Artículos de revistas sobre el tema "1816-1855"

Charlotte Brontë (1816-1855) evidencia em The professor a arbitrariedade atrelada ao conceito de gênero no século 19 por meio de personagens dissonantes com a ideologia do período, questionando explicitamente o paralelismo entre sexo e gênero e a crença em uma suposta essência do feminino capaz de justificar uma postura submissa da mulher.

Der englische Mediziner Joseph Sugar Baly (1816-1890) erlangte für die Chrysomelidae (Coleoptera) Weltgeltung. Von 1855 bis 1891 publizierte er 102 Arbeiten, in welchen er 217 Gattungen, 2 Untergattungen und 2.219 Arten beschrieb. Dieser Beitrag vermittelt eine kurze, biographische Übersicht, eine Bibliographie seiner entomologischen Veröffentlichungen und eine Liste der vorgeschlagenen Taxa.StichwörterBaly, biography, bibliography, proposed taxa.

En este artículo se estudia la organización y funcionamiento del sistema portuario de la provincia de Corrientes desde 1816 hasta 1855. Se examina el establecimiento de los puertos como parte del proceso de formación territorial y crecimiento económico del distrito. Se describe la legislación que regulaba la actividad de estos centros y su equipamiento. En base a los registros para la percepción de los impuestos aduaneros se efectúa un cálculo cuantitativo de la participación de cada uno de los puertos habilitados en el comercio de exportación e importación de la provincia.

The longest geodetic arc ever mesured by classical goedesy is long of 25° from the Baltic to the Black Sea through the Dorprat meridian. This arc is based upon measurements made, from 1816 to 1855, by a russian general, a norvegian, a Swedish and F.G.W. Struve, the founder of the Pulkovo Observatory; its lenght is 2° more than the arc Delisle, then at the Petersburg Observatory, intended to determine along the meridian of this observatory in the year 1737. Russia, at that time, became part of the european triangulation, a prelude to circumterrestrial modern campaigns.

Abstract Several theories emerged, based on the Christian conversion of lower caste communities in colonial India. The social and economic aspects predominate the study of religious conversion among the lower castes in Kerala. Most of these studies only explored the lower caste conversion after the legal abolition of slavery in Kerala (1855). The existing literature followed the mass movement phenomena. These studies ignore the slave lifeworld and conversion history before the abolition period, and they argued, through religious conversion, the former slave castes began breaking social and caste hierarchy with the help of Protestant Christianity. The dominant Dalit Christian historiography does not open the complexity of slave Christian past. Against this background, this paper explores the history of slave caste conversion before the abolition period. From the colonial period, the missionary writings bear out that the slaves were hostile to and suspicious of new religions. They accepted Christianity only cautiously. It was a conscious choice, even as many Dalits refused Christian teachings.

The picture showing the little Joseph Meister being treated against rabies under Louis Pasteur's eyes, on July 6, 1885, has quickly become a symbol of the triumphant progress of medicine, even though diseases with high mortality like tuberculosis or diphtheria could still not be healed with efficient therapeutic means. But before the discoveries of Pasteur, what was actually, in daily practice, the kind of response an ordinary doctor could give to human rabies? A Swiss physician, Charles-Hector Guisan, developed a therapy based on the use of sodium arsenate, which he published in the columns of the Gazette e/e.s //ôpttaux c/v/As et /«///fa/rev in 1854. This arsenic therapy was to be put into practice on a larger scale in the canton of Fribourg by Dr Jean-Louis Schaller (1816-1880), who meticulously wrote observations in a notebook on the cases of 13 persons wounded by a rabid dog in 1855.

Abstract Justus von Liebig (1803-1873) has been described as “one of the founding fathers of organic chemistry and a great teacher who transformed scientific education, medical practice, and agriculture in Great Britain” [1]. His research was generally initially published in German, although in some cases an English translation was released at the same time. William Brock identified a number of people associated with providing English translations. Most of these were former students, such as John Buddle Blyth (1814-1871), John Gardner (1804-1880), William Gregory (1803-1858), Samuel William Johnson (1830-1909), Benjamin Horatio Paul (1827-1917), Lyon Playfair (1818-1898), Thomas Richardson (1816-1867), Warren De La Rue (1815-1889), as well as Edward Turner (1796-1837) and his brother Wilton George Turner (1810-1855). In this article, the emphasis is on Edward Turner, Wilton George Turner, and John Buddle Blyth, who were all born on sugar plantations in Jamaica [2].

Length–weight relations (LWRs) were estimated for 44 fish species, representing 23 families, collected from an unprotected coastal biological corridor of the Yucatan Peninsula. The following species were studied (in alphabetical order): Acanthostracion quadricornis (Linnaeus, 1758); Albula vulpes (Linnaeus, 1758); Anchoa hepsetus (Linnaeus, 1758); Anchoa lamprotaenia Hildebrand, 1943, Anchoa lyolepis (Evermann et Marsh, 1900), Anchoa mitchilli (Valenciennes, 1848); Archosargus rhomboidalis (Linnaeus, 1758); Ariopsis felis (Linnaeus, 1766); Bagre marinus (Mitchill, 1815); Bairdiella chrysoura (Lacepède, 1802); Caranx latus Agassiz, 1831; Chaetodipterus faber (Broussonet, 1782); Chriodorus atherinoides Goode et Bean, 1882; Cynoscion arenarius Ginsburg, 1930; Elops saurus Linnaeus, 1766; Eucinostomus argenteus Baird et Girard, 1855; Eucinostomus gula (Quoy et Gaimard, 1824); Eucinostomus harengulus Goode et Bean, 1879; Harengula jaguana Poey, 1865; Hyporhamphus unifasciatus (Ranzani, 1841); Lagodon rhomboides (Linnaeus, 1766); Lutjanus griseus (Linnaeus, 1758); Menticirrhus americanus (Linnaeus, 1758); Menticirrhus littoralis (Holbrook, 1847); Menticirrhus saxatilis (Bloch et Schneider, 1801); Mugil curema Valenciennes, 1836; Mugil trichodon Poey, 1875; Oligoplites saurus (Bloch et Schneider, 1801); Opisthonema oglinum (Lesueur, 1818); Opsanus beta (Goode et Bean, 1880); Orthopristis chrysoptera (Linnaeus, 1766); Prionotus tribulus Cuvier, 1829; Rypticus maculatus Holbrook, 1855; Selene vomer (Linnaeus, 1758); Sphoeroides spengleri (Bloch, 1785); Sphoeroides testudineus (Linnaeus, 1758); Strongylura notata (Poey, 1860); Strongylura timucu (Walbaum, 1792); Symphurus plagiusa (Linnaeus, 1766); Synodus foetens (Linnaeus, 1766); Trachinotus carolinus (Linnaeus, 1766); Trachinotus falcatus (Linnaeus, 1758); Trachinotus goodei Jordan et Evermann, 1896; Urobatis jamaicensis (Cuvier, 1816). A new maximum standard length (SL) was recorded for Anchoa lamprotaenia. Positive allometric growth was reported in ten species, negative allometric growth in sixteen species, and isometric growth in eighteen species.

Este trabalho visa analisar e comparar os paratextos da obra Wide Sargasso Sea e da sua tradução brasileira feita por Léa Viveiros de Castro, a fim de refletir como estes corroboram ou não para a elucidação do romance de Charlotte Brontë, bem como o papel desses paratextos no direcionamento da leitura da obra. Wide Sargasso Sea (1966) é um romance da escritora dominicana Jean Rhys (1890-1979), conhecido pela inter e hipertextualidade (GENETTE, 1997) que estabelece com o romance colonial do século XIX, Jane Eyre (1847), da escritora Charlotte Brontë (1816-1855), e por possibilitar discussões em áreas de estudos pós-coloniais e feministas. A tradução brasileira foi publicada em 2012, pela editora Rocco. A análise apresentada neste trabalho se embasa no conceito de paratexto cunhado e desenvolvido por Gérard Genette (2009). Uma obra literária raramente se apresenta de forma isolada, mas circula acompanhada de várias produções, de ordem verbal ou não. Essas produções são chamadas de paratextos e funcionam como dispositivos que orientam o percurso do/a leitor/a na obra, ajudando-o/a na sua decisão interpretativa.

Charlotte Bronte was born on 21st April 1816 in Yorkshire, England for a poor clergyman and died at a very young age on the31st of March 1855. In August 1824, she was sent with her sisters to the Clergy Daughters' School at Cowan Bridge in Lancashire. This is to better understand her religious background and to interpret issues raised through her protagonist Jane Eyre who is considered by many as a reflection and autobiography for Charlotte herself. Critics have criticised Jane Eyre for what they considered as a threat against society’s beliefs. They suggested that it is a novel in which Charlotte stabs the religion from the back, trying to destroy the basics of the British society and religion. Others claimed that she was trying to neglect religious concepts and only focused on individuals’ morals. In order to understand why many people claimed that Charlotte Bronte or her protagonist Jane are against religion, it is better first to follow Jane’s character development, the incidents and the characters she meets. Thus, a better understanding to her point of view and the text interpretation would be in the right way.

In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird eine Übersicht zur Psychidenfauna Albaniens gegeben und die entsprechende Literatur ausgewertet. Die ersten Nachweise stammen aus den frühen Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts. Bereits 1931 wurde eine zusammenfassende faunistische Arbeit veröffentlicht. Die Albanienexpedition des Deutschen Entomologischen Institutes in Eberswalde im Jahre 1961 erbrachte weitere Nachweise. Ab 2006 war der Verfasser mehrmals zu Psychidenstudien in Albanien. Gegenwärtig liegen Nachweise von Psychiden für insgesamt 77 Fundorte aus 24 Provinzen vor. Bis zum Jahre 1931 und durch die Albanienexpedition 1961 waren insgesamt 16 Arten bekannt geworden. Der Verfasser konnte im Beobachtungszeitraum fünf weitere Psychidenarten im Land entdecken. Neben der Erstbeschreibung von Epichnopterix hellenidensis sind dies Pseudobankesia sp., Luffia lapidella (Goeze, 1783), Stichobasis helicinoides (Heylaerts, 1879) und Oiketicoides lutea (Staudinger, 1871). Bis zum heutigen Zeitpunkt sind somit 21 Psychidenarten nachgewiesen worden. Taleporia politella (Ochsenheimer, 1816) und Acanthopsyche zelleri (Mann, 1855) müssen aus zoogeographischen Gesichtspunkten heraus als Faunenbestandteil gestrichen werden, weitere Taxa werden diskutiert. Die bisherigen Literaturangaben für Albanien von Proutia betulina (Zeller, 1839), Psyche casta (Pallas, 1767) und Sterrhopterix fusca (Haworth, 1809) müssen revidiert werden, da sie von Fundorten stammen, die jetzt zu den Nachbarländern Kosovo und Mazedonien gehören. Ergänzend wird bei allen albanischen Arten eine Übersicht zur ihrer Verbreitung in den Nachbarländern gegeben.StichwörterAlbania, faunistic review, Psychidae, Lepidoptera

Abstract Tree-ring width standard chronologies were created from Juniperus przewalskii Kom data collected in the southern Three-River Headwaters (TRH) region. Statistical analysis results showed high correlation between the first primary component (PC1) of the four chronologies and instrumental precipitation records during the annual September–August interval. Precipitation of the region was reconstructed for the past 461 years. It was verified that the reconstruction model was stable by split-sample calibration-verification statistics. The reconstruction series revealed 22 extremely dry years and 9 extremely wet years. Results showed relatively dry periods occurred during 1567–1597, 1604–1614, 1641–1656, 1684–1700, 1734–1755, 1817–1830, 1913–1932, 1953–1971, 1990–2005. Relatively wet periods occurred during 1615–1630, 1657–1683, 1701–1733, 1756–1786, 1798–1816, 1844–1855, 1864–1875, 1885–1912, 1933–1952, 1977–1989. Comparison with tree-ring based precipitation reconstructions, and chronologies from surrounding areas provided a high degree of confidence in our reconstruction, and correlated well with the Monsoon Asia Drought Atlas (MADA) dataset in the public section of corresponding grids. The empirical mode decomposition analysis suggests the existence of significant periods with intervals of 2–5, 6–10, 11–18, and 28–60 years. This research contributes to a better understanding of historical variations in precipitation and will aid in future plans to address climate change of the TRH region.

Grundtvig’s conception of Nature.By Kim Arne Pedersen.In this paper Grundtvig’s view on non-human nature and natural science is examined with the contemporary Danish discussion about theology and natural sciences (Viggo Mortensen) as a starting-point. It is argued against the use of Grundtvig’s ideas as a model for a dialogue between these fields of scholarship.Earlier researchers’ (C. I. Scharling) denial of Grundtvig having a view on nature is rejected, and Kaj Thaning’s conception of the autonomy of natural sciences in Nordens Mythologi 1832 is modified.Grundtvig’s conception of nature is defined as rooted in the Western European theological tradition’s Neo-platonic oriented cosmological interpretation of Genesis. Grundtvig takes up the understanding of natural objects as images of the invisible, spiritual world, but he shows his awareness of the rational, scientific interpretation of this tradition.The article points out 4 phases in Grundtvig’s elaboration of his view on nature after 1810, connected with the years after Kort Begreb af Verdens Krønike 1812, the magazine Danne-Virke 1816-1819, the years after Nordens Mythologi 1832 and the period from 1855 to 1860-1865. In the first phase Grundtvig rejects the independence of natural sciences as a tool of Antichrist in the final battle of the near future. In Danne-Virke nature is understood as a tool used in man’s symbolic knowledge of God. The main tool is man’s knowledge of himself because of his exceptional position inside creation as a creature with self-consciousness and language, and therefore the natural sciences are subordinated research on the history of man. Grundtvig’s thesis of femininity as representing nature and man’s body as a microcosm both in a rational, scientific and in a symbolic way is connected with this leading idea. In the years after Nordens Mythologi Grundtvig gives nature and natural sciences a much more independent position, but at the same time he stresses nature’s connection with man because of the state of man’s body as a microcosm. Grundtvig also attacks the Copernican picture of the universe.In the years after 1855 Grundtvig’s attitude towards natural science is sharpened. Apocalyptic motives return, and now Antichrist is connected with the rejection of God’s omnipotence and man’s exceptional position inside creation. As an alternative to the natural sciences Grundtvig emphasizes the interpretation of nature as a symbolic image of God.

Exotic (introduced) species are a growing problem in ports worldwide and comprise the most important impacts in marine ecosystems. Periodic monitoring to detect introduced species is extremely important for effective population control. Here we sampled ascidian species near the port of Paranaguá for a taxonomic study of this fauna to attempt to detect introduced species. Larval stages in ascidians are short-lived, and dispersal is restricted to small distances, and so ascidians are very good bioindicators for exotic introductions due to ship transport. Four locations were sampled within Paranaguá Bay (Ilha das Cobras, Pier Tenenge, Ilha do Mel and Ilha da Galheta) and one location outside of the bay (Parque dos Meros). Information for the nearby fauna and for geographic distributions of the species involved was obtained from the literature. Eighteen species were found: Perophora multiclathrata (Sluiter, 1904), Ascidia curvata (Traustedt,1882), A. sydneiensis Stimpson, 1855, Clavelina oblonga Herdman, 1880, Cystodytes dellechiajei (Della Valle, 1877), Eudistoma carolinense van Name, 1945, Distaplia bermudensis van Name, 1902, Didemnum granulatum Tokioka, 1954, Diplosoma listerianum (Milne-Edwards, 1841), Lissoclinum fragile (van Name, 1902), Botryllus planus (van Name, 1902), B. tuberatus Ritter & Forsyth 1917, Botrylloides nigrum Herdman, 1886, Symplegma rubra Monniot, 1972, Styela canopus (Savigny, 1816), S. plicata (Lesueur, 1823), Microcosmus exasperatus Heller, 1878 and Molgula phytophila Monniot, 1970. The known geographic distributions based on the literature and collections suggest that three species are native, one is a inter-regional introduction, two are introduced from the Pacific and the remaining 12 are cryptogenic.

Despite significant research efforts focused on benthic assemblages in West Spitsbergen, there is a lack of knowledge regarding the shallow water bryozoan communities in Grønfjorden, a glacier fjord belonging to the Isfjorden system, Norway. Here, we studied species composition, richness, distribution, and biomass of bryozoans in the intertidal and upper subtidal zones of Grønfjorden in summer. We found 62 bryozoan species, among which Celleporella hyalina (Linnaeus, 1767), Harmeria scutulata (Busk, 1855), and Tegella arctica (d’Orbigny, 1853) were most prevalent while the highest contributions to the total biomass were registered for Eucratea loricata (d’Orbigny, 1853), Tricellaria gracilis (Van Beneden, 1848), Turbicellepora incrassata (Lamarck, 1816), and Tricellaria ternata (Ellis and Solander, 1786). Alpha-diversity varied from 1 to 50 averaging 15.1 ± 2.6 species. Bryozoan biomass ranged from 0.008 to 10.758 g m–2 with a mean value of 2.67 g m–2 being lower than in the central and northern parts of the Barents Sea. For the first time, we registered the presence of the circumpolar bryozoan Amathia arctica in Svalbard waters probably as a result of stronger advection of Atlantic water into the fjord. Cluster analysis revealed two groups, mainly composed of stations in colder and warmer waters. A relatively high proportion of outlying stations reflected habitat heterogeneity in Grønfjorden. Redundancy analysis indicated that bryozoan diversity and biomass were strongly negatively associated with temperature. A positive relationship was found between bryozoan biomass and the proportional contribution of macrophytes to a pool of substrates. Our study provides a reference point for further monitoring of changing marine ecosystems at high latitudes.

The article aims to analyze the fantastic and phantasmatic nature of the novella Premonition. The Tale at the Grey Hour by Józef Bohdan Dziekoński (1816–1855) within the latest definitional contexts of these terms, which are often overlooked or completely unused in the research on this writer. In the first part, the author reviews recent attempts to define the essence of 'fantasy' in Dziekoński’s works as per well-known researchers such as Antoni Gromadzki and Michał Szargot, while also acknowledging the contributions of new or yet unrecognized scholars, and then supplements these conclusions. Furthermore, the author incorporates the concept of 'phantasm' as explored in Maria Janion’s study On Phantasmatic Criticism, which has not yet been applied in research on Dziekoński’s works. The second part is devoted to the analysis and interpretation of the fantastic and phantasmatic character of Dziekoński’s little-known novella Premonition. The Tale at the Grey Hour. In applying the theoretical issues from the first part to the reading of this story, the author highlights the novella’s significance, where the ideals and worldview of the writer are embodied. This underscores the researcher's belief in Dziekoński’s ideological consistency evident in his literary works. Dziekoński’s reflections on fantasy as a literary genre, or a broadly understood method of literary expression, are also discussed. According to him, fantasy literature must fulfill specific socio-cultural criteria to properly align with its era and gain acceptance. The novella Premonition. The Tale at the Grey Hour exemplifies the author’s implementation of these ideas and worldviews, a point strongly emphasized in the article.

Abstract. Historical written records associated with tax relief at ten estates located in south-eastern Moravia (Czech Republic) are used for the study of hydrometeorological extremes and their impacts during the period 1751–1900 AD. At the time, the taxation system in Moravia allowed farmers to request tax relief if their crop yields had been negatively affected by hydrological and meteorological extremes. The documentation involved contains information about the type of extreme event and the date of its occurrence, while the impact on crops may often be derived. A total of 175 extreme events resulting in some kind of damage are documented for 1751–1900, with the highest concentration between 1811 and 1860 (74.9% of all events analysed). The nature of events leading to damage (of a possible 272 types) include hailstorm (25.7%), torrential rain (21.7%), flood (21.0%), followed by thunderstorm, flash flood, late frost and windstorm. The four most outstanding events, affecting the highest number of settlements, were thunderstorms with hailstorms (25 June 1825, 20 May 1847 and 29 June 1890) and flooding of the River Morava (mid-June 1847). Hydrometeorological extremes in the 1816–1855 period are compared with those occurring during the recent 1961–2000 period. The results obtained are inevitably influenced by uncertainties related to taxation records, such as their temporal and spatial incompleteness, the limits of the period of outside agricultural work (i.e. mainly May–August) and the purpose for which they were originally collected (primarily tax alleviation, i.e. information about hydrometeorological extremes was of secondary importance). Taxation records constitute an important source of data for historical climatology and historical hydrology and have a great potential for use in many European countries.

Abstract. Historical written records associated with tax relief at ten estates located in south-eastern Moravia (Czech Republic) are used for the study of hydrometeorological extremes and their impacts during the period AD 1751–1900. At the time, the taxation system in Moravia allowed farmers to request tax relief if their crop yields had been negatively affected by hydrological and meteorological extremes. The documentation involved contains information about the type of extreme event and the date of its occurrence, while the impact on crops may often be derived. A total of 175 extreme events resulting in some kind of damage is documented for 1751–1900, with the highest concentration between 1811 and 1860 (74.9% of all events analysed). The nature of events leading to damage (of a possible 272 types) include hailstorm (25.7%), torrential rain (21.7%), and flood (21.0%), followed by thunderstorm, flash flood, late frost and windstorm. The four most outstanding events, affecting the highest number of settlements, were thunderstorms with hailstorms (25 June 1825, 20 May 1847 and 29 June 1890) and flooding of the River Morava (mid-June 1847). Hydrometeorological extremes in the 1816–1855 period are compared with those occurring during the recent 1961–2000 period. The results obtained are inevitably influenced by uncertainties related to taxation records, such as their temporal and spatial incompleteness, the limits of the period of outside agricultural work (i.e. mainly May–August) and the purpose for which they were originally collected (primarily tax alleviation, i.e. information about hydrometeorological extremes was of secondary importance). Taxation records constitute an important source of data for historical climatology and historical hydrology and have a great potential for use in many European countries.

El estudio se realizó en las instalaciones del Centro de Investigaciones Fernando Alcántara Bocanegra (CIFAB) del Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonía Peruana (IIAP), Iquitos; con el objetivo de conocer el comportamiento parasitario de Dolops discoidalis (Bouvier, 1899) (Crustacea: Branchiura) en tres especies de peces. El muestreo se realizó durante los meses de noviembre y diciembre del 2018. Para este estudio se extrajeron individuos de esta especie de parásitos de la superficie corporal de ejemplares adultos de Pseudoplatystoma punctifer (Castelnau, 1855), criados en cautiverio en las instalaciones del CIFAB. Los parásitos colectados fueron llevados al Laboratorio de Parasitología y Sanidad Acuícola del IIAP para ejecutar dos experimentos relacionados al comportamiento parasitario de D. discoidalis en tres especies de peces: P. punctifer, Colossoma macropomum (Cuvier, 1816) y Brochis multiradiatus (Orcés V., 1960). El experimento I consistió en colocar un ejemplar de cada especie de pez en un acuario de vidrio (4 réplicas) y distribuir 18 ejemplares de D. discoidalis por unidad experimental con la finalidad de determinar el comportamiento parasitario de esta especie. Para el experimento II, se colocaron dos ejemplares de C. macropomum en dos acuarios diferentes y cuatro ejemplares de B. multiradiatus en un acuario, con 11 parásitos en cada una de las unidades experimentales. Los resultados del experimento I mostraron a todos los individuos de D. discoidalis parasitando únicamente a P. punctifer, revelando una marcada afinidad por esta especie de pez. En el experimento II se observó que el parásito D. discoidalis ante la ausencia de P. punctifer, es capaz de parasitar a ejemplares de C. macropomum y B. multiradiatus detectando entre uno a dos parásitos por pez parasitado, revelando muy baja afinidad. Se recomienda realizar estudios histológicos para determinar el grado de daño que causa este parasito en los peces, principalmente en P. punctifer, especie que mostró alta susceptibilidad ante D. discoidalis.

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> Modern nautical charts, the result of scientific coastal research and survey, had been made from late 18th century, and at the end of 19th century almost of the world had been charted. Different to the neighbouring countries such as China and Japan, Korean peninsula had not been accurately charted until the end of 19th century. Moreover, during the 19th century, the shape of Korean peninsula had been changed several times in the Western nautical charts. However, in the academic circle of the history of cartography, this case was scantly examined. In this presentation, this author, firstly, analyse the changes in the shape of the Korean Peninsula on the British Charts in the 19th Century and, secondly, identifies factors that influence the changes. For this research, British nautical charts, which are the representative and finest charts during the 19th century in the world, are selected. Examined charts are ‘Map of the Islands of Japan Kurile &amp; C.’ (Year of 1811, 1818) of Aaron Arrowsmith (1750&amp;ndash;1823), the hydrographer to his majesty, ‘The Peninsula of Korea (No.1258)’ (year of 1840, 1849) and ‘(Preliminary Chart of) Japan, Nipon Kiusiu and Sikok and a part of the coast of Korea (No. 2347)’ (Year of 1855, 1862, 1873, 1876, 1892, 1898, 1902, 1914) of the British hydrographic office. According to the analysis, major shape changes of the Korean Peninsula were occurred in 1818, 1840, 1849, 1855, 1862, 1873, 1876, 1892, and the shape of the Peninsula became perfect in the chart of the year 1914.</p><p>Meanwhile, the factors of the shape changes of the Korean peninsula in these nautical charts were various voyages, expeditions, and military surveys to Korea. For example, the change in the map of 1818 was initiated by the voyage of the captain Basil Hall in 1816 to the west coast of Korea, and the change in the map of 1840 was made by the map of Korea of A.J. von Krusenstern (1770&amp;ndash;1846) and the voyage of H.H.Lindsay (1802&amp;ndash;1881) to the west coast of Korea in 1832. Moreover, the modification of 1849 was made by the outcome of E. Belcher’s scientific survey around Jeju Island and other southern islands of Korea. In 1852, French admiral G. de Roquemaurel (1804&amp;ndash;1878) surveyed eastern coast of Korea and drew nautical chart and this chart became the source of the British chart of the year 1855. A Russian admiral, Yevfimy Putyatin (1803&amp;ndash;1883), also surveyed east side of the peninsula and triggered the change of nautical chart of eastern part of Korea. During French campaign against Korea in 1866 and United States expedition to Korea in 1871, French and American navy surveyed west-middle part of the peninsula and added detailed coastline of it and British chart also reflected these changes. The Japan-Korea treaty of 1876 enabled coastal survey of the Korean peninsula by the Japanese navy by the article 7, which permitted any Japanese mariner to conduct surveys and mapping operations at will in the seas off the Korean Peninsula's coastline. By virtue of the treaty, Japan could directly surveyed coastline of Korea and could make updated nautical charts of Korea. These Japanese charts were circulated to the Western countries and British hydrographers made the best use of them. Thanks to this situation, the British admiralty could update the chart of Korean peninsula and the perfect one published in 1914.</p><p>This analysis contribute not only to understand how and why the shape of Korean peninsula changed in British nautical charts during the 19th century, but also to add the historical case of the map trade and geographical knowledge circulation in East Asia.</p>

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

No history of the Scottish diaspora in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries would be complete without taking account of the provenance and disposal of repatriated wealth. A case study is the family saga of the Maclaines of Lochbuie, whose estates lay on the island of Mull in the Inner Hebrides. Our account begins with Donald Maclaine (1816–1863), the twenty-second laird, who, as a partner in the Batavia (Jakarta) mercantile business of Maclaine Watson, made his fortune from the trade in sugar cultivated by forced peasant labour in the Dutch East Indies (present-day Indonesia). It was the profits from this trade that he used to repurchase the family’s ancestral lands that had been forfeited to their creditors a decade earlier. Donald Maclaine’s enthusiasm for the Highlands was inherited by his Indies-born son, Murdoch Gillian Maclaine (1845–1909), the twenty-third laird, whose life and times, together with those of his wife, Marianne Schwabe-Maclaine (1850–1934), form the main focus of this paper. That enthusiasm extended to the patronage of Gaelic culture and to Highland revivalism in general, but it was also under his stewardship that his family’s cosmopolitan lifestyle revived the less welcome tradition of the ‘luxury trap’, wherein expenditures incurred in London high society also had to contend with declining rentals during a prolonged agricultural depression. Financial pressures of this kind appear to have compelled the twenty-third laird to redevelop Lochbuie in accordance with a late Victorian reimagining of the Highlands as a sporting estate. This was not a gamble that paid off, however, and a once-off infusion of colonial wealth proved inadequate to sustain Lochbuie, which was irretrievably lost to the family during the (brief) tenure of Kenneth Maclaine (1880–1935), the twenty-fourth laird, despite his somewhat unconventional efforts to bolster the family fortunes by taking to the boards in New York and the UK.

The Diptera genus-group names of Camillo Rondani are reviewed and annotated. A total of 601 nomenclaturally available genus-group names in 82 families of Diptera are listed alphabetically. For each name the following are given: author, year and page of original publication, originally included species [and first included species if none were originally included], type species and method of fixation, current status of the name, family placement, and a list of any emendations of it that have been found in the literature. Remarks are given to clarify nomenclatural or taxonomic information. In addition, an index is provided to all the species-group names of Diptera proposed by Rondani (1,236, of which 1,183 are available) with bibliographic reference to each original citation. Appended to this study is a full bibliography of Rondani’s works and a list with explanations for all new synonymies arising from revised emendations. Corrected or clarified type-species and/or corrected or clarified type-species designations are given for the following genus-group names: Anoplomerus Rondani, 1856 [Dolichopodidae]; Biomya Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Bremia Rondani, 1861 [Cecidomyiidae]; Deximorpha Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Elasmocera Rondani, 1845 [Asilidae]; Enteromyza Rondani, 1857 [Oestridae]; Exogaster Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Istocheta Rondani, 1859 [Tachinidae]; Istoglossa Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Lejogaster Rondani, 1857 [Syrphidae]; Lignodesia Rondani, 1868 [Phaeomyiidae]; Medorilla Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Meroplius Rondani, 1874 [Sepsidae]; Nodicornis Rondani, 1843 [Dolichopodidae]; Omalostoma Rondani, 1862 [Tachinidae]; Opegiocera Rondani, 1845 [Asilidae]; Petagnia Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Phaniosoma Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Proboscina Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Pyragrura Rondani, 1861 [Tachinidae]; Stemonocera Rondani, 1870 [Tephritidae]; Telejoneura Rondani, 1863 [Asilidae]; Tricoliga Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]. The following genus-group names previously treated as available were found to be unavailable: Bombyliosoma Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Bombyliidae]; Bombylosoma Marschall, 1873, n. stat. [Bombyliidae]; Brachynevra Agassiz, 1846, n. stat. [Cecidomyiidae]; Calliprobola Rondani, 1856, n. stat. [Syrphidae]; Camponeura Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Syrphidae]; Chlorosoma Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Stratiomyidae]; Engyzops Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Calliphoridae]; Exodonta Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Stratiomyidae]; Histochaeta Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Tachinidae]; Histoglossa Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Tachinidae]; Homalostoma Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Tachinidae]; Hoplacantha Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Stratiomyidae]; Hoplodonta Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Stratiomyidae]; Liota Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Syrphidae]; Lomatacantha Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Tachinidae]; Machaera Mik, 1890, n. stat. [Tachinidae]; Machaira Brauer & Bergenstamm, 1889, n. stat. [Tachinidae]; Myiatropa Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Syrphidae]; Oplacantha Verrall, 1882, n. stat. [Stratiomyidae]. Previous First Reviser actions for multiple original spellings missed by previous authors include: Genus-group names—Achanthipodus Rondani, 1856 [Dolichopodidae]; Argyrospila Rondani, 1856 [Bombyliidae]; Botria Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Chetoliga Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Chrysoclamys Rondani, 1856 [Syrphidae]; Cyrtophloeba Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Istocheta Rondani, 1859 [Tachinidae]; Macherea Rondani, 1859 [Tachinidae]; Macronychia Rondani, 1859 [Sarcophagidae]; Pachylomera Rondani, 1856 [Psilidae]; Peratochetus Rondani, 1856 [Clusiidae]; Phytophaga Rondani, 1840 [Cecidomyiidae]; Spylosia Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Thlipsogaster Rondani, 1863 [Bombyliidae]; Tricogena Rondani, 1856 [Rhinophoridae]; Tricoliga Rondani, 1856 [Tachinidae]; Viviania Rondani, 1861 [Tachinidae]. Species-group name—Sphixapata albifrons Rondani, 1859 [Sarcophagidae]. Acting as First Reviser, the following correct original spellings for multiple original spellings are selected by us: Bellardia Rondani, 1863 [Tabanidae]; Chetoptilia Rondani, 1862 [Tachinidae]; Chetylia Rondani, 1861 [Tachinidae]; Clytiomyia Rondani, 1862 [Tachinidae]; Cryptopalpus Rondani, 1850 [Tachinidae]; Diatomineura Rondani, 1863 [Tabanidae]; Enteromyza Rondani, 1857 [Oestridae]; Esenbeckia Rondani, 1863 [Tabanidae]; Hammomyia Rondani, 1877 [Anthomyiidae]; Hydrothaea Rondani, 1856 [Muscidae]; Hyrmophlaeba Rondani, 1863 [Nemestrinidae]; Limnomya Rondani, 1861 [Limoniidae]; Lyoneura Rondani, 1856 [Psychodidae]; Micetoica Rondani, 1861 [Anisopodidae]; Miennis Rondani, 1869 [Ulidiidae]; Mycetomiza Rondani, 1861 [Mycetophilidae]; Mycosia Rondani, 1861 [Mycetophilidae]; Mycozetaea Rondani, 1861 [Mycetophilidae]; Piotepalpus Rondani, 1856 [Mycetophilidae]; Prothechus Rondani, 1856 [Pipunculidae]; Spyloptera Rondani, 1856 [Limoniidae]; Teremya Rondani, 1875 [Lonchaeidae]; Thricogena Rondani, 1859 [Tachinidae]; Trichopalpus Rondani, 1856 [Scathophagidae]; Trichopeza Rondani, 1856 [Brachystomatidae]; Tricophthicus Rondani, 1861 [Muscidae]; Triphleba Rondani, 1856 [Phoridae]; Xiloteja Rondani, 1863 [Syrphidae]. The following names are new synonymies of their respective senior synonyms: Genus-group names—Acanthipodus Bigot, 1890 of Poecilobothrus Mik, 1878, n. syn. [Dolichopodidae]; Acanthiptera Rondani, 1877 of Achanthiptera Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Achantiptera Schiner, 1864 of Achanthiptera Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Acydia Rondani, 1870 of Acidia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Acyura Rondani, 1863 of Aciura Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Agaromyia Marschall, 1873 of Agaromya Rondani, 1861, n. syn. [Mycetophilidae]; Ammomyia Mik, 1883 of Leucophora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Anthomyiidae]; Anomoja Rondani, 1871 of Anomoia Walker, 1835, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Anthracomyia Rondani, 1868 of Morinia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Calliphoridae]; Antracomya Lioy, 1864 of Morinia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Calliphoridae]; Anthoeca Bezzi, 1906 of Solieria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1849, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Antomyza Rondani, 1866 of Anthomyza Fallén, 1810, n. syn. [Anthomyzidae]; Antracia Rondani, 1862 of Nyctia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Sarcophagidae]; Aporomyia Schiner, 1861 of Lypha Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Asphondilia Rondani, 1861 of Asphondylia Loew, 1850, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Asteja Rondani, 1856 of Asteia Meigen, 1830, n. syn. [Asteiidae]; Astenia Rondani, 1856 of Blepharicera Macquart, 1843, n. syn. [Blephariceridae]; Astilium Costa, 1866 of Senobasis Macquart, 1838, n. syn. [Asilidae]; Ateleneura Agassiz, 1846 of Atelenevra Macquart, 1834, n. syn. [Pipunculidae]; Athomogaster Rondani, 1866 of Azelia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Axista Rondani, 1856 of Axysta Haliday, 1839, n. syn. [Ephydridae]; Bigonichaeta Schiner, 1864 of Triarthria Stephens, 1829, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Billea Rondani, 1862 of Billaea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Biomyia Schiner, 1868 of Biomya Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Bombilius Dufour, 1833 of Bombylius Linnaeus, 1758, n. syn. [Bombyliidae]; Bombylosoma Loew, 1862 of Bombylisoma Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Bombyliidae]; Brachipalpus Rondani, 1845 of Brachypalpus Macquart, 1834, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Brachipalpus Rondani, 1863 of Palpibracus Rondani, 1863, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Brachistoma Rondani, 1856 of Brachystoma Meigen, 1822, n. syn. [Brachystomatidae]; Brachychaeta Brauer & Bergenstamm, 1889 of Brachicheta Rondani, 1861, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Brachyglossum Bigot, 1858 of Leopoldius Rondani, 1843, n. syn. [Conopidae]; Brachyneura Oken, 1844 of Brachineura Rondani, 1840, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Caelomya Rondani, 1866 of Fannia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Fanniidae]; Caelomyia Rondani, 1877 of Fannia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Fanniidae]; Caenosia Westwood, 1840 of Coenosia Meigen, 1826, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Campilomiza Rondani, 1840 of Campylomyza Meigen, 1818, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Campylochaeta Bezzi & Stein, 1907 of Campylocheta Rondani, 1859, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Caricoea Rondani, 1856 of Coenosia Meigen, 1826, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Carpomyia Loew, 1862 of Carpomya Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Cassidemya Rondani, 1861 of Cassidaemyia Macquart, 1835, n. syn. [Rhinophoridae]; Ceratoxia Costa, 1866 of Otites Latreille, 1804, n. syn. [Ulidiidae]; Ceratoxys Rondani, 1861 of Otites Latreille, 1804, n. syn. [Ulidiidae]; Chaetogena Bezzi & Stein, 1907 of Chetogena Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Chamemyia Rondani, 1875 of Chamaemyia Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Chamaemyiidae]; Chaetoptilia Bezzi & Stein, 1907 of Chetoptilia Rondani, 1862, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Chatolyga Bigot, 1892 of Carcelia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Chersodromya Rondani, 1856 of Chersodromia Haliday, 1851, n. syn. [Hybotidae]; Chetilya Rondani, 1861 of Chetina Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Chilopogon Bezzi, 1902 of Dasypogon Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Asilidae]; Chiromya Agassiz, 1846 of Chyromya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Chyromyidae]; Chlorisoma Rondani, 1861 of Microchrysa Loew, 1855, n. syn. [Stratiomyidae]; Chorthophila Rondani, 1856 of Phorbia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Anthomyiidae]; Chortofila Rondani, 1843 of Phorbia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Anthomyiidae]; Chriorhyna Rondani, 1845 of Criorhina Meigen, 1822, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Chrisogaster Rondani, 1868 of Chrysogaster Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Chryorhina Rondani, 1856 of Criorhina Meigen, 1822, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Chryorhyna Rondani, 1857 of Criorhina Meigen, 1822, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Chrysoclamys Rondani, 1856 of Ferdinandea Rondani, 1844, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Chrysomya Rondani, 1856 of Microchrysa Loew, 1855, n. syn. [Stratiomyidae]; Chrysopila Rondani, 1844 of Chrysopilus Macquart, 1826, n. syn. [Rhagionidae]; Chyrosia Rondani, 1866 of Chirosia Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Anthomyiidae]; Clytiomyia Rondani, 1862 of Clytiomya Rondani, 1861, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Conopoejus Bigot, 1892 of Conops Linnaeus, 1758, n. syn. [Conopidae]; Criorhyna Rondani, 1865 of Criorhina Meigen, 1822, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Criptopalpus Rondani, 1863 of Cryptopalpus Rondani, 1850, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Crysogaster Rondani, 1865 of Chrysogaster Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Crysops Rondani, 1844 of Chrysops Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tabanidae]; Cyrthoneura Rondani, 1863 of Graphomya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Cyrthoplaeba Rondani, 1857 of Cyrtophloeba Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Cyrthosia Rondani, 1863 of Cyrtosia Perris, 1839, n. syn. [Mythicomyiidae]; Cystogaster Walker, 1856 of Cistogaster Latreille, 1829, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Cyterea Rondani, 1856 of Cytherea Fabricius, 1794, n. syn. [Bombyliidae]; Dactyliscus Bigot, 1857 of Habropogon Loew, 1847, n. syn. [Asilidae]; Dasiphora Rondani, 1856 of Dasyphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Dasipogon Dufour, 1833 of Dasypogon Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Asilidae]; Dasyneura Oken, 1844 of Dasineura Rondani, 1840, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Dexiomorpha Mik, 1887 of Estheria Robineau-Desvoidy, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Dichaetophora Becker, 1905 of Dichetophora Rondani, 1868, n. syn. [Sciomyzidae]; Dicheta Rondani, 1856 of Dichaeta Meigen, 1830, n. syn. [Ephydridae]; Dictia Rondani, 1856 of Dictya Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Sciomyzidae]; Dionea Rondani, 1861 of Dionaea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Ditricha Rondani, 1871 of Dithryca Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Dolicopeza Rondani, 1856 of Dolichopeza Meigen, 1830, n. syn. [Tipulidae]; Doricera Rondani, 1856 of Dorycera Meigen, 1830, n. syn. [Ulidiidae]; Drimeia Rondani, 1877 of Drymeia Meigen, 1826, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Drimeja Rondani, 1856 of Drymeia Meigen, 1826, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Driomyza Rondani, 1844 of Dryomyza Fallén, 1820, n. syn. [Dryomyzidae]; Driope Rondani, 1868 of Dryope Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Dryomyzidae]; Dryomiza Rondani, 1869 of Dryomyza Fallén, 1820, n. syn. [Dryomyzidae]; Dynera Rondani, 1861 of Dinera Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Dytricha Rondani, 1870 of Dithryca Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Elachysoma Rye, 1881 of Elachisoma Rondani, 1880, n. syn. [Sphaeroceridae]; Elaeophila Marschall, 1873 of Eloeophila Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Limoniidae]; Emerodromya Rondani, 1856 of Hemerodromia Meigen, 1822, n. syn. [Empididae]; Engyzops Bezzi & Stein, 1907 of Eggisops Rondani, 1862, n. syn. [Calliphoridae]; Entomybia Rondani, 1879 of Braula Nitzsch, 1818, n. syn. [Braulidae]; Epidesmya Rondani, 1861 of Acidia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Erinnia Rondani, 1856 of Erynnia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Eristalomyia Kittel & Kreichbaumer, 1872 of Eristalomya Rondani, 1857, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Esteria Rondani, 1862 of Estheria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Exatoma Rondani, 1856 of Hexatoma Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tabanidae]; Exochila Mik, 1885 of Hammerschmidtia Schummel, 1834, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Fisceria Rondani, 1856 of Fischeria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Gedia Rondani, 1856 of Gaedia Meigen, 1838, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Gimnocheta Rondani, 1859 of Gymnocheta Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Gimnosoma Rondani, 1862 of Gymnosoma Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Gonirhinchus Lioy, 1864 of Myopa Fabricius, 1775, n. syn. [Conopidae]; Gonirhynchus Marschall, 1873 of Myopa Fabricius, 1775, n. syn. [Conopidae]; Gononeura Oldenberg, 1904 of Gonioneura Rondani, 1880, n. syn. [Sphaeroceridae]; Graphomia Rondani, 1862 of Graphomya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Gymnopha Rondani, 1856 of Mosillus Latreille, 1804, n. syn. [Ephydridae]; Hammobates Rondani, 1857 of Tachytrechus Haliday, 1851, n. syn. [Dolichopodidae]; Harrysia Rondani, 1865 of Lydina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Hemathobia Rondani, 1862 of Haematobia Le Peletier & Serville, 1828, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Hemerodromya Rondani, 1856 of Hemerodromia Meigen, 1822, n. syn. [Empididae]; Heryngia Rondani, 1857 of Heringia Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Hidropota Lioy, 1864 of Hydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Ephydridae]; Hipostena Rondani, 1861 of Phyllomya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Hirmophloeba Marschall, 1873 of Hyrmophlaeba Rondani, 1863, n. syn. [Nemestrinidae]; Histricia Rondani, 1863 of Hystricia Macquart, 1843, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Hoemotobia Rondani, 1856 of Haematobia Le Peletier & Serville, 1828, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Homalomya Rondani, 1866 of Fannia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Fanniidae]; Homalostoma Bezzi & Stein, 1907 of Billaea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Hoplisa Brauer & Bergenstamm, 1889 of Oplisa Rondani, 1862, n. syn. [Rhinophoridae]; Hydrothaea Rondani, 1856 of Hydrotaea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Hylara Rondani, 1856 of Hilara Meigen, 1822, n. syn. [Empididae]; Hyrmoneura Rondani, 1863 of Hirmoneura Meigen, 1820, n. syn. [Nemestrinidae]; Ilisomyia Osten Sacken, 1869 of Ormosia Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Limoniidae]; Istochaeta Marschall, 1873 of Istocheta Rondani, 1859, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Lamnea Rondani, 1861 of Erioptera Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Limoniidae]; Lasiophthicus Rondani, 1856 of Scaeva Fabricius, 1805, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Lestremya Rondani, 1856 of Lestremia Macquart, 1826, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Lidella De Galdo, 1856 of Lydella Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Lomacantha Lioy, 1864 of Lomachantha Rondani, 1859, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Lomachanta Schiner, 1864 of Lomachantha Rondani, 1859, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Loncoptera Rondani, 1856 of Lonchoptera Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Lonchopteridae]; Lymnophora Blanchard, 1845 of Limnophora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Macherium Rondani, 1856 of Machaerium Haliday, 1832, n. syn. [Dolichopodidae]; Macrochaetum Bezzi, 1894 of Elachiptera Macquart, 1825, n. syn. [Chloropidae]; Macrochoetum Bezzi, 1892 of Elachiptera Macquart, 1825, n. syn. [Chloropidae]; Macroneura Rondani, 1856 of Diadocidia Ruthe, 1831, n. syn. [Diadocidiidae]; Marshamya Rondani, 1850 of Linnaemya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Marsilia Bezzi & Stein, 1907 of Tricoliga Rondani, 1859, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Megachetum Rondani, 1856 of Dasyna Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Psilidae]; Megaloglossa Bezzi, 1907 of Platystoma Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Platystomatidae]; Megera Rondani, 1859 of Senotainia Macquart, 1846, n. syn. [Sarcophagidae]; Melanomyia Rondani, 1868 of Melanomya Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Calliphoridae]; Melizoneura Bezzi & Stein, 1907 of Melisoneura Rondani, 1861, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Mesomelaena Bezzi & Stein, 1907 of Mesomelena Rondani, 1859, n. syn. [Sarcophagidae]; Micetina Rondani, 1861 of Mycetophila Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Mycetophilidae]; Micetobia Rondani, 1861 of Mycetobia Meigen, 1818, n. syn. [Anisopodidae]; Micromyia Oken, 1844 of Micromya Rondani, 1840, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Miennis Rondani, 1869 of Myennis Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Ulidiidae]; Miopina Rondani, 1866 of Myopina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Anthomyiidae]; Morjnia Rondani, 1862 of Morinia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Calliphoridae]; Morphomyia Rondani, 1862 of Stomina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Myatropa Rondani, 1857 of Myathropa Rondani, 1845, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Mycetomiza Rondani, 1861 of Mycosia Rondani, 1861, n. syn. [Mycetophilidae]; Myiantha Rondani, 1877 of Fannia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Fanniidae]; Myiathropa Rondani, 1868 of Myathropa Rondani, 1845, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Myiocera Rondani, 1868 of Dinera Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Myiolepta Rondani, 1868 of Myolepta Newman, 1838, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Myiospila Rondani, 1868 of Myospila Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Myltogramma Rondani, 1868 of Miltogramma Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Sarcophagidae]; Myntho Rondani, 1845 of Mintho Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Myospyla Rondani, 1862 of Myospila Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Napoea Rondani, 1856 of Parydra Stenhammar, 1844, n. syn. [Ephydridae]; Neera Rondani, 1861 of Neaera Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Nemestrina Blanchard, 1845 of Nemestrinus Latreille, 1802, n. syn. [Nemestrinidae]; Nemorea Macquart, 1834 of Nemoraea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Nevrolyga Agassiz, 1846 of Neurolyga Rondani, 1840, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Nictia Rondani, 1862 of Nyctia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Sarcophagidae]; Noteromyia Marschall, 1873 of Camilla Haliday, 1838, n. syn. [Camillidae]; Ociptera Rondani, 1862 of Cylindromyia Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Onodonta Rondani, 1866 of Hydrotaea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Opegiocera Rondani, 1845 of Ancylorhynchus Berthold, 1827, n. syn. [Asilidae]; Ophira Rondani, 1844 of Hydrotaea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Ornithoeca Kirby, 1880 of Ornithoica Rondani, 1878, n. syn. [Hippoboscidae]; Ornithomyia Macquart, 1835 of Ornithomya Latreille, 1804, n. syn. [Hippoboscidae]; Orthochile Blanchard, 1845 of Ortochile Latreille, 1809, n. syn. [Dolichopodidae]; Oxicera Rondani, 1856 of Oxycera Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Stratiomyidae]; Oxina Rondani, 1856 of Oxyna Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Ozyrhinchus Rondani, 1861 of Ozirhincus Rondani, 1840, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Oxyrhyncus Rondani, 1856 of Ozirhincus Rondani, 1840, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Pachigaster Rondani, 1856 of Pachygaster Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Stratiomyidae]; Pachimeria Rondani, 1856 of Pachymeria Stephens, 1829, n. syn. [Empididae]; Pachipalpus Rondani, 1856 of Cordyla Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Mycetophilidae]; Pachirhyna Rondani, 1845 of Nephrotoma Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tipulidae]; Pachirina Rondani, 1840 of Nephrotoma Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tipulidae]; Pachistomus Rondani, 1856 of Xylophagus Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Xylophagidae]; Pangonia Macquart, 1834 of Pangonius Latreille, 1802, n. syn. [Tabanidae]; Pentetria Rondani, 1856 of Penthetria Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Bibionidae]; Perichaeta Herting, 1984 of Policheta Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Perichoeta Bezzi, 1894 of Policheta Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Phalacromyia Costa, 1866 of Copestylum Macquart, 1846, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Phicodromia Rondani, 1866 of Malacomyia Westwood, 1840, n. syn. [Coelopidae]; Phillophaga Lioy, 1864 of Asphondylia Loew, 1850, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Phito Rondani, 1861 of Phyto Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Rhinophoridae]; Phitomyptera Lioy, 1864 of Phytomyptera Rondani, 1845, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Phitophaga Lioy, 1864 of Cecidomyia Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Phloebotomus Rondani, 1856 of Phlebotomus Rondani & Berté, 1840, n. syn. [Psychodidae]; Phorichaeta Brauer & Bergenstamm, 1889 of Periscepsia Gistel, 1848, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Phrino Rondani, 1861 of Phryno Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Phrixe Rondani, 1862 of Phryxe Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Phthyria Rondani, 1856 of Phthiria Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Bombyliidae]; Phtyria Rondani, 1863 of Phthiria Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Bombyliidae]; Phyllodromya Rondani, 1856 of Phyllodromia Zetterstedt, 1837, n. syn. [Empididae]; Phytofaga Rondani, 1843 of Cecidomyia Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Phytomyzoptera Bezzi, 1906 of Phytomyptera Rondani, 1845, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Platiparea Rondani, 1870 of Platyparea Loew, 1862, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Platistoma Lioy, 1864 of Platystoma Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Platystomatidae]; Platychyra Rondani, 1859 of Panzeria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Platynochetus Rondani, 1845 of Platynochaetus Wiedemann, 1830, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Polychaeta Schiner, 1868 of Policheta Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Polycheta Schiner, 1861 of Policheta Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Porrhocondyla Agassiz, 1846 of Porricondyla Rondani, 1840, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Porrycondyla Walker, 1874 of Porricondyla Rondani, 1840, n. syn. [Cecidomyiidae]; Prosopaea Brauer & Bergenstamm, 1889 of Prosopea Rondani, 1861, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Psicoda Rondani, 1840 of Psychoda Latreille, 1797, n. syn. [Psychodidae]; Psylopus Rondani, 1850 of Sciapus Zeller, 1842, n. syn. [Dolichopodidae]; Pteropectria Rondani, 1869 of Herina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Ulidiidae]; Pterospylus Bigot, 1857 of Syneches Walker, 1852, n. syn. [Hybotidae]; Pticoptera Rondani, 1856 of Ptychoptera Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Ptychopteridae]; Ptilocheta Rondani, 1857 of Zeuxia Meigen, 1826, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Ptilochoeta Bezzi, 1894 of Zeuxia Meigen, 1826, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Ptylocera Rondani, 1861 of Zeuxia Meigen, 1826, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Ptylops Rondani, 1859 of Macquartia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Pyragrura Rondani, 1861 of Labigastera Macquart, 1834, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Pyrrhosia Bezzi & Stein, 1907 of Leskia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Ragio Scopoli, 1777 of Rhagio Fabricius, 1775, n. syn. [Rhagionidae]; Raimondia Rondani, 1879 of Raymondia Frauenfeld, 1855, n. syn. [Hippoboscidae]; Ramphina Rondani, 1856 of Rhamphina Macquart, 1835, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Ramphomya Rondani, 1845 of Rhamphomyia Meigen, 1822, n. syn. [Empididae]; Raphium Latreille, 1829 of Rhaphium Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Dolichopodidae]; Rhynchomyia Macquart, 1835 of Rhyncomya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Rhiniidae]; Rhyncosia Rondani, 1861 of Aphria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Rhynophora Rondani, 1861 of Rhinophora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Rhinophoridae]; Riphus Rondani, 1845 of Rhyphus Latreille, 1804, n. syn. [Anisopodidae]; Ripidia Rondani, 1856 of Rhipidia Meigen, 1818, n. syn. [Limoniidae]; Sarcopaga Rondani, 1856 of Sarcophaga Meigen, 1826, n. syn. [Sarcophagidae]; Scatomiza Rondani, 1866 of Scathophaga Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Scathophagidae]; Schaenomyza Rondani, 1866 of Schoenomyza Haliday, 1833, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Sciomiza Rondani, 1856 of Sciomyza Fallén, 1820, n. syn. [Sciomyzidae]; Sciopila Rondani, 1856 of Sciophila Meigen, 1818, n. syn. [Mycetophilidae]; Serromya Rondani, 1856 of Serromyia Meigen, 1818, n. syn. [Ceratopogonidae]; Seseromyia Costa, 1866 of Cosmina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Rhiniidae]; Sibistroma Rondani, 1856 of Sybistroma Meigen, 1824, n. syn. [Dolichopodidae]; Simplecta Rondani, 1856 of Symplecta Meigen, 1830, n. syn. [Limoniidae]; Sinapha Rondani, 1856 of Synapha Meigen, 1818, n. syn. [Mycetophilidae]; Siritta Rondani, 1844 of Syritta Le Peletier & Serville, 1828, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Somatolia Bezzi & Stein, 1907 of Lydina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Somomia Rondani, 1862 of Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Calliphoridae]; Somomyia Rondani, 1868 of Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Calliphoridae]; Sphixaea Rondani, 1856 of Milesia Latreille, 1804, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Sphyxaea Rondani, 1856 of Milesia Latreille, 1804, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Sphyxapata Bigot, 1881 of Senotainia Macquart, 1846, n. syn. [Sarcophagidae]; Sphyximorpha Rondani, 1856 of Sphiximorpha Rondani, 1850, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Spilomya Rondani, 1857 of Spilomyia Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Spiximorpha Rondani, 1857 of Sphiximorpha Rondani, 1850, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Spixosoma Rondani, 1857 of Conops Linnaeus, 1758, n. syn. [Conopidae]; Spylographa Rondani, 1871 of Trypeta Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Stenopterix Millet de la Turtaudière, 1849 of Craterina Olfers, 1816, n. syn. [Hippoboscidae]; Stomorhyna Rondani, 1862 of Stomorhina Rondani, 1861, n. syn. [Rhiniidae]; Stomoxis Latreille, 1797 of Stomoxys Geoffroy, 1762, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Syphona Rondani, 1844 of Siphona Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Tachidromya Rondani, 1856 of Tachydromia Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Hybotidae]; Tachipeza Rondani, 1856 of Tachypeza Meigen, 1830, n. syn. [Hybotidae]; Tanipeza Rondani, 1850 of Tanypeza Fallén, 1820, n. syn. [Tanypezidae]; Teicomyza Rondani, 1856 of Teichomyza Macquart, 1835, n. syn. [Ephydridae]; Telaira Rondani, 1862 of Thelaira Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Teremya Rondani, 1875 of Lonchaea Fallén, 1820, n. syn. [Lonchaeidae]; Thecomya Rondani, 1848 of Thecomyia Perty, 1833, n. syn. [Sciomyzidae]; Thlypsigaster Marschall, 1873 of Amictus Wiedemann, 1817, n. syn. [Bombyliidae]; Thlypsomyza Rondani, 1863 of Amictus Wiedemann, 1817, n. syn. [Bombyliidae]; Thrichogena Bezzi, 1894 of Loewia Egger, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Thricogena Rondani, 1859 of Loewia Egger, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Thricophticus Rondani, 1866 of Thricops Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Thriptocheta Lioy, 1864 of Campichoeta Macquart, 1835, n. syn. [Diastatidae]; Thryptochoeta Bezzi, 1891 of Campichoeta Macquart, 1835, n. syn. [Diastatidae]; Thyreodonta Marschall, 1873 of Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762, n. syn. [Stratiomyidae]; Toxopora Rondani, 1856 of Toxophora Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Bombyliidae]; Tricholiga Rondani, 1873 of Tricoliga Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Trichophticus Rondani, 1871 of Thricops Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Muscidae]; Tricocera Rondani, 1856 of Trichocera Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Trichoceridae]; Tricolyga Schiner, 1861 of Tricoliga Rondani, 1856, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Trigliphus Rondani, 1856 of Triglyphus Loew, 1840, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Tripeta Rondani, 1856 of Trypeta Meigen, 1803, n. syn. [Tephritidae]; Triphera Rondani, 1861 of Tryphera Meigen, 1838, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Triptocera Lioy, 1864 of Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Tryptocera Macquart, 1844 of Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Uromya Rondani, 1856 of Phania Meigen, 1824, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Winthemya Rondani, 1859 of Winthemia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, n. syn. [Tachinidae]; Xiloteja Rondani, 1863 of Myolepta Newman, 1838, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Xylomyia Marschall, 1873 of Xylomya Rondani, 1861, n. syn. [Xylomyidae]; Xyloteja Rondani, 1856 of Myolepta Newman, 1838, n. syn. [Syrphidae]; Xyphidicera Rondani, 1845 of Xiphidicera Macquart, 1834, n. syn. [Hybotidae]; Xyphocera Rondani, 1845 of Ancylorhynchus Berthold, 1827, n. syn. [Asilidae]; Zigoneura Rondani, 1840 of Zygoneura Meigen, 1830, n. syn. [Sciaridae]; Zophomya Rondani, 1859 of Zophomyia Macquart, 1835, n. syn. [Tachinidae]. Species-group name—Psalida leucostoma Rondani, 1856 of Ocyptera simplex Fallén, 1815, n. syn. [Tachinidae]. Mycosia Rondani, 1861 is treated here as nomen dubium [Mycetophilidae]; Habropogon heteroneurus Timon-David, 1951 is resurrected from junior synonymy with Asilus striatus Fabricius, 1794, new stat. [Asilidae]. Reversal of precedence is invoked for three cases of subjective synonymy to promote stability in nomenclature: Macquartia monticola Egger, 1856, nomen protectum and Proboscina longipes Rondani, 1856, nomen oblitum [in Tachinidae]; Loewia Egger, 1856, nomen protectum and Thrychogena Rondani, 1856, nomen oblitum [in Tachinidae]; Zygomyia Winnertz, 1863, nomen protectum and Bolithomyza Rondani, 1856, nomen oblitum [in Mycetophilidae].

AbstractTwo things long stood in the way of the erection of statues in public in the Northern Netherlands, on the one hand the lack of a strong central government and on the other the wrongly interpreted - Calvinist interdict on them (Note 1). The first statue of this kind, that of Erasmus in Rotterdam by De Keyser (1622), was attacked by strict Calvinists, but noted throughout Europe as an early paradigm (Note 3). Not until the 19th century did the Netherlands join in the nationalistic 'statue craze', which was just breaking out then, with two monuments to the supposed Dutch inventor of printing, Laurens Janszoon Coster. These statues of a private citizen had a predecessor in the 18th century, while a statue had already been demanded in the 17th-century eulogies of Coster. Cities had long honoured their famous inventors as important contributors to civilization and praise of the inventor was also a fundampental ingredient of the history of learning (e.g. in Pliny). In the Renaissance scientific inventions acquired a special emphasis, modern inventors being held up as evidence that the model of Antiquity could be not only equalled, but also surpassed, while both Christian civilization and the northern countries could also gain credit here (cf. Johannes Stradanus, Figs. 2, 3, Note 9, and Francis Bacon, Note 10). The significance of the invention of printing for Christianity was soon recognized, so that it was lauded above other inventions as 'divine', an attitude that was certainly also strengthened by its decisive role in the Reformation. In the Netherlands in particular, where religious and political developments were so closely interwoven, printing was regarded as an important aid to both (Notes 14, 15), while the young Dutch Republic, in which printing played such an important part, could claim the honour of counting the inventor of this important art among its citizens. This 'pious fraud' (Hellinga) is fundamental to the discussion of the history of the statues. The Coster tradition can only be traced back to about a century after the supposed invention, acquiring its definitive form at the end of the 16th century in Hadrianus Junius' Batavia Illustrata of 1598. The further enlargement on the merits of Coster also necessitated a portrait of him which, in de fault of an authentic one, had to be fabricated for the purpose, the features of the statue of Erasmus being taken over for a full-length portrait (Fig. 5), which served as a 'graphic monument'. A fictitious bust of Coster was also cited in the 17th century (Fig. 7) and this, like the early sculptural marks of honour to him (Fig. 16), belongs to the iconography of printing, the practitioners of the craft evoking their inventor. Such representations - a more or less life-size statue of Coster is still to be seen on the house of the Haarlem printer Enschedé - were not yet very public in character. The statue of Coster projected from the end of the 17th century for the garden of the Hortus Medicus in Haarlem did acquire greater publicity, however. This humanist garden of a bourgeois learned society (Note 28), reflected not only nature, but also the world of learning, as a microcosm of the arts, with sixteen busts of connoisseurs and scholars under the leadership of a full-length statue of Coster, since it was he who by his art had made the dissemination of learning possible, although he owed his place here largely to his Haarlem origins, of course. The designs made by Romeyn de Hooghe for this statue (Note 29) were only realized in 1722 in a statue by Gerrit van Heerstal, which tried to unite historical and classical features (Figs. 8-13). In the years thereafter, up to the tercentenary of the invention, the poems, medals and a weighty commemorative publication (Fig. 14, Note 35) celebrating the Haarlem inventor of printing all referred to this statue in his birthplace. Meanwhile Germany too had honoured her inventors of printing - Fust in addition to Gutenberg, initially - in 1640 and 1710 by centenary festivities often of a Protestant cast. Privileges relating to public statues may have been one of the reasons why no monuments were erected on these occasions. These privileges were, however, annulled by the French Revolution, just as the Enlightenment and political renewal furthered the cult of honouring leading civic 'geniuses'. Two Gutenberg cities under French rule took pride of pace here, but only in 1840 did Strasbourg acquire a statue of Gutenberg by David d'Angers, which illustrated his role as the enlightener of all mankind (Figs. 15-18, Note 39). In Mainz a private initiative of 1794 came to nothing (Note 40), as did a Napoleonic rebuilding plan centred on a Gutenberg Square with a statue. Not until 1829 was a semi-public statue by Joseph Stok set up there (Note 41), while in 1837 the Gutenberg monument designed by Bartel Thorwaldsen was unveiled with great ceremony (Fig. 19). The two last-mentioned statues in Mainz, like the many others erected after 1814, were the products of the nationalistic pride in the country's past history that flared up after the defeat of Napoleon. This pride in the past generally took on a nostalgic cast and served to compensate for the failure of current political ambitions: The unity of Germany long a dream, while the hoped-for great changes in the Kingdom of the Netherlands were dealt a bitter blow by the breakaway of the 'southern provinces' in 1831 (Note 44). This last event marked the start for the Northern Netherlands of a long-lasting rivalry with their Belgian neighbours, which was pursued by means of monumental art, from the statue of Rembrandt (1852) as an answer to that of Rubens (1840) to the Rijksmuseum (1885). The great importance attached to Coster in the 19th century was already manifested in 1801 by the removal of the statue in Haarlem from the Hortus Medicus to the marketplace (Note 45). National pride is abundantly evident in the prizewinning treatise published in 1816 by Jacobus Koning, who is a weighty investigation confirmed Coster's right to the invention and with it that of the Netherlands to a leading place among the civilized nations. The quatercentenary, fixed surprisingly early, in 1823, comprised every imaginable type of public entertainment and demonstration of scholarship. It is, however, striking that these expressions of national pride were still balanced by references to the elevating effect of the invention (Note 56). The most lasting mark of honour of the celebration of 1823, the abstract monument by the Haarlem sculptor D. Douglas, also looked back to the sensibilities of the 18th century in its placing on the spot where the invention had come into being in the Haarlem Wood (Fig. 23, Note 59). After this Haarlem monument of 1823 had been adduced in the discussions about the statue in Mainz before 1829, Thorwaldsen's statue, which attracted great international attention, became a greater source of annoyance to the Dutch adversaries of Gutenberg after 1829 than the statue to the Belgian inventor Dirck Martens in Aalst (Note 63) or the projected monument to William Caxton in England. Jan Jacob Frederik. Noordziek summed up this dissatisfaction in his call in 1847 to 'uphold the honour of the fatherland', in which he pleaded for a monument that would surpass the Gutenberg statue and thus serve as an argument that would establish the Dutch claim for good (Note 64). The erection of this statue was further expressly intended to be an exclusively national affair: the citizens of the Netherlands must raise the money and only Dutch artists be charged with the execution. The general discussion about the statues appears to have been less virulent than was usually the case in the preliminaries to other monuments (Note 66), Coster's merits evidently being little contested within the country itself. There were two notable critical voices, however (see Appendix). Professor M. Siegenbeek rang the changes on an old Calvinist argument in refusing a seat on the preparatory committee: in addition to the fact that there were certainly more people who deserved statues, he pointed out that the great expense involved merely evinced ostentation and that the money would be better spent on social ends. The Neo-Classicist Humbert de Superville, on the other hand, did express doubts as to Coster's right to the title, repeating aesthetic arguments which had been adduced before: statues ought, in his view, to be made in the form of durable stone herms, but he thought there was as little chance of that in this 'age of modish lay-figures' in the bronze of melted-down coins, as that the statue would be made by a Dutchman (Note 67). A typical Romantic historical controversy threw the organizers into turmoil, namely the authenticity of the representations of Coster. In particular Westreenen van Tielland unmasked the idealizing and forged portraits, arguing against the erection of a historicizing representational statue. But the defenders of Coster's honour opted for the usual historical realism (Note 68). The tenor of these polemics is found again in the conflict over the 'historical or allegorical' nature of the composition, which can be seen in the designs. Louis Royer, to whom the commission was given in 1848, wanted to show Coster walking with a winged letter A in his hand, as if on his way to show people his discovery, which was soon to wing its way round the world (cf. Fig. 22). However, this allegorical element disappeared completely in the final version, in which the choice fell on a realistic portrait, albeit Coster was still shown walking like a classical predecessor, Archimedes, who could not keep his discovery to himself (Fig. 23, Note 69). The architect H. M. Tetar van Elven was commissioned to make a base in the style of 'the last era of the Middle Ages'. The inscriptions also presented problems, but were finally agreed on in September 1855. The ceremonies, which after all manner of altercation between Royer and the main committee (Note 70) and various financial problems, were finally able to be staged from 15 to 17 July) 1856, included, in addition to the actual unveiling of the statue on the marketplace ( Van Heerstal's statue being returned to the garden again) , pageants, meetings, an exhibition and all sorts of popular entertainments. Everything was on a grander and more extensive scale than 33 years before and little remained of the motif of enlightenment through printing which had been so important then. Nalionalistic merry-making now predominated, along with expressions of devotion to the House of Orange. Less emphasis was also given to the 'darkness' of the Middle Ages, which were now beginning to be valued as part of the nation's history. The most monumental homage to this monument was a 360-page account of the events by the indefatigable Noordziek. His dream of the recognition of Coster and the nation as a whole seemed to have become a reality. But it was not to be so for long. Only fifteen years after the unveiling A. van de Linde unmasked the' 'Haarlem Coster legend' and called for the demolition of the statue, again in the interests of the nation (Note 81).

Abstract A gastropod specimen of the subfamily Addisoniinae Dall, 1882 is reported here for the first time associated with an elasmobranch egg capsule from the South Atlantic Ocean. A specimen of Addisonia enodis Simone, 1996 was found living inside an egg capsule of Atlantoraja castelnaui (Miranda Ribeiro, 1907) (Arhynchobatidae Fowler, 1934) from shallow waters off southeastern Brazil. Previous studies have reported the association of members of the genus Addisonia Dall, 1882 only with the egg capsules of sharks from the family Scyliorhinidae Gill, 1862 and skates from the family Rajidae de Blainville, 1816. Other specimens of A. enodis are also here reported to occur off northeastern Brazil based on shells found in deep waters off the state of Sergipe, which fills a gap in its distribution in the Southwestern Atlantic to the north of this region. Addisonia enodis was recognized as a synonym of A. excentrica (Tiberi, 1855). However, we consider A. enodis as a valid species until further data clarify this issue based on a large sample of Addisonia from Brazilian waters.

Abstract The first director of the National Gallery in London, Sir Charles Eastlake (1793–1865), was an Italophile. His favourite Italian city was Venice, where he once thought of buying a second home. The city he knew best, having lived there for fourteen years from 1816, was Rome. However, between 1854 and 1864, Eastlake made twenty-three trips to Milan, meaning that during his decade as director of the National Gallery from 1855, he visited Milan more often than any other place. This article suggests that Milan became a crucial hub for Eastlake, as the place where he connected with individuals who played important roles in several interconnected areas. Milan was significant, first, as an area rich in private collections, offering fertile ground for the discovery of potential acquisitions and a place from where it was relatively easy to export paintings because German-speaking Austria, which occupied north Italy and the Veneto until 1866, was comparatively lax about imposing export restrictions; second, as a place where art-historical knowledge and connoisseurship could be developed; and third, as a leading centre of picture conservation and framing.