Club, a club with a strong association with the arts.This paper investigates the dual function of the club, as a space where the artists felt “at home” in the familiar environment that the club offered whilst they were abroad and, at the same time, a meeting space where they could engage in a stimulating artistic environment and gain introductions to leading figures in the art world. For those artists who chose England, London’s arts clubs played a large role, for it was in these establishments that they discussed, exhibited, shared, and met with their English counterparts. The club environment in London would have a significant impact on male Australian artists, as it offered a space where they were integrated into the English art world, which enhanced their experience whilst abroad.Artists were seldom members of Australia’s early gentlemen’s clubs, however, in the late nineteenth century Melbourne, artists formed less formal social groupings with exotic names such as the Prehistoric Order of Cannibals, the Buonarotti Club, and the Ishmael Club (Mead). Melbourne artists congregated in these clubs until the Melbourne Savage Club, modelled on the London Savage Club (1857)—a club whose membership was restricted to practitioners in the performing and visual arts—opened its doors in 1894.The Melbourne Savage Club had its origins in the Metropolitan Music Club, established in the late 1880s by a group of professional and amateur musicians and music lovers. The club initially admitted musicians and people from the dramatic professions free-of-charge, however, author Randolph Bedford (1868–1941) and artist Alf Vincent (1874–1915) were not content to be treated on a different basis to the musicians and actors, and two months after Vincent joined the club, at a Special General Meeting, the club resolved to vary Rule 6, “to admit landscape or portrait painters and sculptors without entrance fee” (Melbourne Savage Club). At another Special General Meeting, a year later, the rule was altered to admit “recognised members of the musical, dramatic and artistic professions and sculptors without payment of entrance fee” (Melbourne Savage Club).This resulted in an immediate influx of prominent Victorian male artists (Williams) and the Melbourne Savage Club became their place of choice to gather and enjoy the fellowship the club offered and to share ideas in a convivial atmosphere. When the opportunity arose for them to travel to London in the early twentieth century, they met in London’s famous art clubs. Membership of the Melbourne Savage Club not only conferred rights to visit reciprocal clubs whilst in London, but also facilitated introductions to potential patrons. The London clubs were the venue of choice for visiting artists to meet their fellow artist expatriates and to share experiences and, importantly, to meet with their British counterparts, exhibit their works, and establish valuable contacts.The London Savage Club attracted many Australian expatriates. Not only is it the grandfather of London’s bohemian clubs but also it was the model for arts clubs the world over. Founded in 1857, the qualification for admission was (and still is) to be, “a working man in literature or art, and a good fellow” (Halliday vii). If a candidate met these requirements, he would be cordially received “come whence he may.” This was embodied in the club’s first rules which required applicants for membership to be from a restricted range of pursuits relating to the arts thought to be commensurate with its bohemian ideals, namely art, literature, drama, or music.The second London arts club that attracted expatriate Australian artists was the New English Arts Club, founded in 1886 by young English artists returning from studying art in Paris. Members of The New English Arts Club were influenced by the Impressionist style as opposed to the academic art shown at the Royal Academy. As a meeting place for Australia’s expatriate artists, the New English Arts Club had a particular influence, as it exposed them to significant early Modern artist members such as John Singer Sargent (1856–1925), Walter Sickert (1860–1942), William Orpen (1878–1931) and Augustus John (1878–1961) (Corbett and Perry; Thornton; Melbourne Savage Club).The third, and arguably the most popular with the expatriate Australian artists’ club, was the Chelsea Arts Club, a bohemian club formed in 1891 by local working artists looking for a place to go to “meet, talk, eat and drink” (Cross).Apart from the American-born founding member, James McNeill Whistler (1834–1903), amongst the biggest Chelsea names at the time of the influx of travelling young Australian artists were modernists Sir William Orpen, Augustus John, and John Sargent. The opportunity to mix with these leading British contemporary artists was irresistible to these antipodean artists (55).When Melbourne artist, Miles Evergood (1871–1939) arrived in London from America in 1910, he had been an active exhibiting member of the Salmagundi Club, a New York artists’ club. Almost immediately he joined the New English Arts Club and the Chelsea Arts Club. Hammer tells of him associating with “writer Israel Zangwill, sculptor Jacob Epstein, and anti-academic artists including Walter Sickert, Augustus John, John Lavery, John Singer Sargent and C.R.W. Nevison, who challenged art values in Britain at the beginning of the century” (Hammer 41).Arthur Streeton (1867–1943) used the Chelsea Arts Club as his postal address, as did many expatriate artists. The Melbourne Savage Club archives contain letters and greetings, with news from abroad, written from artist members back to their “Brother Savages” (Various).In late 1902, Streeton wrote to fellow artist and Savage Club member Tom Roberts (1856–1931) from London:I belong to the Chelsea Arts Club now, & meet the artists – MacKennel says it’s about the most artistic club (speaking in the real sense) in England. … They all seem to be here – McKennal, Longstaff, Mahony, Fullwood, Norman, Minns, Fox, Plataganet Tudor St. George Tucker, Quinn, Coates, Bunny, Alston, K, Sonny Pole, other minor lights and your old friend and admirer Smike – within 100 yards of here – there must be 30 different studios. (Streeton 94)Whilst some of the artists whom Streeton mentioned were studying at either the Royal Academy or the Slade School, it was the clubs like the Chelsea Arts Club where they were most likely to encounter fellow Australian artists. Tom Roberts was obviously attentive to Streeton’s enthusiastic account and, when he returned to London the following year to work on his commission for The Big Picture of the 1901 opening of the first Commonwealth Parliament, he soon joined. Roberts, through his expansive personality, became particularly active in London’s Australian expatriate artistic community and later became Vice-President of the Chelsea Arts Club. Along with Streeton and Roberts, other visiting Melbourne Savage Club artists joined the Chelsea Arts Club. They included, John Longstaff (1861–1941), James Quinn (1869–1951), George Coates (1869–1930), and Will Dyson (1880–1938), along with Sydney artists Henry Fullwood (1863–1930), George Lambert (1873–1930), and Will Ashton (1881–1963) (Croll 95). Smith describes the exodus to London and Paris: “It was the Chelsea Arts Club that the Heidelberg School established its last and least distinguished camp” (Smith, Smith and Heathcote 152).Streeton, who retained his Chelsea Arts Club membership when he returned for a while to Australia, wrote to Roberts in 1907, “I miss Chelsea & the Club-boys” (Streeton 107). In relation to Frederick McCubbin’s pending visit he wrote: “Prof McCubbin left here a week ago by German ‘Prinz Heinrich.’ … You’ll introduce him at the Chelsea Club and I hope they make him an Hon. Member, etc” (Streeton et al. 85). McCubbin wrote, after an evening at the Chelsea Arts Club, following a visit to the Royal Academy: “Tonight, I am dining with Australian artists in Soho, and shall be there to greet my old friends. How glad I am! Longstaff will be there, and Frank Stuart, Roberts, Fullwood, Pontin, Coates, Quinn, and Tucker’s brother, and many others from all around” (MacDonald, McCubbin and McCubbin 75). Impressed by the work of Turner he wrote to his wife Annie, following avisit to the Tate Gallery:I went yesterday with Fullwood and G. Coates and Tom Roberts for a ramble … to the Tate Gallery – a beautiful freestone building facing the river through a portico into the gallery where the lately found turners are exhibited – these are not like the greater number of pictures in the National Gallery – they represent his different periods, but are mostly in his latest style, when he had realised the quality of light (McCubbin).Clearly Turner’s paintings had a profound impression on him. In the same letter he wrote:they are mostly unfinished but they are divine – such dreams of colour – a dozen of them are like pearls … mist and cloud and sea and land, drenched in light … They glow with tender brilliancy that radiates from these canvases – how he loved the dazzling brilliancy of morning or evening – these gems with their opal colour – you feel how he gloried in these tender visions of light and air. He worked from darkness into light.The Chelsea Arts Club also served as a venue for artists to entertain and host distinguished visitors from home. These guests included; Melbourne Savage Club artist member Alf Vincent (Joske 112), National Gallery of Victoria (NGV) Trustee and popular patron of the arts, Professor Baldwin Spencer (1860–1929), Professor Frederick S. Delmer (1864–1931) and conductor George Marshall-Hall (1862–1915) (Mulvaney and Calaby 329; Streeton 111).Artist Miles Evergood arrived in London in 1910, and visited the Chelsea Arts Club. He mentions expatriate Australian artists gathering at the Club, including Will Dyson, Fred Leist (1873–1945), David Davies (1864–1939), Will Ashton (1881–1963), and Henry Fullwood (Hammer 41).Most of the Melbourne Savage Club artist members were active in the London Savage Club. On one occasion, in November 1908, Roberts, with fellow artist MacKennal in the Chair, attended the Australian Artists’ Dinner held there. This event attracted twenty-five expatriate Australian artists, all residing in London at the time (McQueen 532).These London arts clubs had a significant influence on the expatriate Australian artists for they became the “glue” that held them together whilst abroad. Although some artists travelled abroad specifically to take up places at the Royal Academy School or the Slade School, only a minority of artists arriving in London from Australia and other British colonies were offered positions at these prestigious schools. Many artists travelled to “try their luck.” The arts clubs of London, whilst similarly discerning in their membership criteria, generally offered a visiting “brother-of-the-brush” a warm welcome as a professional courtesy. They featured the familiar rollicking all-male “Smoke Nights” a feature of the Melbourne Savage Club. With a greater “artist” membership than the clubs in Australia, expatriate artists were not only able to catch up with their friends from Australia, but also they could associate with England’s finest and most progressive artists in a familiar congenial environment. The clubs were a “home away from home” and described by Underhill as, “an artistic Earl’s Court” (Underhill 99). Most importantly, the clubs were a centre for discourse, arguably even more so than were the teaching academies. Britain’s leading modernist artists were members of the Chelsea Arts Club and the New English Arts Club and mixed freely with the visiting Australian artists.Many Australian artists, such as Miles Evergood and George Bell (1878–1966), held anti-academic views similar to English club members and embraced the new artistic trends, which they would bring back to Australia. Streeton had no illusions about the relative worth of the famed institutions and the exhibitions held by clubs such as the New English. Writing to Roberts before he joins him in London, he describes the Royal Academy as having, “an inartistic atmosphere” and claims he “hasn’t the least desire to go again” (Streeton 77). His preference lay with a concurrent “International Exhibition”, which featured works by Rodin, Whistler, Condor, Degas, and others who were setting the pace rather than merely continuing the academic traditions.Architect Hardy Wilson (1881–1955) served as secretary of The Chelsea Arts Club. When he returned to Australia he brought back with him a number of British works by Streeton and Lambert for an exhibition at the Guild Hall Melbourne (Underhill 92). Artists and Bohemians, a history of the Chelsea Arts Club, makes special reference of its world-wide contacts and singles out many of its prominent Australian members for specific mention including; Sir John William (Will) Ashton OBE, later Director of the Art Gallery of New South Wales, and Will Dyson, whose illustrious career as an Australian war artist was described in some detail. Dyson’s popularity led to his later appointment as Chairman of the Chelsea Arts Club where he initiated an ambitious rebuilding program, improving staff accommodation, refurbishing the members’ areas, and adding five bedrooms for visiting members (Bross 87-90).Whilst the influence of travel abroad on Australian artists has been noted, the importance of the London Clubs has not been fully explored. These clubs offered artists a space where they felt “at home” and a familiar environment whilst they were abroad. The clubs functioned as a meeting space where they could engage in a stimulating artistic environment and gain introductions to leading figures in the art world. For those artists who chose England, London’s arts clubs played a large role, for it was in these establishments that they discussed, exhibited, shared, and met with their English counterparts. The club environment in London had a significant impact on male Australian artists as it offered a space where they were integrated into the English art world which enhanced their experience whilst abroad and influenced the direction of their art.ReferencesCorbett, David Peters, and Lara Perry, eds. English Art, 1860–1914: Modern Artists and Identity. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000.Croll, Robert Henderson. Tom Roberts: Father of Australian Landscape Painting. Melbourne: Robertson & Mullens, 1935.Cross, Tom. Artists and Bohemians: 100 Years with the Chelsea Arts Club. 1992. 1st ed. London: Quiller Press, 1992.Gray, Anne, and National Gallery of Australia. McCubbin: Last Impressions 1907–17. 1st ed. Parkes, A.C.T.: National Gallery of Australia, 2009.Halliday, Andrew, ed. The Savage Papers. 1867. 1st ed. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1867.Hammer, Gael. Miles Evergood: No End of Passion. Willoughby, NSW: Phillip Mathews, 2013.Joske, Prue. Debonair Jack: A Biography of Sir John Longstaff. 1st ed. Melbourne: Claremont Publishing, 1994.MacDonald, James S., Frederick McCubbin, and Alexander McCubbin. The Art of F. McCubbin. Melbourne: Lothian Book Publishing, 1916.McCaughy, Patrick. Strange Country: Why Australian Painting Matters. Ed. Paige Amor. The Miegunyah Press, 2014.McCubbin, Frederick. Papers, Ca. 1900–Ca. 1915. Melbourne.McQueen, Humphrey. Tom Roberts. Sydney: Macmillan, 1996.Mead, Stephen. "Bohemia in Melbourne: An Investigation of the Writer Marcus Clarke and Four Artistic Clubs during the Late 1860s – 1901.” PhD thesis. Melbourne: University of Melbourne, 2009.Melbourne Savage Club. Secretary. Minute Book: Melbourne Savage Club. Club Minutes (General Committee). Melbourne: Savage Archives.Mulvaney, Derek John, and J.H. Calaby. So Much That Is New: Baldwin Spencer, 1860–1929, a Biography. Carlton, Vic.: Melbourne University Press, 1985.Smith, Bernard, Terry Smith, and Christopher Heathcote. Australian Painting, 1788–2000. 4th ed. South Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford University Press, 2001.Streeton, Arthur, et al. Smike to Bulldog: Letters from Sir Arthur Streeton to Tom Roberts. Sydney: Ure Smith, 1946.Streeton, Arthur, ed. Letters from Smike: The Letters of Arthur Streeton, 1890–1943. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1989.Thornton, Alfred, and New English Art Club. Fifty Years of the New English Art Club, 1886–1935. London: New English Art Club, Curwen Press 1935.Underhill, Nancy D.H. Making Australian Art 1916–49: Sydney Ure Smith Patron and Publisher. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1991.Various. Melbourne Savage Club Correspondence Book: 1902–1916. Melbourne: Melbourne Savage Club.Williams, Graeme Henry. "A Socio-Cultural Reading: The Melbourne Savage Club through Its Collections." Masters of Arts thesis. Melbourne: Deakin University, 2013.

We ask you now, reader, to put your mind, as a citizen of the Australian Commonwealth, to the facts presented in these pages. We ask you to study the problem, in the way that we present the case, from the Aborigines’ point of view. We do not ask for your charity; we do not ask you to study us as scientific-freaks. Above all, we do not ask for your “protection”. No, thanks! We have had 150 years of that! We ask only for justice, decency, and fair play. (Patten and Ferguson 3-4) Jack Patten and William Ferguson’s above declaration on “Plain Speaking” in Aborigines Claim Citizenship Rights! A Statement of the Case for the Aborigines Progressive Association (1938), outlining Aboriginal Australians view of colonisation and the call for Aboriginal self-determinacy, will be my guiding framework in writing this paper. I ask you to study the problem, as it is presented, from the viewpoint of an Indigenous woman who seeks to understand how “sorry” has been uttered in political domains as a word divorced from the moral freight attached to a history of “degrading, humiliating and exterminating” Aboriginal Australians (Patten and Ferguson 11). I wish to argue that the Opposition leader’s utterance of “sorry” in his 13 February 2008 “We Are Sorry – Address to Parliament” was an indicator of the insidious ways in which colonisation has treated Aboriginal Australians as less than, not equal to, white Australians and to examine the ways in which this particular utterance of the word “sorry” is built on longstanding colonial frameworks that position ‘the Aborigine’ as peripheral in the representation of a national identity – a national identity that, as shown by the transcript of the apology, continues to romanticise settler values and ignore Indigenous rights. Nelson’s address tries to disassociate the word “sorry” from any moral attachment. The basis of his address is on constructing a national identity where all injustices are equal. In offering this apology, let us not create one injustice in our attempts to address another. (Nelson) All sorrys are equal, but some are more equal than others. Listening to Nelson’s address, words resembling those of Orwell’s ran through my head. The word “sorry” in relation to Indigenous Australians has taken on cultural, political, educational and economic proportions. The previous government’s refusal to utter the word was attached to the ways in which formations of rhetorically self-sufficient arguments of practicality, equality and justice “functioned to sustain and legitimate existing inequalities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Australia” (Augoustinos, LeCouteur and Soyland 105). How then, I wondered as I nervously waited for Nelson to begin apologising, would he transform this inherited collective discursive practice of legitimised racism that upheld mainstream Australia’s social reality? The need for an apology, and the history of political refusal to give it, is not a simple classification of one event, one moment in history. The ‘act’ of removing children is not a singular, one-off event. The need to do, the justification and rationalisation of the doing and what that means now, the having done, as well as the impact on those that were left behind, those that were taken, those that were born after, are all bound up in this particular “sorry”. Given that reluctance of the previous government to admit injustices were done and still exist, this utterance of the word “sorry” from the leader of the opposition precariously sat between freely offering it and reluctantly giving it. The above quote from Nelson, and its central concern of not performing any injustice towards mainstream Australia (“let us not” [my italics]) very definitely defines this sorry in relation to one particular injustice (the removing of Indigenous children) which therefore ignores the surrounding and complicit colonialist and racist attitudes, policies and practices that both institutionalised and perpetuated racism against Australia’s Indigenous peoples. This comment also clearly articulates the opposition’s concern that mainstream Australia not be offended by this act of offering the word “sorry”. Nelson’s address and the ways that it constructs what this “sorry” is for, what it isn’t for, and who it is for, continues to uphold and legitimate existing inequalities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. From the very start of Nelson’s “We Are Sorry – Address to Parliament”, two specific clarifications were emphasised: the “sorry” was directed at a limited time period in history; and that there is an ‘us’ and a ‘them’. Nelson defines this distinction: “two cultures; one ancient, proud and celebrating its deep bond with this land for some 50,000 years. The other, no less proud, arrived here with little more than visionary hope deeply rooted in gritty determination to build an Australian nation.” This cultural division maintains colonising discourses that define and label, legitimate and exclude groups and communities. It draws from the binary oppositions of self and other, white and black, civilised and primitive. It maintains a divide between the two predominant ideas of history that this country struggles with and it silences those in that space in between, ignoring for example, the effects of colonisation and miscegenation in blurring the lines between ‘primitive’ and ‘civilised’. Although acknowledging that Indigenous Australians inhabited this land for a good few thousand decades before the proud, gritty, determined visionaries of a couple of hundred years ago, the “sorry” that is to be uttered is only in relation to “the first seven decades of the 20th century”. Nelson establishes from the outset that any forthcoming apology, on behalf of “us” – read as non-Indigenous Anglo-Australians – in reference to ‘them’ – “those Aboriginal people forcibly removed” – is only valid for the “period within which these events occurred [which] was one that defined and shaped Australia”. My reading of this sectioning of a period in Australia’s history is that while recognising that certain colonising actions were unjust, specifically in this instance the removal of Indigenous children, this period of time is also seen as influential and significant to the growth of the country. What this does is to allow the important colonial enterprise to subsume the unjust actions by the colonisers by other important colonial actions. Explicit in Nelson’s address is that this particular time frame saw the nation of Australia reach the heights of achievements and is a triumphant period – an approach which extends beyond taking the highs with the lows, and the good with the bad, towards overshadowing any minor ‘unfortunate’ mistakes that might have been made, ‘occasionally’, along the way. Throughout the address, there are continual reminders to the listeners that the “us” should not be placed at a disadvantage in the act of saying “sorry”: to do so would be to create injustice, whereas this “sorry” is strictly about attempting to “address another”. By sectioning off a specific period in the history of colonised Australia, the assumption is that all that happened before 1910 and all that happened after 1970 are “sorry” free. This not only ignores the lead up to the official policy of removal, how it was sanctioned and the aftermath of removal as outlined in The Bringing Them Home Report (1997); it also prevents Indigenous concepts of time from playing a legitimate and recognised role in the construct of both history and society. Aboriginal time is cyclical and moves around important events: those events that are most significant to an individual are held closer than those that are insignificant or mundane. Aleksendar Janca and Clothilde Bullen state that “time is perceived in relation to the socially sanctioned importance of events and is most often identified by stages in life or historic relevance of events” (41). The speech attempts to distinguish between moments and acts in history: firmly placing the act of removing children in a past society and as only one act of injustice amongst many acts of triumph. “Our generation does not own these actions, nor should it feel guilt for what was done in many, but not all cases, with the best of intentions” (Nelson). What was done is still being felt by Indigenous Australians today. And by differentiating between those that committed these actions and “our generation”, the address relies on a linear idea of time, to distance any wrongdoing from present day white Australians. What I struggle with here is that those wrongdoings continue to be felt according to Indigenous concepts of time and therefore these acts are not in a far away past but very much felt in the present. The need to not own these actions further entrenches the idea of separateness between Indigenous Australia and non-Indigenous Australia. The fear of being guilty or at blame evokes notions of wrong and right and this address is at pains not to do that – not to lay blame or evoke shame. Nelson’s address is relying on a national identity that has historically silenced and marginalised Indigenous Australians. If there is no blame to be accepted, if there is no attached shame to be acknowledged (“great pride, but occasionally shame” (Nelson)) and dealt with, then national identity is implicitly one of “discovery”, peaceful settlement and progress. Where are the Aboriginal perspectives of history in this idea of a national identity – then and now? And does this mean that colonialism happened and is now over? State and territory actions upon, against and in exclusion of Indigenous Australians are not actions that can be positioned as past discriminations; they continue today and are a direct result of those that preceded them. Throughout his address, Nelson emphasises the progressiveness of “today” and how that owes its success to the “past”: “In doing so, we reach from within ourselves to our past, those whose lives connect us to it and in deep understanding of its importance to our future”. By relying on a dichotomous approach – us and them, white and black, past and present – Nelson emphasises the distance between this generation of Australia and any momentary unjust actions in the past. The belief is that time moves on – away from the past and towards the future. That advancement, progression and civilisation are linear movements, all heading towards a more enlightened state. “We will be at our best today – and every day – if we pause to place ourselves in the shoes of others, imbued with the imaginative capacity to see this issue through their eyes with decency and respect”. But where is the recognition that today’s experiences, the results of what has been created by the past, are also attached to the need to offer an apology? Nelson’s “we” (Anglo-Australians) are being asked to stop and think about how “they” (Aborigines) might see things differently to the mainstream norm. The implication here also is that “they” – members of the Stolen Generations – must be prepared to understand the position white Australia is coming from, and acknowledge the good that white Australia has achieved. Anglo-Australian pride and achievement is reinforced throughout the address as the basis on which our national identity is understood. Ignoring its exclusion and silencing of the Indigenous Australians to whom his “sorry” is directed, Nelson perpetuates this ideology here in his address: “In brutally harsh conditions, from the small number of early British settlers our non Indigenous ancestors have given us a nation the envy of any in the world”. This gift of a nation where there was none before disregards the acts of invasion, segregation, protection and assimilation that characterise the colonisation of this nation. It also reverts to romanticised settler notions of triumph over great adversities – a notion that could just as easily be attached to Indigenous Australians yet Nelson specifically addresses “our non Indigenous ancestors”. He does add “But Aboriginal Australians made involuntary sacrifices, different but no less important, to make possible the economic and social development of our modern [my emphasis] Australia.” Indigenous Australians certainly made voluntary sacrifices, similar to and different from those made by non Indigenous Australians (Indigenous Australians also went to both World Wars and fought for this nation) and a great deal of “our modern” country’s economic success was achieved on the backs of Blackfellas (Taylor 9). But “involuntary sacrifices” is surely a contradiction in terms, either intellectually shoddy or breathtakingly disingenuous. To make a sacrifice is to do it voluntarily, to give something up for a greater good. “Involuntary sacrifices”, like “collateral damage” and other calculatedly cold-blooded euphemisms, conveniently covers up the question of who was doing what to whom – of who was sacrificed, and by whom. In the attempt to construct a basis of equal contribution between Indigenous and non-Indigenous, as well as equal acts of struggle and triumphing, Nelson’s account of history and nation building draws from the positioning of the oppressors but tries to suppress any notion of racial oppression. It maintains the separateness of Indigenous experiences of colonisation from the colonisers themselves. His reiteration that these occasional acts of unjustness came from benevolent and charitable white Australians privileges non-Indigenous ways of knowing and doing over Indigenous ones and attempts to present them as untainted and innate as opposed to repressive, discriminatory and racist. We honour those in our past who have suffered and all those who have made sacrifices for us by the way we live our lives and shape our nation. Today we recommit to do so – as one people. (Nelson) The political need to identify as “one people” drives assimilation policies (the attitude at the very heart of removing Aboriginal children on the basis that they were Aboriginal and needed to be absorbed into one society of whites). By honouring everyone, and therefore taking the focus off any act of unjustness by non-Indigenous peoples on Indigenous peoples, Nelson’s narrative again upholds an idea of contemporary national identity that has not only romanticised the past but ignores the inequalities of the present day. He spends a good few hundred words reminding his listeners that white Australia deserves to maintain its hard won position. And there is no doubt he is talking to white Australia – his focus is on Western constructs of patriotism and success. He reverts to settler/colonial discourse to uphold ideas of equity and access: These generations considered their responsibilities to their country and one another more important than their rights. They did not buy something until they had saved up for it and values were always more important than value. Living in considerably more difficult times, they had dreams for our nation but little money. Theirs was a mesh of values enshrined in God, King and Country and the belief in something greater than yourself. Neglectful indifference to all they achieved while seeing their actions in the separations only, through the values of our comfortable, modern Australia, will be to diminish ourselves. In “the separations only…” highlights Nelson’s colonial logic, which compartmentalises time, space, people and events and tries to disconnect one colonial act from another. The ideology, attitudes and policies that allowed the taking of Indigenous children were not separate from all other colonial and colonising acts and processes. The desire for a White Australia, a clear cut policy which was in existence at the same time as protection, removal and assimilation policies, cannot be disassociated from either the taking of children or the creation of this “comfortable, modern Australia” today. “Neglectful indifference to all they achieved” could aptly be applied to Indigenous peoples throughout Australian history – pre and post invasion. Where is the active acknowledgment of the denial of Indigenous rights so that “these generations [of non-Indigenous Australians could] consider their responsibilities to their country and one another more important than their rights”? Nelson adheres to the colonialist national narrative to focus on the “positive”, which Patrick Wolfe has argued in his critique of settler colonialism, is an attempt to mask disruptive moments that reveal the scope of state and national power over Aboriginal Australians (33). After consistently reinforcing the colonial/settler narrative, Nelson’s address moves on to insert Indigenous Australians into a well-defined and confined space within a specific chapter of that narrative. His perfunctory overview of the first seven decades of the 20th century alludes to Protection Boards and Reserves, assimilation policies and Christianisation, all underlined with white benevolence. Having established the innocent, inherently humane and decent motivations of “white families”, he resorts to appropriating Indigenous people’s stories and experiences. In the retelling of these stories, two prominent themes in Nelson’s text become apparent. White fellas were only trying to help the poor Blackfella back then, and one need only glance at Aboriginal communities today to see that white fellas are only trying to help the poor Blackfella again. It is reasonably argued that removal from squalor led to better lives – children fed, housed and educated for an adult world of [sic] which they could not have imagined. However, from my life as a family doctor and knowing the impact of my own father’s removal from his unmarried teenaged mother, not knowing who you are is the source of deep, scarring sorrows the real meaning of which can be known only to those who have endured it. No one should bring a sense of moral superiority to this debate in seeking to diminish the view that good was being sought to be done. (Nelson) A sense of moral superiority is what motivates colonisation: it is what motivated the enforced removal of children. The reference to “removal from squalor” is somewhat reminiscent of the 1909 Aborigines Protection Act. Act No. 25, 1909, section 11(1) which states: The board may, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1901, by indenture bind or cause to be bound the child of any aborigine, or the neglected child of any person apparently having an admixture of aboriginal blood in his veins, to be apprenticed to any master, and may collect and institute proceedings for the recovery of any wages payable under such indenture, and may expend the same as the board may think fit in the interest of the child. Every child so apprenticed shall be under the supervision of the board, or of such person that may be authorised in that behalf by the regulations. (144) Neglect was often defined as simply being Aboriginal. The representation that being removed would lead to a better life relies on Western attitudes about society and culture. It dismisses any notion of Indigenous rights to be Indigenous and defines a better life according to how white society views it. Throughout most of the 1900s, Aboriginal children that were removed to experience this better life were trained in positions of servants. Nelson’s inclusion of his own personal experience as a non Indigenous Australian who has experienced loss and sorrow sustains his textual purpose to reduce human experiences to a common ground, an equal footing – to make all injustices equal. And he finishes the paragraph off with the subtle reminder that this “sorry” is only for “those” Aboriginal Australians that were removed in the first seven decades of last century. After retelling the experience of one Indigenous person as told to the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families, he retells the experience of an Indigenous woman as told to a non-Indigenous man. The appropriate protocols concerning the re-using of Indigenous knowledge and intellectual copyright appeared to be absent in this address. Not only does the individual remain unacknowledged but the potential for misappropriating Indigenous experiences for non Indigenous purposes is apparent. The insertion of the story dismisses the importance of the original act of telling, and the significance of the unspeakable through decades of silence. Felman presents the complexities of the survivor’s tale: “the victim’s story has to overcome not just the silence of the dead but the indelible coercive power of the oppressor’s terrifying, brutal silencing of the surviving, and the inherent speechless silence of the living in the face of an unthinkable, unknowable, ungraspable event” (227). In telling this story Nelson unravelled the foundation of equality he had attempted to resurrect. And his indication towards current happenings in the Northern Territory only served to further highlight the inequities that Indigenous peoples continue to face, resist and surpass. Nelson’s statement that “separation was then, and remains today, a painful but necessary part of public policy in the protection of children” is another reminder of the “indelible coercive power of the oppressor’s terrifying” potential to repeat history. The final unmasking of the hypocritical and contested nature of Nelson’s national ideology and narrative is in his telling of the “facts” – the statistics concerning Indigenous life expectancy, Indigenous infant mortality rates, “diabetes, kidney disease, hospitalisation of women from assault, imprisonment, overcrowding, educational underperformance and unemployment”. These statistics are a result not of what Nelson terms “existential aimlessness” (immediately preceding paragraph) but of colonisation – theft of land, oppression, abuse, discrimination, and lack of any rights whether citizenship or Aboriginal. These contemporary experiences of Indigenous peoples are the direct linear result of the last two hundred years of white nation building. The address is concluded with mention of Neville Bonner, portrayed here as the perfect example of what reading, writing, expressing yourself with dignity and treating people with decency and courtesy can achieve. Bonner is presented as the ‘ideal’ Blackfella, a product of the assimilation period: he could read and write and was dignified, decent and courteous (and, coincidentally, Liberal). The inclusion of this reference to Bonner in the address may hint at the “My best friend is an Aborigine” syndrome (Heiss 71), but it also provides a discursive example to the listener of the ways in which ‘equalness’ is suggested, assumed, privileged or denied. It is a reminder, in the same vein of Patten and Ferguson’s fights for rights, that what is equal has always been apparent to the colonised. Your present official attitude is one of prejudice and misunderstanding … we are no more dirty, lazy stupid, criminal, or immoral than yourselves. Also, your slanders against our race are a moral lie, told to throw all the blame for your troubles on to us. You, who originally conquered us by guns against our spears, now rely on superiority of numbers to support your false claims of moral and intellectual superiority. After 150 years, we ask you to review the situation and give us a fair deal – a New Deal for Aborigines. The cards have been stacked against us, and we now ask you to play the game like decent Australians. Remember, we do not ask for charity, we ask for justice. Nelson quotes Bonner’s words that “[unjust hardships] can only be changed when people of non Aboriginal extraction are prepared to listen, to hear what Aboriginal people are saying and then work with us to achieve those ends”. The need for non-Indigenous Australians to listen, to be shaken out of their complacent equalness appears to have gone unheard. Fiumara, in her philosophy of listening, states: “at this point the opportunity is offered for becoming aware that the compulsion to win is due less to the intrinsic difficulty of the situation than to inhibitions induced by a non-listening language that prevents us from seeing that which would otherwise be clear” (198). It is this compulsion to win, or to at least not be seen to be losing that contributes to the unequalness of this particular “sorry” and the need to construct an equal footing. This particular utterance of sorry does not come from an acknowledged place of difference and its attached history of colonisation; instead it strives to create a foundation based on a lack of anyone being positioned on the high moral ground. It is an irony that pervades the address considering it was the coloniser’s belief in his/her moral superiority that took the first child to begin with. Nelson’s address attempts to construct the utterance of “sorry”, and its intended meaning in this specific context, on ‘equal’ ground: his representation is that we are all Australians, “us” and ‘them’ combined, “we” all suffered and made sacrifices; “we” all deserve respect and equal acknowledgment of the contribution “we” all made to this “enviable” nation. And therein lies the unequalness, the inequality, the injustice, of this particular “sorry”. This particular “sorry” is born from and maintains the structures, policies, discourses and language that led to the taking of Indigenous children in the first place. In his attempt to create a “sorry” that drew equally from the “charitable” as well as the “misjudged” deeds of white Australia, Nelson’s “We Are Sorry – Address to Parliament” increased the experiences of inequality. Chow writes that in the politics of admittance the equal depends on “acceptance by permission … and yet, being ‘admitted’ is never simply a matter of possessing the right permit, for validation and acknowledgment must also be present for admittance to be complete” (36-37). References Augoustinos, Martha, Amanda LeCouteur, and John Soyland. “Self-Sufficient Arguments in Political Rhetoric: Constructing Reconciliation and Apologizing to the Stolen Generations.” Discourse and Society 13.1 (2002): 105-142.Bringing Them Home: National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families. Sydney: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 1997.Aborigines Protection Act 1909: An Act to Provide for the Protection and Care of Aborigines; To Repeal the Supply of Liquors Aborigines Prevention Act; To Amend the Vagrancy Act, 1902, and the Police Offences (Amendment) Act, 1908; And for Purposes Consequent Thereon or Incidental Thereto. Assented to 20 Dec. 1909. Digital Collections: Books and Serial, National Library of Australia. 24 Mar. 2008 < http://www.nla.gov.au/apps/cdview?pi=nla.aus-vn71409-9x-s1-v >.Chow, Rey. “The Politics of Admittance: Female Sexual Agency, Miscegenation and the Formation of Community in Frantz Fanon.” In Anthony C. Alessandrini, ed. Frantz Fanon: Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge, 1999. 34-56.Felman, Shoshana. “Theaters of Justice: Arendt in Jerusalem, the Eichmann Trial and the Redefinition of Legal Meaning in the Wake of the Holocaust.” Critical Inquiry 27.2 (2001): 201-238.Fiumara, Gemma Corradi. The Other Side of Language: A Philosophy of Listening. London and New York: Routledge, 2006.Heiss, Anita. I’m Not a Racist But… UK: Salt Publishing, 2007.Janca, Aleksandar, and Clothilde Bullen. “Aboriginal Concept of Time and Its Mental Health Implications.” Australian Psychiatry 11 (Supplement 2003): 40-44.Nelson, Brendan. “We Are Sorry – Address to Parliament.” 14 Feb. 2008 < http://www.liberal.org.au/info/news/detail/20080213_ WearesorryAddresstoParliament.php >.Patten, Jack, and William Ferguson. Aborigines Claim Citizen Rights! A Statement for the Aborigines Progressive Association. Sydney: The Publicist, 1938.Taylor, Martin, and James Francis. Bludgers in Grass Castles: Native Title and the Unpaid Debts of the Pastoral Industry. Chippendale: Resistance Books, 1997.William, Ross. “‘Why Should I Feel Guilty?’ Reflections on the Workings of White-Aboriginal Relations.” Australian Psychologist 35.2 (2000): 136-142.Wolfe, Patrick. Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event. London and New York: Cassell, 1999.