Journal articles on the topic '1798-1879'

In the present communication we report Vigna stipulacea (Lam). Kuntze as a larval host plant of Euchrysops cnejus (Fabricius, 1798) and Caesalpinia bonduc (L.) Roxb. as a larval host plant of Rapala manea schistacea (Moore, 1879) for the first time from the coastal areas of Purba Medinipur district, West Bengal, India. The study also report new record of Vigna stipulacea for the state West Bengal.

Th e ant subgenus Orthonotomyrmex Ashmead, 1906 of the genus Camponotus is reported for the fi rst time from Nepal. Five species from this subgenus are recognized as new records for Nepal, namely Camponotus mutilarius Emery, 1893, C. opaciventris Mayr, 1879, C. sericeus (Fabricius, 1798), C. lasiselene Wang & Wu, 1994 and C. selene (Emery, 1889). An identifi cation key to all known Nepalese species of Camponotus (Orthonotomyrmex) based on the worker caste is presented.

ABSTRACT: This study investigated the natural parasitism of Mythimna sequax Franclemont, 1951, in wheat during the crop season of 2008. In total, 237 larvae were captured, of which 10.12% were parasitized. The Tachinidae species Winthemia trinitatis (Thompson, 1963), Winthemia tricolor (Wulp, 1890), Lespesia aletiae (Riley, 1879), and Lespesia archippivora Beneway, 1963 are reported for the first time parasitizing the wheat armyworm in Brazil. In addition, two other genus of parasitoids were identified, one Tachinidae Peleteria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 and one Ichneumonidae Ophion (Fabricius, 1798). This study reported for the first time four Tachinidae species parasitizing W. sequax, and further studies are needed to promote the conservation of these parasitoids in agroecossystem and development biological control programs for management of the wheat armyworm.

The paper provides information on the distribution of 45 species of Heteroptera from 10 families in the Kurai steppe in the southeast of the Russian Altai (Altai Republic). Of these, Mimula scutellaris Kiritshenko, 1931 recorded for the first time for the fauna of Russia and Bagrada stolida (Herrich-Schaeffer, 1839) — for Siberia. Following 15 species are recorded as new for the Altai Republic: Nabis punctatus mimoferus Hsiao, 1964 (Nabidae); Deraeocoris ventralis ventralis Reuter, 1904, Apolygus nigronasutus (Stål, 1858), Lygidea illota (Stål, 1858), Lygus rugulipennis Poppus, 1911, Lygus wagneri Remane, 1955, Globiceps fulvicollis Jakovlev, 1877, Psallus betuleti (Fallén, 1807) (Miridae); Neides propinquus Horváth, 1901 (Berytidae); Ortholomus punctipennis (Herrich-Schaeffer, 1838), Kleidocerys resedae resedae (Panzer, 1797), Cymus glandicolor Hahn, 1832, Xanthochilus quadratus (Fabricius, 1798) (Lygaeidae); Myrmus calcaratus Reuter, 1891 (Rhopalidae); Sciocoris abbreviatus (Reuter, 1879) (Pentatomidae).

Abstract Kierkegaard is well known for his quick wit and sharp polemics against his opponents. One of his favorite targets was the poet, dramatist, and philosopher, Johan Ludvig Heiberg (1791 – 1860). Perhaps the best-known element of his critique was Heiberg’s outspoken Hegelian campaign. Before Kierkegaard’s famous criticisms of Heiberg, he learned the craft of literary polemics by reading the lively discussions in the Danish journals of the time. In this article it is argued that the role of the journal Kjøbenhavnsposten for Kierkegaard has never been appreciated. This journal was edited by Andreas Peter Liunge (1798 – 1879), who was a great adversary of Heiberg and his Kjøbenhavns flyvende Post. The article shows that the often satirical use of Hegel by Kjøbenhavnsposten to criticize Heiberg anticipates Kierkegaard’s strategy of critique with regard to Heiberg and other figures in the Danish Hegelian movement.

This article aims to present the relatively unknown personality of Bohumir (Gottfried) Menzel (1798–1879) and connect his writings to the beginning of the Czech mass immigration to Texas. Adopting the thematic and discourse analyses, we can observe that his letters contain positive information on Texas that coincides with the main concerns of Czech society in the 1840s and early 1850s. Therefore, we can assume that his letters were published by the general Czech press and served as an influence for immigration to Texas. Furthermore, the passenger lists also show us that he probably led one of the first groups of migrants to Texas. The main finding of this article is that Menzel was wrongfully omitted by Czech and American historiography and should be put alongside other persons who influenced Czech mass immigration to Texas, Josef Arnošt Bergmann or Josef Lidumil Lešikar.

The work is devoted to the formation of pharmacology as a science within the walls of the Medico-Surgical Academy, founded in 1798. The main purpose of the work is to sanctify the activities of the famous Russian physiologist and naturalist I.P. Pavlov in the field of experimental and clinical pharmacology, performed mainly in the early period of his work at the Medico-Surgical (Military Medical) Academy (1879-1895). The scientific publications of I.P. Pavlov in this area, mainly works on the use of bitterness as appetite stimulants, herbal preparations of cardiotonic action obtained from Adonis vernalis, lily of the valley, hellebore, the use of caffeine and bromine preparations for the treatment of neuroses were analyzed. In addition to scientific activity, the formation of I.P. Pavlov as a lecturer, his features of teaching, the introduction of demonstrations of experiments on animals during lectures, explanation of the mechanisms of reproducible physiological and pharmacological phenomena were described. The implementation aspect of the theoretical developments of I.P. Pavlov in practical medicine was revealed as well.

Tracing back political Islam to the French Campaign that invaded Egypt in 1798, the article argues that political Islam emerged and developed from within the folds of the modern nation state in Egypt. The article conceptualizes three historical phases: from 1805 to 1849, 1849 to 1879, and 1879 to the mid-1920s. Each of these phases is centered around a common theme that characterized the discourses, knowledge, and structures of politics, the economy and “Islam”, as they encountered the West, which are, in order, technology, civilization, and ideology. The works of Ḥasan al-ʿAṭṭār will be explored as an example of the first phase, and the works of Rifāʿah al-Ṭahṭāwī will be the example of the second phase, where Islam, as it encounters politics, becomes the foundation of state nationalism. The third phase will start with a transitional period of undifferentiated discourses, but will quickly, after the British occupation in 1882, differentiate into three political Islams: liberal, represented by Muḥammad ʿAbduh and al-Ummah Party; official, represented by ʿAlī Yūsuf and the Reform on the Constitutional Principles Party; and extra-state, radical Islamism, represented by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Jāwiš, and the Nationalist Party. The article will explain the national and international political and economic contexts that surrounded and participated in the formations of political Islam in all its varieties. Against the popular academic conviction of rooting Ḥasan al-Bannā’s thought in Muḥammad ʿAbduh’s work, and rooting ʿAbduh in Jamāl al-Afghānī’s movement, this article will explain the rupture and contradictions between Afghānī and ʿAbduh, on the one hand, and the rooting of al-Bannā’s ideology in ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Jāwīš’s thought, on the other hand.

A problem associated with shrimp is blackspot or melanosis and to prevent blackspot, sulfites have been used for years but come with additional health risks. Newer 4- hexylresorcinol formulations exist that allow sulfite-free shrimp, but effects on the quality of Penaeus monodon Fabricius, 1798, and Macrobrachium rosenbergii, de Man, 1879, beyond melanosis prevention are unknown. Adverse effects on the quality of the shrimp from melanosis prevention treatments would negatively offset the benefits of a sulfite-free product. In order to determine if prevention compounds (sulfite powder or 4- hexylresorcinol based compounds, Everfresh® and Xyrex® Prawnfresh™) affect quality, proximate composition and total plate count of bacteria were determined for cultured (P. monodon and M. rosenbergii) shrimp in Bangladesh. The results showed no effect of melanosis prevention compound on proximate composition (p > 0.05), but for each parameter, species were significantly different (p < 0.001). For total plate count, treatment was not significantly different (p = 0.09), but species were significantly different in total plate count (p < 0.001). M. rosenbergii had a higher total plate count. Results of this study indicated that proximate composition and bacterial levels are not affected by 4- hexylresorcinol melanosis treatments. Melanosis prevention is necessary to reduce loss due to unacceptance, and 4-hexylresorcinoltreated shrimp can provide the industry with a sulfite-free alternative.

The Neotropical genus Himantigera James in James & McFadden, 1982, is revised. Two new species are described and illustrated—H. amauroptera nov. sp. (Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia), and H. xanthopoda nov. sp. (Mexico, Nicaragua, Costa Rica). Three species are transferred from Himantigera to Sargus Fabricius, 1798—S. dichrous (Schiner, 1868) comb. nov., S. flavoniger Lindner, 1928 comb. rev. and S. fulvithorax (Bigot, 1879) comb. nov. One species is transferred to Microchrysa Loew, 1855—M. splendens (Schiner, 1868) comb. nov. Himantigera jamesi Lindner, 1969 syn. nov. is proposed as a junior synonym of H. superba Lindner, 1949. The type species H. silvestris McFadden, 1982, as well as H. nigrifemorata Macquart, 1847 and H. superba Lindner, are herein redescribed and illustrated. Photographs of the type specimens of these three species are provided. Two unnamed species of Himantigera (sp. A and sp. B) are also described given that they have slight differences, but because we had only one specimen of each species, we did not officially describe them. This updates the total number of extant Himantigera from eight sensu Woodley (2001) to seven species. The species Merosargus apicalis Lindner, 1935, although never referred to the genus Himantigera or Himantoloba McFadden 1970, is also transferred to the genus Sargus. A key to all species of Himantigera and a map expanding geographical distribution of the genus are also presented, with the first records of the genus for Nicaragua, Colombia, Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago, Ecuador and Bolivia.

Józef Brzowski (1805–1888) był jedną z ważniejszych postaci warszawskiego życia muzycznego XIX wieku. Dotychczas data jego urodzenia nie była potwierdzono źródłowo. W wyniku kwerendy w księgach metrykalnych warszawskiej parafii św. Andrzeja odnalazłem metrykę chrztu Brzowskiego z 18 kwietnia 1805 roku, urodzonego w domu przy ulicy Leszno pod numerem hipotecznym 703, odpowiadający późniejszemu numerowi domu 62. Do metryki chrztu załączone zostało sprostowanie z 1835 roku dotyczącego błędnego zapisu nazwiska muzyka w pierwotnym dokumencie. Rodzice kompozytora, Karol Brzowski (ok. 1768 – 1831?) i Tekla z domu Przeździecka (ok. 1773 – 1851), mieli oprócz syna prawdopodobnie cztery córki (personalia trzech z nich są znane): Karolinę (1798?–1813), uczennicę Szkoły Dramatycznej, Zofię (1800–1879), aktorkę Teatru Narodowego zamężną z Karolem Kurpińskim, oraz Teklę Klementynę (1809–1811). Józef Brzowski ożenił się w 1835 roku z Anną Elżbietą Dückert z domu Ketschon (1795?–1843), wdową po Karolu Fryderyku Dückercie (ok. 1764 – 1834); córką Brzowskiego była Jadwiga Wawrzyna (1830 – po 1892), ochrzczona dopiero po ślubie rodziców. Muzyk w 1849 roku zawarł drugie małżeństwo z Florentyną Górecką (1819?–1905), z którą miał syna Aleksandra (1843–1858), ucznia Szkoły Dramatycznej, ochrzczonego – podobnie jak jego starsza siostra – po ślubie rodziców. Józef Brzowski zmarł 3 lub 4 grudnia 1888 roku; rozbieżności wynikają z różnych dat zapisanych w akcie zgonu i na nagrobku kompozytora oraz podanych w prasie. Jadwiga Wawrzyna Brzowska była pianistką międzynarodowej sławy, koncertującą od 1840 roku. Podczas pobytu w Nowym Orleanie w 1860 roku Brzowska wzięła ślub z francuskim konsulem Eugène’em Augustem Méjanem (1814–1874). Brzowska-Méjan zmarła po 1892 roku, być może po 1903 roku. Brzowski był jednym z ważniejszych muzyków w Warszawie, jednak krótko po śmierci został zapomniany. Być może relacje rodzinno-towarzyskie (choćby powinowactwo z Karolem Kurpińskim czy przyjaźń z Fryderykiem Chopinem), a nie talent kompozytorski, otworzyły mu drogę do kariery.

AbstractThe history of Dutch private law, or - as it was called - 'ancient national law' ('oud vaderlands recht'), which was taught at Dutch universities since the days of S.J. Fockema Andreae sr (1844-1921), suffered from at least three serious disadvantages, viz. the absence of anything like a "Dutch nation" before the creation of the modern centralized state in 1798, the absence of anything like a "national law", least of all private law, before the enactment of the first Dutch civil code of 1809 and the inability to come to terms with the reception of Roman law, which was regarded as a cataclysmic event brought about by the "unhistoric" attitude of sixteenth-century Dutch lawyers (S.J. Fockema Andreae jr in 1950). Hence the emphasis on pre-reception medieval law and public rather than private law. On the other hand, the Dutch civilians were interested in "classical" Roman law rather than the history of private law after the reception of Roman law in the Netherlands. To most of them Roman law had become distorted and disfigured in the process. So the study of the history of substantive private law of the era between the reception of Roman law and the enactment of the first civil code was rather unattractive to both groups of legal historians. To the "germanists" national law was tainted with Roman law, whereas to the civilians, the "romanists", Roman law had become contaminated by the mould of ancient customary and statutory law and the expediency of legal practitioners. So, in spite of the fact that the very same era is commonly regarded as the heyday of Dutch legal science (Voetius, Grotius, Vinnius), no comprehensive introduction to what is also commonly regarded as a most important Dutch contribution to European legal culture, viz. "Roman-Dutch" law, was ever written in the Netherlands. Students had to be referred to R.W. Lee's Introduction to Roman-Dutch Law, an English textbook! The volumes of the Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis bear witness to this sorry state of affairs. There are many learned and solid articles on subjects of classical Roman law and French customary law, but relatively very few on subjects of substantive Dutch private law and even less on subjects of "Roman-Dutch" law. There is, of course, an explanation for this. The "germanists" had (and have) their own magazine, the "Verslagen en Mededeelingen" ("Reports and Proceedings"), published by de "Vereniging tot uitgaaf der bronnen van het oud-vaderlands recht" (the "Society for the edition of the sources of ancient national law"), founded in 1879, whereas there is also, as far as "Roman-Dutch" law is concerned, the "Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg", published in South Africa. There is another consideration to be taken into account too: much of what has been written on the history of substantive Dutch private law in the last 75 years was not, or at least not primarily, written with a public consisting of legal historians in mind, but in view of practical questions of and developments in modern Dutch private law intended to be read by legal practitioners, rather than the professional historians. That is why so much which would have been of interest to professional historians at large, was published in Dutch and in Dutch legal journals. So, in the final analysis, it is the international profile and the emphasis on history that have prevented the publication of more articles on the history of substantive Dutch private law in the volumes of the Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis.

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

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.

The designation of Drupa glans Röding, 1798 as type species for Austrofusus Kobelt, 1879 that has been accepted up until now in New Zealand is invalid, because that species was not an originally included species. Cossmann (1901) validly designated Fusus alternatus Philippi, 1847 (= Fusus fontainei d’Orbigny, 1841) as the type species of Austrofusus, so Austrofusus should be used for the South American buccinulid gastropods usually classified in Aeneator. Austrofusus must be replaced in New Zealand usage by Aethocola Iredale, 1915.

Contrary to the conclusion reached by Beu and Marshall in this journal last year, Neptunea (Austrofusus) nodosa Martyn, 1784 was one of the species originally included in Austrofusus when it was first established by Kobelt in 1879, so the subsequent type species designation by Martens in 1882 is valid, and Austrofusus is the correct genus to use for Drupa glans Röding, 1798. The genus for the South American taxa incorrectly referred to Austrofusus by Beu and Marshall , and currently in Aeneator Finlay, 1926, remains to be established.

The Swedish species of Ophion Fabricius, 1798 are revised. More than 4800 specimens and relevant type material were studied; 234 sampled specimens produced COI sequences. The study recognises 41 species, 18 of which are described as new to science, mainly from Fennoscandian material: Ophion angularis Johansson & Cederberg sp. nov., Ophion arenarius Johansson sp. nov., Ophion autumnalis Johansson sp. nov., Ophion borealis Johansson sp. nov., Ophion broadi Johansson sp. nov., Ophion brocki Johansson sp. nov., Ophion confusus Johansson sp. nov., Ophion ellenae Johansson sp. nov., Ophion inclinans Johansson sp. nov., Ophion kallanderi Johansson sp. nov., Ophion matti Johansson sp. nov., Ophion norei Johansson sp. nov., Ophion paraparvulus Johansson sp. nov., Ophion paukkuneni Johansson sp. nov., Ophion splendens Johansson sp. nov., Ophion sylvestris Johansson sp. nov., Ophion tenuicornis Johansson sp. nov. and Ophion vardali Johansson sp. nov. Barcoding analysis also indicated the possible presence of at least three additional, partly cryptic species, but these cannot be separated morphologically with certainty at this point. Ophion costatus Ratzeburg, 1848 and Ophion artemisiae Boie, 1855 are interpreted and defined. Ophion slaviceki Kriechbaumer, 1892 is excluded from synonymy with Ophion luteus Linnaeus, 1758 stat. rev. Ophion polyguttator (Thunberg, 1824) stat. rev. and Ophion variegatus Rudow, 1883 stat. rev. are excluded from synonymy with O. obscuratus Fabricius, 1798. Ophion variegatus is redescribed and a neotype is designated. Ophion albistylus Szépligeti, 1905 (syn. nov.) is synonymized with Ophion pteridis Kriechbaumer, 1879 and Ophion frontalis Strobl, 1904 (syn. nov.) is synonymized with Ophion areolaris Brauns, 1889 syn. nov. Eleven species are reported from Sweden for the first time: Ophion artemisiae, Ophion crassicornis Brock, 1982, Ophion costatus, Ophion dispar Brauns, 1895, Ophion forticornis Morley, 1915, Ophion kevoensis Jussila, 1965, Ophion ocellaris Ulbricht, 1926, Ophion perkinsi Brock, 1982, Ophion subarcticus Hellén, 1926, Ophion variegatus Rudow, 1883 and Ophion wuestneii Kriechbaumer, 1892. The study shows that a number of species that previously have been treated as highly variable taxa, actually consist of several valid species that are separable using morphological characters. An illustrated key for the determination of the Swedish Ophion species is provided.

Virus interference is a phenomenon in which two viruses interact within a host, affecting the outcome of infection of at least one of such viruses. The effect of this event was first observed in the XVIII century and it was first recorded even before virology was recognized as a distinct science from microbiology. Studies on virus interference were mostly done in the decades between 1930 and 1960 in viruses infecting bacteria and different vertebrates. The systems included in vivo experiments and later, more refined assays were done using tissue and cell cultures. Many viruses involved in interference are pathogenic to humans or to economically important animals. Thus the phenomenon may be relevant to medicine and to animal production due to the possibility to use it as alternative to chemical therapies against virus infections to reduce the severity of disease/mortality caused by a superinfecting virus. Virus interference is defined as the host resistance to a superinfection caused by a pathogenic virus causing obvious signs of disease and/or mortality due to the action of an interfering virus abrogating the replication of the former virus. Different degrees of inhibition of the superinfecting virus can occur. Due to the emergence of novel pathogenic viruses in recent years, virus interference has recently been revisited using different pathogens and hosts, including commercially important farmed aquatic species. Here, some highly pathogenic viruses affecting farmed crustaceans can be affected by interference with other viruses. This review presents data on the history of virus interference in hosts including bacteria and animals, with emphasis on the known cases of virus interference in crustacean hosts.Life Science Identifiers (LSIDs)Escherichia coli [(Migula 1895) Castellani &amp; Chalmers 1919]Aedes albopictus (Skuse 1894)Liocarcinus depurator (Linnaeus 1758): urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:107387Penaeus duorarum (Burkenroad 1939): urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:158334Carcinus maenas (Linnaeus 1758): urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:107381Macrobrachium rosenbergii (De Man 1879): urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:220137Penaeus vannamei (Boone 1931): urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:C30A0A50-E309-4E24-851D-01CF94D97F23Penaeus monodon (Fabricius 1798): urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:3DD50D8B-01C2-48A7-B80D-9D9DD2E6F7ADPenaeus stylirostris (Stimpson 1874): urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:584982

Abstract BACKGROUND AND AIMS Numerous epidemiological studies indicate the great importance of diagnosing and treating urinary tract infections. Whether they are treated by urology specialists as provided by international guides while clinical practice is provided, or they are treated by nephrologists as practiced in Serbia, the end result is bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Patients often request from doctors for “natural” nonpharmacological drugs, especially when it comes to treating uranium infection and calculosis. Therefore, the aim of our work is to investigate the ways of diagnosing and treating urinary tract infections, hematuria and calculosis in the past. METHOD Numerous resources, including MEDLINE, books, magazines, encyclopedias and data bases, were used to collect the information described in this paper. RESULTS The first written records made 6000 years ago about the visual observation of the color and appearance of urine by uroscopy date from Babylon. Painful urination and blood in the urine has been associated with Egyptians in the past, although they attached great importance to hygiene. Since ancient Egypt hematuria has been attributed to schistosoma hematobium today known as schistosomiasis. The eggs of this parasite were found in the urinary tract of a mummy dating from 1189 BC. Later Egyptian medical papers from 1550 BC describe calculosis, cystitis and urinary frequency in people who have been in contact with contaminated water. In 1798, French doctors from the time of Napoleon described Egypt as the only country in which men menstruate. Although only described about 86 plants belonging to 43 species in southeastern Serbia, there are few records on how to treat hematuria, urinary tract infections and calculosis. Herbal medicine in Serbia is recorded in the oldest document from the 14th century (The Hodoch Codex) and the 16th century (The Chilandar Medicinal Codex). The health book “Pelagic's Folk's Teacher” was published in 1879 by Vasa Pelagic. He published folk healing experiences for the first time on over 900 pages and thus gained great popularity. Most of the information was collected by University Professor Dr. Jovan Tucakov, who in his book “Herbal Therapy,” first published in 1973, described the use of herbs to treat various diseases, including urinary tract infections. Almost every family in Serbia owns these books and changes their therapy together with conventional medicines. However, little attention is paid to the side effects of such combinations and the importance of the consequences of the length of treatment. CONCLUSION Today, treating a urinary tract infection is a major challenge due to bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Knowledge that the culture and social habits of the people are one of the important contexts for improving health care and health education of people and not just the application of technological advances.

The numismatic collection of the Banat Museum in Timişoara includes two rare bronze medals dedicated to members of the well known Weifert family from Pančevo (Serbia). One is a medal dedicated to Ignaz Weifert on his 64th anniversary by his son Georg Weifert, crafted by the Austrian engraver Anton Schar (1845 – 1903). The second one is dedicated to Georg Weifert on his 44th anniversary, created by the Austrian engraver Franz Xaver Pawlik (1865 – 1906). They were purchased in 1907 by the Banat Museum from Fejér József, antiquarian in Budapest, for the sum of 22 crowns. The medals were given inventory numbers 731 and 732 in the old register of the collections. The medal dedicated to Ignaz Weifert (1826 – 1911) is made of bronze, patinated (55.5 mm; inventory no 136; Pl. I.1 – 2). It is generally but wrongly dated in 1870. Given the marked date (MDCCCLXX), one considers that it had been realized on the occasion of Ignaz Weifert’s 20th year of industrial activity. Actually, one thousand eight hundred seventy represents the year of establishment for the Weifert brewery in Belgrade. There are several arguments in favor of a correct dating of the coin (i.e. 1890): the age of Ignaz Weifert, marked on the obverse of the medal (LXIV), as he fulfilled 64 in the year 1890. Secondly, the medal is mentioned among the works of the engraver Anton Schar from 1890 (in the same year Schar had also realized a plaque, 136 mm in diameter, with the portrait of Ignaz Weifert). More so, Felix Milleker affirmed in his study on the Weifert family that in December 1890 Georg Weifert dedicated a medal to his father Ignaz, crafted by the Austrian engraver Anton Schar (Milleker 1925, 11).The second medal, dedicated to Georg Weifert (1850 – 1937) on his 44th anniversary is made of bronze, has 52.2 mm in diameter (inventory no 84; Pl. III.1 – 2) and was created by Franz Xaver Pawlik in 1894. The same engraver had molded a medal dedicated to Ignaz and Georg Weifert in 1903, in two variants: 25 mm and 140 mm in diameter. We know about the existence of a 25 mm medal as part of a private collection in Timişoara. Originally from north Austria, the Weiferts settled in Banat during the first half of the 18th century, initially in Vršac, where from a certain Georg Weifert (1798 – 1887) moved to Pančevo. Here he became one of the prominent local merchants and, from 1841, the owner of the brewery (established in 1722). In 1849 the elder son of Georg, Ignaz Weifert (Ignjat Vajfert in Serbian) assumed the control of the brewery, after previously following a course of beer making in Munich (Bavaria). After expansion and modernization, the family business thrived and the Weifert brewery in Pančevo became one of the most important enterprises of the kind from Banat (Pl. II.1). In 1870 Ignaz expanded the business by building a new brewery in Belgrade, first in Serbia in time, on the Smutekovac Hill (nowadays Topčider). His son, Georg Weifert (Đorđe Vajfert in Serbian) took over its control in 1872. The Weifert brewery from Pančevo remained in care of Ignaz and his son Hugo. The one to become General Governor of the National Bank of Serbia, mighty industrialist and pioneer of modern mining in Serbia, Georg Weifert (Pl. IV) was born on June 15, 1850 in Pančevo. After elementary and secondary studies in Pančevo, he studied at the Commercial School in Budapest. Between 1869 and 1872 he followed the technology courses in brew at the Agricultural School in Weihenstephan, near Munich. He was 22 when he took his father’s brewery from Belgrade, which he modernized and turn into one of the most largest and modern of its kind from the Balkans (Pl. II.2). The Weifert beer became the most sought beer in Serbia. As one of the most rich and inuential person in Serbia, he is remembered as a great philanthropist, Maecenas for numerous institutions, cultural and charitable societies. He was awarded the highest Serbian and also French, Romanian or other orders. For decades he held the most important positions in the Serbian and Yugoslav Masonic lodges. He was married to Marie Gassner but had no ospring. In 1923, on the occasion of celebrating 50 years of marriage, he financed the building of St. Ana Church in Pančevo, in memory of his mother Anna. In the same year he was elected honorary citizen of his home city. He died aged 87 on January 12, 1937, at his villa on Vojvode Putnika Street. He was buried on January 16 in the Catholic cemetery in Pančevo, left of the portal built in 1924 on his expenses. The name Weifert is also associated with the well-known numismatic collection owned by this family, of which three members were passionate collectors: Ignaz and his sons, Hugo and Georg. The one who settle the collection (around 1878) was Hugo (1852 – 1885). After his early death in 1885, aged only 33, the collection passed to his father Ignaz, who continued to gather coins. In 1911, after the death of Ignaz, the numismatic collection passed to Georg Weifert. All three of them had been members of the Numismatic Society in Vienna: Hugo from 1879, Ignaz from 1885 and Georg from 1889. Although the members of Weifert family collected all kind of Greek and Roman coins, it seems that Hugo was the one passionate for medals concerning Belgrade, Ignaz paid special attention to Viminacium issued coins while Georg was interested in 4th century AD Roman coins. The numismatic collection held antique coins: Greek, Celtic and Roman, Byzantine coins, medieval Serbian ones, taler from Central Europe, medals concerning Belgrade etc. The Republican and Imperial Roman coins dated to 1st – 5th c. AD compose the largest part of the collection, including numerous rarities. There are also Roman colonial coins issued by the cities in the Balkans, especially Viminacium and from Asia Minor. Today we hold no longer information on the ending place of these coins, except for the golden Late Roman solidi found in the spring of 1879 near Borča, that are to be considered among the most valuable pieces of the collection. The PMS COL VIM type coins, issued between 239 and 255 AD in Viminacium (today Stari Kostolac, Serbia) are also important, although the collection does not comprise the complete series and all the variants. One can notice the interest of the Weiferts in collecting this monetary type and the existence of a special relation of the Weifert family with the area of the antique Viminacium (Kostolac). The first coins that entered the Weifert collection came from this area, where Georg held a coal mine and locals often brought him coins for his collection. In two cases, both on the medal dedicated to Georg Weifert in 1894 and on the one dedicated to Ignaz and Georg Weifert in 1903 (the 25 mm variant), realized by Pawlik, there are representations of reverse type of the Roman coins of PMS COL VIM type. The Weifert numismatic collection had been aected by the turmoil of WW I. The rare golden coins held in Belgrade were saved by Georg and taken to France. The rest of the numismatic collection, held in Pančevo, was taken to Vienna by his nephew Adolf Gramberg, where from it came back in 1925, completely disorganized. Unfortunately, the collection of medieval Serbian coins and medals concerning Belgrade that could not be saved disappeared during the war. Georg Weifert donated this valuable collection holding over 14,000 antique coins to the University of Belgrade on September 9, 1923. It had been taken over only in 1929 by Professors Miloje M. Vasić and Nikola Vulić, as representatives of the University, following its arranging by Balduin Saria, custodian of the National Museum in Belgrade and Georg Elmer, a nephew of Hugo Weifert, custodian of the Numismatic Cabinet of Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. After World War II, the Weifert numismatic collection had been handed over to the National Museum in Belgrade, where is kept today.This donation made by Georg Weifert was not a singular act. Ignaz Weifert had donated over time numerous coins, antiquities and maps to the High Gymnasium in Pančevo and the Museum in Vršac. Georg had also donated in 1931 his collection of historic documents (photographs, lithographs, plans and maps) to the City Museum of Belgrade. The medals from the collection of the Banat Museum in Timişoara dedicated to the Weiferts are a testimony for a family that played an important role in the economical history of Banat and Serbia. Its name remains associated with a beer brand especially appreciated over time and for the numismatists with one of the most important collections from the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century.