Journal articles on the topic '1868-1947'

Résumé Léo-Jean Melanson (1868–1947) a participé, que ce soit directement ou indirectement, pendant une soixantaine d’années aux projets de construction les plus importants de la baie Sainte-Marie. Plusieurs églises ont été construites sous sa direction, ainsi que le Collège Sainte-Anne. Mais la construction de l’église Sainte-Marie de la Pointe-de-l’Église (1903–1905) a sans doute été le projet majeur de sa carrière.

At the end of his life when he was the Ethiopian ambassador in Italy, Afä-Wärq (1868–1947) published a short handbook of Amharic language for Italians. Several chronological cross-checkings make us sure that the book has been published in 1934 or 1936. But most probably we may trace back the grammatical and ideological contents to the beginning of this century. It shows that Afä-Wärq had kept fidelity to his first ideas in favour of a modern Ethiopia.

The type species of the genus Campsurus Eaton 1868, Campsurus latipennis (Walker 1853), is redescribed, and some historical problems about its identity are addressed; notably, specimens had been assigned to two different species almost since its description. The nymph of C. latipennis is described for the first time. The following species are redescribed and/or rediagnosed: C. cuyuniensis Traver 1947, C. essequibo Traver 1947, C. lucidus Needham & Murphy 1924, C. indivisus Ulmer 1942 (=C. duplicatus Spieth 1943 syn. nov., nymph described for the first time here), C. litaninensis Spieth 1943, and C. segnis Needham & Murphy 1924. Eleven new species of Campsurus are described and illustrated: C. salobra sp. nov. (based on male and female imagos), C. nessimiani sp. nov. (based on male imago and nymph), C. dasilvai sp. nov. (based on male imago), C. zunigae sp. nov. (=Campsurus sp. B Traver 1947; based on male imago and nymph), C. pereirae sp. nov. (based on male and female imagos), C. janae sp. nov. (based on male subimago), C. demeni sp. nov. (based on male imago), C. sinamari sp. nov. (based on male and female imagos), C. inusitatus sp. nov. (=Campsurus sp. D Traver 1947; based on male imago), C. cotaxe sp. nov. (based on male and female imagos), and C. povilla sp. nov. (based on male and female imagos, nymph). The unknown female adult of C. amapaensis Molineri & Emmerich 2010 is described for the first time. Campsurus vulturorum Emmerich & Molineri 2011 is reported from Brazil for the first time. A key to separate male imagos of species of Campsurus is provided.

Correction on the type depositories of some species of Cerambycidae, often reported as being in Museum of Stettin, Stettin, Poland (CMSP), are reported. The holotype of Quercivir dohrni Lameere, 1912 was located, and comments on it are provided. A forgotten correction on the type locality of Sypilus venturae Dohrn, 1882 is presented. Prionapterus staphilinus schaeferi Bosq, 1947 is transferred from synonymy with P. woltersi Bruch, 1925 to synonymy with P. staphilinus Guérin-Méneville, 1831. Sphecogaster biplagiatus Lacordaire, 1868 is formally synonymized with Sphecomorpha chalybea Newman, 1838, and notes on the holotype of Physopleurus dohrnii Lacordaire, 1869 are provided. Additionally, photographs of some Cerambycidae deposited in the Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Müncheberg, Germany (DEIC) collection are provided.

This paper explores the careers of several British women astronomers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. I postulate that the only category of scientific practice open to most of these women was that of an ‘amateur’. They would have become professionals had they had the opportunity but since they were barred from professional status they used their talents to promote the importance of amateur science. I propose the term ‘obligatory amateur’ for these women who, unlike men, were unable to choose amateur or professional status. I explore this concept of a ‘gendered’ amateurism through the life and works of Annie Maunder, with references to British women astronomers contemporary with her.

Abstract:In their grand narratives on the ancient history of religions, the Belgian historian of religions, Franz Cumont (1868 – 1947) and his French colleague and correspondent, Alfred Loisy (1857 – 1940) both assigned a prominent place to the so-called pagan mystery religions. This paper seeks to identify the specific theories of religion and the deeper motivations underpinning Cumont’s and Loisy’s historiographical construction of the mystery cults as a distinct type of religion within their evolutionary accounts of the history of religions. Through a comparative analysis of their rich correspondence (1908 – 1940) and a selection of their publications, we demonstrate how their historical studies of the religious transformations in the Roman Empire, their in-depth dialogues in the troubled times in which they lived, and their philosophical views on the overall history and future of religion, were in fact mutually constitutive.

A taxon, traditionally referred to the rank order, encompassing all recent taxa of caecilians and their close fossil relatives, is highly supported as holophyletic in all recent cladistic analyses of Amphibia. Under the Duplostensional Nomenclatural System, among 12 nomina available in the literature, only one, Gymnophiona Rafinesque, 1814, qualifies as a sozodiaphonym and should be used for this amphibian taxon. We show here that the authorship of this nomen, as well as of 32 other nomina published in 1814, is ‘Rafinesque’, not ‘Rafinesque-Schmaltz’. The nomen Apoda Oppel, 1811, that has often been used for this taxon, proves to be a distagmonym and a junior homonym of Apodes Linnaeus, 1758 and five other distagmonyms, and as such it is invalid under DONS. In total, we identified 34 distinct class-series nomina derived from the stems ἄπους (apous) or Apus in 13 distinct zoological groups, only two of which are valid under DONS Criteria: Apodiformia Wetmore, 1947, for the suborder of Aves currently known as Apodi Wetmore, 1947, and Apodomorpha Sibley, Ahlquist & Monroe, 1988 for the order of Aves currently known as Apodiformes Peters, 1940. Several other nomenclatural findings were made in the course of this study: [1] in the Teleostei, the nomina "Eupercaria" and "Syngnatharia", like all the other new nomina proposed in the paper by Betancur-R. et al. (2017) are anoplonyms and cannot be used as valid; [2] in the Mammalia, the nomina Cetus and Cetacea should be credited to Brisson (1759); [3] in the Holothuroidea, the nomen Apoda Claus, 1868, currently considered valid under the apograph Apodida, is invalid and should be replaced by the nomen Paractinopoda Ludwig, 1891; [4] in the Isopoda, the subordinal nomen Cymothoida Wägele, 1989 should be replaced by its senior synonym Darwinida Lakshminarayana & Rama Rao, 1977.

In this study we used dendrochronology to reconstruct the history of eastern spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.)) outbreaks over the last 450 years in the Bas-Saint-Laurent region of southeastern Quebec. In total, 260 tree cores were sampled from 204 beams in seven historic buildings and 12 trees in a virgin forest stand. Eight previously documented outbreaks (1975–1992, 1947–1958, 1914–1923, 1868–1882, 1832–1845, 1805–1812, 1752–1776, 1710–1724) and three presumed previous outbreaks (1678–1690, 1642–1648, 1577–1600) were identified based on periods of growth reduction. Of these 11 confirmed or presumed outbreaks, six were documented for the first time in eastern Quebec. Such data suggest that outbreak frequency has remained quite stable, with a mean interval of about 40 years between the midpoint of successive outbreaks since the mid-16th century. In addition, together with previous studies, our results indicate a strong spatial synchrony of spruce budworm outbreaks across central and eastern Quebec during the last 300 years. Consequently, our study does not support the hypothesis that spruce budworm outbreak frequency and synchrony increased during the 20th century.

The purpose of the research. This article analyses the main points of the legal teaching of the Australian jurist William Jethro Brown (1868-1930), which the authors of this study regard as forming one of the significant stages in the evolution of Anglo-American legal positivism. Along with his contemporaries, a New Zealand lawyer John William Salmond (1862-1924) and British jurists Thomas Erskine Holland (1835-1926) and John Mason Lightwood (1852-1947), Brown was among the first critics of the «command theory of law» of the founder of the analytical school of jurisprudence John Austin (1790-1859). The authors of this article prove that the ideas, including those of W. Brown, play the role of a link between the founders of the analytical school of law (J. Bentham, J. Austin), the teachings of William Markby, Sheldon Amos, and subsequent generations of English legal scholars of both positivist and neo-positivist direction. Many provisions of Brown's legal doctrine became the basis for criticism of Austin's command concept and legal understanding in the teachings of H. L. A. Hart, the central figure of English neopositivism of the 20th century. As a result of the research the authors conclude that there are comparative similarities between W. J. Brown's conception of «rules of external action», J. W. Salmond's idea of «ultimate legal principles» and H. L. A. Hart's legal doctrine on the «rule of recognition».

In 2018, the 150th anniversary of Leonid Mikhailovich Savelov (1868 – 1947), prominent scholar and organizer of science, is celebrated. When Savelov lived in Voronezh, he took an interest in archaeology. Studying of this sphere of his activities has been a starting point of the research that resulted in finding his letters addressed to Alexei Nikolayevich Nortsov stored in the State Archive of the Tambov Region. A. N. Nortsov (1859 – 1922) has been recently restored as a prominent scientist and public figure of the Tambov gubernia. Collection of L.M. Savelov’s letters and postcards addressed to A.N. Nortsov contains 28 documents dating from November 1, 1901 to April 16, 1915. Though the correspondence is businesslike in character, its tenor suggests friendly relations between the addressees; the fact that has proved important for determining L. M. Savelov’s stand on several significant issues. Many letters being quite voluminous, the authors are publishing a part of the collection dedicated to one subject — establishing of the Historical and Genealogical Society in Moscow. Activities of this organization, including L. M. Savelov’s role in it, have been a matter of research. Thus, after introducing L. M. Savelov’s epistolary heritage into scientific use, a fuller picture is beginning to emerge of his ‘pet project,’ which played an important role in formation of Russian genealogy as a scientific discipline. Information on establishing of the Historical and Genealogical Society in Moscow is found in five letters and two short messages on postcards, four of which, deemed most informative, are being published here. All are written in Leonid Mikhailovich’s own handwriting, one bears the letterhead of the Historical and Genealogical Society. The first letter dates November 19, 1903, the last dates December 21, 1904. The text is unabridged, but the punctuation has been brought into compliance with contemporary rules.

The systematics of sitticine jumping spiders is reviewed, with a focus on the Palearctic and Nearctic regions, in order to revise their generic classification, clarify the species of one region (Canada), and study their chromosomes. A genome-wide molecular phylogeny of 23 sitticine species, using more than 700 loci from the arachnid Ultra-Conserved Element (UCE) probeset, confirms the Neotropical origins of sitticines, whose basal divergence separates the new subtribeAillutticina (a group of five Neotropical genera) from the subtribe Sitticina (five genera of Eurasia and the Americas). The phylogeny shows that most Eurasian sitticines form a relatively recent and rapid radiation, which we unite into the genus Attulus Simon, 1868, consisting of the subgenera Sitticus Simon, 1901 (seven described species), Attulus (41 described species), and Sittilong Prószyński, 2017 (one species). Five species of Attulus occur natively in North America, presumably through dispersals back from the Eurasian radiation, but an additional three species were more recently introduced from Eurasia. Attus palustris Peckham & Peckham, 1883 is considered to be a full synonym of Euophrys floricola C. L. Koch, 1837 (not a distinct subspecies). Attus sylvestris Emerton, 1891 is removed from synonymy and recognized as a senior synonym of Sitticus magnus Chamberlin & Ivie, 1944. Thus, the five native Attulus in North America are Attulus floricola, A. sylvestris, A. cutleri, A. striatus, and A. finschi. The other sitticines of Canada and the U.S.A. are placed in separate genera, all of which arose from a Neotropical radiation including Jollas Simon, 1901 and Tomis F.O.Pickard-Cambridge, 1901: (1) Attinella Banks, 1905 (A. dorsata, A. concolor, A. juniperi), (2) Tomis (T. welchi), and (3) Sittisax Prószyński, 2017 (S. ranieri). All Neotropical and Caribbean “Sitticus” are transferred to either Jollas (12 species total) or Tomis (14 species). Attinella (three species) and Tomis are both removed from synonymy with Sitticus; the synonymy of Sitticus cabellensis Prószyński, 1971 with Pseudattulus kratochvili Caporiacco, 1947 is restored; Pseudattulus Caporiacco, 1947 is synonymized with Tomis. Six generic names are newly synonymized with Attulus and one with Attinella. Two Neotropical species are described as new, Jollas cupreussp. nov. and Tomis manabitasp. nov. Forty-six new combinations are established and three are restored. Three species synonymies are restored, one is new, and two are rejected. Across this diversity of species is a striking diversification of chromosome complements, with X-autosome fusions occurring at least four times to produce neo-Y sex chromosome systems (X1X2Y and X1X2X3Y), some of which (Sittisax ranieri and S. saxicola) are sufficiently derived as to no longer preserve the simple traces of ancestral X material. The correlated distribution of neo-Y and a base autosome number of 28 suggests that neo-Y origins occurred preferentially in lineages with the presence of an extra pair of autosomes.

An annotated check-list of the aquatic and semi-aquatic bugs of the infraorders Enicocephalomorpha, Dipsocoromorpha, Nepomorpha, Gerromorpha, and Leptopodomorpha of Turkey and its geographical parts (Turkish Thrace [i.e., European Turkey] and Anatolia [i.e., the Asian Turkey]) is presented. The nomenclatoric history of Alpagut Kıyak, 1995 (= Harpago Linnavuori, 1951, = Raunocoris Baena & Alonso-Zarazaga, 2009) is reviewed, its gender is fixed, and two new combinations are proposed: Alpagut maroccanus (Wagner, 1960) comb. nov., and Alpagut medius (Rey, 1888) comb. nov. The list is based on a survey of all published records as well as on examination of collection material, including recent material collected in the poorly explored Turkish Thrace. The following numbers of species are accepted as occurring in Turkey: Enicocephalomorpha—1 species (Asian Turkey only), Dipsocoromorpha—2 species (Asian Turkey only), Nepomorpha—49 species (29 in European and 47 in Asian Turkey), Gerromorpha—27 species (10 in European and 25 in Asian Turkey), and Leptopodomorpha—21 species (6 in European and 20 in Asian Turkey). Forty species are known from both European and Asian Turkey, whereas 5 are recorded only from European Turkey and 55 only from Asian Turkey. Eight species and subspecies, Micronecta scholtzi (Fieber, 1860), Hesperocorixa sahlbergi (Fieber, 1848), Sigara iranica Lindberg, 1964, Hebrus ruficeps Thomson, 1871, Velia affinis filippii Tamanini, 1947, Velia rhadamantha rhadamantha Hoberlandt, 1941, Gerris kabaishanus Linnavuori, 1998, and Saldula pilosella pilosella (Thomson, 1871), are reported from Turkey for the first time; and four species, Sigara scripta (Rambur, 1840), Corixa punctata (Illiger, 1807), C. panzeri (Fieber, 1848), and Gerris argentatus Schummel, 1832, are new records for Turkish Thrace. First exact localities of several other species are provided as well. Three species, Sigara kervillei (Poisson, 1927), Microvelia hozari Hoberlandt, 1952, and Velia mariae Tamanini, 1971, seem to be endemic to Anatolia; 22 species occur only in Turkey and the adjacent regions (Balkan Peninsula, Cyprus, Near East, Iran, and Transcaucasia). The 75 remaining species have a wider distribution. Occurrences of 10 species, previously recorded from Turkey, need further confirmation. Finally, 19 species-group taxa are excluded from Turkish fauna as they are based on proven or suspected misidentifications or taxonomic confusion: Micronecta minutissima (Linnaeus, 1758), Cymatia bonsdorffii (C. R. Sahlberg, 1819), Arctocorisa carinata carinata (C. R. Sahlberg, 1819), Callicorixa praeusta praeusta (Fieber, 1848), Hesperocorixa castanea (Thomson, 1869), Hesperocorixa occulta (Lundblad, 1929), Sigara hoggarica Poisson, 1929, Sigara scotti (Douglas & Scott, 1868), Heleocoris minusculus (Walker, 1870), Anisops debilis canariensis Noualhier, 1893, Velia caprai caprai Tamanini, 1947, Aquarius najas (De Geer, 1773), Gerris costae costae (Herrich-Schaeffer, 1850), G. gibbifer Schummel, 1832, G. lateralis Schummel, 1832, Saldula fucicola (Sahlberg, 1870), S. pilosella hirsuta (Reuter, 1888), Salda morio Zetterstedt, 1838, and S. muelleri (Gmelin, 1790). In addition, first records of Aquarius ventralis (Fieber, 1860) from Syria, and Saldula melanoscela (Fieber, 1859) and Leptopus marmoratus (Goeze, 1778) from Lebanon, are provided. The previously published records of Rhagovelia nigricans nigricans (Burmeister, 1835) from Cyprus and Israel (Hoberlandt 1952b) belong to R. infernalis africana Lundblad, 1936.

Abstract. This paper addresses droughts in the Czech Lands in the 1090–2012 AD period, basing its findings on documentary evidence and instrumental records. Various documentary sources were employed for the selection of drought events, which were then interpreted at a monthly level. While the data on droughts before 1500 AD are scarce, the analysis concentrated mainly on droughts after this time. A dry year in 1501–1804 period (i.e. pre-instrumental times) was defined as a calendar year in the course of which dry patterns occurred on at least two consecutive months. Using this definition, 129 dry years were identified (an average of one drought per 2.4 yr). From the 16th to the 18th centuries these figures become 41, 36 and 49 yr respectively, with the prevailing occurrence of dry months from April to September (73.7%). Drought indices – SPEI-1, Z-index and PDSI – calculated for the Czech Lands for April–September describe drought patterns between 1805 and 2012 (the instrumental period). N-year recurrence intervals were calculated for each of the three indices. Using N ≥ 5 yr, SPEI-1 indicates 40 drought years, Z-index 39 yr and PDSI 47 yr. SPEI-1 and Z-index recorded 100 yr drought in 1834, 1842, 1868, 1947 and 2003 (50 yr drought in 1992). PDSI as an indicator of long-term drought disclosed two important drought periods: 1863–1874 and 2004–2012. The first period was related to a lack of precipitation, the other may be attributed to recent temperature increases without significant changes in precipitation. Droughts from the pre-instrumental and instrumental period were used to compile a long-term chronology for the Czech Lands. The number of years with drought has fluctuated between 26 in 1951–2000 and 16 in 1651–1700. Only nine drought years were recorded between 1641 and 1680, while between 1981 and 2012 the figure was 22 yr. A number of past severe droughts are described in detail: in 1540, 1590, 1616, 1718 and 1719. A discussion of the results centres around the uncertainty problem, the spatial variability of droughts, comparison with tree-ring reconstructions from southern Moravia, and the broader central European context.

The heritage of the ancient Roman politician, orator and thinker Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC), is considered as a set of texts that over centuries have been included in the curricula for humanities students, significantly changing the narrative tradition and detecting a way of understanding what is related to humanities. The key questions for the authors is the following: how and for what purposes was Cicero’s heritage presented to humanities students in educational texts in the first two decades of the 20th and 21st centuries? At the beginning of last century, scholars’ attention to Cicero was largely due to Augustus Samuel Wilkins (1843–1905), Paul Monroe (1869–1947) and his disciple Ellwood Cubberley (1868-1941). Many textbooks compiled by P. Monroe, A.S. Wilkins and E. Cubberley were published one after another. Thanks to the educational books of P. Monroe, A.S. Wilkins and E. Cubberley, different approaches to presenting Cicero's works for educational purposes were developed. It is these approaches that were reflected in educational books for humanists a century later. In Russian textbooks, sourcebooks, and anthologies on history of pedagogy, Cicero was mostly a figure of omission not only in the first decades, but throughout the entire 20th century. At the beginning of the 21st century, many learning books for humanities students appeared. Their authors and compilers consider Cicero as an author who left a conceptual description of pedagogical reality (a detailed description of educational process) and chose a narrative description (description of what happened through the eyes of those who take part in it). We have to regret that the Russian domestic tradition of including Cicero's heritage in the content of humanitarian education has hardly undergone any changes over a century: fragments of his works continue to be presented on a small scale, are practically not grouped according to key issues, and rarely accompanied by pedagogical commentaries. The question of why some texts were selected while others were not, can be asked to every author and compiler who included Cicero's texts in their books for humanities students. The search for answers to this “eternal question” can be associated both with the flexibility of the humanitarian curriculum, and with the personal preferences of the authors and compilers of learning books.

Abstract. This paper addresses droughts in the Czech Lands in the 1090–2012 AD period, basing its findings on documentary evidence and instrumental records. Various documentary sources were employed for the selection of drought events, which were then interpreted at a monthly level. While the data on droughts before 1500 AD are scarce, the analysis concentrated mainly on droughts after this time. A dry year in 1501–1804 period (i.e. pre-instrumental times) was defined as a calendar year in the course of which dry patterns occurred on at least two consecutive months. Using this definition, 129 dry years were identified (an average of one drought per 2.4 yr). From the 16th to the 18th centuries these figures become 41, 36 and 49 yr, respectively, with the prevailing occurrence of dry months from April to September (73.7%). Drought indices – SPEI-1, Z-index and PDSI – calculated for the Czech Lands for April–September describe drought patterns between 1805 and 2012 (the instrumental period). N year recurrence intervals were calculated for each of the three indices. Using N ≥ 5 yr, SPEI-1 indicates 40 drought years, Z-index 39 yr and PDSI 47 yr. SPEI-1 and Z-index recorded 100 yr drought in 1834, 1842, 1868, 1947 and 2003 (50 yr drought in 1992). PDSI as an indicator of long-term drought disclosed two important drought periods: 1863–1874 and 2004–2012. The first period was related to a lack of precipitation, the other may be attributed to recent temperature increases without significant changes in precipitation. Droughts from the pre-instrumental and instrumental period were used to compile a long-term chronology for the Czech Lands. The number of years with drought has fluctuated between 26 in 1951–2000 and 16 in 1651–1700. Only nine drought years were recorded between 1641 and 1680, while between 1981 and 2012 the figure was 22 yr. A number of past severe droughts are described in detail: in 1540, 1590, 1616, 1718 and 1719. A discussion of the results centres around the uncertainty problem, the spatial variability of droughts, comparison with tree-ring reconstructions from southern Moravia, and the broader Central European context.

Pētījums veltīts Skrindu dzimtai, kura devusi ieguldījumu vienam no svarīgākajiem Latgales jaunāko laiku vēstures notikumiem – Latgales nacionālajai atmodai, kas hronoloģiski aptver laika posmu no 19. gadsimta beigām līdz 1917. gadam, un Skrindu dzimtas muzejam, kura misija ir caur brāļu Skrindu ieguldīto darbu tautas izglītošanā sniegt ieskatu Latgales kultūrvēsturē, izceļot latgaliešu valodas un katolicisma tradīciju nozīmīgumu Latgales kultūras dzīvē, apzināt kultūrvēsturisko mantojumu, dokumentēt kultūras dzīves, darba un sadzīves tradīcijas Daugavpils novadā (Vaboles, Līksnas, Kalupes un Nīcgales pagastos). Pētījuma mērķis ir raksturot Skrindu dzimtas kultūrvēsturisko devumu Latvijas un Latgales vēsturē ceļā uz Latvijas valsts un Latgales novada izveidi, kā arī popularizēt Skrindu dzimtas muzeja aktivitātes un darbu dažādām sabiedrības grupām, sniedzot ieskatu latgalisko tradīciju apzināšanā, saglabāšanā un popularizēšanā. Daugavpils novada Vaboles pagastā jau 21. gadu veiksmīgi darbojas Skrindu dzimtas muzejs un ekskursantiem piedāvā dažādas tematiskas ekskursijas, muzejpedagoģiskas programmas, izstādes un radošas darbnīcas. 1996. gada 28. martā Skrindu dzimtas muzejs tika dibināts kā Daugavpils rajona padomes kultūras nodaļas iestāde, savukārt atklāts un iesvētīts 1996. gada 16. jūnijā. Novadpētniecības darba pamatlicēja ir Vaboles vidusskolas vācu valodas skolotāja Felicija Sardiko. Muzeja uzdevumos ietilpst arī Vaboles un Līksnas pagastu kultūras dzīves veicināšana un dzīvesstāstu dokumentēšana, kā arī vēstures un kultūras vēstures pētīšana. Muzejā skatāmas ekspozīcijas par Skrindu darbu, dzīvi un pagasta kultūras vēsturi. Skrindu dzimtas muzejs – piemiņas vieta pirmajiem tautas atmodas darbiniekiem brāļiem Skrindām – Benediktam (1868–1947), Kazimiram (1875–1919), Antonam (1881–1918), kas sniedza būtisku ieguldījumu tautas izglītošanā laikā, kad Latgale atradās Vitebskas guberņas (1772–1917) sastāvā. Benedikts Skrinda garīgo izglītību ieguvis Pēterpilī. Strādādams draudzes darbā, B. Skrinda nenogurstoši darbojies arī tautas labā, rūpēdamies gan par tautas reliģiski tikumisko dzīvi, gan par izglītību. Kazimira Skrindas lielākais mūža darbs – viņa rediģētā avīze „Drywa“ (1908–1917), kas no 1908. gada iznākusi Pēterpilī, bet kopš 1917. gada – Rēzeknē. Pēterpilī K. Skrinda dibinājis skolas un rūpējies par latviešu valodas ieviešanu tajās, kā arī vadījis latviešu valodas skolotāju kursus. Kopš 1905. gada ir sarakstījis vairākas katoļu pirmmācības un reliģiska satura grāmatas. Antons Skrinda ir viens no pirmajiem latgaliešiem, kas ieguvis mediķa izglītību, strādājis par cara armijas ārstu 32. Sibīrijas strēlnieku pulkā. Pirmā pasaules kara gados piedalījās kā frontes vecākais ārsts Austroungārijas frontē. A. Skrinda aktīvi darbojies Pēterpils Muzikāliskajā biedrībā – dziedājis korī, spēlējis teātri, tulkojis un rakstījis lugas latgaliešu valodā. 1908. gadā izdevis latgaliešu gramatiku, ar paskaidrojumiem krievu valodā, ar to likti pamati tā sauktajai „Pīterpiļa latgalīšu ortografejai“. 1914. gadā drukas aizlieguma atcelšanas 10 gada jubilejā ir izdevis dzejas antoloģiju „Kūkle“.

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

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

A different name than English literature, ‘Anglo-Indian Literature’, was given to the body of literature in English that emerged on account of the British interaction with India unlike the case with their interaction with America or Australia or New Zealand. Even the Indians’ contributions (translations as well as creative pieces in English) were classed under the caption ‘Anglo-Indian’ initially but later a different name, ‘Indo-Anglian’, was conceived for the growing variety and volume of writings in English by the Indians. However, unlike the former the latter has not found a favour with the compilers of English dictionaries. With the passage of time the fine line of demarcation drawn on the basis of subject matter and author’s point of view has disappeared and currently even Anglo-Indians’ writings are classed as ‘Indo-Anglian’. Besides contemplating on various connotations of the term ‘Indo-Anglian’ the article discusses the related issues such as: the etymology of the term, fixing the name of its coiner and the date of its first use. In contrast to the opinions of the historians and critics like K R S Iyengar, G P Sarma, M K Naik, Daniela Rogobete, Sachidananda Mohanty, Dilip Chatterjee and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak it has been brought to light that the term ‘Indo-Anglian’ was first used in 1880 by James Payn to refer to the Indians’ writings in English rather pejoratively. However, Iyengar used it in a positive sense though he himself gave it up soon. The reasons for the wide acceptance of the term, sometimes also for the authors of the sub-continent, by the members of academia all over the world, despite its rejection by Sahitya Akademi (the national body of letters in India), have also been contemplated on. References Alphonso-Karkala, John B. (1970). Indo-English Literature in the Nineteenth Century, Mysore: Literary Half-yearly, University of Mysore, University of Mysore Press. Amanuddin, Syed. (2016 [1990]). “Don’t Call Me Indo-Anglian”. C. D. Narasimhaiah (Ed.), An Anthology of Commonwealth Poetry. Bengaluru: Trinity Press. B A (Compiler). (1883). Indo-Anglian Literature. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink and Co. PDF. Retrieved from: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=rByZ2RcSBTMC&pg=PA1&source= gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false ---. (1887). “Indo-Anglian Literature”. 2nd Issue. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink and Co. PDF. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/60238178 Basham, A L. (1981[1954]). The Wonder That Was India: A Survey of the History and Culture of the Indian Sub-Continent before the Coming of the Muslims. Indian Rpt, Calcutta: Rupa. PDF. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/TheWonderThatWasIndiaByALBasham Bhushan, V N. (1945). The Peacock Lute. Bomaby: Padma Publications Ltd. Bhushan, V N. (1945). The Moving Finger. Bomaby: Padma Publications Ltd. Boria, Cavellay. (1807). “Account of the Jains, Collected from a Priest of this Sect; at Mudgeri: Translated by Cavelly Boria, Brahmen; for Major C. Mackenzie”. Asiatick Researches: Or Transactions of the Society; Instituted In Bengal, For Enquiring Into The History And Antiquities, the Arts, Sciences, and Literature, of Asia, 9, 244-286. PDF. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.104510 Chamber’s Twentieth Century Dictionary [The]. (1971). Bombay et al: Allied Publishers. Print. Chatterjee, Dilip Kumar. (1989). Cousins and Sri Aurobindo: A Study in Literary Influence, Journal of South Asian Literature, 24(1), 114-123. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/ stable/40873985. Chattopadhyay, Dilip Kumar. (1988). A Study of the Works of James Henry Cousins (1873-1956) in the Light of the Theosophical Movement in India and the West. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Burdwan: The University of Burdwan. PDF. Retrieved from: http://ir.inflibnet. ac.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/10603/68500/9/09_chapter%205.pdf. Cobuild English Language Dictionary. (1989 [1987]). rpt. London and Glasgow. Collins Cobuild Advanced Illustrated Dictionary. (2010). rpt. Glasgow: Harper Collins. Print. Concise Oxford English Dictionary [The]. (1961 [1951]). H. W. Fowler and F. G. Fowler. (Eds.) Oxford: Clarendon Press. 4th ed. Cousins, James H. (1921). Modern English Poetry: Its Characteristics and Tendencies. Madras: Ganesh & Co. n. d., Preface is dated April, 1921. PDF. Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/ 2027/uc1.$b683874 ---. (1919) New Ways in English Literature. Madras: Ganesh & Co. 2nd edition. PDF. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.31747 ---. (1918). The Renaissance in India. Madras: Madras: Ganesh & Co., n. d., Preface is dated June 1918. PDF. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.203914 Das, Sisir Kumar. (1991). History of Indian Literature. Vol. 1. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi. Encarta World English Dictionary. (1999). London: Bloomsbury. Gandhi, M K. (1938 [1909]). Hind Swaraj Tr. M K Gandhi. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. PDF. Retrieved from: www.mkgandhi.org/ebks/hind_swaraj.pdf. Gokak, V K. (n.d.). English in India: Its Present and Future. Bombay et al: Asia Publishing House. PDF. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.460832 Goodwin, Gwendoline (Ed.). (1927). Anthology of Modern Indian Poetry, London: John Murray. PDF. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.176578 Guptara, Prabhu S. (1986). Review of Indian Literature in English, 1827-1979: A Guide to Information Sources. The Yearbook of English Studies, 16 (1986): 311–13. PDF. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3507834 Iyengar, K R Srinivasa. (1945). Indian Contribution to English Literature [The]. Bombay: Karnatak Publishing House. PDF. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/ indiancontributi030041mbp ---. (2013 [1962]). Indian Writing in English. New Delhi: Sterling. ---. (1943). Indo-Anglian Literature. Bombay: PEN & International Book House. PDF. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/IndoAnglianLiterature Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. (2003). Essex: Pearson. Lyall, Alfred Comyn. (1915). The Anglo-Indian Novelist. Studies in Literature and History. London: John Murray. PDF. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet. dli.2015.94619 Macaulay T. B. (1835). Minute on Indian Education dated the 2nd February 1835. HTML. Retrieved from: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/macaulay/ txt_minute_education_1835.html Mehrotra, Arvind Krishna. (2003). An Illustrated History of Indian Literature in English. Delhi: Permanent Black. ---. (2003[1992]). The Oxford India Anthology of Twelve Modern Indian Poets. New Delhi: Oxford U P. Minocherhomji, Roshan Nadirsha. (1945). Indian Writers of Fiction in English. Bombay: U of Bombay. Modak, Cyril (Editor). (1938). The Indian Gateway to Poetry (Poetry in English), Calcutta: Longmans, Green. PDF. Retrieved from http://en.booksee.org/book/2266726 Mohanty, Sachidananda. (2013). “An ‘Indo-Anglian’ Legacy”. The Hindu. July 20, 2013. Web. Retrieved from: http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/an-indoanglian-legacy/article 4927193.ece Mukherjee, Sujit. (1968). Indo-English Literature: An Essay in Definition, Critical Essays on Indian Writing in English. Eds. M. K. Naik, G. S. Amur and S. K. Desai. Dharwad: Karnatak University. Naik, M K. (1989 [1982]). A History of Indian English Literature. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, rpt.New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles [The], (1993). Ed. Lesley Brown, Vol. 1, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Naik, M K. (1989 [1982]). A History of Indian English Literature. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, rpt. Oaten, Edward Farley. (1953 [1916]). Anglo-Indian Literature. In: Cambridge History of English Literature, Vol. 14, (pp. 331-342). A C Award and A R Waller, (Eds). Rpt. ---. (1908). A Sketch of Anglo-Indian Literature, London: Kegan Paul. PDF. Retrieved from: https://ia600303.us.archive.org/0/items/sketchofangloind00oateuoft/sketchofangloind00oateuoft.pdf) Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. (1979 [1974]). A. S. Hornby (Ed). : Oxford UP, 3rd ed. Oxford English Dictionary [The]. Vol. 7. (1991[1989]). J. A. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner, (Eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd ed. Pai, Sajith. (2018). Indo-Anglians: The newest and fastest-growing caste in India. Web. Retrieved from: https://scroll.in/magazine/867130/indo-anglians-the-newest-and-fastest-growing-caste-in-india Pandia, Mahendra Navansuklal. (1950). The Indo-Anglian Novels as a Social Document. Bombay: U Press. Payn, James. (1880). An Indo-Anglian Poet, The Gentleman’s Magazine, 246(1791):370-375. PDF. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/stream/gentlemansmagaz11unkngoog#page/ n382/mode/2up. ---. (1880). An Indo-Anglian Poet, Littell’s Living Age (1844-1896), 145(1868): 49-52. PDF. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/stream/livingage18projgoog/livingage18projgoog_ djvu.txt. Rai, Saritha. (2012). India’s New ‘English Only’ Generation. Retrieved from: https://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/indias-new-english-only-generation/ Raizada, Harish. (1978). The Lotus and the Rose: Indian Fiction in English (1850-1947). Aligarh: The Arts Faculty. Rajan, P K. (2006). Indian English literature: Changing traditions. Littcrit. 32(1-2), 11-23. Rao, Raja. (2005 [1938]). Kanthapura. New Delhi: Oxford UP. Rogobete, Daniela. (2015). Global versus Glocal Dimensions of the Post-1981 Indian English Novel. Portal Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies, 12(1). Retrieved from: http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/portal/article/view/4378/4589. Rushdie, Salman & Elizabeth West. (Eds.) (1997). The Vintage Book of Indian Writing 1947 – 1997. London: Vintage. Sampson, George. (1959 [1941]). Concise Cambridge History of English Literature [The]. Cambridge: UP. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.18336. Sarma, Gobinda Prasad. (1990). Nationalism in Indo-Anglian Fiction. New Delhi: Sterling. Singh, Kh. Kunjo. (2002). The Fiction of Bhabani Bhattacharya. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. (2012). How to Read a ‘Culturally Different’ Book. An Aesthetic Education in the Era of Globalization, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Sturgeon, Mary C. (1916). Studies of Contemporary Poets, London: George G Hard & Co., Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.95728. Thomson, W S (Ed). (1876). Anglo-Indian Prize Poems, Native and English Writers, In: Commemoration of the Visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to India. London: Hamilton, Adams & Co., Retrieved from https://books.google.co.in/ books?id=QrwOAAAAQAAJ Wadia, A R. (1954). The Future of English. Bombay: Asia Publishing House. Wadia, B J. (1945). Foreword to K R Srinivasa Iyengar’s The Indian Contribution to English Literature. Bombay: Karnatak Publishing House. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/ details/indiancontributi030041mbp Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language. (1989). New York: Portland House. Yule, H. and A C Burnell. (1903). Hobson-Jobson: A Glossary of Colloquial Anglo-Indian Words and Phrases, and of Kindred Terms, Etymological, Historical, Geographical and Discursive. W. Crooke, Ed. London: J. Murray. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/ details/hobsonjobsonagl00croogoog Sources www.amazon.com/Indo-Anglian-Literature-Edward-Charles-Buck/dp/1358184496 www.archive.org/stream/livingage18projgoog/livingage18projgoog_djvu.txt www.catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001903204?type%5B%5D=all&lookfor%5B%5D=indo%20anglian&ft= www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.L._Indo_Anglian_Public_School,_Aurangabad www.everyculture.com/South-Asia/Anglo-Indian.html www.solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?fn=search&ct=search&initialSearch=true&mode=Basic&tab=local&indx=1&dum=true&srt=rank&vid=OXVU1&frbg=&tb=t&vl%28freeText0%29=Indo-Anglian+Literature+&scp.scps=scope%3A%28OX%29&vl% 28516065169UI1%29=all_items&vl%281UIStartWith0%29=contains&vl%28254947567UI0%29=any&vl%28254947567UI0%29=title&vl%28254947567UI0%29=any www.worldcat.org/title/indo-anglian-literature/oclc/30452040