Journal articles on the topic '1831-1920'

The genus Prionocerus Perty, 1831 is revised. Eight species are recognised: P. coeruleipennis Perty, 1831 (= P. coeruleipennis var. diversicollis Pic, 1920, n. syn.); P. bicolor Redtenbacher, 1868 (= P. pertii Castelnau, 1836, n. syn.); P. opacipennis (Pic, 1920) (transferred from Idgia Castelnau, 1836); P. viridiflavus Geiser, 2007 and four new species: P. paiensis n. sp. (Thailand); P. malaysiacus n. sp. (Malaysia); P. championi n. sp. (Indonesia) and P. wittmeri n. sp. (Indonesia). All previous synonymies of taxa under P. coeruleipennis and P. bicolor could be confirmed through study of the relevant types. Prionocerus pertii Castelnau, 1836 was found to be conspecific with P. bicolor Redtenbacher, 1868, but this senior synonymy was submitted to the ICZN proposing it as nomen oblitum. Prionocerus thibetanus Obenberger, 1918 is newly synonymised with Idgia viridescens Gorham, 1895. Prionocerus huegeli Redtenbacher, 1868 and P. hirtus Walker, 1871 are confirmed to belong to Idgia, the latter has to be treated as a nomen dubium. The infrageneric phylogeny of Prionocerus, its relationships to other Prionoceridae, as well as its life history, ecology and biogeography are discussed.

Este trabajo de investigación nace con motivo del 150 aniversario del nacimiento del canónigo doctor Juan Francisco Muñoz y Pabón (1866-1920), seminarista (1878-1893) y posteriormente profesor (1887-1920). Ofrecemos una visión general del seminario conciliar de san Isidoro y san Francisco Javier de Sevilla desde su erección en 1831 en Sanlúcar de Barrameda hasta la creación de la universidad pontificia en 1897. La vida cotidiana —estudios y religiosidad— está muy presente en este artículo. La parte central del mismo está dedicada a nuestro biografiado Muñoz y Pabón: seminarista, sacerdote, profesor y canónigo. Este trabajo finaliza con dos apéndices: el primero sobre el claustro de profesores del seminario (1878-1920) y el segundo sobre el colegio de doctores de la facultad de teología de la universidad pontificia de Sevilla (1897-1931).

ZUSAMMENFASSUNGKognitive Einschränkungen sind bei etwa jedem fünften Kind mit einer Epilepsie vorhanden. Ein besonders hohes Risiko besteht bei früher Epilepsiemanifestation. Die Ursache der Epilepsie beeinflusst neben anderen Faktoren das Ausmaß der kognitiven Einschränkungen am stärksten. Die Erkennung von kognitiven Einschränkungen bei Kindern mit Epilepsie kann Auswirkungen auf entsprechende Förderkonzepte und Lebenswege für die betroffenen Kinder haben. Ferner muss erkannt werden, ob die medikamentöse Behandlung der Anfälle zu einer eingeschränkten kognitiven Leistungsfähigkeit beiträgt. In einigen Fällen können frühzeitige epilepsiechirurgische Eingriffe, sofern der Patient dafür infrage kommt, einen kognitiven Abbau aufhalten.

AbstractAll species-group names of Trachypachidae, Rhysodidae, and Carabidae (including cicindelincs) correctly recorded from America north of Mexico are catalogued with state and province records. Valid names are listed with the author(s), date of publication, and page citation in their current and original combinations while all synonyms are provided in their original combinations. Genus-group names are recorded with the author(s), date of publication, page citation, type species, and kind of type species fixation. Species groups were preferred to subgenera but subscneric names are also listed.The following nomenclatural changes are proposed and discussed: Bembidion neocoerulescens Bousquet, new replacement name for B. coerulescens Van Dyke, 1925; Chlaenius circumcinctus Say, 1830 for C. perplexus Dejean, 1831; Cyclotrachelus dejeanellus (Csiki, 1930) for C. morio (Dejean, 1828); Cyclotrachelus freitagi Bousquet, new replacement name for C. obsoletus (Say, 1830); Dyschirius aeneolus LeConte, 1850 for D. frigidus Mannerheim, 1853; Harpalus laevipes Zetterstedt, 1828 for H. quadripunctatus Dejean, 1829; Harpalus providens Casey, 1914 for H. viduus LeConte, 1865; Harpalus reversus Casey, 1924 for H. funerarius Csiki, 1932; Notiophilus sierranus Casey, 1920 for N. obscurus Fall, 1901; Pseudamara Lindroth, 1968 for Disamara Lindroth, 1976; Pterostichus trinarius (Casey, 1918) for P. ohionis Csiki, 1930; Stenolophus carbo Bousquet, new replacement name for S. carbonarius (Dejean, 1829).Thirty-six new synonyms are established and seven, considered as questionable, are confirmed. They are (with the valid names in parentheses): Agonothorax planipennis Motschulsky, 1850 (= ? Agonum affine Kirby, 1837); Platynus variolatus LeConte, 1851 (= Agonum limbatum Motschulsky, 1845); Agonum nitidum Harris, 1869 (= ? Agonum melanarium Dejean, 1828); Amerinus fuscicornis Casey, 1914 and A. longipennis Casey, 1914 (= Amerinus linearis (LeConte, 1863)); Apristus fuscipennis Motschulsky, 1864 (= Apristus latens LeConte, 1848); Batenus aeneolus Motschulsky, 1865 (= Agonum exaratum (Mannerheim, 1853)); Brachystylus curtipennis Motschulsky, 1859 (= Pterostichus congestus (Ménétriés, 1843)); Brachystylus parallelus Motschulsky, 1859 (= ? Pterostichus californicus (Dejean, 1828)); Cratacanthus cephalotes Casey, 1914, C. subovalis Casey, 1914, and C. texanus Casey, 1884 (= Cratacanthus dubius (Palisot de Beauvois, 1811)); Cymindis comma T.W. Harris, 1869 (= ? Cymindis limbatus Dejean, 1831); Feronia praetermissa Chaudoir, 1868 (= Pterostichus commutabilis (Motschulsky, 1866)); Galerita angusticeps Casey, 1920 (= Galerita janus (Fabricius, 1792)); Gonoderus cordicollis Motschulsky 1859 (= Pterostichus tristis (Dejean, 1828)); Anisodactylus alternans LeConte, 1851 (= Anisodactylus alternans (Motschulsky, 1845)); Hypherpes spissitarsis Casey, 1918 (= Pterostichus tarsalis LeConte, 1873); Lebia brunnicollis Motschulsky, 1864 (= Lebia lobulata LeConte, 1863); Lebia subfigurata Motschulsky, 1864 and L. sublimbata Motschulsky, 1864 (= Lebia analis Dejean, 1825); Lophoglossus bispiculatus Casey, 1913 and L. illini Casey, 1913 (= Lophoglossus scrutator (LeConte, 1848)); Platysma leconteianum Lutshnik, 1922 (= Pterostichus commutabilis (Motschulsky, 1866)); Loxandrus iris Motschulsky, 1866(= Loxandrus rectus (Say, 1823)); Masoreus americanus Motschulsky, 1864 (= Stenolophus rotundicollis (Haldeman, 1843)); Notaphus laterimaculatus Motschulsky, 1859 (= Bembidion approximatum (LeConte, 1852)); Notiophilus cribrilaterus Motschulsky, 1864 (= Notiophilus novemstriatus LeConte, 1848); Omaseus brevibasis Casey, 1924 (= Pterostichus luctuosus (Dejean, 1828)); Notaphus incertus Motschulsky, 1845 (= Bembidion breve (Motschulsky, 1845)); Peryphus concolor Motschulsky, 1850 (= Bembidion platynoides Hayward, 1897); Peryphus erosus Motschulsky, 1850 (= Bembidion transversale Dejean, 1831); Peryphus subinflatus Motschulsky, 1859 (= Bembidion petrosum petrosum Gebler, 1833); Planesus fuscicollis Motschulsky, 1865 and P. laevigatas Motschulsky, 1865 (= Cymindis platicollis (Say, 1823)); Poecilus pimalis Casey, 1913 (= Poecilus diplophryus Chaudoir, 1876); Pterostichus arizonicus Schaeffer, 1910 (= Ophryogaster flohri Bates, 1882); Pterostichus sequoiarum Casey, 1913 (= Pterostichus tarsalis LeConte, 1873); Scaphinotus grandis Gistel, 1857 (= ? Scaphinotus unicolor unicolor (Fabricius, 1787)); Stenocrepis chalcas Bates, 1882 and S. chalcochrous Chaudoir, 1883 (= Stenocrepis texana (LeConte, 1863)); Stenolophus humeralis Motschulsky, 1864 (= Stenolophus plebejus Dejean, 1829); and Stenolophus laticollis Motschulsky, 1864 (= Stenolophus ochropezus (Say, 1823)).Olisthopus iterans Casey, 1913 and Pterostichus illustris LeConte, 1851, listed as junior synonyms of O. parmatus (Say, 1823) and P. congestus (Ménétriés, 1843), respectively, are considered in the present work as valid species.The type species (listed in parentheses) of the following 14 genus-group taxa are designated for the first time: Circinalidia Casey, 1920 (Agonum aeruginosum Dejean, 1828); Evolenes LeConte, 1853 (Oodes exaratus Dejean, 1831); Leucagonum Casey, 1920 (Agonum maculicolle Dejean, 1828); Megaliridia Casey, 1920 (Cychrus viduus Dejean, 1826); Megalostylus Chaudoir, 1843 (Feronia lucidula Dejean, 1828 = Feronia recta Say, 1823); Micragra Chaudoir, 1872 (Micragra lissonota Chaudoir, 1872); Onota Chaudoir, 1872 (Onota bicolor Chaudoir, 1872); Oodiellus Chaudoir, 1882 (Oodiellus mexicanus Chaudoir, 1882 = Anatrichis alutacea Bates, 1882); Oxydrepanus Putzeys, 1866 (Dyschirius rufus Putzeys, 1846); Paranchomenus Casey, 1920 (Platynus stygicus LeConte, 1854 = Anchomenus mannerheimii Dejean, 1828); Pemphus Motschulsky, 1866 (Cychrus velutinus Ménétriés, 1843); Peronoscelis Chaudoir, 1872 (Tetragonoderus figuratus Dejean, 1831); Rhombodera Reiche, 1842 (Rhombodera virgata Reiche, 1842 = Lebia trivittata Dejean, 1831); and Stenous Chaudoir, 1857 (Oodes cupreus Chaudoir, 1843).Two new family-group names are proposed, Cnemalobini (= Cnemacanthini of authors) based on Cnemalobus Guérin-Méneville, 1839 and Loxandrini based on Loxandrus LeConte, 1852.The work also includes a synopsis of all extant world carabid tribes, a bibliography of all original descriptions, a full taxonomic index, and, as appendices, lists of nomina nuda and unjustified emendations, and annotated lists of species incorrectly or doubtfully recorded from America north of Mexico and of new North American records.

The circum-Antarctic clam Laternula elliptica (King & Broderip 1831) is the largest infaunal bivalve of the Southern Ocean. It mostly lives in water depths of less than 100 m (highest densities from 20–30 m; e.g. Ahn 1994), in soft or semi-consolidated substrates from sandy mud to gravelly sand (Soot-Ryen 1951, Nicol 1966). Animals are deep-burrowing (to >0.5 m; Zamorano et al. 1986) and consequently have large siphons. These are fused, highly muscular and covered by thick, rugose periostracum, and are capable of partial retraction only (Burne 1920). The ecology of L. elliptica was likened by Ralph & Maxwell (1977) to that of Mya arenaria L. in northern temperate and Arctic waters.

The genus Notiophilus Duméril, 1806 is a distinctive taxon of small, diurnal and morphologically similar beetles exhibiting large eyes and widened second elytral intervals. In this study we analysed the effectiveness of DNA barcodes to discriminate 67 specimens that represent 8 species of Notiophilus from Central Europe. Interspecific K2P distances below 2.2% were found for N.biguttatus (Fabricius, 1779) and N.quadripunctatus Dejean, 1826, whereas intraspecific distances with values > 2.2% were revealed for N.rufipes Curtis, 1829. An additional phylogenetic analysis of all available species revealed a close relationship of N.directus Casey, 1920, N.semistriatus Say, 1823, N.simulator Fall, 1906 and N.sylvaticus Dejean, 1831, possibly indicating a radiation of these species in North America. Low support values of most other nodes, however, do not allow additional phylogenetic conclusions.

This article describes the foundation of the Ichan-Kala State Museum Reserve in Khiva in 1920 and the activities of the museum, its staff, exhibitions and events over the past 100 years. The Khiva museum- was opened on April 27, 1920 in Arzkhana (reception hall) of Kunya-Ark in the presence of the participants of the 1st Kurultay (Congress) of national representatives. It was called the People’s Museum. The number of visitors increased day by day. In addition to the exposition itself, introductory lectures were held there and thematic exhibitions were organized on certain dates. Until 1924, the descendants of Allakuli Khan lived in the huge Tash-Khauli palace built in 1831–1839 in the inner fortress of Khiva. Considering it their own possession, they began to sell the property of the palace. The government members, having learnt about this, moved the Khiva museum from Kunya-Ark to Tash-Khauli and included it in the list of state property.13 In August of the same year, the Khiva Museum was supplied with the necessary exhibition equipment delivered from Moscow. 285 unique pieces were exhibited in the imported showcases.

A letter home: from Grundtvig in Cambridge to his wife Lise, June 183 [Et brev hjem fra Grundtvig i Cambridge til sin hustru Lise, juni 1831]Af S. A. J. BradleyDet har længe været en ortodoksi i grundtvigforskeres opfattelse, at Grs mission med at studere angelsaksiske håndskrifter under Englandsrejserne 1829-1831 blev fortrængt af hans reaktion ved mødet med det samtidige England. Men inden for grundtvigforskningen har man - med nogle få fremtrædende undtagelser - i nogen grad overset den angelsaksiske kulturelle arv, som Gr blev optaget af, da han i 1815 i forbindelse med sin fortolkning af Beowulf lærte sig at læse angelsaksisk. En mere omfattende forståelse af, hvad Gr stiftede bekendtskab med i mødet med disse håndskrifter - og med tidligere forskeres udgaver af de angelsaksiske tekster - kan således komme til at medføre en revurdering i den vanlige redegørelse af Grs intellektuelle og åndelige udvikling i perioden, der kulminerede med udgivelsen af Nordens Mythologi (1832). Ganske vist viser Grs breve fra England hans skarpe iagttagelse af englændernes livsform, deres institutioner og samfundsforhold; men brevene dokumenterer og bekræfter samtidig hans vedblivende interesse for håndskriftarven fra Nordens tidligste kristelige kultur.Her vises i engelsk oversættelse et brev afsendt af Gr i juni 1831 fra Cambridge til hjemmet. Det er et uddrag fra en brevantologi (oversat ved Helene Felter og S. A. J. Bradley; delvis baseret på N. F. S. Grundtvigs Breve til hans Hustru under Englandsrejseme 1829-1831. Udgivne af deres Børnebørn, København 1920), der er under udarbejdelse af the English Translation Project, Center for Grundtvig Studier, Århus Universitet. Formålet med dette projekt er at gøre Grs forfatterskab mere tilgængeligt i den engelsktalende verden. De mest betydningsfulde værker vil blive udgivet i engelsk oversættelse. Projektets første fase er treårig og ledes af Jens Holger Schjørring (Århus Universitet) og S. A. J. Bradley (University of York) i samarbejde med Kim Ame Pedersen (Århus Universitet) og A. M. Allchin (University of Bangor). Første bind, der forventes udgivet af Århus Universitetsforlag i september 2003, bliver en kommenteret antologi af Grs erindringer og erindringer om Gr. Senere kommer flere bind, som illustrerer Grs engagement i Beowulf og Nordens mytologi, hans skrifter om skole og skolevæsen, og en række udvalgte salmer og prædikener.Brevet fra Cambridge omhandler primært de venskaber, Gr etablerede blandt den »lille Kreds af kyndige, venlige, christelig tænkende Præster og Professorer, hos hvem jeg gaaer ind og ud« og hans store glæde over den adgang, han fik til Universitets fremragende angelsaksiske håndskriftsamlinger.

Introduction. The creation of the Central State Museum of the Republic of Kazakhstan located in Almaty (the former national capital) had been prepared by the entire course of museum construction in Orenburg. Chronologically, the process covers almost a century (1831–1929) hereafter referred to as the ‘Orenburg period’. The latter did play a prominent role in the history of the Central Museum. As is known, the city of Orenburg was the capital of the Kirghiz (Kazakh) Autonomous Republic as part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1920–1925. Goals. The article aims to study original features and trends to have influenced the shaping and development of Orenburg’s museum network as a complex of conditions and factors that had impacts on the formation of the Central State Museum of Kazakhstan. Materials and methods. The article primarily analyzes archival sources, official acts by the People’s Commissariat for Education of the Kirghiz (Kazakh) ASSR — the authority that was to supervise museum affairs in the Republic. The employed methods — contextual, discursive, value orientations ones and others — constitute an interdependent and complementary unity that makes it possible to realistically represent the whole formation process experienced by the main museum of the Republic. Results. It was the Orenburg period that witnessed the laying of organizational foundations for the future Central Museum, accumulated essential scientific/methodological experiences and human resources that proved of utmost importance, especially at the initial stage of its functioning. The Orenburg period began in 1831 when by order of the Orenburg Governor P. P. Suchtelen a ‘museum’ was opened at the Neplyuev Military School. Conclusions. In the prerevolutionary era and the first decade of Soviet power, there was virtually no roadmap (principles, forms, tasks of museums, etc.) for museum construction in Kazakhstan. That resulted in the unsystematic and somewhat spontaneous nature of the then efforts aimed at organizing the museum network. Nevertheless, it was during the Orenburg period that certain experiences of organizing museum works were obtained, the latter to become most useful when it came to create the Central Museum proper.

Introduction. The creation of the Central State Museum of the Republic of Kazakhstan located in Almaty (the former national capital) had been prepared by the entire course of museum construction in Orenburg. Chronologically, the process covers almost a century (1831–1929) hereafter referred to as the ‘Orenburg period’. The latter did play a prominent role in the history of the Central Museum. As is known, the city of Orenburg was the capital of the Kirghiz (Kazakh) Autonomous Republic as part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1920–1925. Goals. The article aims to study original features and trends to have influenced the shaping and development of Orenburg’s museum network as a complex of conditions and factors that had impacts on the formation of the Central State Museum of Kazakhstan. Materials and methods. The article primarily analyzes archival sources, official acts by the People’s Commissariat for Education of the Kirghiz (Kazakh) ASSR — the authority that was to supervise museum affairs in the Republic. The employed methods — contextual, discursive, value orientations ones and others — constitute an interdependent and complementary unity that makes it possible to realistically represent the whole formation process experienced by the main museum of the Republic. Results. It was the Orenburg period that witnessed the laying of organizational foundations for the future Central Museum, accumulated essential scientific/methodological experiences and human resources that proved of utmost importance, especially at the initial stage of its functioning. The Orenburg period began in 1831 when by order of the Orenburg Governor P. P. Suchtelen a ‘museum’ was opened at the Neplyuev Military School. Conclusions. In the prerevolutionary era and the first decade of Soviet power, there was virtually no roadmap (principles, forms, tasks of museums, etc.) for museum construction in Kazakhstan. That resulted in the unsystematic and somewhat spontaneous nature of the then efforts aimed at organizing the museum network. Nevertheless, it was during the Orenburg period that certain experiences of organizing museum works were obtained, the latter to become most useful when it came to create the Central Museum proper.

Diversos estudos ligados à sociologia e às ciências políticas percebem o Estado como um importante mecanismo de coerção social. Analisando o desenvolvimento social da humanidade, depreende-se que o Estado tem se adaptado às diferentes demandas da elite burguesa, a qual detém o poder nos mais diversos contextos sociais e políticos. Com essa transformação capitalista da sociedade, ocorre, também, a subordinação da organização social às exigências do capital. Esse é o momento onde ocorre a construção de um Estado e das instituições políticas, ambos adequados ao domínio da burguesia. Diante desse contexto, o presente artigo tem como objetivo realizar uma discussão sobre a linha conceitual que considera o empreendedorismo como uma alternativa para a saída de uma crise social e econômica. Trata-se de uma pesquisa qualitativa e bibliográfica. Para a coleta dos dados foi realizado um levantamento teórico em estudos de Max Weber (1864-1920), Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) e Thomas Hobbes (1588-1651) em relação à teoria geral do Estado; de Karl Marx (1818-1883) em relação à intervenção do Estado nos aspectos econômicos e sociais; e de Schumpeter (1997), por se tratar de uma importante referência no estudo do empreendedorismo. Os resultados contribuem para a discussão sobre os conceitos de empreendedorismo e as características dos empreendedores e empreendedoras, além de abordar sobre o processo de empreender em um Estado marcado pela sua subordinação histórica ao capital. Dessa forma, espera-se que o presente estudo colabore com a construção do referencial teórico sobre empreendedorismo e inovação, em uma vertente mais crítica e contextualizada.

The article is dedicated to the volunteers of the Lithuanian army fighting for revival of the Lithuanian state. It contributes to the history of freedom research in two ways. First, the historical narrative from 1918–1920 clearly testifies that fighting for freedom presents a social challenge and indicates a threat that has immense uniting power. Second, main part of the study focuses on those who according to their free will chose to defend their Fatherland.The address of the temporary Lithuanian Government to the Lithuanian people in December 29, 1918, was essentially similar to proclamations of the uprisings of 1831 and 1863; even the means of its spreading and publication were the same. Those who responded travelled to join the army on foot or riding a horse, frequently poorly equipped, but bearing an accordion and singing songs, with firm resolve and faith in their hearts. After long years of foreign occupation, the volunteers that at first made up the whole core of the Lithuanian army, subsequently diminishing to one third of the armed forces, aspired for freedom, their own national government and establishment of the Lithuanian state.The article is based on the study of 154 participants of the fighting for Lithuanian independence from the historical Pumpėnai rural district in Panevėžys region. According to this study, young men of about 19–23 years of age formed the majority of those who responded to the appeal to stand for freedom and Fatherland in the country occupied by the Bolsheviks in the end of the 1918 – beginning of the 1919. By comparison, militia (the armed forces of the local self-defense) usually consisted of 26–29 year-old men, or even older. The age of partisans ranged from 17 to 57 years, which is a peculiar feature of the freedom fighting in northern Lithuania. Many of the latter, especially married men owning their households, returned home after the Joniškėlis region was liberated in May of the 1919. The invasion of the Bermont-led forces in July of the 1919 did not elicit any substantial response in Pumpėnai. Only in August and October of the 1920, in view of the Polish aggression, three men from Pumpėnai volunteered to join the army again (among them, Mikalojus Grabauskas volunteered for the second time).Although the land promised as reward by the government did motivate the volunteers, it was not always the main reason for their fighting. Among volunteers from Pumpėnai, there were landless workers, employees, small farmers, farmers, young people of noble origins and landowners in possession of up to 180 hectares. Afterwards many of them even did not submit an application for land.The burning enthusiasm that overfilled these young men inspiring them to join the ranks of volunteers and subsequently characterizing them as their main quality, manifested as a great desire to act, as a fighting fervor. The volunteers were under significant influence of the imagery of the great Lithuanian historical narrative and the revolutionary spirit (to use the words by Vytautas Kavolis), that ever since the 1795 united different generations of the Lithuanian freedom fighters, inspiring their children and grandchildren to continue the deeds of their fathers and grandfathers.

A review of genus-group names for darkling beetles in the family Tenebrionidae (Insecta: Coleoptera) is presented. A catalogue of 4122 nomenclaturally available genus-group names, representing 2307 valid genera (33 of which are extinct) and 761 valid subgenera, is given. For each name the author, date, page number, gender, type species, type fixation, current status, and first synonymy (when the name is a synonym) are provided. Genus-group names in this family are also recorded in a classification framework, along with data on the distribution of valid genera and subgenera within major biogeographical realms. A list of 535 unavailable genus-group names (e.g., incorrect subsequent spellings) is included. Notes on the date of publication of references cited herein are given, when known. The following genera and subgenera are made available for the first time: Anemiadena Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Cheirodes Gené, 1839), Armigena Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Nesogena Mäklin, 1863), Debeauxiella Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Hyperops Eschscholtz, 1831), Hyperopsis Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Hyperops Eschscholtz, 1831), Linio Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Nilio Latreille, 1802), Matthewsotys Bouchard & Bousquet, gen. nov., Neosolenopistoma Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Eurynotus W. Kirby, 1819), Paragena Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Nesogena Mäklin, 1863), Paulianaria Bouchard & Bousquet, gen. nov., Phyllechus Bouchard & Bousquet, gen. nov., Prorhytinota Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Rhytinota Eschscholtz, 1831), Pseudorozonia Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Rozonia Fairmaire, 1888), Pseudothinobatis Bouchard & Bousquet, gen. nov., Rhytinopsis Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Thalpophilodes Strand, 1942), Rhytistena Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Rhytinota Eschscholtz, 1831), Spinosdara Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Osdara Walker, 1858), Spongesmia Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Adesmia Fischer, 1822), and Zambesmia Bouchard & Bousquet, subgen. nov. (in Adesmia Fischer, 1822). The names Adeps Gistel, 1857 and Adepsion Strand, 1917 syn. nov. [= Tetraphyllus Laporte & Brullé, 1831], Asyrmatus Canzoneri, 1959 syn. nov. [= Pystelops Gozis, 1910], Euzadenos Koch, 1956 syn. nov. [= Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834], Gondwanodilamus Kaszab, 1969 syn. nov. [= Conibius J.L. LeConte, 1851], Gyrinodes Fauvel, 1897 syn. nov. [= Nesotes Allard, 1876], Helopondrus Reitter, 1922 syn. nov. [= Horistelops Gozis, 1910], Hybonotus Dejean, 1834 syn. nov. [= Damatris Laporte, 1840], Iphthimera Reitter, 1916 syn. nov. [= Metriopus Solier, 1835], Lagriomima Pic, 1950 syn. nov. [= Neogria Borchmann, 1911], Orphelops Gozis, 1910 syn. nov. [= Nalassus Mulsant, 1854], Phymatium Billberg, 1820 syn. nov. [= Cryptochile Latreille, 1828], Prosoblapsia Skopin & Kaszab, 1978 syn. nov. [= Genoblaps Bauer, 1921], and Pseudopimelia Gebler, 1859 syn. nov. [= Lasiostola Dejean, 1834] are established as new synonyms (valid names in square brackets). Anachayus Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. is proposed as a replacement name for Chatanayus Ardoin, 1957, Genateropa Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. as a replacement name for Apterogena Ardoin, 1962, Hemipristula Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. as a replacement name for Hemipristis Kolbe, 1903, Kochotella Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. as a replacement name for Millotella Koch, 1962, Medvedevoblaps Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. as a replacement name for Protoblaps G.S. Medvedev, 1998, and Subpterocoma Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. is proposed as a replacement name for Pseudopimelia Motschulsky, 1860. Neoeutrapela Bousquet & Bouchard, 2013 is downgraded to a subgenus (stat. nov.) of Impressosora Pic, 1952. Anchomma J.L. LeConte, 1858 is placed in Stenosini: Dichillina (previously in Pimeliinae: Anepsiini); Entypodera Gerstaecker, 1871, Impressosora Pic, 1952 and Xanthalia Fairmaire, 1894 are placed in Lagriinae: Lagriini: Statirina (previously in Lagriinae: Lagriini: Lagriina); Loxostethus Triplehorn, 1962 is placed in Diaperinae: Diaperini: Diaperina (previously in Diaperinae: Diaperini: Adelinina); Periphanodes Gebien, 1943 is placed in Stenochiinae: Cnodalonini (previously in Tenebrioninae: Helopini); Zadenos Laporte, 1840 is downgraded to a subgenus (stat. nov.) of the older name Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834. The type species [placed in square brackets] of the following available genus-group names are designated for the first time: Allostrongylium Kolbe, 1896 [Allostrongylium silvestre Kolbe, 1896], Auristira Borchmann, 1916 [Auristira octocostata Borchmann, 1916], Blapidocampsia Pic, 1919 [Campsia pallidipes Pic, 1918], Cerostena Solier, 1836 [Cerostena deplanata Solier, 1836], Coracostira Fairmaire, 1899 [Coracostira armipes Fairmaire, 1899], Dischidus Kolbe, 1886 [Helops sinuatus Fabricius, 1801], Eccoptostoma Gebien, 1913 [Taraxides ruficrus Fairmaire, 1894], Ellaemus Pascoe, 1866 [Emcephalus submaculatus Brême, 1842], Epeurycaulus Kolbe, 1902 [Epeurycaulus aldabricus Kolbe, 1902], Euschatia Solier, 1851 [Euschatia proxima Solier, 1851], Heliocaes Bedel, 1906 [Blaps emarginata Fabricius, 1792], Hemipristis Kolbe, 1903 [Hemipristis ukamia Kolbe, 1903], Iphthimera Reitter, 1916 [Stenocara ruficornis Solier, 1835], Isopedus Stein, 1877 [Helops tenebrioides Germar, 1813], Malacova Fairmaire, 1898 [Malacova bicolor Fairmaire, 1898], Modicodisema Pic, 1917 [Disema subopaca Pic, 1912], Peltadesmia Kuntzen, 1916 [Metriopus platynotus Gerstaecker, 1854], Phymatium Billberg, 1820 [Pimelia maculata Fabricius, 1781], Podoces Péringuey, 1886 [Podoces granosula Péringuey, 1886], Pseuduroplatopsis Pic, 1913 [Borchmannia javana Pic, 1913], Pteraulus Solier, 1848 [Pteraulus sulcatipennis Solier, 1848], Sciaca Solier, 1835 [Hylithus disctinctus Solier, 1835], Sterces Champion, 1891 [Sterces violaceipennis Champion, 1891] and Teremenes Carter, 1914 [Tenebrio longipennis Hope, 1843]. Evidence suggests that some type species were misidentified. In these instances, information on the misidentification is provided and, in the following cases, the taxonomic species actually involved is fixed as the type species [placed in square brackets] following requirements in Article 70.3 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Accanthopus Dejean, 1821 [Tenebrio velikensis Piller & Mitterpacher, 1783], Becvaramarygmus Masumoto, 1999 [Dietysus nodicornis Gravely, 1915], Heterophaga Dejean, 1834 [Opatrum laevigatum Fabricius, 1781], Laena Dejean, 1821, [Scaurus viennensis Sturm, 1807], Margus Dejean, 1834 [Colydium castaneum Herbst, 1797], Pachycera Eschscholtz, 1831 [Tenebrio buprestoides Fabricius, 1781], Saragus Erichson, 1842 [Celibe costata Solier, 1848], Stene Stephens, 1829 [Colydium castaneum Herbst, 1797], Stenosis Herbst, 1799 [Tagenia intermedia Solier, 1838] and Tentyriopsis Gebien, 1928 [Tentyriopsis pertyi Gebien, 1940]. The following First Reviser actions are proposed to fix the precedence of names or nomenclatural acts (rejected name or act in square brackets): Stenosis ciliaris Gebien, 1920 as the type species for Afronosis G.S. Medvedev, 1995 [Stenosis leontjevi G.S. Medvedev, 1995], Alienoplonyx Bremer, 2019 [Alienolonyx], Amblypteraca Mas-Peinado, Buckley, Ruiz & García-París, 2018 [Amplypteraca], Caenocrypticoides Kaszab, 1969 [Caenocripticoides], Deriles Motschulsky, 1872 [Derilis], Eccoptostira Borchmann, 1936 [Ecoptostira], †Eodromus Haupt, 1950 [†Edromus], Eutelus Solier, 1843 [Lutelus], Euthriptera Reitter, 1893 [Enthriptera], Meglyphus Motschulsky, 1872 [Megliphus], Microtelopsis Koch, 1940 [Extetranosis Koch, 1940, Hypermicrotelopsis Koch, 1940], Neandrosus Pic, 1921 [Neoandrosus], Nodosogylium Pic, 1951 [Nodosogilium], Notiolesthus Motschulsky, 1872 [Notiolosthus], Pseudeucyrtus Pic, 1916 [Pseudocyrtus], Pseudotrichoplatyscelis Kaszab, 1960 [Pseudotrichoplatynoscelis and Pseudotrichoplatycelis], Rhydimorpha Koch, 1943 [Rhytimorpha], Rhophobas Motschulsky, 1872 [Rophobas], Rhyssochiton Gray, 1831 [Ryssocheton and Ryssochiton], Sphaerotidius Kaszab, 1941 [Spaerotidius], Stira Agassiz, 1846 (Mollusca) [Stira Agassiz, 1846 (Coleoptera)], Sulpiusoma Ferrer, 2006 [Sulpiosoma] and Taenobates Motschulsky, 1872 [Taeniobates]. Supporting evidence is provided for the conservation of usage of Cyphaleus Westwood, 1841 nomen protectum over Chrysobalus Boisduval, 1835 nomen oblitum.

Abstract The discussion of floods in this paper covers the section of the Odra River basin from its source down to the mouth of the Nysa Klodzka River and the section of the Vistula River basin down to the Krakow profile. The area of the upper part of Odra River basin is 13,455 km2 and the length of the river bed in this section is ca. 273.0 km. In the reach examined, the Vistula River is 184.8 km long and has a catchment area of approximately 8,101 km2. Geographical and environmental conditions in the upper part of the Vistula and Odra Rivers basins are conducive to floods both in the summer and winter seasons. The analyses conducted for the 19th and 20th centuries demonstrate that two main types of floods can be distinguished. Floods with a single flood wave peak occurred in the following years in the upper Odra River basin: 1813, 1831, 1879, 1889, 1890 and 1896, and on the Vistula River they were recorded in 1805, 1813, 1816, 1818, 1826, 1830, 1834, 1844 and 1845. In the 20th century, similar phenomena were recorded on the Odra River in 1903, 1909, 1911, 1915, 1925, 1960, 1970 and 1985, and on the Vistula River they occurred in 1903, 1908, 1925, 1931, 1934, 1939, 1948, 1951, 1970, 1972, 1991, 1996, 1997 and 1999. The second category includes floods with two, three or more flood wave peaks. These are caused by successive episodes of high rainfall separated by dry periods that last for a few days, a fortnight or even several weeks. Such floods occurred on the upper Odra River in 1847, 1854, 1880, 1888, 1892, 1897 and 1899; while on the Vistula River only two (1839 and 1843) floods featured two flood wave peaks. In the 20th century on the upper Odra River, floods of this type occurred in 1902, 1926, 1939, 1940, 1972, 1977 and 1997; on the upper Vistula River, they were recorded in 1906, 1915, 1919, 1920, 1940, 1958, 1960 and 1987.

AbstractThere is no lack of literature on Hendrik Willem Mesdag (1831-1915) in his capacity of an art collector. Most of it focuses on the collection in the museum which the painter built in The Hague in 1886 and presented to the nation in 1903 (note 1). Little or no attention has hitherto been paid however to the large collection of fine and decorative art that was kept at the time of Mesdag's death on July 10 1915 in his house, which adjoined the museum. The greater and most important part of this collection was eventually sold in New York in 1920 and thereafter dispersed. It is not known what criteria Mesdag applied in consigning items from his collection to the museum or keeping them in his home. No clear-cut distinction can be made between the kind of objects in his house and the museum. In both locations the tone is set bv the Barbizon and Hague Schools. Concerned about the future of his most prestigious creation, the enormous Panorama of Scheveningen, better known as the Mesdag Panorama, Mesdag set up a limited company in 1910 for the purpose of maintaining and exploiting the Panorama and the building that housed it. He gave the shares to his future heirs. Under the terms of his Will, his house and its contents were to pass to the Panorama shareholders on his death. The nation had the first option to purchase, which suggests that Mesdag wanted his house and a major part of his private collection to go along with the museum. Since there was a war on, the government regarded the purchase as imprudent. Part of the inventory was sold among the family, but the most important items were put up for auction. The auctioneer Frederik Muller & Cie compiled an illustrated catalogue. Before it was ready, however, the American art dealer J. F. Henson made an offer for the whole collection. The auction was cancelled, and the catalogue was published in a limited edition of 125 numbered copies (note 3 1). After the war most of the collection was shipped to America and auctioned in New York. A completely new catalogue was printed for the occasion (note ; 35). The said catalogues and a series of photographs of the interior convey an impression of the size and quality of the collection in Mesdag's home. There Mesdag left an important collection of paintings and drawings from the Barbizon School, including fourteen drawings by Millet (figs.4 and 5). Antonio Mancini is amply represented in the museum with fifteen paintings and pastels, but that is a mere fraction of the total number of works by Mancini amassed by Mesdag. He naturally possessed a large amount of his own work, as well as paintings and drawings by other artists of the Hague School (figs. 6 and 7). His collection of 17th-century masters was less important. Even so, Mesdag had a marked preference for Dutch 16th and 17th-century artefacts, witness the oak panels, furniture and other items of decorative art in his studio (fig. 2), a taste he shared with painters like Bosboom, Weissenbruch and Jacob Maris (fig. 9). Some of the furniture was quasi Gothic or quasi Renaissance, with ornate fittings and a profusion of carving, in keeping with the 19th-century notion of these styles. The most advanced aspect of Mesdag's collection was a collection of modern china from the Rozenburg factory, designed by Colcnbrander.

During the late nineteenth century, James Walker Hood was bishop of the North Carolina Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church and grand master of the North Carolina Grand Lodge of Prince Hall Masons. In his forty-four years as bishop, half of that time as senior bishop of the denomination, Reverend Hood was instrumental in planting and nurturing his denomination's churches throughout the Carolinas and Virginia. Founder of North Carolina's denominational newspaper and college, author of five books including two histories of the AMEZ Church, appointed assistant superintendent of public instruction and magistrate in his adopted state, Hood's career represented the broad mainstream of black denominational leaders who came to the South from the North during and after the Civil War. Concurrently, Grand Master Hood superintended the southern jurisdiction of the Prince Hall Masonic Grand Lodge of New York and acted as a moving force behind the creation of the region's black Masonic lodges—often founding these secret male societies in the same places as his fledgling churches. At his death in 1918, the Masonic Quarterly Review hailed Hood as “one of the strong pillars of our foundation.” If Bishop Hood's life was indeed, according to his recent biographer, “a prism through which to understand black denominational leadership in the South during the period 1860–1920,” then what does his leadership of both the Prince Hall Lodge and the AMEZ Church tell us about the nexus of fraternal lodges and African American Christianity at the turn of the twentieth century?

Changes to the treatment of Coleoptera family-group names published by Bouchard et al. (2011) are given. These include necessary additions and corrections based on much-appreciated suggestions from our colleagues, as well as our own research. Our ultimate goal is to assemble a complete list of available Coleoptera family-group names published up to the end of 2010 (including information about their spelling, author, year of publication, and type genus). The following 59 available Coleoptera family-group names are based on type genera not included in Bouchard et al. (2011): Prothydrinae Guignot, 1954, Aulonogyrini Ochs, 1953 (Gyrinidae); Pogonostomini Mandl 1954, Merismoderini Wasmann, 1929, †Escheriidae Kolbe, 1880 (Carabidae); Timarchopsinae Wang, Ponomarenko & Zhang, 2010 (Coptoclavidae); Stictocraniini Jakobson, 1914 (Staphylinidae); Cylindrocaulini Zang, 1905, Kaupiolinae Zang, 1905 (Passalidae); Phaeochroinae Kolbe, 1912 (Hybosoridae); Anthypnidae Chalande, 1884 (Glaphyridae); Comophorini Britton, 1957, Comophini Britton, 1978, Chasmidae Streubel, 1846, Mimelidae Theobald, 1882, Rhepsimidae Streubel, 1846, Ometidae Streubel, 1846, Jumnidae Burmeister, 1842, Evambateidae Gistel, 1856 (Scarabaeidae); Protelmidae Jeannel, 1950 (Byrrhoidea); Pseudeucinetini Csiki, 1924 (Limnichidae); Xylotrogidae Schönfeldt, 1887 (Bostrichidae); †Mesernobiinae Engel, 2010, Fabrasiinae Lawrence & Reichardt, 1966 (Ptinidae); Arhinopini Kirejtshuk & Bouchard, 2018 (Nitidulidae); Hypodacninae Dajoz, 1976, Ceuthocera Mannerheim, 1852 (Cerylonidae); Symbiotinae Joy, 1932 (Endomychidae); Cheilomenini Schilder & Schilder, 1928, Veraniini Schilder & Schilder, 1928 (Coccinellidae); Ennearthroninae Chûjô, 1939 (Ciidae); Curtimordini Odnosum, 2010, Mordellochroini Odnosum, 2010 (Mordellidae); Chanopterinae Borchmann, 1915 (Promecheilidae); Heptaphyllini Prudhomme de Borre, 1886, Olocratarii Baudi di Selve, 1875, Opatrinaires Mulsant & Rey, 1853, Telacianae Poey, 1854, Ancylopominae Pascoe, 1871 (Tenebrionidae); Oxycopiini Arnett, 1984 (Oedemeridae); Eutrypteidae Gistel, 1856 (Mycteridae); Pogonocerinae Iablokoff-Khnzorian, 1985 (Pyrochroidae); Amblyderini Desbrochers des Loges, 1899 (Anthicidae); Trotommideini Pic, 1903 (Scraptiidae); Acmaeopsini Della Beffa, 1915, Trigonarthrini Villiers, 1984, Eunidiini Téocchi, Sudre & Jiroux, 2010 (Cerambycidae); Macropleini Lopatin, 1977, Stenopodiides Horn, 1883, Microrhopalides Horn, 1883, Colaphidae Siegel, 1866, Lexiphanini Wilcox, 1954 (Chrysomelidae); †Medmetrioxenoidesini Legalov, 2010, †Megametrioxenoidesini Legalov, 2010 (Nemonychidae); Myrmecinae Tanner, 1966, Tapinotinae Joy, 1932, Acallinae Joy, 1932, Cycloderini Hoffmann, 1950, Sthereini Hatch, 1971 (Curculionidae). The following 21 family-group names, listed as unavailable in Bouchard et al. (2011), are determined to be available: Eohomopterinae Wasmann, 1929 (Carabidae); Prosopocoilini Benesh, 1960, Pseudodorcini Benesh, 1960, Rhyssonotini Benesh, 1960 (Lucanidae); Galbini Beaulieu, 1919 (Eucnemidae); Troglopates Mulsant & Rey, 1867 (Melyridae); Hippodamiini Weise, 1885 (Coccinellidae); Micrositates Mulsant & Rey, 1854, Héliopathaires Mulsant & Rey, 1854 (Tenebrionidae); Hypasclerini Arnett, 1984; Oxaciini Arnett, 1984 (Oedemeridae); Stilpnonotinae Borchmann, 1936 (Mycteridae); Trogocryptinae Lawrence, 1991 (Salpingidae); Grammopterini Della Beffa, 1915, Aedilinae Perrier, 1893, Anaesthetinae Perrier, 1893 (Cerambycidae); Physonotitae Spaeth, 1942, Octotomides Horn, 1883 (Chrysomelidae); Sympiezopinorum Faust, 1886, Sueinae Murayama, 1959, Eccoptopterini Kalshoven, 1959 (Curculionidae). The following names were proposed as new without reference to family-group names based on the same type genus which had been made available at an earlier date: Dineutini Ochs, 1926 (Gyrinidae); Odonteini Shokhin, 2007 (Geotrupidae); Fornaxini Cobos, 1965 (Eucnemidae); Auletobiina Legalov, 2001 (Attelabidae). The priority of several family-group names, listed as valid in Bouchard et al. (2011), is affected by recent bibliographic discoveries or new nomenclatural interpretations. †Necronectinae Ponomarenko, 1977 is treated as permanently invalid and replaced with †Timarchopsinae Wang, Ponomarenko & Zhang, 2010 (Coptoclavidae); Agathidiini Westwood, 1838 is replaced by the older name Anisotomini Horaninow, 1834 (Staphylinidae); Cyrtoscydmini Schaufuss, 1889 is replaced by the older name Stenichnini Fauvel, 1885 (Staphylinidae); Eremazinae Iablokoff-Khnzorian, 1977 is treated as unavailable and replaced with Eremazinae Stebnicka, 1977 (Scarabaeidae); Coryphocerina Burmeister, 1842 is replaced by the older name Rhomborhinina Westwood, 1842 (Scarabaeidae); Eudysantina Bouchard, Lawrence, Davies & Newton, 2005 is replaced by the older name Dysantina Gebien, 1922 which is not permanently invalid (Tenebrionidae). The names Macraulacinae/-ini Fleutiaux, 1923 (Eucnemidae), Anamorphinae Strohecker, 1953 (Endomychidae), Pachycnemina Laporte, 1840 (Scarabaeidae), Thaumastodinae Champion, 1924 (Limnichidae), Eudicronychinae Girard, 1971 (Elateridae), Trogoxylini Lesne, 1921 (Bostrichidae), Laemophloeidae Ganglbauer, 1899 (Laemophloeidae); Ancitini Aurivillius, 1917 (Cerambycidae) and Tropiphorini Marseul, 1863 (Curculionidae) are threatened by the discovery of older names; Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Art. 23.9) or an application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will be necessary to retain usage of the younger synonyms. Reversal of Precedence is used herein to qualify the following family-group names as nomina protecta: Murmidiinae Jacquelin du Val, 1858 (Cerylonidae) and Chalepini Weise, 1910 (Chrysomelidae). The following 17 Coleoptera family-group names (some of which are used as valid) are homonyms of other family-group names in zoology, these cases must be referred to the Commission for a ruling to remove the homonymy: Catiniidae Ponomarenko, 1968 (Catiniidae); Homopterinae Wasmann, 1920, Glyptini Horn, 1881 (Carabidae); Tychini Raffray, 1904, Ocypodina Hatch, 1957 (Staphylinidae); Gonatinae Kuwert, 1891 (Passalidae); Aplonychidae Burmeister, 1855 (Scarabaeidae); Microchaetini Paulus, 1973 (Byrrhidae); Epiphanini Muona, 1993 (Eucnemidae); Limoniina Jakobson, 1913 (Elateridae); Ichthyurini Champion, 1915 (Cantharidae); Decamerinae Crowson, 1964 (Trogossitidae); Trichodidae Streubel, 1839 (Cleridae); Monocorynini Miyatake, 1988 (Coccinellidae); Gastrophysina Kippenberg, 2010, Chorinini Weise, 1923 (Chrysomelidae); Meconemini Pierce, 1930 (Anthribidae). The following new substitute names are proposed: Phoroschizus (to replace Schizophorus Ponomarenko, 1968) and Phoroschizidae (to replace Schizophoridae Ponomarenko, 1968); Mesostyloides (to replace Mesostylus Faust, 1894) and Mesostyloidini (to replace Mesostylini Reitter, 1913). The following new genus-group name synonyms are proposed [valid names in square brackets]: Plocastes Gistel, 1856 [Aesalus Fabricius, 1801] (Lucanidae); Evambates Gistel, 1856 [Trichius Fabricius, 1775] (Scarabaeidae); Homoeoplastus Gistel, 1856 [Byturus Latreille, 1797] (Byturidae). Two type genera previously treated as preoccupied and invalid, Heteroscelis Latreille, 1828 and Dysantes Pascoe, 1869 (Tenebrionidae), are determined to be senior homonyms based on bibliographical research. While Dysantes is treated as valid here, Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Art. 23.9) is used to conserve usage of Anomalipus Guérin-Méneville, 1831 over Heteroscelis.

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

This paper reviews the ground beetles from René Jeannel collection which is preserved in Zoological Museum of Babeș-Bolyai University. The illustrious coleopterologist, René Jeannel was a French entomologist, who worked between 1920-1930 as Deputy Director of the Institute of Speleology founded by Emil Racovitza, the first institute of its kind in the world. He was also a professor of general biology at the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Cluj Napoca. As well, in that period he published numerous articles on the systematics, phylogeny, biogeography and evolution of cave and endogenous beetles. In 1931, R. Jeannel left Romania to start working at the Muséum National d'histoire naturelle, whose director he was between 1945 -1951. During the 10 years of activity in Romania, he created and organized an important collection of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). The total number of prepared and labeled specimens is 1672. The material was collected between 1921-1927, mostly in Transylvania, Romania. The collection includes 182 species from 56 genera and contains rare or endemic species. Among the endemic species we list: Pterostichus bielzii (Fuss, 1858), endemic to the Apuseni mountains, is present in the collection from 13 different locations; Nebria (Nebria) transsylvanica Germar, 1823, an endemic species in the Romanian Carpathians and in the southern part of the Carpathians in Ukraine; Platynus (Batenus) banaticus (I.Frivaldszky von Frivald, 1865) present in the collection from 3 locations. For the genus Carabus, representative species are Carabus (Megodontus) planicollis Küster, 1846, endemic species in Romania, and the Natura 2000 species Carabus variolosus Fabricius, 1787 and Carabus (Procerus) gigas (Creutzer, 1799). Among the Trechinae the most representative are the genus Duvalius, with four species: Duvalius cognatus subsp. longicollis Jeannel, 1928, D. laevigatus (Bokor, 1913), D. budae subsp. dioszeghyi Mallasz, 1928 and D. hegeduesii subsp. jonescoi (Jeannel, 1919), and the genus Trechus with 7 species, of which 3 are endemic in Romania: T. bannaticus Dejean, 1831, T. biharicus Meixner, 1912, and T. marginalis Schaum, 1862. The collection is a very valuable one, both from a historical and scientific point of view, because it offers an overview of the diversity and distribution of carabids in the karst areas of Romania, at the beginning of the 20th century.

IntroductionIn 1802 George Howe (1769-1821), the recently appointed Government Printer, published Australia’s first book. The following year he established Australia’s first newspaper; an enterprise that ran counter to all the environmental factors of the day, including: 1) issues of logistics and a lack of appropriate equipment and basic materials to produce a regularly issued newspaper; 2) issues resulting from the very close supervision of production and the routine censorship by the Governor; and 3) issues associated with the colony’s primary purposes as a military outpost and as a penal settlement, creating conflicts between very different readerships. The Sydney Gazette was, critically for Howe, the only newspaper in the infant city for over two decades. Alternative voices would not enter the field of printed media until the 1820s and 1830s. This article briefly explores the birth of an Australian industry and looks at how a very modest newspaper overcame a range of serious challenges to ignite imaginations and lay a foundation for media empires.Government Printer The first book published in Australia was the New South Wales General Standing Orders and General Orders (1802), authorised by Governor Philip Gidley King for the purposes of providing a convenient, single-volume compilation of all Government Orders, issued in New South Wales, between 1791 and 1802. (As the Australian character has been described as “egalitarian, anti-authoritarian and irreverent” [D. Jones 690], it is fascinating that the nation’s first published book was a set of rules.) Prescribing law, order and regulation for the colony the index reveals the desires of those charged with the colony’s care and development, to contain various types of activities. The rules for convicts were, predictably, many. There were also multiple orders surrounding administration, animal husbandry as well as food stuffs and other stores. Some of the most striking headings in the index relate to crime. For example, in addition to headings pertaining to courts there are also headings for a broad range of offences from: “BAD Characters” to “OFFENSIVE Weapons – Again[s]t concealing” (i-xii). The young colony, still in its teenage years, was, for the short-term, very much working on survival and for the long-term developing ambitious plans for expansion and trade. It was clear though, through this volume, that there was no forgetting the colony of New South Wales was first, and foremost, a penal settlement which also served as a military outpost. Clear, too, was the fact that not all of those who were shipped out to the new colony were prepared to abandon their criminal careers which “did not necessarily stop with transportation” (Foyster 10). Containment and recidivism were matters of constant concern for the colony’s authorities. Colonial priorities could be seen in the fact that, when “Governor Arthur Phillip brought the first convicts (548 males and 188 females) to Port Jackson on 26 January 1788, he also brought a small press for printing orders, rules, and regulations” (Goff 103). The device lay dormant on arrival, a result of more immediate concerns to feed and house all those who made up the First Fleet. It would be several years before the press was pushed into sporadic service by the convict George Hughes for printing miscellaneous items including broadsides and playbills as well as for Government Orders (“Hughes, George” online). It was another convict (another man named George), convicted at the Warwick Assizes on March 1799 (Ferguson vi) then imprisoned and ultimately transported for shoplifting (Robb 15), who would transform the small hand press into an industry. Once under the hand of George Howe, who had served as a printer with several London newspapers including The Times (Sydney Gazette, “Never” 2) – the printing press was put to much more regular use. In these very humble circumstances, Australia’s great media tradition was born. Howe, as the Government Printer, transformed the press from a device dedicated to ephemera as well as various administrative matters into a crucial piece of equipment that produced the new colony’s first newspaper. Logistical Challenges Governor King, in the year following the appearance of the Standing Orders, authorised the publishing of Australia’s first newspaper, The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser. The publication history of The Sydney Gazette, in a reflection of some of the challenges faced by the printer, is erratic. First published on a Saturday from 5 March 1803, it quickly changed to a Sunday paper from 10 April 1803. Interestingly, Sunday “was not an approved day for the publication of newspapers, and although some English publishers had been doing so since about 1789, Sunday papers were generally frowned upon” (Robb 58). Yet, as argued by Howe a Sunday print run allowed for the inclusion of “the whole of the Ship News, and other Incidental Matter, for the preceeding week” (Sydney Gazette, “To the Public” 1).The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser Vol. 1, No. 1, 5 March 1803 (Front Page)Call Number DL F8/50, Digital ID a345001, State Library of New South WalesPublished weekly until 1825, then bi-weekly until 1827 before coming out tri-weekly until 20 October 1842 (Holden 14) there were some notable pauses in production. These included one in 1807 (Issue 214, 19 April-Issue 215, 7 June) and one in 1808-1809 (Issue 227, 30 August-Issue 228, 15 May) due to a lack of paper, with the latter pause coinciding with the Rum Rebellion and the end of William Bligh’s term as Governor of New South Wales (see: Karskens 186-88; Mundle 323-37). There was, too, a brief attempt at publishing as a daily from 1 January 1827 which lasted only until 10 February of that year when the title began to appear tri-weekly (Kirkpatrick online; Holden 14). There would be other pauses, including one of two weeks, shortly before the final issue was produced on 20 October 1842. There were many problems that beset The Sydney Gazette with paper shortages being especially challenging. Howe regularly advertised for: “any quantity” of Spanish paper (e.g.: Sydney Gazette, “Wanted to Purchase” 4) and needing to be satisfied “with a variety of size and colour” (P.M. Jones 39). In addition, the procurement of ink was so difficult in the colony, that Howe often resorted to making his own out of “charcoal, gum and shark oil” (P.M. Jones 39).The work itself was physically demanding and papers printed during this period, by hand, required a great deal of effort with approximately “250 sheets per hour … [the maximum] produced by a printer and his assistant” (Robb 8). The printing press itself was inadequate and the subject of occasional repairs (Sydney Gazette, “We Have” 2). Type was also a difficulty. As Gwenda Robb explains, traditionally six sets of an alphabet were supplied to a printer with extras for ‘a’, ‘e’, ‘r’ and ‘t’ as well as ‘s’. Without ample type Howe was required to improvise as can be seen in using a double ‘v’ to create a ‘w’ and an inverted ‘V’ to represent a capital ‘A’ (50, 106). These quirky work arounds, combined with the use of the long-form ‘s’ (‘∫’) for almost a full decade, can make The Sydney Gazette a difficult publication for modern readers to consume. Howe also “carried the financial burden” of the paper, dependent, as were London papers of the late eighteenth century, on advertising (Robb 68, 8). Howe also relied upon subscriptions for survival, with the collection of payments often difficult as seen in some subscribers being two years, or more, in arrears (e.g.: Sydney Gazette, “Sydney Gazette” 1; Ferguson viii; P.M. Jones 38). Governor Lachlan Macquarie granted Howe an annual salary, in 1811, of £60 (Byrnes 557-559) offering some relief, and stability, for the beleaguered printer.Gubernatorial Supervision Governor King wrote to Lord Hobart (then Secretary of State for War and the Colonies), on 9 May 1803: it being desirable that the settlers and inhabitants at large should be benefitted by useful information being dispersed among them, I considered that a weekly publication would greatly facilitate that design, for which purpose I gave permission to an ingenious man, who manages the Government printing press, to collect materials weekly, which, being inspected by an officer, is published in the form of a weekly newspaper, copies of which, as far as they have been published, I have the honor to enclose. (85)In the same letter, King wrote: “to the list of wants I have added a new fount of letters which may be procured for eight or ten pounds, sufficient for our purpose, if approved of” (85). King’s motivations were not purely altruistic. The population of the colony was growing in Sydney Cove and in the outlying districts, thus: “there was an increasing administrative need for information to be disseminated in a more accessible form than the printed handbills of government orders” (Robb 49). There was, however, a need for the administration to maintain control and the words “Published By Authority”, appearing on the paper’s masthead, were a constant reminder to the printer that The Sydney Gazette was “under the censorship of the Secretary to the Governor, who examined all proofs” (Ferguson viii). The high level of supervision, worked in concert with the logistical difficulties described above, ensured the newspaper was a source of great strain and stress. All for the meagre reward of “6d per copy” (Ferguson viii). This does not diminish Howe’s achievement in establishing a newspaper, an accomplishment outlined, with some pride, in an address printed on the first page of the first issue:innumerable as the Obstacles were which threatened to oppose our Undertaking, yet we are happy to affirm that they were not insurmountable, however difficult the task before us.The utility of a PAPER in the COLONY, as it must open a source of solid information, will, we hope, be universally felt and acknowledged. (Sydney Gazette, “Address” 1)Howe carefully kept his word and he “wrote nothing like a signature editorial column, nor did he venture his personal opinions, conscious always of the powers of colonial officials” (Robb 72). An approach to reportage he passed to his eldest son and long-term assistant, Robert (1795-1829), who later claimed The Sydney Gazette “reconciled in one sheet the merits of the London Gazette in upholding the Government and the London Times in defending the people” (Walker 10). The censorship imposed on The Sydney Gazette, by the Governor, was lifted in 1824 (P.M. Jones 40), when the Australian was first published without permission: Governor Thomas Brisbane did not intervene in the new enterprise. The appearance of unauthorised competition allowed Robert Howe to lobby for the removal of all censorship restrictions on The Sydney Gazette, though he was careful to cite “greater dispatch and earlier publication, not greater freedom of expression, as the expected benefit” (Walker 6). The sudden freedom was celebrated, and still appreciated many years after it was given:the Freedom of the Press has now been in existence amongst us on the verge of four years. In October 1824, we addressed a letter to the Colonial Government, fervently entreating that those shackles, under which the Press had long laboured, might be removed. Our prayer was attended to, and the Sydney Gazette, feeling itself suddenly introduced to a new state of existence, demonstrated to the Colonists the capabilities that ever must flow from the spontaneous exertions of Constitutional Liberty. (Sydney Gazette, “Freedom” 2)Early Readerships From the outset, George Howe presented a professional publication. The Sydney Gazette was formatted into three columns with the front page displaying a formal masthead featuring a scene of Sydney and the motto “Thus We Hope to Prosper”. Gwenda Robb argues the woodcut, the first produced in the colony, was carved by John W. Lewin who “had plenty of engraving skills” and had “returned to Sydney [from a voyage to Tahiti] in December 1802” (51) while Roger Butler has suggested that “circumstances point to John Austin who arrived in Sydney in 1800” as being the engraver (91). The printed text was as vital as the visual supports and every effort was made to present full accounts of colonial activities. “As well as shipping and court news, there were agricultural reports, religious homilies, literary extracts and even original poetry written by Howe himself” (Blair 450). These items, of course, sitting alongside key Government communications including General Orders and Proclamations.Howe’s language has been referred to as “florid” (Robb 52), “authoritative and yet filled with deference for all authority, pompous in a stiff, affected eighteenth century fashion” (Green 10) and so “some of Howe’s readers found the Sydney Gazette rather dull” (Blair 450). Regardless of any feelings towards authorial style, circulation – without an alternative – steadily increased with the first print run in 1802 being around 100 copies but by “the early 1820s, the newspaper’s production had grown to 300 or 400 copies” (Blair 450).In a reflection of the increasing sophistication of the Sydney-based reader, George Howe, and Robert Howe, would also publish some significant, stand-alone, texts. These included several firsts: the first natural history book printed in the colony, Birds of New South Wales with their Natural History (1813) by John W. Lewin (praised as a text “printed with an elegant and classical simplicity which makes it the highest typographical achievement of George Howe” [Wantrup 278]); the first collection of poetry published in the colony First Fruits of Australian Poetry (1819) by Barron Field; the first collection of poetry written by a Australian-born author, Wild Notes from the Lyre of a Native Minstrel (1826) by Charles Tompson; and the first children’s book A Mother’s Offering to Her Children: By a Lady, Long Resident in New South Wales (1841) by Charlotte Barton. The small concern also published mundane items such as almanacs and receipt books for the Bank of New South Wales (Robb 63, 72). All against the backdrop of printing a newspaper.New Voices The Sydney Gazette was Australia’s first newspaper and, critically for Howe, the only newspaper for over two decades. (A second paper appeared in 1810 but the Derwent Star and Van Diemen’s Land Intelligencer, which only managed twelve issues, presented no threat to The Sydney Gazette.) No genuine, local rival entered the field until 1824, when the Australian was founded by barristers William Charles Wentworth and Robert Wardell. The Monitor debuted in 1826, followed the Sydney Herald in 1831 and the Colonist in 1835 (P.M. Jones 38). It was the second title, the Australian, with a policy that asserted articles to be: “Independent, yet consistent – free, yet not licentious – equally unmoved by favours and by fear” (Walker 6), radically changed the newspaper landscape. The new paper made “a strong point of its independence from government control” triggering a period in which colonial newspapers “became enmeshed with local politics” (Blair 451). This new age of opinion reflected how fast the colony was evolving from an antipodean gaol into a complex society. Also, two papers, without censorship restrictions, without registration, stamp duties or advertisement duties meant, as pointed out by R.B. Walker, that “in point of law the Press in the remote gaol of exile was now freer than in the country of origin” (6). An outcome George Howe could not have predicted as he made the long journey, as a convict, to New South Wales. Of the early competitors, the only one that survives is the Sydney Herald (The Sydney Morning Herald from 1842), which – founded by immigrants Alfred Stephens, Frederick Stokes and William McGarvie – claims the title of Australia’s oldest continuously published newspaper (Isaacs and Kirkpatrick 4-5). That such a small population, with so many pressing issues, factions and political machinations, could support a first newspaper, then competitors, is a testament to the high regard, with which newspaper reportage was held. Another intruder would be The Government Gazette. Containing only orders and notices in the style of the London Gazette (McLeay 1), lacking any news items or private advertisements (Walker 19), it was first issued on 7 March 1832 (and continues, in an online format, today). Of course, Government orders and other notices had news value and newspaper proprietors could bid for exclusive rights to produce these notices until a new Government Printer was appointed in 1841 (Walker 20).Conclusion George Howe, an advocate of “reason and common sense” died in 1821 placing The Sydney Gazette in the hands of his son who “fostered religion” (Byrnes 557-559). Robert Howe, served as editor, experiencing firsthand the perils and stresses of publishing, until he drowned in a boating accident in Sydney Harbour, in 1829 leaving the paper to his widow Ann Howe (Blair 450-51). The newspaper would become increasingly political leading to controversy and financial instability; after more changes in ownership and in editorial responsibility, The Sydney Gazette, after almost four decades of delivering the news – as a sole voice and then as one of several alternative voices – ceased publication in 1842. During a life littered with personal tragedy, George Howe laid the foundation stone for Australia’s media empires. His efforts, in extraordinary circumstances and against all environmental indicators, serve as inspiration to newspapers editors, proprietors and readers across the country. He established the Australian press, an institution that has been described asa profession, an art, a craft, a business, a quasi-public, privately owned institution. It is full of grandeurs and faults, sublimities and pettinesses. It is courageous and timid. It is fallible. It is indispensable to the successful on-going of a free people. (Holden 15)George Howe also created an artefact of great beauty. The attributes of The Sydney Gazette are listed, in a perfunctory manner, in most discussions of the newspaper’s history. The size of the paper. The number of columns. The masthead. The changes seen across 4,503 issues. Yet, consistently overlooked, is how, as an object, the newspaper is an exquisite example of the printed word. There is a physicality to the paper that is in sharp contrast to contemporary examples of broadsides, tabloids and online publications. Concurrently fragile and robust: its translucent sheets and mottled print revealing, starkly, the problems with paper and ink; yet it survives, in several collections, over two centuries since the first issue was produced. The elegant layout, the glow of the paper, the subtle crackling sound as the pages are turned. The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser is an astonishing example of innovation and perseverance. It provides essential insights into Australia’s colonial era. It is a metonym for making words matter. AcknowledgementsThe author offers her sincere thanks to Geoff Barker, Simon Dwyer and Peter Kirkpatrick for their comments on an early draft of this paper. The author is also grateful to Bridget Griffen-Foley for engaging in many conversations about Australian newspapers. ReferencesBlair, S.J. “Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser.” A Companion to the Australian Media. Ed. Bridget Griffen-Foley. North Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Publishing, 2014.Butler, Roger. Printed Images in Colonial Australia 1801-1901. Canberra: National Gallery of Australia, 2007.Byrnes, J.V. “Howe, George (1769–1821).” Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography: 1788–1850, A–H. Canberra: Australian National University, 1966. 557-559. Ferguson, J.A. “Introduction.” The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser: A Facsimile Reproduction of Volume One, March 5, 1803 to February 26, 1804. Sydney: The Trustees of the Public Library of New South Wales in Association with Angus & Robertson, 1963. v-x. Foyster, Elizabeth. “Introduction: Newspaper Reporting of Crime and Justice.” Continuity and Change 22.1 (2007): 9-12.Goff, Victoria. “Convicts and Clerics: Their Roles in the Infancy of the Press in Sydney, 1803-1840.” Media History 4.2 (1998): 101-120.Green, H.M. “Australia’s First Newspaper.” Sydney Morning Herald, 11 Apr. 1935: 10.Holden, W. Sprague. Australia Goes to Press. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1961. “Hughes, George (?–?).” Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography: 1788–1850, A–H. Canberra: Australian National University, 1966. 562. Isaacs, Victor, and Rod Kirkpatrick. Two Hundred Years of Sydney Newspapers. Richmond: Rural Press, 2003. Jones, Dorothy. “Humour and Satire (Australia).” Encyclopedia of Post-Colonial Literatures in English. 2nd ed. Eds. Eugene Benson and L.W. Conolly. London: Routledge, 2005. 690-692.Jones, Phyllis Mander. “Australia’s First Newspaper.” Meanjin 12.1 (1953): 35-46. Karskens, Grace. The Colony: A History of Early Sydney. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 2010. King, Philip Gidley. “Letter to Lord Hobart, 9 May 1803.” Historical Records of Australia, Series 1, Governors’ Despatches to and from England, Volume IV, 1803-1804. Ed. Frederick Watson. Sydney: Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, 1915.Kirkpatrick, Rod. Press Timeline: 1802 – 1850. Canberra: National Library of Australia, 2011. 6 Jan. 2017 <https://www.nla.gov.au/content/press-timeline-1802-1850>. McLeay, Alexander. “Government Notice.” The New South Wales Government Gazette 1 (1832): 1. Mundle, R. Bligh: Master Mariner. Sydney: Hachette, 2016.New South Wales General Standing Orders and General Orders: Selected from the General Orders Issued by Former Governors, from the 16th of February, 1791, to the 6th of September, 1800. Also, General Orders Issued by Governor King, from the 28th of September, 1800, to the 30th of September, 1802. Sydney: Government Press, 1802. Robb, Gwenda. George Howe: Australia’s First Publisher. Kew: Australian Scholarly Publishing, 2003.Spalding, D.A. Collecting Australian Books: Notes for Beginners. 1981. Mawson: D.A. Spalding, 1982. The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser. “Address.” 5 Mar. 1803: 1.———. “To the Public.” 2 Apr. 1803: 1.———. “Wanted to Purchase.” 26 June 1803: 4.———. “We Have the Satisfaction to Inform Our Readers.” 3 Nov. 1810: 2. ———. “Sydney Gazette.” 25 Dec. 1819: 1. ———. “The Freedom of the Press.” 29 Feb. 1828: 2.———. “Never Did a More Painful Task Devolve upon a Public Writer.” 3 Feb. 1829: 2. Walker, R.B. The Newspaper Press in New South Wales, 1803-1920. Sydney: Sydney UP, 1976.Wantrup, Johnathan. Australian Rare Books: 1788-1900. Sydney: Hordern House, 1987.