Artículos de revistas sobre el tema "1843-1916"

The Afrotropical species of the sphecid genus Sphex are revised. Forty-six taxa are recognized, of which fifteen are newly described: Sphex abbotti nivarius subsp. nov., S. comorensis sp. nov., S. hades sp. nov., S. nefrens sp. nov., S. occidentalis sp. nov., S. pseudopraedator sp. nov., S. pseudosatanas sp. nov., S. pulawskii sp. nov., S. rufoclypeatus sp. nov., S. satanas memnon subsp. nov., S. schmideggeri sp. nov., S. schoutedeni malawicus subsp. nov., S. socotrensis sp. nov., S. stadelmanni rufus subsp. nov. and S. victoria sp. nov. A new subgenus, Menkeella subgen. nov., is proposed for S. paulinierii Guérin Méneville, 1843. Four former synonyms are resurrected: Sphex pruinosus var. haemorrhoidalis Magretti, 1898, for which the replacement name of S. feijeni nom. nov. is proposed, S. camerunicus Strand, 1916, S. cinerascens Dahlbom, 1843 and S. abbotti W. Fox, 1891. Nine of the previously valid names are shown to be junior synonyms: Sphex haemorrhoidalis basuto (Arnold, 1947) and S. haemorrhoidalis kobrowi (Arnold, 1928) = S. umtalicus Strand, 1916; S. incomptus anonymus Leclercq, 1955 = S. nigrohirtus Kohl, 1895; S. neavei (Arnold, 1928) = S. abbotti W. Fox, 1891; S. observabilis (R. Turner, 1918) = S. ahasverus Kohl, 1890; S. rufiscutis (R. Turner, 1918) and S. mochii Giordani Soika, 1942 = S. jansei Cameron, 1910; S. rufiscutis laevigatus Arnold, 1951 = S. gaullei Berland, 1927; and S. stadelmanni integer (Arnold, 1928) = S. stadelmanni Kohl, 1895. Three previously synonymized species are transferred as new synonyms to different species: Sphex conradti Berland, 1927 = S. camerunicus Strand, 1916; S. kilimandjaroensis Cameron, 1908 = S. abbotti W. Fox, 1891; and S. nigripes var. pachyderma Strand, 1916 = S. umtalicus Strand, 1916. For three species, the actual type localities are on different continents than their labels indicate: Sphex ahasverus Kohl, 1890, S. castaneipes Dahlbom, 1843 and S. optimus F. Smith, 1856, with the first occuring in Africa instead of Australia and the other two presumably occuring in South America instead of Africa. The occurrence of the argentatus group in Sub-Saharan Africa is confirmed, and seven additional species groups are established, with all but one of them based on apomorphic morphological traits. A hypothesis on the phylogenetic relationships among the subgenera and species groups of Sphex is presented, and an identification key for both sexes as well as a placoid-based identification table for males are presented. Using Bayesian inference and maximum likelihood analysis on mitochondrial and nuclear sequence data generated from thirty-one of the recognized taxa, the monophyly of the proposed species groups is corroborated.

For the first time, Protaphis dudichi (Börner, 1940), Protaphis picridicola Holman, 1966 and Uroleucon (Lambersius) erigeronense (Thomas, 1878) are recorded from Russia and Stomaphis quercus (Linnaeus, 1758), Anoecia (Paranoecia) pskovika Mordvilko, 1916, Euceraphis betulae (Koch, 1855), Aphis euphorbiae Kaltenbach, 1843, Aphis molluginis (Börner, 1950), Aphidura picta Hille Ris Lambers, 1956, Myzus (Galiobium) langei (Börner, 1933) and Sitobion (Metobion) graminearum (Mordvilko, 1919), from Western Siberia.

AbstractThe Nearctic species of the subgenus Anomophagus Reitter of the genus Rhizophagus Herbst are revised. Four taxa are recognized: R. brunneus brunneus Horn 1879, R. brunneus fenyesi Méquignon 1913a, R. pseudobrunneus sp.nov., and R. galbus sp.nov.For the other Nearctic species of the genus, a diagnosis, a type material section, and distributional notes are provided. Two new taxa are described, R. minutus rotundicollis and R. pusillus. Seven specific names are treated as new junior synonyms, namely (with the valid name in parentheses): R. longiceps Casey 1916 and R. rectus Casey 1916 (= R. cylindricus LeConte 1866); R. minutus quadriguttatus Méquignon 1913b (= R. minutus minutus Mmnerheim 1853); R. remotus luteus Méquignon 1913b (= R. remotus LeConte 1866); R. sculpturatus horni Méquignon 1913b (= R. sculpturatus Mannerheim 1852); R. dimidiatus testaceus Méquignon 1913b and R. dimidiatus assimilis Méquignon 1913b (= R. dimidiatus Mannerheim 1843). The subgenera name Syringobidia Casey 1916 (type species: R. cylindricus LeConte 1866) is treated as a new junior subjective synonym of Rhizophagus s.str. A key to all Nearctic species of Rhizophagus is provided with distribution maps of the species.

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.

Abstract Elisabeth of Neuwied (1843-1916) was the first Queen of Romania and the wife of Charles I Hollenzolern-Sigmaringen. As a writer she is known under the name of Carmen Sylva. The Queen was a very active and gifted personality but one of her main interests was literature. This article focuses on Carmen Sylva’s literary position as a writer who rejected narrow nationalism although her public position obliged her to impersonate Romanian values while integrating them into an Occident all too eager to spread all over the place. Carmen Sylva is an interesting case of a European trans-national literary identity.

Résumé Tapinos (Georges).- Paul Leroy-Beaulieu et la question de la population. L'impératif démographique, limite du libéralisme économique On se propose, dans cet article, de retracer l'évolution de la pensée d'un économiste malthusien et libéral, Paul Leroy-Beaulieu (1843-1916), confronté au ralentissement de l'accroissement de la population française ; de s'interroger sur la nature et la portée de la critique de Malthus, affirmation d'une loi de population post-malthusienne pour les pays avancés ou remise en cause fondamentale de la vision malthusienne ; de montrer le caractère ambigu et illusoire de la tentative de réconciliation d'une vision libérale du système économique et de l'impératif politique de régénération démographique.

El presente trabajo busca ofrecer una lectura contextualizada de un fragmento del Censo de 1914 escrito por Francisco Latzina (1843-1922), migrante del Imperio Austro-Húngaro, que formaba parte de la élite política e intelectual que gobernó la Argentina de 1880 a 1916, pero que proyecta su discurso hasta el presente. En su figura confluyen una multiplicidad de niveles: las corrientes que conforman una Sociología argentina embrionaria, las migraciones tempranas que aportan una construcción étnica e identitaria particular, la formación de cuadros intelectuales que asumen un registro de observación al otro y en este caso específico con el estudio de su muerte se revelan desde su enfoque positivista en toda su contradictoria complejidad.

Este artigo investiga o modo pelo qual o escritor anglo-americano Henry James (1843-1916) articula, em sua obra de crítica literária e ficção, as dimensões epistemológica, ética e cultural dos processos relativos ao conhecimento e representação literária da realidade. Para tanto, analisa-se a historicidade de certos aspectos formais e temáticos de seus textos, que sugerem o caráter fragmentário e instável da experiência cognitiva do real e das escolhas éticas que tomam esse conhecimento como esteio. Reconhecendo semelhanças entre esses aspectos da obra de James e aqueles da obra de outros autores modernistas, que subverteram certos princípios da representação do romance realista do século XIX, busca-se compreender as especificidades da crítica do autor americano ao realismo oitocentista, isto é, a maneira singular pela qual essa crítica está relacionada à sua interpretação da tradição intelectual norte-americana.

Synonymie wird für die folgenden Taxonnamen neu etabliert: Ellimenistes Boheman, 1843 = Pimelorrhinus Reitter, 1915, syn. n.; Ellimenistes setulosus Fåhraeus, 1871 = Pimelorrhinus globatus Reitter, 1915, syn. n.; Polydrusus subgen. Eudipnus C. G. Thomson, 1859 = Eudipnoidius Apfelbeck, 1898 syn. n.; Polydrusus subgen. Eustolus C. G. Thomson, 1859 = Tylodrusinus Reitter, 1916, syn. n.; Polydrusus impar Gozis, 1882 = P. impar vranicensis Reitter, 1905, syn. n.; Chiloneus Schoenherr, 1842 = Chilonorrhinus Reitter, 1915, syn. n.; Wittmerella Pesarini, 1973 = Sciaphilomorphus Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal, 1999 syn. n. Neue Kombinationen werden vorgeschlagen: Otiorhynchus (Eunihus) pisidicus (Magnano, 2001) comb. n. aus Parameira Seidlitz, 1868; Ellimenistes globatus Reitter, 1915, comb. n. aus Pimelorrhinus Reitter; Chiloneus sitonoides (Reitter, 1915), comb. n., Chiloneus corcyreus (Penecke, 1935), comb. n., Chiloneus aliquoi (Pesarini, 1974), comb. n., und Chiloneus sahlbergi (Reitter, 1915), comb. n. aus Chilonorrhinus Reitter; Wittmerella aurosa (Boheman, 1845) comb. n. und W. sulcirostris (Chevrolat, 1860) comb. n. aus Sciaphilomorphus Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal. Designierung von Typusarten: für Chilonorrhinus Reitter, 1915: 187 (= Chiloneus Schoenherr) – Chilonorrhinus sitonoides Reitter, 1915.StichwörterCurculionidae, Entiminae, new synonym, new combination.Nomenklatorische Handlungeniris Fabricius, 1792 (Curculio), LT now a synonym of Polydrusus cervinus (Linnaeus, 1758)Chilonorrhinus Reitter, 1915 (Entiminae), syn. nov. of Chiloneus Schoenherr, 1842Eudipnoidius Apfelbeck, 1898 (Entiminae), syn. nov. of Eudipnus C.G.Thomson, 1859, subgenus of Polydrusus Germar, 1817Sciaphilomorphus Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal, 1999 (Entiminae), syn. nov. of Wittmerella Paserini, 1973Tylodrusinus Reitter, 1916 (Entiminae), syn. nov. of Eustolus C.G.Thomson, 1859, subgenus of Polydrusus Germar, 1817pisidicus (Magnano, 2003) (Otiorhynchus (Eunihus)), comb. nov. hitherto Parameira pisidicus Magnano, 2003volgense Korotyaev, 1992 (Parameira), syn. nov. of Parameira (Lepidostomodes) gebleri Faust, 1893globatus Reitter, 1915 (Pimelorrhinus), syn. nov. of Ellimenistis setulosus Fahraeus, 1871Synaptorhinus Faust, 1889 (Polydrusini), replacement hitherto in Brachyderini or Sciaphilinivranicensis (var. of impar) Reitter, 1905 (Polydrusus), syn. nov. of Polydrusus (Metallites) impar Gozis, 1882julianus Reitter, 1916 (Polydrusus (Eustolus)), LT described as Polydrusus julianus Reitter, 1916simplex Faust, 1889 (Synaptorhinus), LT

In this paper I will explore the stereotype of the stage hypnotist in fiction literature through the analysis of the novellas Professor Fargo (1874) by Henry James (1843-1916) and Drink: A Love Story on a Great Question (1890) by Hall Caine (1853-1931). Both Professor Fargo and Drink form part of a literary subgenre referred to variously as “Hypnotic Fiction”, “Trance Gothic” or “mesmeric texts”. The objective of my research, which examines both the literary text itself and its historical and social context, is to offer new and interesting data that may contribute to the development of a poetics or theory of the literary subgenre of hypnotic fiction. In this sense, this article is an essential contribution to a broader analysis that I have been working on, focusing on highlighting the generic features of this type of literature by analysing the stereotypes of hypnotists in fiction.

Recenzja prezentuje monografię Travel, Modernism and Modernity, autorstwa brytyjskiego badacza Roberta Burdena, wydaną w 2015 roku. Głównym celem omawianej pracy jest ponowne odkrycie i dogłębne przeanalizowanie modernistycznego pisarstwa podróży. Podstawą rozważań Burdena są literackie i nieliterackie teksty brytyjskich i amerykańskich pisarzy: Josepha Conrada (1957–1924), Edwarda Morgana Forstera (1879–1970), Davida Herberta Lawrence’a (1885–1930), Henry’ego Jamesa (1843–1916) i Edith Wharton (1862–1937). Ich dzieła stawały się już wielokrotnie przedmiotem analizy historyków i teoretyków literatury – to, co odróżnia pracę Burdena od rozważań innych badaczy, to przede wszystkim szerokie, kontekstowe ujęcie ich twórczości. Burden prezentuje sylwetki pisarzy, podkreśla rolę inspiracji autobiograficznych w ich pisarstwie, analizuje je w kontekście historycznym, społecznym i psychologicznym. Motyw podróży nie jest jedynym elementem łączącym poszczególne teksty omawiane przez Burdena – cała jego książka poświęcona jest wyszukiwaniu paraleli i korespondencji, a także elementów oryginalnych, wyróżniających twórczość każdego z pięciorga anglojęzycznych autorów. Omawiane studium należy potraktować jako doskonałe podsumowanie wcześniejszych ujęć, jednocześnie oferujące interesujące rozważania m.in. na temat archetypicznego motywu podróży, wędrówki i poszukiwania – zarówno miejsca, jak i tożsamości (indywidualnej oraz narodowej). Pomimo że teksty omawiane przez Burdena powstawały na początku XX wieku, trudno oprzeć się wrażeniu, iż rozważania autora omawianej monografii są niezwykle aktualne również współcześnie.

Efficiency of the synthetic sexual pheromones for five tortricid species, viz. Grapholita funebrana Treitschke, 1835, G. janthinana (Duponchel, 1835), G. lobarzewskii (Nowicki, 1860), G. molesta (Busck, 1916), and Pandemis heparana (Denis & Schiffermüller, 1775), was evaluated in two areas in the SE part of the Czech Republic. The lures for G. funebrana produced by the Pherobank showed a higher selectivity and efficiency than those by the Propher. On the contrary, pheromones for G. molesta by the Propher are more effective than those by the Pherobank. Besides the target species, 29 non-target tortricid species and 25 other Lepidoptera species were captured. The number of non-target tortricid species was comparable by the attractants for all species (15 – 17 spp.), except Pandemis heparana (only 7 spp.). The most abundant non-target Tortricidae were Cnephasia stephensiana (Doubleday, 1849), Hedya pruniana (Hübner, 1799), and Epiblema cirsiana (Zeller, 1843). Cacoecimorpha pronubana (Hübner, 1799) was recorded in outdoor conditions of the Czech Republic for the first time. Celypha rosaceana (Schläger, 1847) was found as new for Moravia. Oegoconia novimundi (Busck, 1915) (Autostichidae) was attracted by the lures for Grapholita funebrana and G. molesta in unusually high number of specimens.

The article considers the story by Henry James (1843 – 1916) «The Turn of the Screw» (1898 – first edition, 1908 – second edition) in connection with the emergence of a new type of narrator in the writer's late prose. The worldview and creative method of H. James are formed under the influence of the philosophy of pragmatism, which became widespread at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries thanks to the works of the writer's elder brother, the philosopher William James (1842 – 1910). The core of pragmatism is the pluralistic concept of William James based on the assumption that knowledge can be realized from very limited, incomplete, and inadequate «points of view» and this leads to the statement that the absolute truth is essentially unknowable. The epistemological statements of William James's theory is that the content of knowledge is entirely determined by the installation of consciousness, and the content of the truth in this case depends on the goals and experience of the human, i.e. the central starting point is the consciousness of the person. Henry James not only creates works of art, but also sets out in detail the principles of his work both on the pages of fiction works of small and large prose, putting them in the mouths of their characters – representatives of the world of art, and in the prefaces to his works of fiction, as well as in critical works.

AbstractThis paper argues that Russian Formalism is to be considered a constitutive part of the international empiriocritical movement—Ernst Mach (1838—1916) and Richard Avenarius’s (1843—1896). The conceptual parallelism between Empiriocriticism and Formalism is striking indeed. Thus, the cornerstones of the empiriocritical approach—the concept of series [Reihe] and the concept of elements [Elemente], understood as sensations [Empfindungen]—are plainly recognizable within formalist theories: the notion of ‘series’ (for example, the notion of ‘literary series’ or ‘poetic series’, leading to the famous concept of ‘literariness’, literaturnost’) and the very formalist idea of a necessarily perceptible character of aesthetic form are only two, most famous, examples of this astonishing affinity. Here are some of the most striking convergences between Empiriocriticism and Formalism: the relativity of any knowledge; continuity between knowledge and perception; the pragmatic dominant; the leitmotif of ‘the Unsalvageable Ego’. Besides, the paper seeks to situate Russian Formalism within European Aesthetic German-speaking Formalism. This kind of formalism formulates some basic oppositions correlated to different types of forming being associated with specific means and specific formal devices to affect them. In this context, particular morphological features result in producing particular feelings conceived in the spatial or syntactic perspective. From its German-speaking analogue, Russian Formalism has inherited this relational and spatial definition of feelings and, largely speaking, of emotionality within art. Indeed, both formalisms treat emotion as a ‘non-subjective’, ‘kinetic’, ‘syntactic’ phenomenon located on the surface of aesthetic objects.

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

AbstractThe classification of the nine world species of Pytho Latreille is reviewed by study of adult, larval, and pupal stages. Keys are provided for separation of species in these three life stages. Taxonomic changes (senior synonym in brackets) include synonymy of P. fallax Seidlitz 1916 [= P. niger Kirby 1837]; P. americanus Kirby 1837 [= P. planus (Olivier 1795)]; P. deplanatus Mannerheim 1843 is transferred from a junior subjective synonym of P. depressus (Linnaeus 1767) to a junior subjective synonym of P. planus (Olivier 1795). Lectotype designations are provided for the following: P. seidlitzi Blair 1925; P. nivalis Lewis 1888; P. niger Kirby 1837; P. fallax Seidlitz 1916; P. abieticola J. Sahlberg 1875; and P. americanus Kirby 1837. Eight larval stage, and 12 adult stage characters were selected for cladistic analysis. Lacking out-group material, pupal characters were not analysed. Character states were polarized using a generalized out-group composed of the three other genera of Pythinae (all monobasic). Phylogenetic analysis based on these 18 characters suggests four monophyletic species-groups: P. seidlitzi group (P. seidlitzi Blair — North America); P. kolwensis group (P. strictus LeConte – North America, P. kolwensis C. Sahlberg —Fennoscandia and the U.S.S.R., P. nivalis Lewis — Japan); P. niger group (P. niger Kirby — North America, P. abieticola J. Sahlberg — Europe, P. jezoensis Kôno — Japan); P. depressus group [P. planus (Olivier, 1795) — North America, P. depressus (Linnaeus, 1767) — Europe and the U.S.S.R.]. Larval stage synapomorphies are relatively more important in defining the species-groups than are those of the adult stage. The ancestor of Pythidae may have been associated with Coniferae as early as the Jurassic. The common ancestor of Northern Hemisphere Pythinae became isolated upon Laurasia once separation from Gondwanaland occurred near the end of the Jurassic. Two of the species-groups have similar disjunctions in North America, Europe, and Japan. The relatively eastern distributions of the North American member of each suggests that the ancestor of each species-group was Euramerican, and underwent vicariance with the opening of the North Atlantic in the Middle Cretaceous. The present distribution of both species-groups is thought to have been caused by the same vicariant event. The ancestor of the P. depressus group, which is presently circumboreal, was probably widespread and could have been Asiamerican in distribution. In the middle to late Tertiary, evidence suggests that Beringia was covered with coniferous forest, and the ancestor of the P. depressus group probably extended across this land bridge. Final separation between any North American and European/Asian species occurred in the Late Miocene or Pliocene, when a cooling climate made possible the evolution of treeless tundra in the north.

The limits of Lyrcus Walker (1842), Catolaccus Thomson (1878), Eurydinoteloides Girault (1913a), Trimeromicrus Gahan (1914), and Jaliscoa Bouček (1993) are re-evaluated and redefined to better reflect observed distribution of morphological features. Nine of 13 New World species of Catolaccus are transferred to other genera and photographs of the primary type specimens are given to assist future recognition. New features are provided to assist identification of the remaining four Nearctic species of Catolaccus and these are compared to European species, with the observation that C. kansensis (Girault 1917c) could be a junior synonym of C. crassiceps (Masi 1911). Trimeromicrus is removed from synonymy under Lyrcus for the single species T. maculatus Gahan (1914) rev. comb. Newly synonymized under Lyrcus is the Australasian genus Neocylus Bouček (1988) n. syn. Ten species are newly transferred to Lyrcus—L. nigraeneus (Girault 1915) n. comb. (from Neocylus), L. helice (Walker 1843) n. comb. and L. cyaneus (Girault 1911) n. comb. (from Catolaccus), and L. albiclavus (Girault 1917c) n. comb., L. capitis (Burks 1955) n. comb., L. chalcis (Burks 1955) n. comb., L. coeliodis (Ashmead 1896) n. comb., L. deuterus (Crawford 1911) n. comb., L. nigroaeneus (Ashmead 1894a) n. comb. and L. rosaecolis (Burks 1955) n. comb. (from Zatropis Crawford 1908). Catolaccus pallipes Ashmead (1894b) is newly transferred to Pteromalus Swederus (1795) as Pteromalus pallipes (Ashmead) n. comb. and Catolaccus fragariae Rohwer (1934) to Lariophagus Crawford (1909) as Lariophagus fragariae (Rohwer) n. comb. Nine species are newly transferred to Eurydinoteloides—E. tepicensis (Ashmead 1895) n. comb. (from Catolaccus), E. dymnus (Walker 1847) n. comb., E. hermeas (Walker 1847) n. comb., E. incerta (Ashmead 1893) n. comb., E. orontas (Walker 1847) n. comb., E. perdubia (Girault 1916) n. comb., E. platensis (De Santis in De Santis et al. 1979) n. comb. and E. timaea (Walker 1847) n. comb. (from Lyrcus), and E. eudubia (Özdikmen 2011) n. comb. (from Spintherus Thomson 1878). Four species are newly transferred to Jaliscoa—J. grandis (Burks 1954) n. comb. and J. hunteri (Crawford 1908) n. comb. (from Catolaccus), and J. townsendi (Crawford 1912) n. comb. and J. vulgaris (Ashmead 1894b) n. comb. (from Pteromalus). The species of Jaliscoa are revised to include J. nudipennis Bouček 1993, J. bouceki n. sp., J. hunteri and J. vulgaris. Re-established in synonymy under J. hunteri is J. townsendi n. comb. One new species of Pteromalus, P. grisselli n. sp., is described as an egg predator in the egg sacs of Dictyna coloradensi Chamberlin (Araneae: Dictynidae) and compared to Catolaccus species and other pteromalids that are predators of spider eggs. Lectotypes are designated for Pteromalus helice Walker (1843), Catolaccus pallipes Ashmead (1894b) and Catolaccus vulgaris Ashmead (1894b). Diagnoses are given to differentiate Catolaccus, Eurydinoteloides, Jaliscoa, Lyrcus and Trimeromicrus from each other, and more extensive descriptions given to help differentiate these genera from other Pteromalinae. Morphological features are illustrated through macrophotography and scanning electron photomicrography.

A taxonomic revision and a key to the Chthonius C.L. Koch, 1843 species of the ischnocheles group from Italy, with records from neighbouring countries, are provided. The following new species are described: Chthonius gallettii n. sp. (♂, locus typicus: Sicily, Ragusa Province, Ragusa, Grotta delle Lame 6009 Si/RG), Chthonius gentianae n. sp. (♂, Veneto, Treviso Province, Fregona, Pian del Cansiglio, Bus della Genziana 1000 V/TV), Chthonius herminii n. sp. (♂♀, Veneto, Treviso Province, Cavaso del Tomba, Costalunga, Speoncia del Diaol 1811 V/TV); Chthonius inguscioi n. sp. (♂♀, Apulia, Lecce Province, Presicce, Grotta Madonna della Rutta 533 Pu/LE), Chthonius lanai n. sp. (♂♀, Piedmont, Cuneo Province, Bernezzo, Pertus d’la Kassetta 1323 Pi/CN), Chthonius marciai n. sp. (♂, Sardinia, Nuoro Province, Dorgali, Grotta del Bue Marino 12 Sa/NU) and Chthonius nicolosii n. sp. (♂♀, Sicily, Catania Province, Nicolosi, Grotta Lunga 1029 Si/CT). The following new subjective synonymies are proposed: Chthonius malatestai Callaini, 1980 n. syn. of C. agazzii Beier, 1966; Chthonius ruffoi Caporiacco, 1951 n. syn. of C. densedentatus Beier, 1938; Chthonius mingazzinii Callaini, 1991 n. syn. of C. euganeus Gardini, 1991; Obisium megachelum Amary, 1840 n. syn. of C. ischnocheles (Hermann, 1804); Chthonius dalmatinus Hadži, 1930 n. syn. of C. ischnocheles (Hermann, 1804); Chthonius litoralis Hadži, 1933 n. syn. of C. ischnocheles (Hermann, 1804); Chthonius rhodochelatus Hadži, 1937 of C. ischnocheles (Hermann, 1804) (rest. syn.). Chthonius horridus Beier, 1934 (n. stat.) is upgraded from subspecies of C. doderoi Beier, 1930 and Chthonius reductus Beier, 1939 (n. stat.) from subspecies of C. ischnocheles (Hermann, 1804). A lectotype is designated for Chthonius rayi L. Koch, 1873. Twenty-eight species of Chthonius of the ischnocheles group are known at present from Italy, of which three are endemic to Sicily and two to Sardinia. New country records are established for Chthonius alpicola Beier, 1951 (Croatia and Slovenia); Chthonius guglielmii Callaini, 1986 (mainland France), Chthonius halberti Kew, 1916 and Chthonius ilvensis Beier, 1963 (Corsica); Chthonius pygmaeus Beier, 1934 (Switzerland), and Chthonius densedentatus Beier, 1938 (France, Italy, Switzerland, Slovenia, Croatia, Albania and Greece).

Sampling of Planiliza abu specimens were done from July 2015 until the end of March 2016, a total of 118 specimens were collected weekly from Tigris River near Al-Graiat region in Baghdad province. The examination of gills of these fishes showed the occurrence of six myxosporean species which were documented for the first time in Iraq. These included: Myxobilatus baicalensis (Dogiel, 1957), Myxobolus bizerti Bahri & Marques, 1996, M. branchialis (Markevich, 1932), M. chuatsi (Dogiel &Akhmerov in Akhmerov, 1960), M. dermatobius (Ishii, 1916) and M. niei Shul'man, 1962. The description and measurements of these parasites were given as well as their illustrations.

Background. Recently, specialists in drama studies have displayed growing interest to the problems of historiography concerning theaters. One of its most urgent tasks is to reveal just how much the scientific approach is applied to creating a historical paper. This goes hand in glove with studies into sociopolitical and scientific worldview of authors of the researches, the sources used, the interpretation of facts as well as the style of material’s presentation. Objectives, methods and materials of the research. The purpose of this study is to outline the circle of the most important sources, which contain the data on the history of theater in Kharkiv; to characterize their authors; to define the degree of their mastering of accessible information while writing books and articles on various periods in the development of theater culture in this city in the 19th c.; to establish the main challenges to researchers they have to face under modern conditions. In this study, the author has chosen to apply the traditional cultural-historic method of research. It generally consists of collecting primary information on a certain phenomenon or a prominent figure, working it out, finding its correlation with appropriate historic events, and then making an attempt to substantiate the meaning and importance of the phenomenon / figure studied, in the context of the development of arts in the region. The article based on memoirs, archive materials, periodic publications (containing articles on the activities of theater companies, theatrical managers, actors etc.) and literature on the history of drama as well as general publications, which include items on the theater life in the city. Due to the lack of an entire elaborated bibliographic system, researchers have to engage themselves in painstaking browsing through the entire corpus of periodicals. In Kharkiv, the main sources of relevant information are such periodicals as the “Ukrainskiy vestnik” magazine (1816–1819) and some newspapers: “Kharkovskie gubernskie vedomosti” (1838–1915), “Yuzhnyy kray” (1880–1919), “Utro” (1906–1916), Kharkov (1877–1880), Kharkovskiy listok (1898–1905) and more. Results. The former newspaper “Kharkovskie gubernskie vedomosti” published, in 1841, the essay “Theater in Kharkov” by dramatist and a prominent public figure Hryhoriy Kvitka-Osnov’yanenko (1778–1843), who described the very first period in the history of theater in Kharkiv (1780–1816). In the 1870s, the “Kharkovskie gubernskie vedomosti” started to publish regularly analytical and summarizing articles, which were an attempt at creating theater’s history of a certain period. There was, for one, an article “The Kharkov Drama Theater in Recent Ten Years” by Ivan Ustinov, published in 1877 and dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the Diukovs’ private theater company. I. Ustinov not only gave a brief analysis of the theater’s repertoire between 1867 and 1877, but also included biographies and short characteristics of the actors, which were playing then on Kharkiv stage. Ustinov also is famous as the compiler of the bibliographic index “The Books on Kharkov Governorate” (1886), with certain information on the history of theater in this city. In the 1880s, Konstantin Schelkov, a graduate of the Kharkiv University’s Law School, wrote his articles on the theater in the “Kharkovskie gubernskie vedomosti”. The newspaper published, among others, his article “Materials for the History of Theater in Kharkiv” (1881), in which he described the activities of the theater’s management headed by N. D. Alferaki in 1845–1848. In the early 1880s, another big newspaper, the “Yuzhnyy kray”, was started. Its columnist Nikolay Chernyaev took a great interest in the history of theater in Kharkiv. Mr. Chernyaev’s works include a systematic review of theater culture in Kharkiv from Catherine II epoch until 1843 as well as a number of essays on the development of theater in Kharkiv up to 1880. The author collected wide documentary material dedicated to specific periods of history as well as to certain artistic figures. Chernyaev studied many various sources: dailies and magazines, published in the capital cities and in provinces, many collections of documents, memoirs and so on. Chernyaev’s works proved to be useful to historians D. I. Bagalei and D. P. Miller who covered the history of theater in their famous book “The History of the City of Kharkov during 250 Years of its Existence.” In the first half of the 20th c., there were no integral and systematic researches on the history of the city of the previous century, so the monograph “The Beginnings of the Theater in Kharkov” by Arkadiy Pletniov, published in 1960, one can consider as summarizing. The author based much of his study on the works of N. I. Chernyaev. He also widely used the materials resting in the A. A. Bakhrushin Museum of Theater, Moscow, and in many archives. In his monograph, Dr. Pletniov did not limit himself with listing the events of theatrical life, but thoroughly analyzed the activities of the Board of Trustees and such managers as I. Shtein and L. Mlotkovskiy. In several supplements, one can find lists of main roles played on Kharkiv stage by its prominent actors (N. Rybakov, L. Mlotkovskiy, K. Solenik). Pletniov’s work, enriched by references and commentaries, played an important part in creating the complex picture of Kharkov’s theatrical life. Due to abundance of the facts and clear style, Dr. Pletniov’s book stays up to now a valuable source on the subject. Conclusions. The analysis of historiography concerning the theater in Kharkiv of the 19th and early 20th cc. enables the author to come to conclusion that the main challenges a modern researcher has to face are as follows: the absence of system in bibliographic manuals; lacunas in the funds of periodicals of most libraries; the absence of important documents in archives. Theater life in Kharkiv has been studied far from satisfactory level yet. The following problems of history especially need thorough research work from historical point of view: theater critique; drama art; architecture of theater buildings in Kharkiv; amateur theater companies; charity for theaters; and some other points. The task of modern researchers, as we see it, lies in gradual filling the gaps mentioned above.

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.

Elisabeth of Vienna (1843-1916) (penname Carmen Sylva), was the queen of Romania between 1869 and 1916. She authored a comprehensive oeuvre with a clear pro-dynastic tendency that is highly relevant from the point of view of cultural history and collective memory. The present study is focused on the analysis of the travel journal Rheintochters Donaufahrt, which will be discussed with the help of a cultural studies methodology, namely Clifford Geertz’ concept of “dense description.” When read through this conceptual lens, the text appears multidimensional, the traveler/narrator does not merely observe geographical and historical landmarks but undertakes a cultural journey with multipronged implications. We do not encounter mere culturalist descriptions, but rather a network of symbols implying interculturality, imagology, and the staging of a multicultural world with which the contemporary globalized world is increasingly confronted.

This article explores the condition and reception of Varamin’s architectural heritage from the Ilkhanid period (1256–1353) during the late nineteenth century. I use two relatively untapped sources: the photographs of French traveler Jane Dieulafoy (1851–1916) and the account of Qajar statesman E‘temad al-Saltaneh (1843–96). Reading these sources in tandem paints a robust picture of Varamin when it was becoming known for luster tilework and its Emamzadeh Yahya tomb complex was being steadily plundered. While our travelers captured a seminal moment in Varamin’s history, this study ultimately moves beyond their frames and encourages a present-day appreciation of the city’s still standing monuments.

Fantastik; alışılmadık dünyaların ve gerçeküstü/olağandışı unsurların anlatıldığı eserlerin ortak adıdır. Daha çok roman sahasında kendisini göstermiştir ve ilk defa 1970 yılında Bulgar asıllı Fransız edebiyat teorisyeni Tzvetan Todorov (1939-2017) tarafından yeni bir edebî türü karşılamak için öne sürülmüştür. Amerikan edebiyatında Henry James’in (1843-1916) Yürek Burgusu (1898) ile Türk edebiyatında Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar’ın (1864-1944) Ölüler Yaşıyorlar mı? (1932) romanı bu türün dikkat çeken örneklerindendir. Hayalet romanı olarak şöhret bulan iki eser, fantastik unsurların kullanımı bakımından büyük ölçüde birbirine benzemektedir. Bu incelemede fantastik türü hakkında kısaca bilgi verildikten sonra söz konusu eserler fantastik unsurlar bakımından karşılaştırılarak tematik bir yaklaşımla değerlendirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Ortaya konulan yorumları somutlaştırmak için de zaman zaman romanlardan alıntılara yer verilmiştir.

A diagnosis of the family Caliscelidae Amyot et Serville, 1843 is given. The system of higher taxa of the family is revised. The genus Coinquenda Distant, 1916 is transferred to the subfamily Ommatidiotinae from the family Issidae. Coinquendini trib. nov. (type genus: Coinquenda Distant, 1916) is erected in the subfamily Ommatidiotinae. Coinquenda nigroclavata Distant, 1916 is redescribed. The tribe Adenissini Dlabola, 1980 is recharacterized and transferred to the subfamily Ommatidiotinae from the subfamily Caliscelinae. The rank of the tribe Bocrini Emeljanov, 1999 is reduced to the subtribe of the tribe Adenissini. As a result the genera Perissana Metcalf, 1952, Pterilia Stål, 1859, and Pterygoma Melichar, 1903 are transferred to the Adenissini from the family Issidae. Pteriliina subtrib. nov. (type genus: Pterilia Stål, 1859) is erected in the tribe Adenissini. Distantina gen. nov. (type species: Elidiptera fimlivata Walker, 1851) is erected in the subtribe Pteriliina subtrib. nov. Keys to the subfamilies, tribes, and subtribes of the Caliscelidae, the genera of the tribe Adenissini, and species of the genus Perissana Metcalf are given. Anissus Dlabola, 1980 and Denissus Dlabola, 1980 are placed in synonymy under Perissana Metcalf, 1952. Perissana jakowleffi (Puton, 1890) is redescribed. Adenissus circularis Dlabola, 1980 and Anissus bispinatus Dlabola, 1980 are transferred to the genus Perissana. Perissana dlabolai nom. nov. is proposed as a replacement name for Adenissus circularis Dlabola, 1980 (secondary homonym). Raunolina subgen. nov. (type species: Perissus circularis Linnavuori, 1952) is erected in the genus Perissana. Perissana (Raunolina) arabica sp. nov. is described from Saudi Arabia. 5 th instar larva of Adenissus riadicus Dlabola, 1985 is described. New faunistic records for 5 species of the family are provided.

Henry James (1843-1916), one of the leading figures of the Modernist movement and one of the most important authors of American literature, quickly gained great fame with his works published in the early 20th century. Using the stream of consciousness technique, the continuous flow of thoughts and feelings through words, the author enables his readers to make a deep journey into the inner worlds of the characters in his works. James also used this technique, generally characterized by monologues and thick descriptions, in The Turn of the Screw (1898). The aim of this study, examining the three Turkish translations of James’ work by Necla Aytür, Tamer Çetin and Ezgi Uslu published with the title Yürek Burgusu, is to demonstrate to what extent the strategies of the publishing houses, Türkiye İş Bankası Cultural Publications, Cem Publishing House and Ren Books, respectively, have contributed to the symbolic capital of the source text in the target culture. The strategies of the relevant publishing houses will be examined through the analysis of paratextual elements proposed by Gérard Genette (1997). In the study, the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus (1977, 1990) and capital (1986, 1998) will also be used to discuss the policies and strategies of the publishers as well as the academic and professional trajectories of the translators and their translational dispositions and strategies. Within this framework, it can be argued that compared to the other two publishers, Türkiye İş Bankası Cultural Publications, which has stronger economic and symbolic capital and has made significant contributions to the target language, culture and history, has reinforced the position and symbolic capital of the work in the target culture and in the eyes of Turkish readers to a greater extent through its publishing and translation policy.

Dodd and Cockett defined varicose veins, saying “a varicose vein is one which has permanently lost its valvular efficiency.” [1] Varicose veins constitute a progressive disease, remission of the disease does not occur, except after pregnancy and delivery. [2] The first documented reference of varicose veins was found as illustrations on Ebers Papyrus dated 1550 B.C. in Athens. [3]Greek philosopher Hippocrates (460-377 B.C.) described the use of compressive bandages and was advisor of small punctures in varicose veins. First patient who underwent operation for his varicose vein appears to be Canus Marius, the Roman tyrant. Giovanni Rima (1777-1843) introduced mid thigh ligation of the saphenous vein. Ligation of the sapheno-femoral junction as it is practiced today was first described by John Homans in his paper in 1916. [2] The Mayo Brothers, postulating that there would be additional benefit in removing the saphenous vein, pursued excision of the GSV through an incision extending from the groin to below the knee. The final technologic leap was introduction of the intraluminal stripper by Babcock. [2] In the era of minimally invasive surgery, the first documented case of Endovenous Laser Ablasion was published in 1999 using 810 nm Diode Laser. Since then several wavelengths were introduced; 810, 940, 980, 1064, 1320, 1470 and newly introduced 1940 nm. [4, 5] It is generally agreed that varicose veins affect from 40 to 60% of women and 15 to 30% men. [6] During the 1930s to 1960s, several large studies reported the prevalence of varicose veins to roughly average 2% in the general population. [7] However, more recently, large population studies such as Edinburgh Vein Study demonstrated an age-adjusted prevalence of truncal varices of 40% in men and 32% in women. [8] Vein ablation is the most modern treatment option for superficial venous disease. Several endovenous modalities are getting popular for the treatment of varicose vein. Endovenous laser ablation therapy is the first endovenous procedure that had made the revolution in the treatment of varicose vein. [9] In Bangladesh, Laser ablation was first started at another center with 980 nm bare fiber and a good number of cases were done. We introduced ELVeSᴿ Radialᴿ fiber for the first time in the country using biolitecᴿ LEONARDOᴿ Mini 1470 nm during last week of March, 2018.

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