Journal articles on the topic '1864-1963'

The newly defined Agrilus adonis species-group comprising thirty taxa from Southeast Asia is revised based on the examination of type specimens. The taxonomic concept and distribution of all known taxa is reexamined for the first time since they were described. The complete commented bibliographic data are given for each name. The key to species is provided and complemented with illustration of habitus and genitalia. Images of all primary types are also included. The distribution of selected species is shown on maps. The following sixteen new species are described: Agrilus acrobeles sp. nov.; A. bunsu sp. nov.; A. cechovskyi sp. nov.; A. curiosus sp. nov.; A. garo sp. nov.; A. iban sp. nov.; A. jakli sp. nov.; A. kuchingi sp. nov.; A. lembik sp. nov.; A. meratus sp. nov.; A. orangulu sp. nov.; A. serratus sp. nov.; A. strbai sp. nov.; A. upsilon sp. nov.; A. vir sp. nov. and A. xiphos sp. nov.. The name emeritus Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963 is removed from the synonymy of Agrilus perlisensis Fisher 1936 and revalidated as the name for species A. emeritus Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963. Nine new synonyms are proposed: Agrilus adonis Deyrolle, 1864 (= A. perlisensis Fisher, 1936 syn. nov. = A. testor Kerremnas, 1900 syn. nov.); A. emeritus Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963 (= A. deuvei Baudon, 1965 syn. nov. = A. souvannavongsi Baudon, 1968 syn. nov.); A. famulus Kerremans, 1900 (= A. convergens Fisher, 1930 syn. nov. = A. japanensis Obenberger, 1935 syn. nov.); A. insularis Deyrolle, 1864 (= A. nigrocyaneus Deyrolle, 1864 syn. nov. = A. falsulus Obenberger, 1924 syn. nov.); A. malasicus Fisher, 1930 (=A. bettotanus Fisher, 1930 syn. nov.). Some of those names were already treated as invalid ones but in the synonymy of different species. Their taxonomic history is recognizable from commented references cited at each name.

Compsibidion trinidadense (Gilmour, 1963) is transferred to Glomibidion Napp & Martins, 1985. Thirteen new records for species of Compsibidion Thomson, 1864, and Heterachthes Newman, 1840 are provided. Heterachthes delicatus Martins, 2009, formerly known only from Brazil (Caatinga Biome) is recorded for the first time for French Guiana (tropical moist forests). Additionally, three forgotten records are noted.

This publication treats species within Theopea and closely allied genera that were not covered in the previous two revisions. Three species of Theopea Baly, 1864 are treated herein, with T. bicolor Kimoto, 1989 and T. mouhoti Baly, 1864 redescribed, and T. bicoloroidessp. nov. described. A new genus that we consider closely related to Theopea, Pseudotheopeagen. nov., is described. This new genus can be recognized with the presence of reticulate microsculpture on the vertex of the head and pronotum and presence of an apical spine on each metatibia. The following species are transferred to Pseudotheopea as new combinations: Theopea aeneipennis Gressitt & Kimoto, 1963, T. azurea Gressitt & Kimoto, 1963, T. clypealis Medvedev, 2015, T. nigrita Medvedev, 2007, T. smaragdina Gressitt & Kimoto, 1963, T. similis Kimoto, 1989, and T. subviridis Medvedev, 2012. Theopea subviridis Medvedev, 2012 is regarded as new synonym of Pseudotheopea similis (Kimoto, 1989). In addition, six new species of Pseudotheopea are described: P. borerisp. nov. from India, P. gressittisp. nov. from Philippines, P. hsingtzungisp. nov. from Laos, P. kimotoisp. nov. from Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam, P. leehsuehaesp. nov. from Laos, and P. sufangaesp. nov. from Taiwan. A second new genus regarded as closely related to Pseudotheopea, Borneotheopeagen. nov., can be recognized by possessing uniform antennae in both sexes and lacking an apical spine on each metatibia. Two new species of Borneotheopea are described from Borneo: B. jaklisp. nov. and B. kalimantanensissp. nov.

The following new taxonomic and nomenclatural acts are provided: New revalidated name: the name nagaoiNakane 1983 is resurrected from the synonymy of A. maculifer Saunders 1873 as a valid specific name of Agrilusnagaoi. New synonyms: 47 new synonyms are proposed in the genus Agrilus: annoi Baudon, 1968 (synonym ofnavarrei Baudon, 1965); biasoni Baudon, 1968 (synonym of shaumaae Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963);brigitteae Baudon, 1968 (synonym of cochinchinae Obenberger, 1924); canidius Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963(synonym of coloratus Kerremans, 1894); champasak Jendek, 2000 (synonym of ardoini Descarpentries &Villiers, 1963); chounramanyi Baudon, 1965 (synonym of auripilis Deyrolle, 1864); cuneatus Jendek, 2009(synonym of palii Baudon, 1968); damoiselli Baudon, 1968 (synonym of sikkimensis Obenberger, 1928); deuveiBaudon, 1965 (synonym of perlisensis Fisher, 1936); emeritus Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963 (synonym ofperlisensis Fisher, 1936); favieri Baudon, 1961 (synonym of cochinchinae Obenberger, 1924); forquerayi Baudon,1968 (synonym of inops Kerremans, 1892); gagneuxi Baudon, 1968 (synonym of beatissimus Descarpentries &Villiers, 1963); gardneri Théry, 1928 (synonym of mixtus Kerremans, 1892); giraudi Baudon, 1965 (synonym ofbirmanicus Kerremans, 1892); goichetae Baudon, 1965 (synonym of rivalieri Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963);gouyei Baudon, 1965 (synonym of inops Kerremans, 1892); haniquei Baudon, 1965 (synonym of weyersiKerremans, 1900); jarrensis Baudon, 1968 (synonym of coloratus Kerremans, 1894); kandyanus Théry, 1904(synonym of repercussus Kerremans, 1893); korbi Abeille de Perrin, 1897 (synonym of auricollis Kiesenwetter,1857); laurenconi Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963 (synonym of auroapicalis Kurosawa, 1957); lebisiDescarpentries & Villiers, 1963 (synonym of ardoini Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963); legrosi Descarpentries &Villiers, 1963 (synonym of tsacasi Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963); leguayi Baudon, 1965 (synonym of simplexKerremans, 1894); lessei Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963 (synonym of colasi Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963);lindryi Baudon, 1968 (synonym of loupyi Baudon, 1968); lloydae Baudon, 1968 (synonym of miwai Obenberger,1936); lukesi Obenberger, 1936 (synonym of modicus Kerremans, 1892); minusculus Marseul, 1866 (synonym ofotiosus Say, 1833); morelae Baudon, 1968 (synonym of milo Obenberger, 1936); moreli Baudon, 1968 (synonymof coomani Bourgoin, 1925); mouricouae Baudon, 1965 (synonym of inops Kerremans, 1892); nginni Baudon,1968 (synonym of cochinchinae Obenberger, 1924); parizotae Baudon, 1968 (synonym of syrphus Descarpentries& Villiers, 1963); roscidulus Abeille de Perrin, 1897 (synonym of elegans Mulsant & Rey, 1863); rousselataeBaudon, 1968 (synonym of lacroixi Obenberger, 1936); ruteri Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963 (synonym ofjarrigei Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963); samyi Baudon, 1968 (synonym of suturaalba Deyrolle, 1864);sedonensis Baudon, 1968 (synonym of sommailae Baudon, 1965); siva Obenberger, 1916 (synonym of repercussusKerremans, 1893); souvannavongsi Baudon, 1968 (synonym of perlisensis Fisher, 1936); syrdarjensis Obenberger,1928 (synonym of vaginalis Abeille de Perrin, 1897); theodasi Baudon, 1968 (synonym of simoninaeDescarpentries & Villiers, 1963); thevadensis Baudon, 1968 (synonym of truncatipennis Descarpentries & Villiers,1967); tokatensis Obenberger, 1924 (synonym of auricollis Kiesenwetter, 1857); ukrainensis Obenberger, 1936(synonym of croaticus Abeille de Perrin, 1897).Lectotype designations: 43 lectotype designations are proposed (types are cited in the original combination and rank):Agrilus ambiguus Kerremans, 1895; A. amphion Obenberger, 1935; A. ampliatus Kerremans, 1900; A. anachlorusObenberger, 1924; A. angustulus variety bicoloratus Abeille de Perrin, 1893; A. atomus Kerremans, 1914; A. atratulus Obenberger, 1924; A. balnearis Kerremans, 1914; A. belides Obenberger, 1936; A. brahma Obenberger, 1916; A.

Two hundred and eighteen taxa of the genus Agrilus (Coleoptera, Buprestidae) mostly from the Palaearctic and Oriental regions are studied and their taxonomic, nomenclatural, distributional or biological data are updated. For some species, the biological information is supplemented by images from the field, or distributional data by maps showing the whole range of the species. The synonymy of following Agrilus is updated: A. blairi Bourgoin, 1925 (A. telawensis Fisher, 1935 syn. nov.); A. lancifer Deyrolle, 1864 (A. perakianus Kerremans, 1900 syn. nov.); A. lestagei Théry, 1930 (A. collartianus Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963 syn. nov.); A. lugubris Kerremans, 1914 (A. achilleus Obenberger, 1935 syn. nov.); A. ocularis Deyrolle, 1864 (A. capitatus Deyrolle, 1864 syn. nov.), A. bidentellus Obenberger, 1924 syn. nov.) and Agrilus velatus Kerremans, 1912 (A. kuchingensis Tôyama, 1987 syn. nov.). The invalid synonyms A. myrmido Kerremans, 1912; A. myrmidonius Obenberger, 1936 and A. miwai Théry, 1936 are moved from the synonymy of A. achilleus Obenberger, 1935 to synonymy of A. lugubris Kerremans, 1914. A. massanensis Schaefer, 1955 is downgraded to subspecies A. pratensis massanensis Schaefer, 1955 status nov. The specific name samyi Baudon, 1968 is resurrected from the synonymy of A. suturaalba Deyrolle, 1864 and revalidated as Agrilus samyi Baudon, 1968 (nomen revalidatum).

Taxonomic notes are provided in some Acanthoderini genera. Three new species are described: Scythropopsis intricata Santos-Silva, Botero and Wappes from Mexico, Aegomorphus robustus Santos-Silva, Botero and Wappes and Eupromerella boliviana Santos-Silva, Botero and Wappes from Bolivia. The following synonymies are proposed: Psapharochrus Thomson, 1864 as synonym of Aegomorphus Haldeman, 1847; Acanthoderes (Psapharochrus) albomaculatus Fuchs, 1963 and Acanthoderes griseomaculata Zajciw, 1971 as synonyms of Symperasmus alboniger (Bates, 1861); Pteridotelus contaminatus Thomson, 1865 as synonym of Scythropopsis melanostictica (White, 1855); Psapharochrus jameswappesi Tavakilian, 2018 as synonym of Aegomorphus wappesi (Galileo, Martins & Santos-Silva, 2015); and Psapharochrus histrio Casey, 1913 and Psapharochrus guatemalensis Casey, 1913 as synonyms of Aegomorphus circumflexus (Jacquelin du Val, 1857). Acanthoderus circumflexus Jacquelin DuVal, 1857 is proposed as nomen protectum and Acanthocinus rusticus Klug, 1829 as nomen oblitum. Aegomorphus contaminatus (Thomson, 1965) is revalidated. Scythropopsis Thomson, 1864 and Symperasmus Thomson, 1864 are herein elevated to genus rank. The geographical distribution of ten species is expanded and a key to differentiate Acanthoderes, Aegomorphus, Scythropopsis, and Symperasmus is provided.

The beetle superfamily Curculionoidea includes 43 species associated with Araucaria angustifolia trees in South Brazil. These weevil species belong to the families Nemonychidae (Brarus Kuschel, 1997, Rhynchitoplesius Voss, 1952), Brentidae (Taphroderes Schönherr, 1826) and Curculionidae, the latter including the subfamilies Curculioninae (Heilipodus Kuschel, 1955, Spermologus Schönherr, 1843), Cossoninae (Araucarius Kuschel, 1966, Eurycorynophorus Voss, 1964), Scolytinae (Ambrosiodmus Hopkins, 1915, Araptus Eichhoff, 1871, Cnesinus LeConte, 1868, Corthylus Erichson, 1836, Cryptocarenus Eggers, 1936, Hypothenemus Westwood, 1834, Monarthrum Kirsch, 1866, Pagiocerus Eichhoff, 1868, Phloeotribus Latreille, 1896, Pityophthorus Eichhoff, 1864, Xylechinosomus Schedl, 1963, Xyleborus Eichhoff, 1864, Xyleborinus Reitter, 1913) and Platypodinae (Cenocephalus Chapuis, 1865, Platypus Herbst, 1893, Tesserocerus Saunders, 1836). A checklist of all species including remarks on their life histories and taxonomic notes are presented. In addition, a key for the identification of adult Curculionoidea associated with Araucaria angustifolia to genus or species level is provided.

Dr. Platon Papakostopulos (1864-1915), Dr. Milenko Materni (1875-1929), Dr. Milan Petrovic (1886-1963), Dr. Nadezda Stanojevic (1887-1979) and Dr. Djura Jovanovic (1892-1977) were founders of modern pediatrics in Serbia. They established and managed the first pediatric institutions: Hospital pediatric departments, Mother and Child Health Care Consultations and Child welfare clinics in Belgrade and Novi Sad. They also established Pediatric Section of the Serbian Medical Association and published numerous scientific and popular articles in pediatrics.

The following taxonomic or nomenclatural changes are proposed: Agrilus acastus Kerremans, 1913 (= ohbayashii Tôyama, 1987 syn. nov.); A. adonis Deyrolle, 1864 (= falsulus Obenberger, 1924 syn. nov.); A. albopunctatus Deyrolle, 1864 (= nepos Kerremans, 1900 syn. nov.); A. angustulus (Illiger, 1803) (= laeticeps Semenov, 1890 syn. nov.); A. basilewskyanus Descarpentries & Villiers, 1963 correct original spelling; A. birmanicus Kerremans, 1892 (= legitimus Obenberger, 1936 syn. nov.); A. cairnensis Obenberger, 1959 correct original spelling (= cairnsensis Curletti, 2001 unjustified emendation syn. nov.); A. chekiangensis Gebhardt, 1929 (= semivittatus Tôyama, 1985 syn. nov.); A. confutus Obenberger, 1936 (= conjectus Obenberger, 1936 syn. nov.); A. convergens Fisher, 1930 (= japanensis Obenberger, 1935 syn. nov.); A. croaticus Abeille de Perrin, 1897 (= serbicus Obenberger, 1927 syn. nov.); A. cyanipennis Gory & Laporte, 1837 (= ornativentris Saunders, 1866 syn. nov.; = agilis Kerremans, 1894 syn. nov.; = amabilicolor Obenberger, 1936b syn. nov.); A. decoloratus decoloratus Kerremans, 1892 (= afghanistanicus Alexeev in Alexeev, Volkovitsh & Kabakov, 1992 syn. nov.); A. dignus Kerremans, 1912 (= csikii Gebhardt, 1925 syn. nov.; = kayan Fisher, 1930 syn. nov.); A. discicollis Deyrolle, 1864 (= punctiventris Kerremans, 1900 syn. nov.); A. ecarinatus Marseul, 1866 (= gracilicornis Ganglbauer, 1890 syn. nov.); A. erythrostictus Bourgoin, 1922 (= barmensis Obenberger, 1936 syn. nov.); A. fleischeri Obenberger, 1925 (= kurosawai Obenberger, 1940 syn. nov.; = tscherepanovi Stepanov, 1954 syn. nov.); A. lineariformis new replacement name (= lineatus Kerremans, 1899 syn. nov.); A. maculiventris Deyrolle, 1864 (= opulentus Kerremans, 1900b syn. nov., = woodlarkianus Kerremans, 1900c syn. nov., = viridissimus Cobos, 1964 syn. nov.); A. marginicollis Saunders, 1873 (= beppuensis Obenberger, 1936 syn. nov.); A. moerens Saunders, 1873 (= araxicola Abeille de Perrin, 1897 syn. nov.); A. monogrammus Thomson, 1879 (= kabakovi Alexeev in Alexeev,Volkovitsh & Kabakov, 1992 syn. nov.); A. ocularis Deyrolle, 1864 (= bidentellus Obenberger, 1924 syn. nov.); A. paganettii Obenberger, 1913 (= pisanus Curletti, 1980 syn. nov.); A. perniciosus Deyrolle, 1864 (= perniciosus Obenberger unavailable name, = subperniciosus Obenberger, 1936 unavailable name); A. perviridis Kerremans, 1894 (= singaporensis Obenberger, 1924 syn. nov.); A. quadrisignatus Marseul, 1866 (= mongoliae Obenberger, 1922; = lama Obenberger, 1935 syn. nov.); A. sospes Lewis, 1893 (= kinoshitae Obenberger, 1936 syn. nov.; = quadristictulus Oben-

Theopea Baly, 1864 species lacking a modified clypeus of East Asia are revised. Theopea aureoviridis Chûjô, 1935, T. collaris Kimoto, 1989, and T. sauteri Chûjô, 1935 are redescribed. Theopea coerulea Gressitt & Kimoto, 1963 is removed from synonymy with T. sauteri Chûjô, 1935. Hoplosaenidea irregularis (Takizawa 1978) and H. kanmiyai Kimoto, 1984 are transferred to Theopea and redescribed. A lectotype is designated for T. aureoviridis Chûjô, 1935. Five new species are described, T. cheni sp. nov. from Taiwan, T. geiseri sp. nov. from Northeast India, T. hainanensis sp. nov. from South China (Hainan Island), T. laosensis sp. nov. from West China, North Laos and Vietnam, and T. sekerkai sp. nov. from Central and South Laos.

RESUMO Este artigo é o resultado de uma análise comparativa entre as duas edições da obra de Mikhail Bakhtin: Problemas da obra de Dostoiévski, primeira edição, em 1929, e Problemas da poética de Dostoiévski, revista e publicada em 1963. O objetivo é estabelecer uma comparação do conceito de polêmica velada presente nesses livros, com foco nas formas de presença do discurso do outro. A metodologia é partir da análise bakhtiniana da novela Memórias do subsolo (1864), de Fiódor Dostoiévski, em especial quanto à formulação linguístico-discursiva de polêmica velada. Em que medida as alterações presentes na segunda edição contribuem para novos esclarecimentos da polêmica? Os resultados apontam a existência de mudanças e de permanências, o que permite esclarecer a importância central do conceito de polêmica para a análise do discurso alheio nos discursos literários e também nos discursos de circulação social.

A key for identification for the 54 South American genera of Acanthocinini (Cerambycidae, Lamiinae) without erect setae on the elytra is provided. Diagnosis for each genus is provided, as well as type-locality and geographical distribution of the type species, and of the transferred species. Cristurges Gilmour, 1961 is considered a junior synonymy of Lophopoeum Bates, 1863. Ozineus Bates, 1863 is considered a genus that includes only the type species, Ozineus elongatus Bates, 1863 because it is the only species with erect setae on the elytral surface. Sternacutus Gilmour, 1961 is revalidated to include the species transferred from Ozineus. Nyssocuneus Gilmour, 1960 and Nyssodrysina Casey, 1913 are synonymized with Atrypanius Bates, 1864. Nyssodrysina Casey, 1913 is also considered a junior synonymy of Atrypanius. Nyssodectes Dillon, 1955 is considered junior synonymy of Stenolis Bates, 1864. Lepturguncus (Lepturguncus) Gilmour, 1961 is synonymized with Pattalinus Bates, 1881. Lepturdrys Gilmour, 1960 is considered a junior synonymy of Eucharitolus Bates, 1885. Lepturguncus (Chaeturguncus) is removed from the synonym of Pattalinus and considered a junior synonym of Paroecus Bates, 1863. The country of the type-locality of Oxathridia roraimae Gilmour, 1963 is corrected. The genus of Neseuterpia couturieri Tavakilian, 2001 is questioned. Additionally, the following genera omitted in the key by Monné et al. (2020) are listed and included in their previous key: Ozineus Bates, 1863; Paroecus Bates, 1863; Pseudosparna Mermudes & Monné, 2009; Probatiomimus Melzer, 1926; and Calolamia Tippmann, 1953. Paroectropsis Cerda, 1953 is transferred to Desmiphorini.

Owing to the enduring popularity of Jules Verne’s science fiction story Journey to the Center of the Earth (1864), modern readers have taken for granted a hollow, habitable core beneath the earth’s crust as a time-honored, though scientifically implausible, setting for speculative fiction.1 Verne’s fantastic tale of Professor Otto Lidenbrock’s descent into the Icelandic volcano Snæfellsjökull and his perilous adventures underground featuring forests of giant mushrooms and prehistoric monsters remains the most widely read work of nineteenth-century “subterranean fiction.” In 1926, the story was reprinted in a three-part serial in the widely-read American science fiction magazine Amazing Stories (Fig. 1). Throughout the twentieth century, it spawned a host of imitators, from Edgar Rice Burrough’s Pellucidar series (1914‐1963) to C. S. Lewis’ Narnian chronicle The Silver Chair (1953), as well as a successful 1959 film adaptation starring James Mason and Pat Boone.

New taxonomic data for species belonging to Araniella Chamberlin & Ivie, 1942 and Neoscona Simon, 1864 occurring in the Caucasus, Middle East and Central Asia are provided. Three species are described as new to science: A. mithrasp. nov. (♂♀, northwestern, central and southwestern Iran), A. villaniisp. nov. (♂♀, southwestern Iran, eastern Kazakhstan and northern India) and N. isatissp. nov. (♂♀, central Iran). Neoscona spasskyi (Brignoli, 1983) comb. nov., stat. res. is removed from the synonymy of N. tedgenica (Bakhvalov, 1978), redescribed and recorded from Iran and Turkmenistan for the first time. New combinations are established for this species, as well as for Araniella nigromaculata (Schenkel, 1963) comb. nov. (♀, north-central China) (both ex. Araneus). Two new synonymies are proposed: Araniella tbilisiensis Mcheidze, 1997 syn. nov. is synonymized with A. opisthographa (Kulczyński, 1905), and Neoscona sodom Levy, 1998 syn. nov. is synonymized with N. theisi (Walckenaer, 1841); the latter is recorded from Iran, Georgia, and Russia (Northern Caucasus) for the first time.

This article explores aspects of the biblical literacy of two classical sociologists, Max Weber (1864–1920) and William Dubois (1868–1963) and after discussing two examples in some depth and drawing comparisons, briefly reflects on what kinds of biblical literacy is required of contemporary readers of Weber and Dubois, if they are to make sense of their sociology given the continuing legacy of the Bible in their work. The examples of their use of biblical ideas, themes and figures are taken from Weber’s lectures, “Politics as a Vocation and Science as a Vocation,” and from Dubois’ The Souls of Black Folk. It is argued that whilst Weber uses biblical quotation to share with his audience a situation with some sociological analogy to their own case, Dubois utilises the continuing authority of the Bible amongst his White and Black audiences to affect social change and to provide an identity and purpose for Black folk post emancipation in the American South.

AbstractBeremendiini is an extinct group of soricine shrews that were widely distributed during the Pliocene and Pleistocene. Their occurrence in China has been investigated, but their presence in northern Asian regions has remained poorly studied. This paper analyzes 56 fossil remains of Beremendiini collected from 16 early Pliocene to early Pleistocene localities in Russia (Siberia), Kazakhstan, and Mongolia and shows the presence of two beremendiin species: Beremendia fissidens (Petényi, 1864) and Beremendia minor Rzebik-Kowalska, 1976. Northern Asian Beremendia considerably vary in size and qualitative characteristics, although most of the different states have been identified in European or Chinese specimens. Through the application of geometric morphometric techniques, mandibular shape analyses reveal similarities between the members of the beremendiin genera Peisorex Kowalski and Li, 1963, Beremendia Kormos, 1934, and Lunanosorex Jin and Kawamura, 1996. Shape analyses and comparisons of mandibular characteristics reveal ‘trophic’ analogies between Beremendia and Blarina spp. and a new model of ‘Mandible Swinging and Sliding’ (MSS-model) accounting for the similarities in mandibular morphology with implications for the understanding of the diet of Beremendia.UUID: http://zoobank.org/ef92ee1a-3977-44b2-86d7-381665bcf78b

The following synonymies are proposed: Chydarteres formosus Galileo & Martins, 2010 as a junior synonym of Andraegoidus fabricii (Dupont, 1838); Nyssosternus Gilmour, 1963 as a junior synonym of Stenolis Bates, 1864; Periestola Breuning, 1943 as a junior synonym of Cobelura Erichson, 1847; Cobelura inornata Monné & Monné, 2017 as a junior synonym of Cobelura strandi (Breuning, 1943), new combination; Cobelura curiosa (Monné & Martins, 1976), new combination, removed from synonymy of Cobelura strandi. Trachyderes (T.) latecinctus Martins, 1975, new status. New state records: Parasphallenum fulguratum (Chabrillac, 1857), newly recorded from Brazil, Amazonas; Melathemma polita Bates, 1870, newly recorded from Brazil, Acre; Trachyderes (T.) latecinctus Martins, 1975, newly recorded from Brazil, Roraima. New country records: Paracleodoxus cineraceus Monné & Monné, 2010, newly recorded from Colombia; Oreodera tuberculata Thomson, 1865, newly recorded from Brazil, Pará; Rhaphiptera avicenniae Dalens & Tavakilian, 2007, newly recorded from Brazil, Pará; Rhaphipteroides apicalis Tavakilian, Dalens & Touroult, 2007, newly recorded from Brazil, Amazonas. The correct type locality of Oncideres ochreostillata Dillon & Dillon, 1952 is given.

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

The chemistry as an independent subject in the Russian Empire was brought into the curriculum of real gymnasiums in 1864 (Parmyonov, 1963; Teleshov, 2000). Nevertheless, in 1794 in Mountain school A. M. Karamyshev, Karl Linney's pupil, gave actually the first course of chemistry in high school. It is quite natural that the very first textbooks of chemistry in Russia were in the German and French languages. Then the time of translated textbooks came. The first original textbooks for school appeared in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. In all these books the essential attention was paid to chemical experiment: both to supervision, and its performance. Also, we will try to track that could observe and what to carry out in fixed time pupils of gymnasiums, schools and military schools at 19 beginning of 20 centuries. Certainly, we consider this question in connection with its large volume on a limited number of examples, using materials of school textbooks and articles in the methodical magazine. Educational texts in the range of 1886-1910, till 1911 - prior to the beginning of a methodical era of V. Verkhovsky will be brought to your attention. Key words: secondary school, chemical experiment, non multa sed multum.

A taxonomic review of the tribe Melaenini (sensu novo), this paper includes a classification, keys at all taxonomic levels, descriptions (tribe to species), re-rankings, and new synonymy. In total, two genera and 22 species (three of which are new) are treated. Arrangement of taxa is in the following sequence, with junior synonyms and type localities of new species in parentheses, following name of the taxon. The Eastern Hemisphere genus Melaenus Dejean, 1831 includes M. piger (Fabricius, 1801), and M. elegans Dejean, 1831 (with M. elongatus Chaudoir, 1843, as a new junior synonym), which exhibits marked dimorphism in East Africa. The genus Cymbionotum Baudi di Selve, 1864 includes 20 species, arranged in two subgenera, as follows. The Western Hemisphere Procoscinia, n. subg. (type species, C. fernandezi, n. sp. [Zambrano, Bolivar, Colombia]), includes the type species and C. negrei Perrault, 1994. The Eastern Hemisphere subgenus Cymbionotum (sensu stricto) includes 18 species in three species groups, and three superspecies. The basale species group includes two species: C. semirubricum (Reitter, 1914) (new junior synonyms Graniger aethiopicus Alluaud, 1923, C. minax Andrewes, 1935, and C. a. airense Basilewsky, 1950), and C. basale (Dejean, 1831). The semelederi species group includes three species: C. semelederi (Chaudoir, 1851) (new junior synonyms, Coscinia funerula Fairmaire, 1885, Cymbionotum luniferum Andrewes 1935, and Graniger houskai Jedli…ka, 1951), C. striatum Reitter, 1894, and C. mandli Jedli…ka, 1963.

We revise the species of Audantia, a genus of dactyloid lizards endemic to Hispaniola. Based on our analyses of morphological and genetic data we recognize 14 species in this genus, four of which we describe as new species (A. aridius sp. nov., A. australis sp. nov., A. higuey sp. nov., and A. hispaniolae sp. nov.), and two are resurrected from the synonymy of A. cybotes (A. doris comb. nov., A. ravifaux comb. nov.). Also, we place Anolis citrinellus Cope, 1864 in the synonymy of Ctenonotus distichus (Cope, 1861); Anolis haetianus Garman, 1887 in the synonymy of Audantia cybotes (Cope, 1863); and Anolis whitemani Williams, 1963 in the synonymy of Audantia saxatilis (Mertens, 1938). Finally, we designate a lectotype for Anolis cybotes Cope, 1863, and for Anolis riisei Reinhardt & Lütken, 1863. Our main focus is on the populations of anoles formerly referred to as Audantia cybotes which we demonstrate to be a complex of seven distinct species. For these seven species we provide a standardized description of external morphology, color descriptions in life, color photographs in life, description and illustration of hemipenis morphology (if available), distribution maps based on the specimens examined, comments on the conservation status, and natural history notes. Finally, we provide a dichotomous key for the identification of the 14 species of the genus Audantia occuring on Hispaniola.

This article reviews the main stages in the development of physiological research at the St. Petersburg (USSR, Russian) Academy of Sciences. These studies began in 1725 when the Department of Anatomy and Physiology chaired by Daniel Bernoulli was established at the Academy of Sciences and Arts in St. Petersburg. L. Euler, J. Weitbrecht, and J. G. Duvernoy worked at this Department in the first years of its existence. In 1864, Academician F. V. Ovsyannikov organized the Physiological Laboratory at the Academy; in 1907 I. P. Pavlov became the head of this laboratory and, in 1925, it was reorganized into the Physiological Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In the 20th century, physiological institutes were created under the auspices of the Academy of Sciences in Moscow, Leningrad, and the USSR republics. The Division (“Otdelenie”) of Physiology of the USSR Academy of Sciences was organized in 1963. The physiological Institutes explored a wide range of problems, particularly in neurophysiology, physiology of sensory systems, and integrative physiology. The studies conducted by the Academy of Sciences Members L. Euler (eye optics), I. M. Sechenov (physiology of nervous system), and I. P. Pavlov (physiology of digestion) have retained their importance in the history of physiology. Pavlov was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1904. The research conducted by the physiologists working at the USSR Academy of Sciences laid the foundation for the development of gravitational, evolutionary, ecological, and clinical physiology

The following 13 new combinations are given: Ambrosiophilus osumiensis (Murayama, 1934), Ancipitis machili (Niisima, 1910), Cyclorhipidion bispinum (Nobuchi, 1981), Cyclorhipidion japonicum (Nobuchi, 1981), Cyclorhipidion laetum (Niisima, 1909), Cyclorhipidion misatoense (Nobuchi, 1981), Cyclorhipidion miyazakiense (Murayama, 1936), Cyclorhipidion okinosenense (Murayama, 1961), Cyclorhipidion takinoyense (Murayama, 1953), Debus defensus (Blandford, 1894), Immanus permarginatus (Schedl, 1933), Microperus calamoides (Murayama, 1934), Microperus quercicola (Eggers, 1926), all originally described in Xyleborus Eichhoff, 1864. The following 24 new synonyms are proposed: Ambrosiophilus atratus (Eichhoff, 1876) (=Xyleborus collis Niisima, 1910 syn. n.); Ambrosiophilus osumiensis (Murayama, 1934) (=Xyleborus metanepotulus Eggers, 1939 syn. n.); Ancipitis machili (Niisima, 1910) (=Xyleborus depressus Eggers, 1923 syn. n.; = Xyleborus kojimai Murayama, 1936 syn. n.); Anisandrus dispar (Fabricius, 1792) (=Xyleborus ishidai Niisima, 1909 syn. n.); Cnestus aterrimus (Eggers, 1927) (=Cnestus maculatus Browne, 1983 syn. n.; = Cnestus murayamai Schedl, 1962 syn. n.; = Cnestus murayamai Browne, 1963 syn. n.; = Tosaxyleborus pallidipennis Murayama, 1950. syn. n.); Cyclorhipidion miyazakiense (Murayama, 1936) (=Xyleborus armipennis Schedl, 1953 syn. n.; = Xyleborus wakayamensis Nobuchi, 1981 syn. n.); Microperus kadoyamaensis (Murayama, 1934) (=Xyleborus nameranus Murayama, 1954 syn. n.); Microperus quercicola (Eggers, 1926) (=Xyleborus izuensis Murayama, 1952 syn. n.); Planiculus bicolor (Blandford, 1894) (=Xyleborus ashuensis Murayama, 1954 syn. n.); Xyleborinus attenuatus (Blandford, 1894) (=Xyleborinus canus Niisima, 1909 syn. n.); Xyleborinus schaufussi (Blandford, 1894) (=Xyleborus kraunhiae Niisima, 1910 syn. n.); Xyleborus festivus Eichhoff, 1876 (=Xyleborus detectus Schedl, 1975a syn. n.; = Xyleborus pinicola Eggers, 1930 syn. n.; = Xyleborus pinivorus Browne, 1980 syn. n.); Xyleborus metacuneolus Eggers, 1940 (= Xyleborus kaimochii Nobuchi, 1981 syn. n.); Xyleborus perforans (Wollaston, 1857) (=Xyleborus shionomisakiensis Murayama, 1951 syn. n.); Xyleborus pfeilii (Ratzeburg, 1837) (=Xyleborus septentrionalis Niisima 1909 syn. n.); Xyleborus seriatus Blandford, 1894 (=Xyleborus todo Kono, 1938 syn. n.); Xylosandrus brevis (Eichhoff, 1877) (=Xyleborus montanus Niisima, 1910 syn. n.). Arixyleborus yakushimanus (Murayama, 1958) is removed from synonymy with A. malayensis (Schedl, 1954). The types of Xyleborus nagaoensis Murayama, 1934, and X. ohtoensis Nobuchi, 1981 were examined and are confirmed to be correctly placed in Xyleborus. Lectotypes are designated for Xyleborus ishidai Niisima, 1909, and Xyleborus septentrionalis Niisima, 1909.

A checklist of Gelechiidae in America north of Mexico is provided based on additions of new taxa and nomenclatorial changes in publications since 1978. This checklist includes the addition of 253 new species and 8 new genera, 30 species and 5 genera previously unrecorded from North America, 4 species inadvertently omitted in the previous checklist, and many nomenclatorial changes. Ymeldia Hodges, 1963 is transferred to Oecophoridae. The following new synonymies are established: Neoschema Povolny, 1967, n. syn. of Gnorimoschema Busck, 1900; Scrobipalpulopsis Povolný, 1987, n. syn. of Scrobipalpula Povolný; 1964, Tuta Kieffer & Jörgensen, 1910, rev. syn. of Phthorimaea Meyrick, 1902; Eupolella Fletcher, 1940, n. syn. of Dichomeris Hübner, [1818]; Eupolis Meyrick, 1923, n. syn. of Dichomeris Hübner, [1818]; Aristotelia nigrobasiella Clarke, 1932, n. syn. of Aristotelia isopelta Meyrick, 1929; Aristotelia intermediella (Chambers, 1879), n. syn. of Aristotelia pudibundella (Zeller, 1873); Gelechia brumella Clemens, 1864, n. syn. of Chionodes continuella (Zeller, 1839); Anacampsis bidiscomaculella (Chambers, 1874), rev. syn. of Anacampsis fullonella (Zeller, 1873); Aroga trachycosma (Meyrick, 1923), n. syn. of Aroga elaboratella (Braun, 1923); and Dichomeris caryaefoliella (Chambers, 1872), n. syn. of Dichomeris georgiella (Walker, 1866). The following new combinations are made: Monochroa pullusella (Chambers, 1874), n. comb., Monochroa robusta (Braun, 1921), n. comb., Gnorimoschema klotsi (Povolný, 1967), n. comb., Gnorimoschema powelli (Povolný, 1998a), n. comb., Scrobipalpuloides chiquitella (Busck, 1910), n. comb., Scrobipalpuloides chiquitelloides (Powell & Povolný, 2001), n. comb., Scrobipalpuloides elaborata (Povolný, 2000), n. comb., Scrobipalpuloides insularis (Powell & Povolný, 2001) n. comb., Scrobipalpuloides isolata (Povolný, 2000) n. comb., Scrobipalpuloides spinosa (Povolný, 2000), n. comb., Scrobipalpuloides totalis (Povolný, 2000), n. comb., Scrobipalpuloides truncata (Povolný, 2000), n. comb., Scrobipalpula lutescella (Clarke, 1934), n. comb., Scrobipalpula lycii (Powell & Povolný, 2001), n. comb., Scrobipalpula physaliella (Chambers, 1872), n. comb., and Scrobipalpa arenaceariella (Powell & Povolný, 2001), n. comb. New records for the Nearctic Region are given for Carpatolechia fugitivella (Zeller), Carpatolechia notatella (Hübner), Carpatolechia proximella (Hübner), and Altenia perspersella (Wocke). This checklist also provides the type localities of species based on examination of specimens and published references. Subfamilies have been divided into tribes, which has required rearrangement of genera. References that include new taxa or nomenclatorial changes since 1978 are provided.

The genus Scrobipalpa in the Afrotropical region is revised. Thirty-six species are recognized as valid, 20 of which are described as new: S. ochroxantha sp. nov. (South Africa), S. wieseri sp. nov. (Namibia, South Africa), S. turiensis sp. nov. (Kenya), S. wolframi sp. nov. (Namibia), S. natalensis sp. nov. (South Africa), S. varivansoni sp. nov. (South Africa), S. typica sp. nov. (South Africa), S. staudei sp. nov. (South Africa), S. afromontana sp. nov. (Kenya), S. erexita sp. nov. (South Africa), S. admirabilis sp. nov. (Namibia), S. griseata sp. nov. (South Africa), S. nigristriana sp. nov. (Kenya), S. munita sp. nov. (Malawi), S. ochracea sp. nov. (South Africa), S. asantesana sp. nov. (South Africa), S. selectoides sp. nov. (Namibia, RSA), S. etoshensis sp. nov. (Namibia), S. ethiopica sp. nov. (Ethiopia), and S. agassizi sp. nov. (Kenya). Six new synonyms are established: Phthorimaea blapsigona Meyrick, 1916 and Scrobipalpa asiri Povolný, 1980 syn. nov. of Scrobipalpa concreta (Meyrick, 1914); Scrobipalpa xylochroa Janse, 1963 and S. obsoletella hospes Povolný, 1964 syn. nov. of S. obsoletella (Fischer von Röslerstamm, 1841); S. vicaria (Meyrick, 1921) syn. nov. of S. geomicta (Meyrick, 1918); and Gelechia chersophila Meyrick, 1918 syn. nov. of S. portosanctana (Stainton, 1859). The following new combinations for five species previously placed in Scrobipalpa are proposed: Ephysteris cretigena (Meyrick, 1914) comb. nov., Microlechia colasta (Meyrick, 1921) comb. nov., Schizovalva costimacula (Janse, 1951) comb. nov., Gelechia trychnophylla (Janse, 1960) comb. nov. and Trychnopalpa phalacrodes (Meyrick, 1913) comb. nov. Two species, Phthorimaea pendens Meyrick, 1918 comb. rev. and Homaloxestis ocyphanes Meyrick, 1937 comb. rev., are excluded from Scrobipalpa but no current genus is available. The male genitalia of Scrobipalpa nomias (Meyrick, 1921) are described for the first time. All species are diagnosed, some of them are redescribed based on additional material. Identification keys and photographs of adults and genitalia are provided. New or additional host plants are recorded for Scrobipalpa incola (Meyrick, 1912), S. concreta, S. portosanctana, and S. ergasima (Meyrick, 1916). Scrobipalpa incola is recorded for the first time from Namibia, Tanzania, and Kenya; S. concreta is new for Ethiopia, Sudan, Tanzania, Kenya, Mozambique, Benin and Mauritius; S. subroseata for Tanzania and Kenya; S. aptatella (Walker, 1864) and S. biljurshi Povolný, 1980 for Ethiopia; S. obsoletella and S. traganella (Chrétien, 1915) for Namibia; S. geomicta for India and Ethiopia; and S. ergasima for Benin, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Yemen.

The article considers the historical preconditions for the formation and development of the concept of the rule of law in civil proceedings. It is determined that the implementation of civil procedural activities is due to the special importance of the right to a fair trial as an eternal value of any legal and democratic state. However, civil litigation as a system of consideration and resolution of legal disputes in its continuous development has gone from the oldest procedures of protection of law, repeated attempts to regulate certain rules of litigation to large-scale codifications of legislation, which determined at different stages and in different countries process and its main elements. Thus, reforms in the field of civil justice have always been associated with the search for and approval of new fundamental ideas, paradigms for the administration of justice in cases. This study considered the formation of forms of consideration and resolution of civil cases during the Kyiv Rus, during the stay of Ukrainian lands in Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Hetmanate, the period of Russian autocracy and legislation in the Left Bank Ukraine, the influence of Austrian law in Western Ukraine. Soviet period, as well as the current stage of development of justice in civil are also discovered. Normative legal acts are analysed, in particular, Rus Pravda, Statutes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Decisive Points, "Rights of the Little Russian People", "Summary of Trials or Litigation", "On Forms of Court", Statute of Civil Procedure of 1864 , Austrian Civil Procedure Code of 1895; CPC of the USSR in 1924, CPC of the USSR in 1929 and 1963. Specific attention is paid to the Concept of Improving the Judiciary to Establish a Fair Court in Ukraine in Accordance with European Standards in 2006 and the Strategy for the Development of the Justice and Constitutional Judiciary for 2021-2023, which sets priorities for improving the judiciary, as well as the implementation of urgent measures to ensure positive changes in the functioning of relevant legal institutions. The list of measures that need to be taken to eliminate defects and thus increase the efficiency of civil proceedings is identified. In particular, the real guarantee of the rule of law, and ultimately, the fairness of the trial and resolution of civil cases.

Abstract The generic synonyms of Taumacera Thunberg, 1814 are revised. Acroxena Baly, 1879; Kinabalua Mohamedsaid, 1997; Neochrolea Jacoby, 1887; Paraenidea Laboissière, 1933 and Xenarthra Baly, 1861 are proposed as new synonyms of Taumacera. Luperomorphella Chûjô, 1964 is removed from the synonymy with Taumacera and proposed as a new synonym of Cerophysa Chevrolat, 1836. As a result of the examination of extensive type material, the following new combinations are proposed: Cerophysaalbomaculata (Chûjô, 1964) comb. nov. (from Luperomorpha), Hoplosaenidea basalis (Duvivier, 1884) comb. nov. (from Platyxantha), Hoplosaenidea dohertyi (Jacoby, 1894) comb. nov. (from Platyxantha), Hoplosaenidea rubripennis (Duvivier, 1884) comb. nov. (from Platyxantha), Hyphaenia balyi (Jacoby, 1895) comb. nov. (from Platyxantha), Hyphaenia bicornuta (Medvedev, 2001) comb. nov. (from Platyxantha), Hyphaenia costata (Medvedev, 2001) comb. nov. (from Platyxantha), Hyphaenia tonkinensis (Laboissière, 1936) comb. nov. (from Platyxantha), Pseudoscelida metallica (Jacoby, 1887) comb. nov. (from Doridea), Pseudoscelida nigrolimbata (Jacoby, 1899) comb. nov. (from Platyxantha), Taumacera antennata (Mohamedsaid, 1997) comb. nov. (from Kinabalua), Taumacera bella (Weise, 1922) comb. nov. (from Platyxantha), Taumacera cervicornis (Baly, 1861) comb. nov. (from Xenarthra), Taumacera clypeata (Baly, 1888) comb. nov. (from Acroxena), Taumacera coxalis (Jacoby, 1899) comb. nov. (from Platyxantha), Taumacera facialis (Baly, 1886) comb. nov. (from Acroxena), Taumacera fulva (Kimoto, 1989) comb. nov. (from Acroxena), Taumacera jacobyi (Weise, 1922) comb. nov. (from Platyxantha), Taumacera javanensis (Jacoby, 1895) comb. nov. (from Dorydea), Taumacera lewisi (Jacoby, 1887) comb. nov. (from Xenarthra), Taumacera martensi (Medvedev, 1990) comb. nov. (from Acroxena), Taumacera mirabilis (Jacoby, 1887) comb. nov. (from Xenarthra), Taumacera musaamani (Mohamedsaid, 2010) comb. nov. (from Kinabalua), Taumacera nasuta (Baly, 1879) comb. nov. (from Acroxena), Taumacera paradoxa (Laboissière, 1936) comb. nov. (from Acroxena), Taumacera samoderzhenkovi (Medvedev, 1992) comb. nov. (from Acroxena), Taumacera submetallica (Jacoby, 1896) comb. nov. (from Platyxantha), Taumacera sumatrensis (Jacoby, 1884) comb. nov. (from Aenidea), Taumacera suturalis (Duvivier, 1885) comb. nov. (from Platyxantha), Taumacera unicolor (Jacoby, 1887) comb. nov. (from Xenarthra), Taumacera viridis (Hope, 1831) comb. nov. (from Auchenia). New substitute names are proposed for preoccupied taxa which are newly transferred to Taumacera from other genera: Taumacera kimotoi nom. nov. (for Acroxena femoralis Kimoto, 1989, nec Platyxantha femoralis Allard, 1889, synonym of T. fulvicollis (Jacoby, 1881)); Taumacera indicola nom. nov. (for Acroxena indica Jacoby, 1896, nec Taumacera indica (Jacoby, 1889)); Taumacera medvedevi nom. nov. (for Acroxena nigricornis Medvedev, 1992, nec Taumacera nigricornis (Baly, 1864)). The following new synonyms are established: Fleutiauxia chinensis (Maulik, 1933) = Fleutiauxia mutifrons Gressitt & Kimoto, 1963 syn. nov.; Hoplosaenidea abdominalis (Jacoby, 1884) = Platyxantha wallacei Jacoby, 1895 syn. nov.; Metrioidea grandis (Allard, 1889) = Platyxantha robusta Jacoby, 1895 syn. nov.; Taumacera lewisi (Jacoby, 1887) = Aenidea hirtipennis Jacoby, 1887 syn. nov.; Taumacera indica (Jacoby, 1889) = Palpoxena yunnana Medvedev, 2015 syn. nov.; Taumacera sumatrensis (Jacoby, 1884) = Ozomena intermedia Jacoby, 1899 syn. nov. Platyxantha quadraticollis Jacoby, 1896 is confirmed as a synonym of Theopella bodjoensis (Duvivier, 1885). The name Hyphaenia tibialis Medvedev & Romantsov, 2013 is fixed by the act of the first reviewer principle. Based on the structure of antennae, seven species-groups are recognized (the antennata-group, the cervicornis-group, the deusta-group, the insignis-group, the nasuta-group, the nigricornis-group, and the viridis-group). Lectotypes are designated for Platyxantha balyi Jacoby, 1895 and Dorydea indica Jacoby, 1889, which is important since each of their syntype series consists of two different species

Grundtvig in Normal Danish.Helge Grell: The Spirit of the Creator and the Spirit of the People. An examination of Grundtvig’s ideas about peoples and popular culture, and their connection with his Christian view. Anis Publishing House, Århus. 346 pp.A Human First, A Christian Next. Helge Grell’s dissertation on Grundtvig under debate. Edited by Jens Holger Schjørring, the writers, and Anis Publishing House. Århus, 1988. 101 pp.Grundtvig’s prose is difficult to read, even for Danes. In this book Helge Grell has made his ideas about people, nations, and popular culture readable and intelligible. He has also examined Grundtvig’s relations with the non-Danish writers who have dealt with nationality and nationalism, and whom Grundtvig has known. The main problem has been whether Grundtvig - particularly in his writings from 1810 to 1865 - misused Christianity for the purpose of nationalistic propaganda against Germany, which he has been accused of, especially as regards the time around the two Schleswig wars, 1848-50 and 1864.The book is a chronological study of Grundtvig’s ideas from 1810 to 1865 which shows that his thoughts about peoples and popular culture have grown out of the particular philosophy and theology of creation that Grundtvig developed after his Christian revival in 1810 and which found its practical theological form especially in his years as pastor from 1821, and during his three journeys to England 1829-1831. From 1821 Grundtvig sees God’s work of creation as an act of love, which in the course of history has led Him to include the creation of peoples and popular culture. Grundtvig now sees the Holy Ghost as the spirit of human history who creates an interaction between God’s word and man’s word in its national form: the mother tongue, and who works through the spirit of a people. His ideas about people and popular culture are thus brought into connection with the Mosaic-Christian view of human life as a whole.To Grundtvig the Jewish people with its particular history constitutes what he understands by an "artificial people” in which the national spirit has, ’’with marvellous artistry”, created a unique God-chosen people from whose history Christianity was to develop (Selected Works, vol.V, p. 401-425). Grundtvig substitutes the phrase for Fichte’s "normal people”. Grell writes in this connection: ”The view of man of this people, developed through Christianity, must stand as normative in the interaction with the spirits of the two other great peoples, i.e., those of Greece and the Nordic countries, in order that they may serve universal history, and all other peoples are evaluated (by Grundtvig) in comparison with them." Grundtvig uses the term "natural peoples” for these two other principal peoples, i.e., peoples whose history can be traced chronologically, and who have preserved a living connection with the people’s spirit through a living mother tongue.A people’s spirit is regarded by Grundtvig as an image of God’s creator- spirit, just as poetry with its imagery is. Grell has made a more elaborate examination of Grundtvig’s theology of the Word in his preliminary study for the dissertation "The Creator Word and the Figurative Word”, which was published in 1980 and was reviewed in Grundtvig Studies 1982. It is also included in the German summary appended to the dissertation. It is through this close connection between Grundtvig’s theology of the Creation and his theology of the Word that Grell succeeds in defending Grundtvig against the accusations of nationalistic propaganda. Grell rightly claims that it is this key theme in his writings that must be attacked if one wants to make any effective criticism of his ideas about peoples and popular culture.Grell’s two theses are not directed against any other view of Grundtvig’s thinking. Only in the conclusion of the work did it appear that his dissertation might be read as an alternative to Kaj Thanings understanding of Grundtvig ("A Human Being First...”, Dissertation, Copenhagen 1963). A good deal of the debate during and after the public defence has therefore turned on this question, which in the dissertation is only brought up in the comprehensive notes. The dialogue between Thaning and Grell clearly demonstrates the mutual respect of the two scholars, but causes neither of them to change their attitudes or standpoint.

AbstractFrom latest Hauterivian to latest Barremian, the Urgonian facies of the Swiss and French Jura Mountains are subdivided into three formations and five members: new Saars Formation (= former “Gorges de l’Orbe Formation” sensu Strasser et al., 2016; Pictet, 2021) with a new Falaises Member below the Montcherand and Bôle members of Pictet (2021), Rocher des Hirondelles Formation with Fort de l’Ecluse and Rivière members (Pictet, 2021, revised), and Vallorbe Formation (revised from Strasser et al., 2016 and the “Vallorbe Member” of Pictet, 2021). The latest Hauterivian-early Late Barremien Saars Formation includes three members 1) to 3): 1) Latest Hauterivian-Early Barremian Falaises Member with new Early Barremian nannoflora from the Corcelles Marls (much younger than the late Early Hauterivian nannoflora from the Uttins Marls of the type locality at Mont de Chamblon), primitive orbitolinids Praedictyorbitolina claveli Schroeder, 1994; and fossils/microfossils usually considered as Hauterivian markers: echinids Pseudholaster intermedius (Münster in Goldfuss, 1826), brachiopods Glosseudesia semistriata (Defrance, 1828), Lamellaerynchia hauteriviensis Burri, 1953 and Plicarostrum aubersonense Burri, 1956, and ostracods of the Assemblage 1 [Protocythere triplicata (Roemer, 1841), Rehacythereis bernardi (Grosdidier, 1964), Schuleridea clunicularis (Triebel, 1938), Schuleridea gr. thoerenensis (Triebel, 1938)]. 2) Early Barremian Montcherand Member with brachiopods Glosseudesia inexpectata Mojon, n. sp. and Glosseudesia ebrodunensis (de Loriol, 1864), and ostracods of the Assemblage 2 [Strigosocythere strigosa (Grosdidier, 1964), P. triplicata, and juvenile immature species markers of the next ostracod Assemblage 3]. 3) Early to early Late Barremian Bôle Member with adult ostracod markers of the Assemblage 3 [Rehacythereis geometrica (Damotte and Grosdidier, 1963), Bairdoppilata barremiana Mojon, n. sp., Bairdoppilata luminosa Kuznetsova, 1961; Neocythere (Centrocythere) gottisi Damotte and Grosdidier, 1963; Schuleridea derooi Damotte and Grosdidier, 1963; Schuleridea alata Kaye, 1965; Dolocytheridea intermedia Oertli, 1958]. 4) The Early to Late Barremian Fort de l’Ecluse Member/Rocher des Hirondelles Formation and Late Barremian Rivière Member/Vallorbe Formation are characterized by markers such as echinids Heteraster couloni (L. Agassiz, 1839), orbitolinids [Praedictyorbitolina carthusiana Schoeder et al., 1990; Eopalorbitolina charollaisi Schroeder and Conrad, 1967; Valserina broennimanni Schroeder and Conrad, 1967; Paleodictyoconus actinostoma Arnaud-Vanneau and Schroeder, 1976; Paracoskinolina maynci (Chevalier, 1961)], and typical ostracods of the Assemblage 4 [Strigosocythere chalilovi (Kuznetsova, 1961), Rehacythereis buechlerae (Oertli, 1958) only in the southern Jura and replaced by R. geometrica in the central Jura, Platycythereis rostrata Sauvagnat, 1999] extended in the latest Barremian-Early Aptian Fulie Member of the basal Perte-du-Rhône Formation defined by Pictet et al. (2016).

Abstract Cryphalini Lindemann, 1877 are a speciose group of mostly miniscule beetles. The tribe Cryphalini is reviewed here which resulted in taxonomic and nomenclatural changes. This revision follows a recent molecular phylogenomic re-analysis focused on the tribe and related scolytine taxa. The analysis demonstrated that the tribe is polyphyletic, as found in other molecular phylogenies. To ensure monophyletic classification, we present a revision of the former tribe with two tribes resurrected, one described, and several genera transferred to other existing tribes. Additionally, extensive generic synonymy, and new combinations are presented. A key, photographs, and illustrations are provided to enable an accurate determination of genera. The revised Cryphalini contains only CryphalusErichson, 1836 (=Hypocryphalus Hopkins, 1915 syn. nov.; Margadillius Hopkins, 1915 syn. nov.). Coriacephilini Johnson trib. nov. contains only Coriacephilus Schedl, 1939. Ernoporini Nüsslin, 1911 stat. res. contains EidophelusEichhoff, 1876 (=Scolytogenes Eichhoff, 1878 syn. nov.; PtilopodiusHopkins, 1915syn. nov.; ErnoporicusBerger, 1917syn. nov.; CryphalogenesWood, 1980syn. nov.); ErnoporusThomson, 1859 (=ErnocladiusWood, 1980syn. nov.; AllothenemusBright and Torres, 2006syn. nov.); Hemicryphalus Schedl, 1963; and ProcryphalusHopkins, 1915. Trypophloeini Nüsslin, 1911 stat. res. includes the genera Afrocosmoderes Johnson and Jordal gen. nov.; AtomothenemusBright, 2019; Cosmoderes Eichhoff, 1878 (=AllernoporusKurentsov, 1941syn. nov.); HypothenemusWestwood, 1834 (=PeriocryphalusWood, 1971syn. nov.); MacrocryphalusNobuchi, 1981stat. res.; Microcosmoderes Johnson and Jordal gen. nov.; MicrosomusBright, 2019; PygmaeoborusBright, 2019; and TrypophloeusFairmaire, 1864. Xyloterini LeConte, 1876 is maintained, containing Indocryphalus Eggers, 1939; TrypodendronStephens, 1830 and XyloterinusSwaine, 1918. AcorthylusBrèthes, 1922, CryptocarenusEggers, 1937, Neocryphus Nunberg, 1956, Stegomerus Wood, 1967, and TrypolepisBright, 2019 are transferred to Corthylini LeConte, 1876. Stephanopodius Schedl, 1963 is transferred to Xyloctonini Eichhoff, 1878. As a consequence of generic synonymy, the following new or resurrected combinations are proposed: Cosmoderes euonymi (Kurentsov, 1941) comb. nov.; Cryphalus aciculatus (Schedl, 1939) comb. nov.; Cryphalus afiamalus (Schedl, 1951) comb. nov.; Cryphalus angustior Eggers, 1927 comb. res.; Cryphalus asper (Broun, 1881) comb. nov.; Cryphalus bakeri (Eggers, 1927) comb. nov.; Cryphalus basihirtusBeeson, 1929comb. nov.; Cryphalus bidentatus (Browne, 1980) comb. nov.; Cryphalus brevior (Schedl, 1943) comb. nov.; Cryphalus carinatus (Browne, 1980) comb. nov.; Cryphalus confusus (Hopkins, 1915) comb. nov.; Cryphalus corpulentus (Schedl, 1942) comb. nov.; Cryphalus cylindripennis (Schedl, 1959) comb. nov.; Cryphalus cylindrus (Browne, 1950) comb. nov.; Cryphalus densepilosus (Schedl, 1942) comb. nov.; Cryphalus dilutus Eichhoff, 1878 comb. res.; Cryphalus discrepans (Schedl, 1965) comb. nov.; Cryphalus discretus Eichhoff, 1878 comb. res.; Cryphalus erythrinae (Hopkins, 1915) comb. nov.; Cryphalus fici (Browne, 1986) comb. nov.; Cryphalus glabratus (Schedl, 1959) comb. nov.; Cryphalus granulatus (Schedl, 1942) comb. nov.; Cryphalus imitans (Schedl, 1951) comb. nov.; Cryphalus interponens (Schedl, 1953) comb. nov.; Cryphalus kalambanganus (Schedl, 1943) comb. nov.; Cryphalus laevis (Browne, 1980) comb. nov.; Cryphalus laticollis (Browne, 1974) comb. nov.; Cryphalus longipennis (Browne, 1970) comb. nov.; Cryphalus longipilis (Browne, 1981) comb. nov.; Cryphalus magnus (Browne, 1984) comb. nov.; Cryphalus malayensis (Schedl, 1942) comb. nov.; Cryphalus mangiferaeStebbing, 1914comb. res.; Cryphalus margadilaonis (Hopkins, 1915) comb. nov.; Cryphalus mindoroensis (Schedl, 1943) comb. nov.; Cryphalus minor (Schedl, 1943) comb. nov.; Cryphalus minutus (Hopkins, 1915) comb. nov.; Cryphalus mollis Schedl, 1955 comb. res.; Cryphalus moorei (Schedl, 1964) comb. nov.; Cryphalus nigrosetosus (Schedl, 1948) comb. nov.; Cryphalus nitidicollis (Schedl, 1975) comb. nov.; Cryphalus obscurus (Hopkins, 1915) comb. nov.; Cryphalus ovalicollis (Schedl, 1942) comb. nov.; Cryphalus papuanus (Schedl, 1973) comb. nov.; Cryphalus piliger (Schedl, 1975) comb. nov.; Cryphalus polynesiae (Schedl, 1979) comb. nov.; Cryphalus quadrituberculatus (Schedl, 1963) comb. nov.; Cryphalus reflexus (Browne, 1980) comb. nov.; Cryphalus robustus Eichhoff, 1872 comb. res.; Cryphalus rotundus (Hopkins, 1915) comb. nov.; Cryphalus sandakanensis Schedl, 1937 comb. res.; Cryphalus spathulatus (Schedl, 1938) comb. nov.; Cryphalus striatulus (Browne, 1978) comb. nov.; Cryphalus striatus (Hopkins, 1915) comb. nov.; Cryphalus sumatranus (Schedl, 1939) comb. nov.; Cryphalus triangularis (Schedl, 1975) comb. nov.; Cryphalus tutuilaensis (Schedl, 1951) comb. nov.; Eidophelus absonus (Schedl, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus afer (Schedl, 1970) comb. nov.; Eidophelus africanus (Schedl, 1977) comb. nov.; Eidophelus aitutakii (Beaver and Maddison, 1990) comb. nov.; Eidophelus alniphagus (Nobuchi, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus alternans (Schedl, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus amanicus (Eggers, 1919) comb. nov.; Eidophelus ankius (Schedl, 1979) comb. nov.; Eidophelus apicalis (Schedl, 1971) comb. nov.; Eidophelus approximatus (Schedl, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus aspericollis (Eichhoff, 1878) comb. nov.; Eidophelus ater (Eggers, 1923) comb. nov.; Eidophelus australis (Schedl, 1942) comb. nov.; Eidophelus badius (Nobuchi, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus bambusae (Browne, 1983) comb. nov.; Eidophelus bangensis (Eggers, 1927) comb. nov.; Eidophelus basilaris (Wood, 1960) comb. nov.; Eidophelus birosimensis (Murayama, 1958) comb. nov.; Eidophelus braderi (Browne, 1965) comb. nov.; Eidophelus brimblecombei (Schedl, 1972) comb. nov.; Eidophelus buruensis (Eggers, 1926) comb. nov.; Eidophelus camelliae (Nobuchi, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus candidus (Nobuchi, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus capucinus (Schedl, 1971) comb. nov.; Eidophelus caucasicus (Lindemann, 1877) comb. nov.; Eidophelus ceylonicus (Schedl, 1959) comb. nov.; Eidophelus cicatricosus (Schedl, 1942) comb. nov.; Eidophelus coccotrypanoides (Schedl, 1939) comb. nov.; Eidophelus communis (Schaufuss, 1891) comb. nov.; Eidophelus confragosus (Sampson, 1914) comb. nov.; Eidophelus corni (Kurentsov, 1941) comb. nov.; Eidophelus corpulentus (Schedl, 1965) comb. nov.; Eidophelus corrugatus (Schedl, 1950) comb. nov.; Eidophelus creber (Schedl, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus crenatus (Sampson, 1914) comb. nov.; Eidophelus cylindricus (Schedl, 1959) comb. nov.; Eidophelus darwini (Eichhoff, 1878) comb. nov.; Eidophelus devius (Schedl, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus dubiosus (Wood, 1960) comb. nov.; Eidophelus eggersi (Schedl, 1962) comb. nov.; Eidophelus euphorbiae (Wood, 1980) comb. nov.; Eidophelus excellens (Schedl, 1979) comb. nov.; Eidophelus exiguus (Wood, 1980) comb. nov.; Eidophelus exilis (Yin, 2001) comb. nov.; Eidophelus eximius (Schedl, 1942) comb. nov.; Eidophelus expers (Blandford, 1894) comb. nov.; Eidophelus fagi (Fabricius, 1798) comb. nov.; Eidophelus fijianus (Schedl, 1950) comb. nov.; Eidophelus formosanus (Browne, 1981) comb. nov.; Eidophelus fugax (Schedl, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus fujisanus (Nobuchi, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus fulgens (Schedl, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus fulgidus (Schedl, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus fulvipennis (Nobuchi, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus ghanaensis (Schedl, 1977) comb. nov.; Eidophelus glabratus (Yin, 2001) comb. nov.; Eidophelus gracilis (Schedl, 1950) comb. nov.; Eidophelus granulatus (Wood, 1960) comb. nov.; Eidophelus grobleri (Schedl, 1962) comb. nov.; Eidophelus hirtus (Wood, 1974) comb. nov.; Eidophelus hobohmi (Schedl, 1955) comb. nov.; Eidophelus hylesinopsis (Schedl, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus incultus (Yin, 2001) comb. nov.; Eidophelus indicus (Wood, 1989) comb. nov.; Eidophelus insularis (Nobuchi, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus insularum (Krivolutskaya, 1968) comb. nov.; Eidophelus jalappae (Letzner, 1849) comb. nov.; Eidophelus javanus (Schedl, 1942) comb. nov.; Eidophelus kanawhae (Hopkins, 1915) comb. nov.; Eidophelus landolphiae (Schedl, 1961) comb. nov.; Eidophelus leprosulus (Browne, 1974) comb. nov.; Eidophelus longipennis (Eggers, 1936) comb. nov.; Eidophelus magnocularis (Yin, 2001) comb. nov.; Eidophelus marquesanus (Beeson, 1935) comb. nov.; Eidophelus mauritianus (Schedl, 1965) comb. nov.; Eidophelus micans (Eggers, 1927) comb. nov.; Eidophelus minor (Eggers, 1927) comb. nov.; Eidophelus minutissimus (Schedl, 1943) comb. nov.; Eidophelus mus (Schedl, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus nanulus (Wood, 1960) comb. nov.; Eidophelus nigellatus (Schedl, 1950) comb. nov.; Eidophelus nubilus (Wood, 1960) comb. nov.; Eidophelus ocularis (Schedl, 1965) comb. nov.; Eidophelus onyanganus (Schedl, 1941) comb. nov.; Eidophelus opacus (Schedl, 1959) comb. nov.; Eidophelus pacificus (Schedl, 1941) comb. nov.; Eidophelus papuanus (Schedl, 1974) comb. nov.; Eidophelus papuensis (Wood, 1989) comb. nov.; Eidophelus paradoxus (Wood, 1992) comb. nov.; Eidophelus parvus (Hopkins, 1915) comb. nov.; Eidophelus pityophthorinus (Schedl, 1943) comb. nov.; Eidophelus pleiocarpae (Schedl, 1957) comb. nov.; Eidophelus polisquamosus (Yin, 2001) comb. nov.; Eidophelus praeda (Browne, 1978) comb. nov.; Eidophelus puerarae (Choo and Woo, 1989) comb. nov.; Eidophelus pumilionides (Schedl, 1977) comb. nov.; Eidophelus pumilus (Wood, 1960) comb. nov.; Eidophelus punctatulus (Nobuchi, 1976) comb. nov.; Eidophelus punctatus (Schedl, 1951) comb. nov.; Eidophelus puncticollis (Schedl, 1950) comb. nov.; Eidophelus pygmaeolus (Schedl, 1971) comb. nov.; Eidophelus quadridens (Browne, 1983) comb. nov.; Eidophelus ramosus (Beeson, 1935) comb. nov.; Eidophelus robustus (Schedl, 1955) comb. nov.; Eidophelus rugosus (Schedl, 1943) comb. nov.; Eidophelus rusticus (Wood, 1974) comb. nov.; Eidophelus semenovi (Kurentsov, 1941) comb. nov.; Eidophelus separandus (Schedl, 1965) comb. nov.; Eidophelus setifer (Wood, 1974) comb. nov.; Eidophelus sodalis (Schedl, 1965) comb. nov.; Eidophelus spessivtzevi (Berger, 1917) comb. nov.; Eidophelus spirostachius (Schedl, 1958) comb. nov.; Eidophelus splendens (Schedl, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus squamatilis (Schedl, 1977) comb. nov.; Eidophelus squamosus (Schedl, 1942) comb. nov.; Eidophelus squamulosus (Eggers, 1936) comb. nov.; Eidophelus stephegynis (Hopkins, 1915) comb. nov.; Eidophelus takahashii (Nobuchi, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus tarawai (Beaver, 1990) comb. nov.; Eidophelus tonsus (Schedl, 1969) comb. nov.; Eidophelus tricolor (Lea, 1910) comb. nov.; Eidophelus trucis (Wood, 1974) comb. nov.; Eidophelus uncatus (Schedl, 1971) comb. nov.; Eidophelus usagaricus (Eggers, 1922) comb. nov.; Eidophelus varius (Schedl, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus venustus (Schedl, 1953) comb. nov.; Eidophelus yunnanensis (Yin, 2001) comb. nov.; Eidophelus zachvatkini (Krivolutskaya, 1958) comb. nov.; Ernoporus corpulentus (Sampson, 1919) comb. nov.; Ernoporus exquisitus (Bright, 2019) comb. nov.; Ernoporus guiboutiae (Schedl, 1957) comb. nov.; Ernoporus minutus (Bright and Torres, 2006) comb. nov.; Hypothenemus attenuatus (Eggers, 1935) comb. nov.; Hypothenemus loranthus (Schedl, 1942) comb. nov.; Hypothenemus novateutonicus (Schedl, 1951) comb. nov.; Hypothenemus pullus (Wood, 1971) comb. nov. Following assessment of diagnostic characters, the following species were transferred to a different genus: Afrocosmoderes madagascariensis Schedl, 1961 comb. nov.; Afrocosmoderes caplandicus (Schedl, 1965) comb. nov.; Afrocosmoderes grobleri (Schedl, 1961) comb. nov.; Afrocosmoderes niger (Schedl, 1961) comb. nov.; Afrocosmoderes pellitus (Schedl, 1953) comb. nov.; Afrocosmoderes pennatus (Schedl, 1953) comb. nov.; Eidophelus concentralis (Schedl, 1975) comb. nov.; Eidophelus inermis (Browne, 1984) comb. nov.; Eidophelus insignis (Browne, 1984) comb. nov.; Eidophelus kinabaluensis (Bright, 1992) comb. nov.; Eidophelus philippinensis (Schedl, 1967) comb. nov.; Eidophelus podocarpi (Bright, 1992) comb. nov.; Ernoporus imitatrix (Schedl, 1977) comb. nov.; Ernoporus minor (Schedl, 1942) comb. nov.; Ernoporus parvulus (Eggers, 1943) comb. nov.; Indocryphalus sericeus (Schedl, 1942) comb. nov.; Macrocryphalus elongatus (Schedl, 1965) comb. nov.; Macrocryphalus punctipennis (Schedl, 1965) comb. nov.; Microcosmoderes shoreae (Schedl, 1953) comb. nov.; Stegomerus parvatis (Wood, 1974) comb. nov.; Stephanopodius dubiosus (Schedl, 1970) comb. nov. Twenty-nine secondary homonyms were created following genus synonymy, and are designated replacement names: Afrocosmoderes schedli Johnson nom. nov. (=Euptilius madagascariensis Schedl, 1963 syn. nov.); Cryphalus amplicollis Johnson nom. nov. (=Cryphalus laticollis Browne, 1984 syn. nov.); Cryphalus eggersi Johnson nom. nov. (=Cryphalus confusus Eggers, 1927 syn. nov.); Cryphalus fuscus Johnson nom. nov. (=Cryphalus cylindrus Browne, 1984 syn. nov.); Cryphalus gracilis Johnson nom. nov. (=Cryphalus laevis Browne, 1984 syn. nov.); Cryphalus luteus Johnson nom. nov. (=Margadillius fulvus Browne, 1984 syn. nov.); Cryphalus minusculus Johnson nom. nov. (=Hypocryphalus minutus Browne, 1980 syn. nov.); Cryphalus ozopemoides Johnson nom. nov. (=Hypocryphalus montanusSchedl, 1974syn. nov.); Cryphalus pellicius Johnson nom. nov. (=Hypocryphalus pilifer Schedl, 1979 syn. nov.); Cryphalus punctistriatulus Johnson nom. nov. (=Cryphalus striatulusBrowne, 1981syn. nov.); Cryphalus schedli Johnson nom. nov. (=Hypocryphalus formosanus Schedl, 1952 syn. nov.); Cryphalus solomonensis Johnson nom. nov. (=Margadillius terminaliae Browne, 1984 syn. nov.); Cryphalus spissepilosus Johnson nom. nov. (=Cryphalus densepilosusSchedl, 1943syn. nov.); Cryphalus storckiellae Johnson nom. nov. (=Cryphalus striatusBrowne, 1974syn. nov.); Cryphalus takahashii Johnson nom. nov. (=Euptilius exiguus Browne, 1984 syn. nov.); Eidophelus alstoniae Johnson nom. nov. (=Chiloxylon sumatranus Schedl, 1970 syn. nov.); Eidophelus brighti Johnson nom. nov. (=Hemicryphalus minutusBright, 1992syn. nov.); Eidophelus brownei Johnson nom. nov. (=Euptilius papuanus Browne, 1983 syn. nov.); Eidophelus furvus Johnson nom. nov. (=Cryphalophilus ater Schedl, 1972 syn. nov.); Eidophelus levis Johnson nom. nov. (=Eidophelus gracilis Browne, 1984 syn. nov.); Eidophelus lucidus Johnson nom. nov. (=Lepicerinus pacificus Schedl, 1959 syn. nov.); Eidophelus minusculus Johnson nom. nov. (=Eidophelus minutissimus Schedl, 1962 syn. nov.); Eidophelus niger Johnson nom. nov. (=Ernoporicus aterNobuchi, 1975syn. nov.); Eidophelus parvulus Johnson nom. nov. (=Cryphalus parvus Browne, 1984 syn. nov.); Eidophelus rhododendri Johnson nom. nov. (=Hemicryphalus squamosusBright, 1992syn. nov.); Eidophelus schedli Johnson nom. nov. (=Cryphalomorphus ceylonicus Schedl, 1959 syn. nov.); Eidophelus yinae Johnson nom. nov. (=Scolytogenes venustusYin, 2001syn. nov.); Hypothenemus marginatus Johnson nom. nov. (=Periocryphalus sobrinus Wood, 1974 syn. nov.); Hypothenemus squamosulus Johnson nom. nov. (=Ptilopodius squamosus Schedl, 1953 syn. nov.). Two replacement names are now unnecessary: Cryphalus striatulus (Browne, 1978) stat. res. (=Hypothenemus browneiBeaver, 1991syn. nov.); Macrocryphalus oblongusNobuchi, 1981stat. res. (=Hypothenemus nobuchiiKnížek, 2011syn. nov.). We also acknowledge the original description of several species by Eichhoff, 1878a which have been widely referenced as a later description (Eichhoff, 1878b). The following taxonomic changes are provided to acknowledge the changes: Cryphalus horridusEichhoff, 1878a (=Cryphalus horridusEichhoff, 1878bsyn. nov); Cryphalus numidicusEichhoff, 1878a (=Cryphalus numidicusEichhoff, 1878bsyn. nov); Cryphalus submuricatusEichhoff, 1878a (=Cryphalus submuricatusEichhoff, 1878bsyn. nov); Eidophelus aspericollis (Eichhoff, 1878a) (=Eidophelus aspericollisEichhoff, 1878bsyn. nov); Hypothenemus arundinis (Eichhoff, 1878a) (=Hypothenemus arundinisEichhoff, 1878bsyn. nov); Hypothenemus birmanus (Eichhoff, 1878a) (=Hypothenemus birmanusEichhoff, 1878bsyn. nov); Hypothenemus fuscicollis (Eichhoff, 1878a) (=Hypothenemus fuscicollisEichhoff, 1878bsyn. nov); Hypothenemus rotundicollis (Eichhoff, 1878a) (=Hypothenemus rotundicollisEichhoff, 1878bsyn. nov). Subjective species-level changes are minimal. The following synonymies are proposed: Cryphalus papuanus (Schedl, 1973) (=Ernoporus antennariusSchedl, 1974syn. nov.); Eidophelus concentralis (Schedl, 1975) (=Margadillius concentralis Schedl, 1975 syn. nov.). A neotype for Periocryphalus sobrinus Wood, 1974 and its replacement name Hypothenemus marginatusnom. nov. is designated at USNM due to the holotype being lost and replaced with a different species.

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

Biology teaches us that organisms adapt—or don’t; sociology claims that people adapt—or don’t. We know that ideas can adapt; sometimes even institutions can adapt. Or not. Various papers in this issue attest in exciting ways to precisely such adaptations and maladaptations. (See, for example, the articles in this issue by Lelia Green, Leesa Bonniface, and Tami McMahon, by Lexey A. Bartlett, and by Debra Ferreday.) Adaptation is a part of nature and culture, but it’s the latter alone that interests me here. (However, see the article by Hutcheon and Bortolotti for a discussion of nature and culture together.) It’s no news to anyone that not only adaptations, but all art is bred of other art, though sometimes artists seem to get carried away. My favourite example of excess of association or attribution can be found in the acknowledgements page to a verse drama called Beatrice Chancy by the self-defined “maximalist” (not minimalist) poet, novelist, librettist, and critic, George Elliot Clarke. His selected list of the incarnations of the story of Beatrice Cenci, a sixteenth-century Italian noblewoman put to death for the murder of her father, includes dramas, romances, chronicles, screenplays, parodies, sculptures, photographs, and operas: dramas by Vincenzo Pieracci (1816), Percy Bysshe Shelley (1819), Juliusz Slowacki (1843), Waldter Landor (1851), Antonin Artaud (1935) and Alberto Moravia (1958); the romances by Francesco Guerrazi (1854), Henri Pierangeli (1933), Philip Lindsay (1940), Frederic Prokosch (1955) and Susanne Kircher (1976); the chronicles by Stendhal (1839), Mary Shelley (1839), Alexandre Dumas, père (1939-40), Robert Browning (1864), Charles Swinburne (1883), Corrado Ricci (1923), Sir Lionel Cust (1929), Kurt Pfister (1946) and Irene Mitchell (1991); the film/screenplay by Bertrand Tavernier and Colo O’Hagan (1988); the parody by Kathy Acker (1993); the sculpture by Harriet Hosmer (1857); the photograph by Julia Ward Cameron (1866); and the operas by Guido Pannain (1942), Berthold Goldschmidt (1951, 1995) and Havergal Brian (1962). (Beatrice Chancy, 152) He concludes the list with: “These creators have dallied with Beatrice Cenci, but I have committed indiscretions” (152). An “intertextual feast”, by Clarke’s own admission, this rewriting of Beatrice’s story—especially Percy Bysshe Shelley’s own verse play, The Cenci—illustrates brilliantly what Northrop Frye offered as the first principle of the production of literature: “literature can only derive its form from itself” (15). But in the last several decades, what has come to be called intertextuality theory has shifted thinking away from looking at this phenomenon from the point of view of authorial influences on the writing of literature (and works like Harold Bloom’s famous study of the Anxiety of Influence) and toward considering our readerly associations with literature, the connections we (not the author) make—as we read. We, the readers, have become “empowered”, as we say, and we’ve become the object of academic study in our own right. Among the many associations we inevitably make, as readers, is with adaptations of the literature we read, be it of Jane Austin novels or Beowulf. Some of us may have seen the 2006 rock opera of Beowulf done by the Irish Repertory Theatre; others await the new Neil Gaiman animated film. Some may have played the Beowulf videogame. I personally plan to miss the upcoming updated version that makes Beowulf into the son of an African explorer. But I did see Sturla Gunnarsson’s Beowulf and Grendel film, and yearned to see the comic opera at the Lincoln Centre Festival in 2006 called Grendel, the Transcendence of the Great Big Bad. I am not really interested in whether these adaptations—all in the last year or so—signify Hollywood’s need for a new “monster of the week” or are just the sign of a desire to cash in on the success of The Lord of the Rings. For all I know they might well act as an ethical reminder of the human in the alien in a time of global strife (see McGee, A4). What interests me is the impact these multiple adaptations can have on the reader of literature as well as on the production of literature. Literature, like painting, is usually thought of as what Nelson Goodman (114) calls a one-stage art form: what we read (like what we see on a canvas) is what is put there by the originating artist. Several major consequences follow from this view. First, the implication is that the work is thus an original and new creation by that artist. However, even the most original of novelists—like Salman Rushdie—are the first to tell you that stories get told and retold over and over. Indeed his controversial novel, The Satanic Verses, takes this as a major theme. Works like the Thousand and One Nights are crucial references in all of his work. As he writes in Haroun and the Sea of Stories: “no story comes from nowhere; new stories are born of old” (86). But illusion of originality is only one of the implications of seeing literature as a one-stage art form. Another is the assumption that what the writer put on paper is what we read. But entire doctoral programs in literary production and book history have been set up to study how this is not the case, in fact. Editors influence, even change, what authors want to write. Designers control how we literally see the work of literature. Beatrice Chancy’s bookend maps of historical Acadia literally frame how we read the historical story of the title’s mixed-race offspring of an African slave and a white slave owner in colonial Nova Scotia in 1801. Media interest or fashion or academic ideological focus may provoke a publisher to foreground in the physical presentation different elements of a text like this—its stress on race, or gender, or sexuality. The fact that its author won Canada’s Governor General’s Award for poetry might mean that the fact that this is a verse play is emphasised. If the book goes into a second edition, will a new preface get added, changing the framework for the reader once again? As Katherine Larson has convincingly shown, the paratextual elements that surround a work of literature like this one become a major site of meaning generation. What if literature were not a one-stage an art form at all? What if it were, rather, what Goodman calls “two-stage” (114)? What if we accept that other artists, other creators, are needed to bring it to life—editors, publishers, and indeed readers? In a very real and literal sense, from our (audience) point of view, there may be no such thing as a one-stage art work. Just as the experience of literature is made possible for readers by the writer, in conjunction with a team of professional and creative people, so, arguably all art needs its audience to be art; the un-interpreted, un-experienced art work is not worth calling art. Goodman resists this move to considering literature a two-stage art, not at all sure that readings are end products the way that performance works are (114). Plays, films, television shows, or operas would be his prime examples of two-stage arts. In each of these, a text (a playtext, a screenplay, a score, a libretto) is moved from page to stage or screen and given life, by an entire team of creative individuals: directors, actors, designers, musicians, and so on. Literary adaptations to the screen or stage are usually considered as yet another form of this kind of transcription or transposition of a written text to a performance medium. But the verbal move from the “book” to the diminutive “libretto” (in Italian, little book or booklet) is indicative of a view that sees adaptation as a step downward, a move away from a primary literary “source”. In fact, an entire negative rhetoric of “infidelity” has developed in both journalistic reviewing and academic discourse about adaptations, and it is a morally loaded rhetoric that I find surprising in its intensity. Here is the wonderfully critical description of that rhetoric by the king of film adaptation critics, Robert Stam: Terms like “infidelity,” “betrayal,” “deformation,” “violation,” “bastardisation,” “vulgarisation,” and “desecration” proliferate in adaptation discourse, each word carrying its specific charge of opprobrium. “Infidelity” carries overtones of Victorian prudishness; “betrayal” evokes ethical perfidy; “bastardisation” connotes illegitimacy; “deformation” implies aesthetic disgust and monstrosity; “violation” calls to mind sexual violence; “vulgarisation” conjures up class degradation; and “desecration” intimates religious sacrilege and blasphemy. (3) I join many others today, like Stam, in challenging the persistence of this fidelity discourse in adaptation studies, thereby providing yet another example of what, in his article here called “The Persistence of Fidelity: Adaptation Theory Today,” John Connor has called the “fidelity reflex”—the call to end an obsession with fidelity as the sole criterion for judging the success of an adaptation. But here I want to come at this same issue of the relation of adaptation to the adapted text from another angle. When considering an adaptation of a literary work, there are other reasons why the literary “source” text might be privileged. Literature has historical priority as an art form, Stam claims, and so in some people’s eyes will always be superior to other forms. But does it actually have priority? What about even earlier performative forms like ritual and song? Or to look forward, instead of back, as Tim Barker urges us to do in his article here, what about the new media’s additions to our repertoire with the advent of electronic technology? How can we retain this hierarchy of artistic forms—with literature inevitably on top—in a world like ours today? How can both the Romantic ideology of original genius and the capitalist notion of individual authorship hold up in the face of the complex reality of the production of literature today (as well as in the past)? (In “Amen to That: Sampling and Adapting the Past”, Steve Collins shows how digital technology has changed the possibilities of musical creativity in adapting/sampling.) Like many other ages before our own, adaptation is rampant today, as director Spike Jonze and screenwriter Charlie Kaufman clearly realised in creating Adaptation, their meta-cinematic illustration-as-send-up film about adaptation. But rarely has a culture denigrated the adapter as a secondary and derivative creator as much as we do the screenwriter today—as Jonze explores with great irony. Michelle McMerrin and Sergio Rizzo helpfully explain in their pieces here that one of the reasons for this is the strength of auteur theory in film criticism. But we live in a world in which works of literature have been turned into more than films. We now have literary adaptations in the forms of interactive new media works and videogames; we have theme parks; and of course, we have the more common television series, radio and stage plays, musicals, dance works, and operas. And, of course, we now have novelisations of films—and they are not given the respect that originary novels are given: it is the adaptation as adaptation that is denigrated, as Deborah Allison shows in “Film/Print: Novelisations and Capricorn One”. Adaptations across media are inevitably fraught, and for complex and multiple reasons. The financing and distribution issues of these widely different media alone inevitably challenge older capitalist models. The need or desire to appeal to a global market has consequences for adaptations of literature, especially with regard to its regional and historical specificities. These particularities are what usually get adapted or “indigenised” for new audiences—be they the particularities of the Spanish gypsy Carmen (see Ioana Furnica, “Subverting the ‘Good, Old Tune’”), those of the Japanese samurai genre (see Kevin P. Eubanks, “Becoming-Samurai: Samurai [Films], Kung-Fu [Flicks] and Hip-Hop [Soundtracks]”), of American hip hop graffiti (see Kara-Jane Lombard, “‘To Us Writers, the Differences Are Obvious’: The Adaptation of Hip Hop Graffiti to an Australian Context”) or of Jane Austen’s fiction (see Suchitra Mathur, “From British ‘Pride’ to Indian ‘Bride’: Mapping the Contours of a Globalised (Post?)Colonialism”). What happens to the literary text that is being adapted, often multiple times? Rather than being displaced by the adaptation (as is often feared), it most frequently gets a new life: new editions of the book appear, with stills from the movie adaptation on its cover. But if I buy and read the book after seeing the movie, I read it differently than I would have before I had seen the film: in effect, the book, not the adaptation, has become the second and even secondary text for me. And as I read, I can only “see” characters as imagined by the director of the film; the cinematic version has taken over, has even colonised, my reader’s imagination. The literary “source” text, in my readerly, experiential terms, becomes the secondary work. It exists on an experiential continuum, in other words, with its adaptations. It may have been created before, but I only came to know it after. What if I have read the literary work first, and then see the movie? In my imagination, I have already cast the characters: I know what Gabriel and Gretta Conroy of James Joyce’s story, “The Dead,” look and sound like—in my imagination, at least. Then along comes John Huston’s lush period piece cinematic adaptation and the director superimposes his vision upon mine; his forcibly replaces mine. But, in this particular case, Huston still arguably needs my imagination, or at least my memory—though he may not have realised it fully in making the film. When, in a central scene in the narrative, Gabriel watches his wife listening, moved, to the singing of the Irish song, “The Lass of Aughrim,” what we see on screen is a concerned, intrigued, but in the end rather blank face: Gabriel doesn’t alter his expression as he listens and watches. His expression may not change—but I know exactly what he is thinking. Huston does not tell us; indeed, without the use of voice-over, he cannot. And since the song itself is important, voice-over is impossible. But I know exactly what he is thinking: I’ve read the book. I fill in the blank, so to speak. Gabriel looks at Gretta and thinks: There was grace and mystery in her attitude as if she were a symbol of something. He asked himself what is a woman standing on the stairs in the shadow, listening to distant music, a symbol of. If he were a painter he would paint her in that attitude. … Distant Music he would call the picture if he were a painter. (210) A few pages later the narrator will tell us: At last she turned towards them and Gabriel saw that there was colour on her cheeks and that her eyes were shining. A sudden tide of joy went leaping out of his heart. (212) This joy, of course, puts him in a very different—disastrously different—state of mind than his wife, who (we later learn) is remembering a young man who sang that song to her when she was a girl—and who died, for love of her. I know this—because I’ve read the book. Watching the movie, I interpret Gabriel’s blank expression in this knowledge. Just as the director’s vision can colonise my visual and aural imagination, so too can I, as reader, supplement the film’s silence with the literary text’s inner knowledge. The question, of course, is: should I have to do so? Because I have read the book, I will. But what if I haven’t read the book? Will I substitute my own ideas, from what I’ve seen in the rest of the film, or from what I’ve experienced in my own life? Filmmakers always have to deal with this problem, of course, since the camera is resolutely externalising, and actors must reveal their inner worlds through bodily gesture or facial expression for the camera to record and for the spectator to witness and comprehend. But film is not only a visual medium: it uses music and sound, and it also uses words—spoken words within the dramatic situation, words overheard on the street, on television, but also voice-over words, spoken by a narrating figure. Stephen Dedalus escapes from Ireland at the end of Joseph Strick’s 1978 adaptation of Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man with the same words as he does in the novel, where they appear as Stephen’s diary entry: Amen. So be it. Welcome, O life! I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race. … Old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead. (253) The words from the novel also belong to the film as film, with its very different story, less about an artist than about a young Irishman finally able to escape his family, his religion and his country. What’s deliberately NOT in the movie is the irony of Joyce’s final, benign-looking textual signal to his reader: Dublin, 1904 Trieste, 1914 The first date is the time of Stephen’s leaving Dublin—and the time of his return, as we know from the novel Ulysses, the sequel, if you like, to this novel. The escape was short-lived! Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man has an ironic structure that has primed its readers to expect not escape and triumph but something else. Each chapter of the novel has ended on this kind of personal triumphant high; the next has ironically opened with Stephen mired in the mundane and in failure. Stephen’s final words in both film and novel remind us that he really is an Icarus figure, following his “Old father, old artificer”, his namesake, Daedalus. And Icarus, we recall, takes a tumble. In the novel version, we are reminded that this is the portrait of the artist “as a young man”—later, in 1914, from the distance of Trieste (to which he has escaped) Joyce, writing this story, could take some ironic distance from his earlier persona. There is no such distance in the film version. However, it stands alone, on its own; Joyce’s irony is not appropriate in Strick’s vision. His is a different work, with its own message and its own, considerably more romantic and less ironic power. Literary adaptations are their own things—inspired by, based on an adapted text but something different, something other. I want to argue that these works adapted from literature are now part of our readerly experience of that literature, and for that reason deserve the same attention we give to the literary, and not only the same attention, but also the same respect. I am a literarily trained person. People like me who love words, already love plays, but shouldn’t we also love films—and operas, and musicals, and even videogames? There is no need to denigrate words that are heard (and visualised) in order to privilege words that are read. Works of literature can have afterlives in their adaptations and translations, just as they have pre-lives, in terms of influences and models, as George Eliot Clarke openly allows in those acknowledgements to Beatrice Chancy. I want to return to that Canadian work, because it raises for me many of the issues about adaptation and language that I see at the core of our literary distrust of the move away from the written, printed text. I ended my recent book on adaptation with a brief examination of this work, but I didn’t deal with this particular issue of language. So I want to return to it, as to unfinished business. Clarke is, by the way, clear in the verse drama as well as in articles and interviews that among the many intertexts to Beatrice Chancy, the most important are slave narratives, especially one called Celia, a Slave, and Shelley’s play, The Cenci. Both are stories of mistreated and subordinated women who fight back. Since Clarke himself has written at length about the slave narratives, I’m going to concentrate here on Shelley’s The Cenci. The distance from Shelley’s verse play to Clarke’s verse play is a temporal one, but it is also geographic and ideological one: from the old to the new world, and from a European to what Clarke calls an “Africadian” (African Canadian/African Acadian) perspective. Yet both poets were writing political protest plays against unjust authority and despotic power. And they have both become plays that are more read than performed—a sad fate, according to Clarke, for two works that are so concerned with voice. We know that Shelley sought to calibrate the stylistic registers of his work with various dramatic characters and effects to create a modern “mixed” style that was both a return to the ancients and offered a new drama of great range and flexibility where the expression fits what is being expressed (see Bruhn). His polemic against eighteenth-century European dramatic conventions has been seen as leading the way for realist drama later in the nineteenth century, with what has been called its “mixed style mimesis” (Bruhn) Clarke’s adaptation does not aim for Shelley’s perfect linguistic decorum. It mixes the elevated and the biblical with the idiomatic and the sensual—even the vulgar—the lushly poetic with the coarsely powerful. But perhaps Shelley’s idea of appropriate language fits, after all: Beatrice Chancy is a woman of mixed blood—the child of a slave woman and her slave owner; she has been educated by her white father in a convent school. Sometimes that educated, elevated discourse is heard; at other times, she uses the variety of discourses operative within slave society—from religious to colloquial. But all the time, words count—as in all printed and oral literature. Clarke’s verse drama was given a staged reading in Toronto in 1997, but the story’s, if not the book’s, real second life came when it was used as the basis for an opera libretto. Actually the libretto commission came first (from Queen of Puddings Theatre in Toronto), and Clarke started writing what was to be his first of many opera texts. Constantly frustrated by the art form’s demands for concision, he found himself writing two texts at once—a short libretto and a longer, five-act tragic verse play to be published separately. Since it takes considerably longer to sing than to speak (or read) a line of text, the composer James Rolfe keep asking for cuts—in the name of economy (too many singers), because of clarity of action for audience comprehension, or because of sheer length. Opera audiences have to sit in a theatre for a fixed length of time, unlike readers who can put a book down and return to it later. However, what was never sacrificed to length or to the demands of the music was the language. In fact, the double impact of the powerful mixed language and the equally potent music, increases the impact of the literary text when performed in its operatic adaptation. Here is the verse play version of the scene after Beatrice’s rape by her own father, Francis Chancey: I was black but comely. Don’t glance Upon me. This flesh is crumbling Like proved lies. I’m perfumed, ruddied Carrion. Assassinated. Screams of mucking juncos scrawled Over the chapel and my nerves, A stickiness, as when he finished Maculating my thighs and dress. My eyes seep pus; I can’t walk: the floors Are tizzy, dented by stout mauling. Suddenly I would like poison. The flesh limps from my spine. My inlets crimp. Vultures flutter, ghastly, without meaning. I can see lice swarming the air. … His scythe went shick shick shick and slashed My flowers; they lay, murdered, in heaps. (90) The biblical and the violent meet in the texture of the language. And none of that power gets lost in the opera adaptation, despite cuts and alterations for easier aural comprehension. I was black but comely. Don’t look Upon me: this flesh is dying. I’m perfumed, bleeding carrion, My eyes weep pus, my womb’s sopping With tears; I can hardly walk: the floors Are tizzy, the sick walls tumbling, Crumbling like proved lies. His scythe went shick shick shick and cut My flowers; they lay in heaps, murdered. (95) Clarke has said that he feels the libretto is less “literary” in his words than the verse play, for it removes the lines of French, Latin, Spanish and Italian that pepper the play as part of the author’s critique of the highly educated planter class in Nova Scotia: their education did not guarantee ethical behaviour (“Adaptation” 14). I have not concentrated on the music of the opera, because I wanted to keep the focus on the language. But I should say that the Rolfe’s score is as historically grounded as Clarke’s libretto: it is rooted in African Canadian music (from ring shouts to spirituals to blues) and in Scottish fiddle music and local reels of the time, not to mention bel canto Italian opera. However, the music consciously links black and white traditions in a way that Clarke’s words and story refuse: they remain stubbornly separate, set in deliberate tension with the music’s resolution. Beatrice will murder her father, and, at the very moment that Nova Scotia slaves are liberated, she and her co-conspirators will be hanged for that murder. Unlike the printed verse drama, the shorter opera libretto functions like a screenplay, if you will. It is not so much an autonomous work unto itself, but it points toward a potential enactment or embodiment in performance. Yet, even there, Clarke cannot resist the lure of words—even though they are words that no audience will ever hear. The stage directions for Act 3, scene 2 of the opera read: “The garden. Slaves, sunflowers, stars, sparks” (98). The printed verse play is full of these poetic associative stage directions, suggesting that despite his protestations to the contrary, Clarke may have thought of that version as one meant to be read by the eye. After Beatrice’s rape, the stage directions read: “A violin mopes. Invisible shovelsful of dirt thud upon the scene—as if those present were being buried alive—like ourselves” (91). Our imaginations—and emotions—go to work, assisted by the poet’s associations. There are many such textual helpers—epigraphs, photographs, notes—that we do not have when we watch and listen to the opera. We do have the music, the staged drama, the colours and sounds as well as the words of the text. As Clarke puts the difference: “as a chamber opera, Beatrice Chancy has ascended to television broadcast. But as a closet drama, it play only within the reader’s head” (“Adaptation” 14). Clarke’s work of literature, his verse drama, is a “situated utterance, produced in one medium and in one historical and social context,” to use Robert Stam’s terms. In the opera version, it was transformed into another “equally situated utterance, produced in a different context and relayed through a different medium” (45-6). I want to argue that both are worthy of study and respect by wordsmiths, by people like me. I realise I’ve loaded the dice: here neither the verse play nor the libretto is primary; neither is really the “source” text, for they were written at the same time and by the same person. But for readers and audiences (my focus and interest here), they exist on a continuum—depending on which we happen to experience first. As Ilana Shiloh explores here, the same is true about the short story and film of Memento. I am not alone in wanting to mount a defence of adaptations. Julie Sanders ends her new book called Adaptation and Appropriation with these words: “Adaptation and appropriation … are, endlessly and wonderfully, about seeing things come back to us in as many forms as possible” (160). The storytelling imagination is an adaptive mechanism—whether manifesting itself in print or on stage or on screen. The study of the production of literature should, I would like to argue, include those other forms taken by that storytelling drive. If I can be forgiven a move to the amusing—but still serious—in concluding, Terry Pratchett puts it beautifully in his fantasy story, Witches Abroad: “Stories, great flapping ribbons of shaped space-time, have been blowing and uncoiling around the universe since the beginning of time. And they have evolved. The weakest have died and the strongest have survived and they have grown fat on the retelling.” In biology as in culture, adaptations reign. References Bloom, Harold. The Anxiety of Influence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975. Bruhn, Mark J. “’Prodigious Mixtures and Confusions Strange’: The Self-Subverting Mixed Style of The Cenci.” Poetics Today 22.4 (2001). Clarke, George Elliott. “Beatrice Chancy: A Libretto in Four Acts.” Canadian Theatre Review 96 (1998): 62-79. ———. Beatrice Chancy. Victoria, BC: Polestar, 1999. ———. “Adaptation: Love or Cannibalism? Some Personal Observations”, unpublished manuscript of article. Frye, Northrop. The Educated Imagination. Toronto: CBC, 1963. Goodman, Nelson. Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968. Hutcheon, Linda, and Gary R. Bortolotti. “On the Origin of Adaptations: Rethinking Fidelity Discourse and “Success”—Biologically.” New Literary History. Forthcoming. Joyce, James. Dubliners. 1916. New York: Viking, 1967. ———. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. 1916. Penguin: Harmondsworth, 1960. Larson, Katherine. “Resistance from the Margins in George Elliott Clarke’s Beatrice Chancy.” Canadian Literature 189 (2006): 103-118. McGee, Celia. “Beowulf on Demand.” New York Times, Arts and Leisure. 30 April 2006. A4. Rushdie, Salman. The Satanic Verses. New York: Viking, 1988. ———. Haroun and the Sea of Stories. London: Granta/Penguin, 1990. Sanders, Julie. Adaptation and Appropriation. London and New York: Routledge, 160. Shelley, Percy Bysshe. The Cenci. Ed. George Edward Woodberry. Boston and London: Heath, 1909. Stam, Robert. “Introduction: The Theory and Practice of Adaptation.” Literature and Film: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Film Adaptation. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. 1-52. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Hutcheon, Linda. "In Defence of Literary Adaptation as Cultural Production." M/C Journal 10.2 (2007). echo date('d M. Y'); ?> <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0705/01-hutcheon.php>. APA Style Hutcheon, L. (May 2007) "In Defence of Literary Adaptation as Cultural Production," M/C Journal, 10(2). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ?> from <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0705/01-hutcheon.php>.