Articoli di riviste sul tema "1829-1854"

A total of 210 available [2 unavailable plus several nomina nuda] genus-group names proposed by J.-M.-F. Bigot in Diptera are listed and annotated. Additionally, emendations by other authors and incorrect original and subsequent spellings of these genus-group names by Bigot are also listed. Type-species designations are proposed here for the following 13 genus-group names: Acanthodelphia Bigot, 1857; Atmobia Bigot, 1857; Dohrnia Bigot, 1854; Goureautia Bigot, 1854; Microdromya Bigot, 1857; Paragymnopternus Bigot, 1888; Paranthomyia Bigot, 1882; Paraspilogaster Bigot, 1882; Parazelia Bigot, 1882; Parmalomyia Bigot, 1882; Pelechoidocera Bigot, 1856; Psilopodinus Bigot, 1888; Rondania Bigot, 1854. The following 6 new genus-group name synonymies are proposed: Atmobia Bigot, 1857 under Serromyia Meigen, 1818, new synonym; Dohrnia Bigot, 1854 under Dicranomyia Stephens, 1829, new synonym, Goureautia Bigot, 1854 under Ula Haliday, 1833, new synonym; Paragymnopternus Bigot, 1888 under Gymnopternus Loew, 1857, new synonym, Paranthomyia Bigot, 1882 under Anthomyia Meigen, 1803, new synonym; Rondania Bigot, 1854 under Ula Haliday, 1833, new synonym.

A revision of some Far Eastern Chlaenius species is presented. The following synonyms are proposed: Chlaenius circumductus A. Morawitz, 1862 = Chlaenius lineellus Motschulsky, 1859, syn. nov.; Chlaenius semipurpureus Motschulsky, 1865 = Chlaenius posticalis Motschulsky, 1854, syn. nov. Lectotypes of Chlaenius lineellus Motschulsky, 1859, Chlaenius semipurpureus Motschulsky, 1865 and Chlaenius hospes A. Morawitz, 1862, as well as the holotype of Chlaenius posticalis Motschulsky, 1854 are designated. Only one species of the subgenus Agostenus Fischer von Waldheim, 1829, viz. Chlaenius quadrisulcatus (Paykul, 1790), is shown to populate the Far Eastern islands of Sakhalin and Kunashir (Russia), and Hokkaido and Honshu (Japan), which is new to the fauna of the Kuril Archipelago.

Abstract. This paper discusses the role of Philippe Vandermaelen (1795–1869) and his Établissement géographique de Bruxelles in the mapping of Turkey in Europe in the 19th century. After a short presentation of the Brussels Institute up to the 1850s, and of its connection with the family of Thomas Best Jervis (1797–1857), first director of the British Topographical and Statistical Department, the paper first addresses the context of the publication of the Atlas de l’Europe by the Belgian cartographer, in particular its first instalment dedicated to European Turkey (1829), and offers an overview of later publications on the subject. After this it focuses on Franz von Weiss’s map of the area (1829–1830), Jervis’s reproduction of the Weiss map (1854), and Vandermaelen’s role in the latter’s production.

Em linhas gerais o presente trabalho busca analisar a representação da/s mulher/es através da leitura e análise das obras: Senhora (1875) do literato cearense José de Alencar (1829-1877) e Memórias de um Sargento de Milícias (1854) de Manuel Antônio de Almeida (1831-1861). Ambas as obras seguem o estilo literário Romances Urbanos, subgênero do romantismo oitocentista do século XIX. O palco destes enredos foi a capital do Império, a cidade do Rio de Janeiro; e entre suas principais características se destacam as relações sociais estabelecidas entre os indivíduos lá residentes, além de uma série de críticas aos costumes e à moralidade das classes mais abastadas bem como das classes mais pobres presentes na capital.

O objetivo do estudo é apresentar a atuação jornalística de José de Alencar (1829-1877) na imprensa carioca, entre 1854 e 1856, no que concerne ao campo da crítica teatral e da dramaturgia, funções originais do espaço editorial conhecido como “folhetim”, seção ao pé de página na qual publicava seus textos. Para tanto, serão analisadas as considerações do autor a respeito da criação de um teatro com “cor local” e sua peça O Rio de Janeiro às direitas e às avessas (1856), que abriram espaço para um debate inovador sobre a construção do teatro brasileiro. Tal perspectiva será estudada segundo os conceitos de “porosidade”, “matriz literária da imprensa” e “matriz midiática” (Thérenty, 2007).

Eleven fish species, namely Heniochus singularius Smith & Radcliffe, 1911; Entomacrodus vermiculatus (Valenciennes, 1836); Pomacentrus similis Allen, 1991; Myripristis berndti Jordan & Evermann, 1903; Myripristis seychellensis Cuvier, 1829; Sargocentron cornutum (Bleeker, 1854); Thalassoma lunare (Linnaeus, 1758); Pardachirus pavoninus (Lacepède, 1802); Paraplotosus albilabris (Valenciennes, 1840); Canthigaster papua (Bleeker, 1848), have been documented for the first time in Andhra Pradesh state of India associated with artificial reef and rocky shoreline habitats. Additionally, E. thalassinus has been recorded for the first time in India from this study. The study provides detailed descriptions of the diagnostic characteristics and distribution of these ten species. These findings highlight the richness of fish fauna along the Andhra Pradesh coastline of India.

شهدت إسبانيا في القرن التاسع عشر حالة من الفوضى والاضطراب السياسي في النواحي كافة, إذ احتلها نابليون بونابرت منذ عام 1808-1814، ثم اندلاع حرب الاستقلال في المستعمرات الاسبانية الامريكية (1810-1829) فظهرت إسبانيا متشظية بسبب تلك الحروب إذ دمر الغزو الفرنسي اقتصاد المملكة وتركها بلداً منقسماً وعرضة لعدم الاستقرار السياسي, فتألفت الاحزاب السياسية التي زعزت استقرار إسبانيا وهي تمثل القوى الليبرالية والرجعية والمعتدلة حيث تقاتلت تلك الاحزاب من اجل سيطرة لم تدم طويلاً بدون اي إدارة قوية لتحقيق الاستقرار الدائم, فبدأ عصر الرجعية ضد الفكر الليبرالي المرتبط بفرنسا الثورية والذي جسده حكم فرديناند السابع Ferdinand VII (1808-1833)(1) وإلى حد أقل أبنته ايزابيلا الثانية Isabela II (1833-1868), إذ فقد فرديناند السابع خلال حكمه مستعمرات إسبانيا في العالم الجديد بأستثناء كوبا وبورتوريكو، ثم اندلعت الحرب الاهلية التي تزعمها الليبراليين والمعتدلين ضد حكم المحافظين, وبلغت ذروتها في الحروب الكارلية بين اعتدال الملكة ايزابيلا الثانية ورجعية عمها دون كارلوسDon Carlos, فضلا عن سخط جهات عديدة على حكومة ايزابيلا الثانية مما ادى الى تكرار التدخل العسكري في الشؤون السياسية واندلاع ثورة بيكالبارو عام 1854 التي أجبرت ايزابيلا الثانية على تشكيل حكومة يؤيدها الشعب. يناقش البحث الأزمة السياسية الإسبانية قبيل إنتفاضة مدريد عام 1808 ثم يتتبع مراحل أندلاع الإنتفاضة و أثرها السياسي, كما يدرس البحث تشكيل برلمان قادس والتسوية الليبرالية في إسبانيا 1809-1813, وأهم التطورات التي شهدتها خلال العشرية المشؤومة, ويسلط الضوء على الحرب الكارلية الاولى ووصاية ماريا كريستينا دي بوربون على العرش 1833-1843, فضلاً عن دراسة حكم المعتدلين ودستور 1854 وأسباب أندلاع الحرب الكارلية الثانية, وأخيراً يتناول البحث ثورة بيكالبارو عام 1854 ونتائجها.

Abstract In a survey of the crabronid fauna of Iraq during June to October 2022; 9species belonging to the genus Cerceris Latreille, 1802 were identified. Twospecies are new record of the fauna of Iraq: C. dorsalis Eversmann, 1849 and C. priesneri Mochi, 1939. Brief description, diagnostic characters, some collecting information, and photographs of each species are provided. As well provides a key to the species depending on many morphological features especially: propodeal enclosure, semicircular plate at base of second gastral sternites and free margin of clypeus. Moreover, this study observed that most collected specimens belonging to Cerceris hortivaga Kohl, 1880 and the least to C.dorsalis Eversmann, 1849, C. priesneri Mochi, 1939, C. tricolorata Spinola,1829 and C. straminea Dufour, 1854

During the period of the successive keeperships of John Shute Duncan (1823–1829) and his brother Philip Bury Duncan (1829–1854), the collections of the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford were comprehensively redisplayed as a physical exposition of the doctrines of natural theology, specifically as propounded by William Paley. The displays assembled by the Duncans, overwhelmingly dominated by natural history specimens, were swept away with the opening of the University's new Natural Science Museum and with them went almost all recollection of an extraordinary chapter in museum history. From largely unpublished records in the Ashmolean, the Duncans' achievement is here reconstructed. The primary evidence is provided by contemporary reports prepared for the Visitors of the Museum and by surviving texts from the Duncans' museum labels. Additional perspectives are provided by an extensive body of correspondence from the collectors, explorers and others who contributed specimens to the new displays: their texts illuminate aspects of contemporary preoccupations with classification, broader research priorities, and problems associated with collecting, preserving and transporting specimens, as well as shedding light on individual exhibits which they contributed to the Museum. These correspondents include a number of significant figures in the nineteenth century history of natural history, including Andrew Bloxam, N. A. Vigors and William Burchell.

O texto apresenta e analisa as cartas privadas de João Baptista de Almeida Garrett (1799-1854) enviadas a sua filha Maria Adelaide, no período em que esta se encontrava como porcionista das Salésias, entre novembro de 1853 e 1854. Trata-se de um conjunto de 40 cartas manuscritas que permaneceram inéditas até à publicação de Correspondência Familiar (2012). Não obstante serem documentos privados de carácter inviolável, quando se lhes autoriza a publicação assumem valor histórico por reconstruírem situações da esfera familiar numa perspetiva informal raramente dada a conhecer. Num estilo direto e despretensioso, as 40 cartas são um genuíno testemunho de amorosidade paterna e um registo do investimento educativo em oitocentos, não comum em Portugal. Daí o seu significado para a literatura pedagógico-política, parca em correspondência doméstica, a que acresce o contributo para compreensão do que se afigura coerente no pensamento liberal português sob influência do romantismo: por um lado, a correlação entre ilustração e civilidade; por outro, o desnivelamento da exigência da educação em função do género. Sabendo-se que Garrett escreveu as cartas 24 anos depois da publicação do livro Da Educação (1829), pergunta-se pela confirmação da coerência ideológica na transição do plano teórico generalizado para o plano prático individualizado.

Many genus-level changes to the classification of Trochilini were enacted in Stiles et al. (2017b). We have since found that two further genera therein emended each require replacement names. The first of these requiring a replacement name is Uranomitra Reichenbach, 1854 [March], which is herewith interpreted as an additional synonym of Saucerottia Bonaparte, 1850, along with its junior synonym Cyanomyia Bonaparte, 1854a [May]. We show that both must have the same type species, as originally designated, Trochilus quadricolor Vieillot, 1822 = Ornismya cyanocephala Lesson, 1829. The second case in which a replacement name is required is Leucolia Mulsant & E. Verreaux, 1866, herewith interpreted as an additional synonym of Leucippus Bonaparte, 1850, with the same type species, Trochilus fallax Bourcier, 1843. We herein propose replacement names for both Uranomitra and Leucolia.

O objetivo deste artigo foi entender como José de Alencar (1829-1877) representou o vestuário da elite feminina carioca (1854-1864) na diegese de seu romance urbano Diva (1959 [1864]). É de interesse não apenas à esfera acadêmica, cuja necessidade está em atualizar a obra alencariana, tendo aparo em aportes teóricos que possibilitem elucidar sua complexidade, provocando, com isso, outro olhar do século XIX, que se reflete na contemporaneidade; mas também aos estudos de gênero, permitindo entrever, por meio do vestuário, a atuação social da mulher de elite no período correspondente ao recorte temporal (1854-1864) e refletir sobre como o papel que lhe foi designado permanece hoje – desta vez, seu alcance não se limitando a apenas uma classe social. Como referencial teórico, há contribuições de Genette (2017 [1972]) e Sant’anna (1979 [1973]) à Narratologia e fizemos cotejo entre a pesquisa e outros trabalhos que mantêm relação com o tópico, como os de Hernandes (2015), Lajolo; Zilberman (1996), Souza (1993, 2005), dentre outros. Envolvido nos assuntos de seu tempo, Alencar acertou sobre os temas que escolheu escrever, garantindo às obras uma possível recepção por parte do público-alvo, seja através de leitoras fictícias que elaborou para garantir tal aceitação, seja na representação da vida privada do homem comum. Palavras-chave: Diva. José de Alencar. Diegese. Vestuário.

AbstractThe details of the ventral scalation were examined in adult and young specimens of seven species of the Malagasy iguanids of the genera Chalarodon Peters, 1854 and Oplurus Cuvier, 1829, both visually and using light microscopy. For the first time, we report data on the topography, morphology and histology of epidermal glandular structures of the genus Oplurus. The modified swollen scales, callous-like in appearance, were described in the abdominal, pre-cloacal and femoral integument. Histological investigation confirmed a presence of the epidermal generation glands of the escutcheon type. In the lizards of the genus Oplurus the epidermal glands are mainly male characteristic, although partially modified ventral scales of the females suggest that they also have a potential capability to production of epidermal gland generation. A biological role of these scales is unclear, as well as their possible relations to lizard's ecology and behaviour.

A progressive growth in literature was seen significantly during Victorian period. These decades also saw an overdue revival of drama, in which the existence of drama was started to improve when entering late of Victorian period. Along with that situation, Thomas William Robertson (1829-1871) emerged as a popular drama writer at that time besides the coming of Henrik Ibsen’s works in 1880’s. However, Robertson’s popularity was defeated by other dramatists during late of Victorian period (1880-1901), drama writer like Oscar Wilde (1854-1900). Beside Wilde, there were several well known dramatists during late of Victorian period. Dramatists as Shaw, Jones, and Pinero were also influential toward the development of drama at that time. In the discussion of English drama development, role of late Victorian period’s dramatists was really important toward the development of modern drama. Their works and efforts really influenced the triumph of realism and development of drama after Victorian period ended. Therefore, the development of drama during late of Victorian period is discussed in this particular writing, due to the important roles of dramatist such as Wilde, Shaw, Pinero, and Jones. Here, their roles to the revival of English drama and the trend of realism in the history of English literature are very important.

The diet of juvenile and adult female California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus (Lesson, 1828)) at San Miguel Island, California, was estimated and compared using fecal and stable isotope analyses to determine dietary differences by age. Fecal samples were collected during 2002–2006 and prey remains were identified. Stable carbon (δ13C) and stable nitrogen (δ15N) isotope values were determined from plasma and fur obtained from yearlings, 2- to 3-year-old juveniles, and adult females during 2005 and 2006. Juveniles ate more than 15 prey taxa, whereas adult females consumed more than 33 taxa. Relative importance of prey was determined using percent frequency of occurrence (%FO). Engraulis mordax Girard, 1854, Sardinops sagax (Jenyns, 1842), Merluccius productus (Ayres, 1855), genus Sebastes Cuvier, 1829, and Loligo opalescens Berry, 1911 were the most frequently occurring (%FO > 10%) prey in the feces of both juvenile and adult female sea lions, although their importance varied between age groups. Only yearlings had significantly different isotopic values than older conspecifics, indicating that older juveniles were feeding at a similar trophic level and in similar habitats as adult females. Whereas each method had biases, combining the two provided a better understanding of the diet of California sea lions and intraspecific differences.

The Sebastes Cuvier, 1829 subgenus Pteropodus Eigenmann and Beeson, 1893 includes six species from the northeastern Pacific Ocean (NEP) and four species from the northwestern Pacific Ocean (NWP). Several NEP species assigned to other subgenera are similar to NEP Pteropodus species. Restriction site variation in the mitochondrial NADH dehydrogenase subunit 3 and 4 genes and the 12S and 16S ribosomal RNA genes were used to evaluate their relationships. Phylogenetic reconstruction showed that six NEP species of Pteropodus formed a monophyletic group that also included three NEP species currently assigned to other subgenera: Sebastes atrovirens (Jordan and Gilbert, 1880) (subgenus Mebarus Matsubara, 1943) and Sebastes auriculatus Girard, 1854 and Sebastes dalli (Eigenmann and Beeson, 1894) (both subgenus Auctospina (Eigenmann and Beeson, 1894)). The small average nucleotide divergence (0.0124 per nucleotide) observed among members of this group of species was similar to that observed among species of the monophyletic subgenus Sebastomus Gill, 1864 (0.0089 per nucleotide). The NWP species of Pteropodus did not cluster with their NEP consubgeners but, generally, were similar to other NWP species. We recommend that S. atrovirens, S. auriculatus, and S. dalli be included in subgenus Pteropodus with the other NEP species and that the NWP species of Pteropodus be removed from the subgenus. Our results indicate that the morphological characteristics used to distinguish species often may not be useful for phylogenetic analysis.

Bien que le système français de tenure seigneuriale au Québec ait mérité une attention toute particulière des historiens, l'histoire de la tenure anglaise de « franc et commun socage », introduite en 1774 et qui règne même aujourd'hui dans la zone dite des Cantons de l'Est, n'est pas moins singulière. Est-ce que dans l'Acte de Québec, après avoir établi à l'article 8 l'ancien droit français, on a voulu introduire tout le système anglais du droit des biens lorsqu'on a mentionné, à son article 9, que la concession des terres pourrait se faire selon la tenure anglaise ? Ou au contraire a-t-on voulu tout simplement exclure lapplication des incidents de la tenure française en faisant appel à l'équivalent anglais d'une tenure libre ? L'Acte constitutionnel de 1971 n'a pas résolu cette question, confiant cependant à la législature locale le soin d'adapter la tenure anglaise dans sa « nature » et dans ses « conséquences » aux conditions locales. Les autorités britanniques ont, semble-t-il, opté pour la première interprétation, puisqu'en 1825 une loi impériale édictait que le droit anglais des biens s’appliqueraient dans les cantons. La réaction locale, sous la forme de législation, en 1829, révèle l'équivoque ressentie par la population locale: après avoir validé pour le passé les transactions accomplies selon les formes françaises, la loi de 1829 établit pro futuro la validité des transactions immobilières selon les règles anglaises ou les formes françaises. Ce mélange de règles de fond et de forme anglaises et françaises — une véritable coexistence de systèmes juridiques sur un même territoire — semble avoir semé la confusion chez les justiciables et les hommes de loi durant les 25 années suivantes. Même dans le cas où la loi anglaise de 1825 a établi le droit anglais pour l'avenir, a-t-elle voulu déclarer aussi que le droit anglais existait dans le territoire québécois depuis 1774 ? Voilà une thèse qui pourrait se défendre d'après le sens grammatical de cette loi ainsi que celle de 1829. On semblait indécis au Québec sur cette question avant les décisions célèbres des années 1850 dans les arrêts Stuart v. Bowman et Wilcox v. Ce dernier a décidé enfin que le droit anglais des biens n'a pas pu être introduit dans les cantons avant 1825 et que toute interprétation contraire frise l'absurdité. Le jugement du juge en chef Lafontaine, aussi acceptable qu'il soit sur le plan politique, ne semble pas toutefois s'accorder avec le sens littéral des lois en question. Mais enfin que pouvait-on faire ? Une loi de 1857 de l'Assemblée législative a finalement opté pour l'application de lois canadiennes dans tout le territoire québécois et cette solution, après l'abolition de la tenure française en 1854, semble avoir été acceptée par ces mêmes milieux qui, dans les années précédentes, ont été agités par la question. L'uniformité de notre droit commun ayant été établie sur le sol québécois, la perspective d'une codification à la française s'ouvrait et devint réalité, comme on le sait, quelques années plus tard.

A fully annotated catalog of genus- and species-group names of Neotropical Lauxaniidae (Diptera: Lauxanioidea) is presented, providing details of references to these names in literature, and providing additional details such as distributions, generic combinations, synonymies, misspellings and emendations, information on types, notes on unusual situations, etc. As this catalog is meant to supplement the older Catalog of the Diptera of America North of Mexico, to complete the cataloging of the New World Lauxaniidae, “Neotropical” is herein inclusive of everything south of the United States, and the Nearctic parts of Mexico are not separately distinguished. The catalog is organized alphabetically within each of the three lauxaniid subfamilies, Eurychoromyiinae, Homoneurinae and Lauxaniinae, treating 91 available genus-group names, of which 77 represent valid genera. In the species-group, the catalog treats 441 available species-group names, of which 391 represent valid Neotropical lauxaniid species, 39 are invalid, three are valid but extralimital lauxaniids, five are valid but removed from Lauxaniidae, and two are new replacement names for two homonyms outside Lauxaniidae. The following nine new genera are described, based on previously described species: Elipolambda Gaimari & Silva (type species, Sapromyza lopesi Shewell, 1989), Griphoneuromima Silva & Gaimari (type species, Sapromyza frontalis Macquart, 1844b), Meraina Silva & Gaimari (type species, Lauxania ferdinandi Frey, 1919), Myzaprosa Gaimari & Silva (type species, Myzaprosa mallochi Gaimari & Silva), Paradeceia Silva & Gaimari (type species, Sapromyza sororia Williston, 1896b), Pseudodeceia Silva & Gaimari (type species, Lauxania leptoptera Frey, 1919), Sericominettia Gaimari & Silva (type species, Minettia argentiventris Malloch, 1928), Zamyprosa Gaimari & Silva (type species, Sapromyza semiatra Malloch, 1933), and Zargopsinettia Gaimari & Silva (type species, Minettia verticalis Malloch, 1928). The following four new replacement names in the species-group replace junior homonyms: Myzaprosa mallochi Gaimari & Silva (for Sapromyza spinigera Malloch, 1933, nec Malloch, 1925), Pseudogriphoneura mallochi Silva & Gaimari (for Minettia infuscata Malloch, 1928, nec Sciomyza infuscata Wulp, 1897), Xenochaetina hendeli Silva & Gaimari (for Allogriphoneura robusta Hendel, 1936, nec Helomyza robusta Walker, 1858), Zamyprosa macquarti Gaimari & Silva (for Sciomyza nigripes Blanchard, 1854, nec Sapromyza nigripes Macquart, 1844). The following six genus-group names are new synonyms: Allogriphoneura Hendel, 1925 (= Xenochaetina Malloch, 1923), Bacilloflagellomera Papp & Silva, 1995 (= Stenolauxania Malloch, 1926), Haakonia Curran, 1942 (= Xenochaetina Malloch, 1923), Homoeominettia Broadhead, 1989 (= Allominettia Hendel, 1925), Paraphysoclypeus Papp & Silva, 1995 (= Physoclypeus Hendel, 1907), Tibiominettia Hendel, 1936 (= Allominettia Hendel, 1925). The following 12 species-group names are new synonyms: Chaetocoelia banksi Curran, 1942 (= Chaetocoelia excepta (Walker, 1853)), Chaetocoelia tripunctata Malloch, 1926 (= Chaetocoelia excepta (Walker, 1853)), Minettia semifulva Malloch, 1933 (= Zamyprosa nigriventris (Blanchard, 1854)), Pseudogriphoneura scutellata Curran, 1934a (= Xenochaetina porcaria (Fabricius, 1805)), Sapromyza apta Walker, 1861 (= Chaetominettia mactans (Fabricius, 1787)), Sapromyza brasiliensis Walker, 1853 (= Chaetominettia corollae (Fabricius, 1805)), Sapromyza semiatra subsp. remissa Malloch, 1933 (= Zamyprosa semiatra (Malloch, 1933)), Sapromyza sordida Williston, 1896b (= Neogriphoneura sordida (Wiedemann, 1830)), Setulina geminata subsp. quadripunctata Malloch, 1941, subsp. tripunctata Malloch, 1941 & subsp. verticalis Malloch, 1941 (= Setulina geminata (Fabricius, 1805)), Tibiominettia setitibia Hendel, 1932 (= Allominettia assimilis (Malloch, 1926)). The following 96 lauxaniid species-group names are in new combinations: Allominettia approximata (Malloch, 1928; Deutominettia Hendel, 1925), Allominettia assimilis (Malloch, 1926; Minettia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830), Allominettia rubescens (Macquart, 1844b; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Allominettia woldae (Broadhead, 1989; Homoeominettia Broadhead, 1989), Camptoprosopella sigma (Hendel, 1910; Procrita Hendel, 1908), Camptoprosopella verena (Becker, 1919; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Dryosapromyza pirioni (Malloch, 1933; Minettia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830), Elipolambda duodecimvittata (Frey, 1919; Lauxania Latreille, 1804), Elipolambda lopesi (Shewell, 1989; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Elipolambda picrula (Williston, 1897; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Griphoneuromima frontalis (Macquart, 1844b; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Homoneura maculipennis (Loew, 1847; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Lauxanostegana albispina (Albuquerque, 1959; Steganopsis Meijere 1910), Marmarodeceia claripennis (Curran, 1934a; Pseudogriphoneura Hendel, 1907), Melanomyza nigerrima (Becker, 1919; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Meraina ferdinandi (Frey, 1919; Lauxania Latreille, 1804), Minettia altera (Curran, 1942; Pseudogriphoneura Hendel, 1907), Minettia duplicata (Lynch Arribálzaga, 1893; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Minettia lateritia (Rondani, 1863; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Minettia lupulinoides (Williston, 1897; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Minettia pallens (Blanchard, 1854; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Minettia remota (Thomson, 1869; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Minettia setosa (Thomson, 1869; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Myzaprosa chiloensis (Malloch, 1933; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Myzaprosa emmesa (Malloch, 1933; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Myzaprosa triloba (Malloch, 1933; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Neodecia albovittata (Loew, 1862; Lauxania Latreille, 1804), Neodecia bivittata (Curran, 1928b; Pseudogriphoneura Hendel, 1907), Neodecia flavipennis (Curran, 1928b; Pseudogriphoneura Hendel, 1907), Neodecia vittifacies (Curran, 1931; Pseudogriphoneura Hendel, 1907), Neominettia eronis (Curran, 1934a; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Neominettia lebasii (Macquart, 1844b; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Neominettia melanaspis (Wiedemann, 1830; Sciomyza Fallén, 1820d), Neoxangelina congruens (Hendel, 1910; Physegenua Macquart, 1848a/b), Neoxangelina facialis (Wiedemann, 1830; Sciomyza Fallén, 1820d), Neoxangelina flavipes (Hendel, 1926; Physegenua Macquart, 1848a/b), Paracestrotus albipes (Fabricius, 1805; Scatophaga Fabricius, 1805), Paradeceia incidens (Curran, 1934a; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Paradeceia shannoni (Malloch, 1933; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Paradeceia sororia (Williston, 1896b; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Physegenua annulata (Macquart, 1844b; Ephydra Fallén, 1810), Physoclypeus nigropleura (Papp & Silva, 1995; Paraphysoclypeus Papp & Silva, 1995), Poecilohetaerus suavis (Loew, 1847; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Poecilolycia blanchardi (Malloch, 1933; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Poecilolycia lineatocollis (Blanchard, 1854; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Poecilominettia aibonito (Curran, 1926; Minettia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830), Poecilominettia bipunctata (Say, 1829; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Poecilominettia evittata (Malloch, 1926; Minettia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830), Poecilominettia mona (Curran, 1926; Minettia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830), Poecilominettia nigropunctata (Malloch, 1928; Minettia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830), Poecilominettia plantaris (Thomson, 1869; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Poecilominettia quichuana (Brèthes, 1922; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Poecilominettia schwarzi (Malloch, 1928; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Poecilominettia sonax (Giglio-Tos, 1893; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Poecilominettia thomsonii (Lynch-Arribálzaga, 1893; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Poecilominettia triseriata (Coquillett, 1904a; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Pseudocalliope albomarginata (Malloch, 1933; Minettia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830), Pseudodeceia leptoptera (Frey, 1919; Lauxania Latreille, 1804), Pseudogriphoneura albipes (Wiedemann, 1830; Lauxania Latreille, 1804), Pseudominettia argyrostoma (Wiedemann, 1830; Lauxania Latreille, 1804), Ritaemyia unifasciata (Macquart, 1835; Tephritis Latreille, 1804), Sciosapromyza fuscinervis (Malloch, 1926; Minettia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830), Sciosapromyza limbinerva (Rondani, 1848; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Sciosapromyza scropharia (Fabricius, 1805; Scatophaga Fabricius, 1805), Scutominettia guyanensis (Macquart, 1844b; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Sericominettia argentiventris (Malloch, 1928; Minettia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830), Sericominettia aries (Curran, 1942; Pseudogriphoneura Hendel, 1907), Sericominettia holosericea (Fabricius, 1805; Scatophaga Fabricius, 1805), Sericominettia nigra (Curran, 1934a; Pseudogriphoneura Hendel, 1907), Sericominettia velutina (Walker, 1853; Helomyza Fallén, 1820a), Stenolauxania flava (Silva, 1999a; Bacilloflagellomera Papp & Silva, 1995), Stenolauxania fusca (Silva, 1999a; Bacilloflagellomera Papp & Silva, 1995), Stenolauxania longicornus (Silva, 1999a; Bacilloflagellomera Papp & Silva, 1995), Stenolauxania nigrifemuris (Silva, 1999a; Bacilloflagellomera Papp & Silva, 1995), Stenolauxania pectinicornis (Papp & Silva, 1995; Bacilloflagellomera Papp & Silva, 1995), Trivialia nigrifrontata (Becker, 1919; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Trivialia scutellaris (Williston, 1896b; Phortica Schiner, 1862), Trivialia venusta (Williston, 1896b; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Xenochaetina annuliventris (Hendel, 1926; Allogriphoneura Hendel, 1925), Xenochaetina glabella (Becker, 1895; Lauxania Latreille, 1804), Xenochaetina nigra (Williston, 1896b; Physegenua Macquart, 1848a/b), Xenochaetina phacosoma (Hendel, 1926; Allogriphoneura Hendel, 1925), Xenochaetina porcaria (Fabricius, 1805; Scatophaga Fabricius, 1805), Xenochaetina robusta (Walker, 1858; Helomyza Fallén, 1820a), Zamyprosa dichroa (Malloch, 1933; Minettia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830), Zamyprosa edwardsi (Malloch, 1933; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Zamyprosa ferruginea (Macquart, 1844b; Opomyza Fallén, 1820b), Zamyprosa fulvescens (Blanchard, 1854; Sciomyza Fallén, 1820d), Zamyprosa fulvicornis (Malloch, 1933; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Zamyprosa micropyga (Malloch, 1933; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Zamyprosa nigripes (Macquart, 1844b; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Zamyprosa nigriventris (Blanchard, 1854; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Zamyprosa parvula (Blanchard, 1854; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Zamyprosa semiatra (Malloch, 1933; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Zamyprosa seminigra (Malloch, 1933; Minettia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830), Zargopsinettia verticalis (Malloch, 1928; Minettia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830). The following 42 species have lectotype designations herein: Allogriphoneura nigromaculata Hendel, 1925 (synonym of Xenochaetina porcaria (Fabricius, 1805)), Allogriphoneura robusta Hendel, 1936 (= Xenochaetina hendeli Silva & Gaimari), Allominettia maculifrons Hendel, 1925 (synonym of Allominettia xanthiceps (Williston, 1897)), Blepharolauxania trichocera Hendel, 1925, Chaetocoelia palans Giglio-Tos, 1893, Euminettia zuercheri Hendel, 1933b (Minettia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830), Griphoneura triangulata Hendel, 1926, Lauxania albovittata Loew, 1862 (Neodecia Malloch, in Malloch & McAtee, 1924), Lauxania imbuta Wiedemann, 1830 (Griphoneura Schiner, 1868), Lauxania lutea Wiedemann, 1830 (Neominettia Hendel, 1925), Lauxania ruficornis Macquart, 1851a (synonym of Xenochaetina flavipennis (Fabricius, 1805)), Neominettia fumosa Hendel, 1926 (synonym of Neominettia costalis (Fabricius, 1805)), Physegenua ferruginea Schiner, 1868, Physegenua vittata Macquart, 1848a/b, Pseudogriphoneura cormoptera Hendel, 1907, Sapromyza angustipennis Williston, 1896b (Chaetocoelia Giglio-Tos, 1893), Sapromyza distinctissima Schiner, 1868 (Chaetocoelia Giglio-Tos, 1893), Sapromyza exul Williston, 1896b (Neodecia Malloch, in Malloch & McAtee, 1924), Sapromyza gigas Schiner, 1868 (Dryosapromyza Hendel, 1933a), Sapromyza ingrata Williston, 1896b (Poecilominettia Hendel, 1932), Sapromyza latelimbata Macquart, 1855a (synonym of Chaetominettia corollae (Fabricius, 1805)), Sapromyza lineatocollis Blanchard, 1854 (Poecilolycia Shewell, 1986), Sapromyza longipennis Blanchard, 1854 (= Minettia duplicata (Lynch Arribálzaga, 1893)), Sapromyza nigerrima Becker, 1919 (Melanomyza Malloch, 1923), Sapromyza nigriventris Blanchard, 1854 (Zamyprosa Gaimari & Silva), Sapromyza octovittata Williston, 1896b (Poecilominettia Hendel, 1932), Sapromyza ornata Schiner, 1868 (Neoxangelina Hendel, 1933a), Sapromyza pallens Blanchard, 1854 (Minettia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830), Sapromyza parvula Blanchard, 1854 (Zamyprosa Gaimari & Silva), Sapromyza picrula Williston, 1897 (Elipolambda), Sapromyza puella Williston, 1896b (Trivialia Malloch, 1923), Sapromyza sororia Williston, 1896b (Paradeceia Silva & Gaimari), Sapromyza venusta Williston, 1896b (Trivialia Malloch, 1923), Sapromyza xanthiceps Williston, 1897 (Allominettia Hendel, 1925), Scatophaga scropharia Fabricius, 1805 (Sciosapromyza Hendel, 1933a), Sciomyza fulvescens Blanchard, 1854 (Zamyprosa Gaimari & Silva), Sciomyza melanaspis Wiedemann, 1830 (Neominettia Hendel, 1925), Sciomyza nigripes Blanchard, 1854 (= Zamyprosa macquarti Gaimari & Silva), Sciomyza obscuripennis Bigot, 1857 (Physegenua Macquart, 1848a/b), Scutolauxania piloscutellaris Hendel, 1925, Trigonometopus albifrons Knab, 1914, Trigonometopus rotundicornis Williston, 1896b. The following three species are removed from being recognized as part of the Neotropical fauna: Homoneura americana (Wiedemann, 1830; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Homoneura maculipennis (Loew, 1847; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810), Poecilohetaerus suavis (Loew, 1847; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810). The following four species are removed from the family, three of which are put into the following new combinations: Senopterina cyanea (Fabricius, 1805; Lauxania Latreille, 1804) (Platystomatidae), Dihoplopyga delicatula (Blanchard, 1854; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810) (Heleomyzidae), Pherbellia geniculata (Macquart, 1844b; Sapromyza Fallén, 1810) (Sciomyzidae). The remaining species, Sapromyza fuscipes Macquart, 1844b, is of uncertain family placement within the Muscoidea. The following new replacement names for species of Platystomatidae were necessary due to homonymy: Senopterina gigliotosi Gaimari & Silva (for Bricinniella cyanea Giglio-Tos, 1893, nec Lauxania cyanea Fabricius, 1805), and Rivellia macquarti Gaimari & Silva (for Tephritis unifasciata Macquart, 1843: 381, nec Macquart, 1835: 465).

Fifty species of sea lice, members of the family Caligidae, were collected from the marine fishes of Moreton Bay, Queensland, during two workshops held in 2016. Only 21 of these species had previously been reported from Australian waters: of the remaining 29 species, 13 are new to science and another 16 are recorded from Australia for the first time. An illustrated differential diagnosis is presented for well known species; but for new or poorly known species a full description is provided. The 13 new species are: Anuretes amplus sp. nov. and A. amymichaelae sp. nov., both from Diagramma pictum (Thunberg, 1792); Caligus abigailae sp. nov. from Sphyraena obtusata Cuvier, 1829; C. elasmobranchi sp. nov. from Himantura uarnak (Gmelin, 1789), H. toshi Whitley, 1939, Dasyatis fluviorum Ogilby, 1908, Aetobatus ocellatus (Kuhl, 1823) and Pastinachus atrus (Macleay, 1883); C. hyporhamphi sp. nov. from Hyporhamphus quoyi (Valenciennes, 1847); C. nataliae sp. nov. from Herklotsichthys castelnaui (Ogilby, 1897) and Neoarius graeffei (Kner & Steindachner, 1867); C. neoaricolus sp. nov. and C. paranengai sp. nov. both from Neoarius graeffei; C. pseudorhombi sp. nov. from Pseudorhombus arsius (Hamilton, 1822); C. turbidus sp. nov. from Tripodichthys angustifrons (Hollard, 1854); C. upenei sp. nov. from Upeneus tragula Richardson, 1846; Lepeophtheirus robertae sp. nov. from Scarus ghobbhan Forsskål, 1775 and Pupulina keiri sp. nov. from Aetobatus ocellatus. The rare species Caligodes alatus Heegaard, 1945 is redescribed and transferred to the genus Caligus Müller, 1785, but requires a replacement name due to secondary homonymy: Caligus alepicolus nom. nov. is proposed. Similarly, Parapetalus spinosus Byrnes, 1986 is redescribed and transferred to the genus Caligus where it becomes a secondary homonym: the replacement name Caligus seriolicolus nom. nov. is proposed. Five large species-groups within the genus Caligus are recognised here on the basis of suites of morphological character states. They are based around the following species: C. bonito Wilson, 1905, C. confusus Pillai, 1961, C. diaphanus von Nordmann, 1832, C. macarovi Gusev, 1951 and C. productus Dana, 1852. These species-groups can be used to navigate this relatively large genus, but their monophyletic status should not be assumed.

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.

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

Najstarija grafija prezimena Srša u Knjizi krštenih štrigovske župe sv. Marije Magdalene (Szerssa) zabilježena je godine 1685. i održala se sve do sredine 19. stoljeća. Tijekom 17. i 18. stoljeća ta je grafija učestala u selima Borke (od 1685.), Stanetinski Breg (od 1688.) i Stanetinec (od 1690.). Sela Borke, Stanetinec Breg, Stanetinec i Prhovec bila su do sredine druge polovice 17. stoljeća u vlasništvu grofa Petra Zrinskog, nakon čega su zbog neuspjele urote protiv bečkoga dvora zaplijenjena i pripala »kraljevskoj komori«. Pored navedenih sela treba dodati i brdo Pernjak, sa zaplijenjenim velikim vinogradom Zrinskih (»Popovčak«), u kojemu je prezime Srša (Stersza) zabilježeno potkraj 17. stoljeća (1696.). Tijekom 17. i 18. stoljeća pored grafije Szerssa, među zastupljenijim grafijama bile su Sersa i Szersa, najviše u selima Borke, Prhovec, te Serssa u selu Krče. Od 1794. do 1873. u Globoki, a od 1811. do 1873. u Krču je prevladavala grafija Szersha. Grafija Srša počinje se nazirati godine 1850. kad je zabilježena kao Serša (Globoka, Lohovec Breg, Vukanovec Breg), a godine 1854. kao Szerša u Veščici. Pojava grafema š (umjesto s, sh, ss, ß) pedesetih godina 19. stoljeća nedvojbeno je posljedica ujedinjenja Međimurja s Hrvatskom (1849.-1861.). Godine 1846. u Hrvatskoj su već upotrebljavani grafemi: č (umjesto cs, ç i cj), ć (umjesto ch), š (umjesto sh, ss, sc) i ž (umjesto x, ſc, ſcj), te c (umjesto cz, z), s (umjesto ſ) i z (umjesto s). Grafemom s (umjesto sz) u Međimurju se ponegdje pisalo još godine 1900. (Prhovec, Globoka). S druge strane, grafem ß (scharfes S), zabilježen početkom 19. stoljeća, posljedica je pisanja prezimena austrijskog državljanina. Zbog jednokratnog bilježenja nije isključeno da su neke grafije rezultat pogrešnog razumijevanja ili izgovaranja prezimena, što je ostavilo traga i u njihovu pisanju (lapsus calami). Primjeri jednog ili dva bilježenja: Sirsa u Stanetincu (1660.), Szerche također u Stanetincu (1686.), Sserssa u Prhovcu (1686.), Sterssa u selu Borke (1696.) i Szarassa u istom selu (1768.). Iz 17. stoljeća potječu i grafijski oblici Serssa (1693.), Szersa (1695.), Stersza i Sterssa (1696.), te Sersa (1698.). Szersza je po jednom utvrđena u selima Krče (1726.), Trnovčak (1721.) i Ciganjščak (1725.). Grafija Szercha zabilježena je dvaput u Vrbovici (1828. i 1829.) i jednom u mjestu Krče (1859.). Po jednom se također navode i grafije Scherssa i Sherssa u Stanetincu (1792.) i Schirssa u selu Krče (1800.). Po jednom su zabilježene i grafije: Szers u Krču (1775.), Monte Stanentincu (1802.), Štrigovi (1810 i Vrbovici (1817.), te Szerß u Vušivščaku (1801.) i Szersh u Lohovcu (1844.). Godine 1810. u Stanetincu je zabilježena grafija Szerche, kojoj su srodni oblici Szercha i Szersha. Posljednji oblik (Szersha) izrazitije je bio prisutan u prvoj polovici 19. stoljeća u naseljima Krče, Globoka i Selščak.

As the only direct records of the history of evolution, it is critical to determine the geological source of biota-bearing fossils. Through the application of synchrotron-radiation micro-computed tomography (SR-µ-CT), Fourier-transformed infrared-spectroscopy (FT-IR), visual evaluation of ultraviolet fluorescence (UV-VS), radiocarbon dating (14C quantification), and historical sleuthing, we were able to identify and sort 161 (83 Baltic amber, 71 Copal and 7 Kauri gum pieces) individually numbered and largely mislabeled pieces of East African Defaunation resin (~145 years old) and copal (~390 years old), as well as Baltic amber (~35 million years old) from the Phyletisches Museum collection. Based on this collection, we define two new species: ‡Amphientomum knorrei Weingardt, Bock & Boudinot, sp. nov. (Psocodea: Amphientomidae, copal) and †Baltistena nigrispinata Batelka, Tröger & Bock, sp. nov. (Coleoptera: Mordellidae, Baltic amber). For selected taxa, we provide systematic reviews of the fossil record, including: Amphientomidae, for which we provide a key to all species of Amphientomum, extant and extinct, and recognize the junior synonymy of Am. ectostriolatum Li, 2002 (an unjustified emendation) under Am. ectostriolate Li, 1999 (syn. nov.); the fossil ant genus †Yantaromyrmex and the clades Dorylinae, Plagiolepidini, Camponotus, Crematogaster, and Pheidole (Formicidae); the Nevrorthidae (Neuroptera); and Doliopygus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Platypodinae). We synonymize Palaeoseopsis Enderlein, 1925 with Amphientomum Pictet, 1854, syn. nov. and transfer one species from Amphientomum, forming Lithoseopsis indentatum (Turner, 1975), comb. nov. To prevent the uncritical usage of unidentifiable fossils attributed to Camponotus for macroevolutionary analysis, we transfer 29 species to the form genus †Camponotites Steinbach, 1967, which we consider to be most useful as incertae sedis in the Formicinae. We treat †Ctt. ullrichi (Bachmayer, 1960), comb. nov. as unidentifiable hence invalid stat. nov. We also transfer †Ca. mengei Mayr, 1868 and its junior synonym †Ca. igneus Mayr, 1868 to a new genus, †Eocamponotus Boudinot, gen. nov., which is incertae sedis in the Camponotini. Concluding our revision of Camponotus fossils, we transfer †Ca. palaeopterus (Zhang, 1989) to Liometopum (Dolichoderinae), resulting in †L. palaeopterumcomb. nov. and the junior synonymy of †Shanwangella Zhang, 1989, syn. nov. under Liometopum Mayr, 1861. Because the type specimens of the genera †Palaeosminthurus Pierce & Gibron, 1962, stat. rev. and †Pseudocamponotus Carpenter, 1930 are unidentifiable due to poor preservation, we consider these taxa unidentifiable hence invalid stat. nov. To avoid unsupported use of the available fossils names attributed to Crematogaster for divergence dating calibration points, we transfer three species to a new collective taxon that is incertae sedis in Myrmicinae, †Incertogaster Boudinot, gen. nov., forming †In. aurora (LaPolla & Greenwalt, 2015), †In. praecursor (Emery, 1891), comb. nov., and †In. primitiva (Radchenko & Dlussky, 2019), comb. nov. Finally, we transfer †Ph. cordata (Holl, 1829) back to Pheidole, and designate a neotype from our copal collection based on all available evidence. All new species plus the neotype of ‡Ph. cordata are depicted with 3D cybertypes from our µ-CT scan data. We introduce the convention of a double dagger symbol (‡) to indicate fossils in copal or Defaunation resin, as these may yet be extant. To further contextualize our results, we provide a discussion of amber history and classification, as well as the Kleinkuhren locality, to which multiple specimens were attributed. We conclude with conspecti on key biological problems and increasing potential of µ-CT for phylogenetic paleontology.

This catalogue includes all valid family-group (six subtribes), genus-group (55 genera, 33 subgenera), and species-group names (1009 species and subspecies) of Sepidiini darkling beetles (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae: Pimeliinae), and their available synonyms. For each name, the author, year, and page number of the description are provided, with additional information (e.g., type species for genus-group names, author of synonymies for invalid taxa, notes) depending on the taxon rank. Verified distributional records (loci typici and data acquired from revisionary publications) for all the species are gathered. Distribution of the subtribes is illustrated and discussed. Several new nomenclatural acts are included. The generic names Phanerotomea Koch, 1958 [= Ocnodes Fåhraeus, 1870] and Parmularia Koch, 1955 [= Psammodes Kirby, 1819] are new synonyms (valid names in square brackets). The following new combinations are proposed: Ocnodesacuductusacuductus (Ancey, 1883), O. acuductusufipanus (Koch, 1952), O. adamantinus (Koch, 1952), O. argenteofasciatus (Koch, 1953), O. arnoldiarnoldi (Koch, 1952), O. arnoldisabianus (Koch, 1952), O.barbosai (Koch, 1952), O.basilewskyi (Koch, 1952), O.bellmarleyi (Koch, 1952), O. benguelensis (Koch, 1952), O. bertolonii (Guérin-Méneville, 1844), O. blandus (Koch, 1952), O. brevicornis (Haag-Rutenberg, 1875), O. brunnescensbrunnescens (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871), O. brunnescensmolestus (Haag-Rutenberg, 1875), O. buccinator (Koch, 1952), O. bushmanicus (Koch, 1952), O. carbonarius (Gerstaecker, 1854), O. cardiopterus (Fairmaire, 1888), O. cataractus (Koch, 1952), O. cinerarius (Koch, 1952), O. complanatus (Koch, 1952), O. confertus (Koch, 1952), O. congruens (Péringuey, 1899), O. cordiventris (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871), O. crocodilinus (Koch, 1952), O. dimorphus (Koch, 1952), O. distinctus (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871), O. dolosus (Péringuey, 1899), O. dorsocostatus (Gebien, 1910), O. dubiosus (Péringuey, 1899), O. ejectus (Koch, 1952), O. epronoticus (Koch, 1952), O. erichsoni (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871), O. ferreiraeferreirae (Koch, 1952), O. ferreiraezulu (Koch, 1952), O. fettingi (Haag-Rutenberg, 1875), O. fistucans (Koch, 1952), O. fraternus (Haag-Rutenberg, 1875), O. freyi (Koch, 1952), O. freudei (Koch, 1952), O. fulgidus (Koch, 1952), O. funestus (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871), O. gemmeulus (Koch, 1952), O. gibberosulus (Péringuey, 1908), O. gibbus (Haag-Rutenberg, 1879), O. globosus (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871), O. granisterna (Koch, 1952), O. granulosicollis (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871), O.gridellii (Koch, 1960), O. gueriniguerini (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871), O. guerinilawrencii (Koch, 1954), O. guerinimancus (Koch 1954), O. haemorrhoidalishaemorrhoidalis (Koch, 1952), O. haemorrhoidalissalubris (Koch, 1952), O. heydeni (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871), O. humeralis (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871), O. humerangula (Koch, 1952), O. imbricatus (Koch, 1952), O.imitatorimitator (Péringuey, 1899), O. imitatorinvadens (Koch, 1952), O. inflatus (Koch, 1952), O. janssensi (Koch, 1952), O. javeti (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871), O. junodi (Péringuey, 1899), O. kulzeri (Koch, 1952), O. lacustris (Koch, 1952), O. laevigatus (Olivier, 1795), O. lanceolatus (Koch, 1953), O. licitus (Peringey, 1899), O. luctuosus (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871), O. luxurosus (Koch, 1952), O. maputoensis (Koch, 1952), O. marginicollis (Koch, 1952), O. martinsi (Koch, 1952), O. melleus (Koch, 1952), O. mendicusestermanni (Koch, 1952), O. mendicusmendicus (Péringuey, 1899), O. miles (Péringuey, 1908), O. mimeticus (Koch, 1952), O. misolampoides (Fairmaire, 1888), O. mixtus (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871), O. monacha (Koch, 1952), O. montanus (Koch, 1952), O. mozambicus (Koch, 1952), O. muliebriscurtus (Koch, 1952), O. muliebrismuliebris (Koch, 1952), O. muliebrissilvestris (Koch, 1952), O. nervosus (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871), O.notatum (Thunberg, 1787), O. notaticollis (Koch, 1952), O. odorans (Koch, 1952), O. opacus (Solier, 1843), O. osbecki (Billberg, 1815), O. overlaeti (Koch, 1952), O. ovulus (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871), O. pachysomaornata (Koch, 1952), O. pachysomapachysoma (Péringuey, 1892), O. papillosus (Koch, 1952), O. pedator (Fairmaire, 1888), O. perlucidus (Koch, 1952), O. planus (Koch, 1952), O. pretorianus (Koch, 1952), O. procursus (Péringuey, 1899), O. protectus (Koch, 1952), O. punctatissimus (Koch, 1952), O. puncticollis (Koch, 1952), O. punctipennisplanisculptus (Koch, 1952), O. punctipennispunctipennis (Harold, 1878), O. punctipleura (Koch, 1952), O. rhodesianus (Koch, 1952), O. roriferus (Koch, 1952), O. rufipes (Harold, 1878), O. saltuarius (Koch, 1952), O.scabricollis (Gerstaecker, 1854), O. scopulipes (Koch, 1952), O. scrobicollisgriqua (Koch, 1952), O. scrobicollissimulans (Koch, 1952), O. semirasus (Koch, 1952), O. semiscabrum (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871), O. sericicollis (Koch, 1952), O.similis (Péringuey, 1899), O. sjoestedti (Gebien, 1910), O. spatulipes (Koch, 1952), O. specularis (Péringuey, 1899), O. spinigerus (Koch, 1952), O. stevensoni (Koch, 1952), O. tarsocnoides (Koch, 1952), O. temulentus (Koch, 1952), O. tenebrosusmelanarius (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871), O. tenebrosustenebrosus (Erichson, 1843), O. tibialis (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871), O. torosus (Koch, 1952), O. transversicollis (Haag-Rutenberg, 1879), O. tumidus (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871), O. umvumanus (Koch, 1952), O. vagus (Péringuey, 1899), O. vaticinus (Péringuey, 1899), O. verecundus (Péringuey, 1899), O. vetustus (Koch, 1952), O. vexator (Péringuey, 1899), O. virago (Koch, 1952), O. warmeloi (Koch, 1953), O. zanzibaricus (Haag-Rutenberg, 1875), Psammophanesantinorii (Gridelli, 1939), and P.mirei (Pierre, 1979). The type species [placed in square brackets] of the following genus-group taxa are designated for the first time, Ocnodes Fåhraeus, 1870 [Ocnodesscrobicollis Fåhraeus, 1870], Psammodophysis Péringuey, 1899 [Psammodophysisprobes Péringuey, 1899], and Trachynotidus Péringuey, 1899 [Psammodesthoreyi Haag-Rutenberg, 1871]. A lectotype is designated for Histrionotusomercooperi Koch, 1955 in order to fix its taxonomic status. Ulamus Kamiński is introduced here as a replacement name for Echinotus Marwick, 1935 [Type species.Aviculaechinata Smith, 1817] (Mollusca: Pteriidae) to avoid homonymy with Echinotus Solier, 1843 (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae).

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.

Cuando cursaba los primeros años de escuela, me llamaba la atención que a menudo se apelaba a él como “don Juanito”. Es más, mi señora madre aún se refiere a él así. Hallé la explicación racional en que probablemente era para diferenciarlo de don Juan Mora Fernández (1784-1854), primer Jefe de Estado de Costa Rica, electo en 1824 y reelecto en dos ocasiones más (1825-1829 y 1829-1833), y de quien don Juan Rafael era sobrino nieto.

Commented catalogue of Cassidinae species reported from the state of São Paulo, Brazil is given. Altogether, 343 species are presently registered from the state representing the following tribes: Alurnini (5 spp.), Cassidini (84 spp.), Chalepini (85 spp.), Dorynotini (9 spp.), Goniocheniini (8 spp.), Hemisphaerotini (2 spp.), Imatidiini (25 spp.), Ischyrosonychini (6 spp.), Mesomphaliini (83 spp.), Omocerini (14 spp.), Sceloenoplini (9 spp.), and Spilophorini (13 spp.). Fifty-two species are recorded for the first time and 19 are removed from the fauna of São Paulo. Each species is provided with a summary of published faunistic records for São Paulo and its general distribution. Dubious or insufficient records are critically commented. A list of Cassidinae species collected in São Paulo by Jaro Mráz (altogether 145 identified species) is included and supplemented with general information on this material. In addition, two new synonymies are established: Cephaloleia caeruleata Baly, 1875 = C. dilatata Uhmann, 1948, syn. nov.; Stolas lineaticollis (Boheman, 1850) = S. silaceipennis (Boheman, 1862), syn. nov.; and the publication year of the genus Heptatomispa Uhmann, 1940 is corrected to 1932. The following 54 species are recorded from São Paulo for the first time: Agroiconota tristriata (Fabricius, 1792), Charidotella (Philaspis) polita (Klug, 1829), Charidotis admirabilis Boheman, 1855, C. auroguttata Boheman, 1855, C. circumscripta Boheman, 1855, C. concentrica (Boheman, 1855), C. consentanea (Boheman, 1855), C. gemellata Boheman, 1855, Coptocycla (s. str.) stigma (Germar, 1823), Coptocycla (Coptocyclella) adamantina (Germar, 1823), Eremionycha bahiana (Boheman, 1855), Helocassis flavorugosa (Boheman, 1855), Helocassis flavorugosa (Boheman, 1855), Microctenochira patruelis (Boheman, 1855), Plagiometriona deyrollei (Boheman, 1855), P. punctatissima (Boheman, 1855), P. tenella (Klug, 1829), Baliosus conspersus Weise, 1911, Chalepus aenescens Weise, 1910, Decatelia pallipes (Weise, 1922), Octhispa gemmata (Germar, 1823), Octhispa robinsonii (Baly, 1864), Octotoma brasiliensis Weise, 1921, Octotoma crassicornis Weise, 1910, Oxychalepus centralis Uhmann, 1940, Temnochalepus imitans Uhmann, 1935, Uroplata coarctata Weise, 1921, Uroplata minuscula (Chapuis, 1877), Calliapis umbonata Hincks, 1956, Cephaloleia caeruleata Baly, 1875, C. flavovittata Baly, 1859, C. trilineata Uhmann, 1942, C. zikani Uhmann, 1935, Stenispa vespertina Baly, 1877, S. viridis (Pic, 1931), Xenispa bicolorata (Uhmann, 1948), Anacassis candida (Boheman, 1854), Chelymorpha commutabilis Boheman, 1854, C. constellata (Klug, 1829), Cyrtonota vulnerata (Boheman, 1850), Hilarocassis evanida (Boheman, 1850), Mesomphalia gibbosa (Fabricius, 1781), Nebraspis corticina (Boheman, 1850), Sceloenopla rectelineata (Pic, 1929), Stolas acuta (Boheman, 1850), S. aenea (Olivier, 1790), S. sexsignata (Boheman, 1850), S. sommeri (Boheman, 1850), S. subreticulata (Boheman, 1850), Omocerus (Platytauroma) cornutus (Boheman, 1850), Calyptocephala nigricornis (Germar, 1823), Oediopalpa brunnea (Uhmann, 1943), O. caerulescens (Baly, 1875), and O. fulvipes Baly, 1859.

Within the framework of the social-semiotic approach of the Sydney School (Martin and Rose 2008), this paper examines the genre characteristics of selected short descriptive narrative hagiographic texts published in three prominent Slovene hagiographic collections from 19th century – Shivlenje Svetnikov in Prestavni Godovi (1828–1829) by Franc Veriti, Djanje Svetnikov Božjih in razlaganje prestavnih praznikov ali svetkov (1853–1854) by Anton Martin Slomšek, and Življenje svetnikov in svetnic Božjih (1866–1874) by Jožef Rogač and Matija Torkar. Through a multi-level analysis, the study reveals the macrostructural textual organization, identifies both mandatory and optional structural segments, defines contextual variables and the appraisal system. This confirms the social purpose of the examined hagiographies, which is to provide significance and convey Christian principles by presenting the life of holy individuals, with the intention of preserving and shaping relationships on both broader and narrower social levels.

The name of Karol Kaczkowski, one of the pioneers of Polish epidemiology of the 19th century, has been somewhat forgotten. Hence, it is worth getting acquainted with his actions that he made contributing to the effective inhibition of the spread of the cholera epidemic that hit Polish territory in the 1830s. KAROL KACZKOWSKI (1797-1867) General of Staff of the Polish Army, doctor, professor, He was born in Warsaw on 2 February 1797. In 1805 his parents moved to Krzemieniec. In 1815, he began medical studies at the University of Vilnius. He was friends with philomaths: Adam Mickiewicz and Tomasz Zan. In 1821 he obtained the degree of doctor of medicine. In the years 1824-1828 he traveled around Europe. In 1829, he was nominated the Head of the Therapeutic Clinic at the University of Warsaw. After the outbreak of the November Uprising on November 29, 1830, he joined the artillery and in 1831 was appointed chief physician of the Polish Army. He organized the command of the military health service, hospitals and field hospitals. After the battle of Grochów, he organized battalion dressing points and a cordon of doctors who provided quick help to the wounded. On February 5, 1831, Karol Kaczkowski was appointed the Chief Physician of the Polish Army. When the first cholera patients, brought in by the Russian army, arrived in Warsaw in the spring of 1831, he prepared instructions on how to detect and treat cholera. He created cholera hospitals in Mienia and Warsaw, and sanitary supervision in military units. For this he was awarded the Wirtuti Militari Gold Cross. After the fall of the uprising, he left Poland with a group of 2,000. injured. He got to Prussia, and then to Lviv. In 1854 he settled in Żytomierz. He suffered harassment from the tsarist authorities. In 1863, during the January Uprising, he was sent to the Voronezh Governorate. In 1867, he obtained a permit to travel to Kherson, where he died on September 14, 1867.

This study aimed at clarifying the species composition and ecological structure of carabid communities, in oilseed rape fields after rape harvest. Field work was carried out in 2018. Pitfall traps (5 in each site) were set in 10 sampling sites in Thracean Lowland and Sarnena Sredna Gora Mts. Captured beetles belonged to 66 species and 24 genera, representing 9% of the species and 19% of the ground beetle genera occurring in Bulgaria. The most diverse was genus Harpalus Latreille, 1802 (15 species), followed by the genera Amara Zimmermann, 1832 (7 species), Microlestes Schmidt-Goebel, 1846 (6 species) and Parophonus Ganglbauer, 1891 (5 species). Five species were new for the region of the Thracean Lowland: Amara (Bradytus) consularis (Duftschmid, 1812), Harpalus (Harpalus) caspius (Steven, 1806), H. (Pseudoophonus) calceatus (Duftschmid, 1812), Microlestes negrita negrita (Wollaston, 1854), Tachyura (Tachyura) parvula (Dejean, 1831). Three species: Amara (Zezea) fulvipes (Audinet-Serville, 1821), A. (Zezea) chaudoiri incognita Fassati, 1946 and Diachromus germanus (Linnaeus, 1758) were new records for the region of the Sarnena Gora. Seven species were new for the whole Sredna Gora Mts.: Acinopus (Acinopus) picipes (Olivier, 1795), A. (Oedematicus) megacephalus (P. Rossi, 1794), Carterus (Carterus) dama (P. Rossi, 1792), Harpalus (Harpalus) flavicornis flavicornis Dejean, 1829, H. (Pseudoophonus) griseus (Panzer, 1796), Licinus (Licinus) depressus (Paykull, 1790) and Microlestes maurus maurus (Sturm, 1827). Genera Acinopus Dejean, 1821, Carterus Dejean, 1830 and Licinus Latreille, 1802 were new geographic records for the Sredna Gora Mts. Twelve life form categories were established (7 zoophagous and 6 mixophytophagous). The analysis of the life forms showed a slight predominance of the mixophytophages (38 species; 58%) over the zoophages (28 species; 42%). There were no constant species occurring in all sampling sites (with 100% occurrence). Thirteen species appeared after the harvest (they were absent during the flowering and ripening of the rape), forty-four species disappeared (they were present during flowering and ripening), and twenty-nine species were present in all stages.

Special Care NoticeThis article discusses trauma and violence inflicted upon the Indigenous peoples of Tasmania through the processes of colonisation. Content within this article may be distressing to some readers. IntroductionThis article looks briefly at the collection, consultation, and digital sharing of stories essential to the histories of the First Nations peoples of Australia. Focusing on materials held in Sydney, New South Wales two case studies—the object known as the Proclamation Board and the George Augustus Robinson Papers—explore how materials can be shared with Aboriginal peoples of the region now known as Tasmania. Specifically, the authors of this article (a Palawa man and an Australian woman of European descent) ask how can the idea of the privileging of Indigenous voices, within Eurocentric cultural collections, be transformed from rhetoric to reality? Moreover, how can we navigate this complex work, that is made even more problematic by distance, through the utilisation of knowledge networks which are geographically isolated from the collections holding stories crucial to Indigenous communities? In seeking to answer these important questions, this article looks at how cultural, emotional, and intellectual ownership can be divested from the physical ownership of a collection in a way that repatriates—appropriately and sensitively—stories of Aboriginal Australia and of colonisation. Holding Stories, Not Always Our OwnCultural institutions, including libraries, have, in recent years, been drawn into discussions centred on the notion of digital disruption and “that transformative shift which has seen the ongoing realignment of business resources, relationships, knowledge, and value both facilitating the entry of previously impossible ideas and accelerating the competitive impact of those same impossible ideas” (Franks and Ensor n.p.). As Molly Brown has noted, librarians “are faced, on a daily basis, with rapidly changing technology and the ways in which our patrons access and use information. Thus, we need to look at disruptive technologies as opportunities” (n.p.). Some innovations, including the transition from card catalogues to online catalogues and the provision of a wide range of electronic resources, are now considered to be business as usual for most institutions. So, too, the digitisation of great swathes of materials to facilitate access to collections onsite and online, with digitising primary sources seen as an intermediary between the pillars of preserving these materials and facilitating access for those who cannot, for a variety of logistical and personal reasons, travel to a particular repository where a collection is held.The result has been the development of hybrid collections: that is, collections that can be accessed in both physical and digital formats. Yet, the digitisation processes conducted by memory institutions is often selective. Limited resources, even for large-scale digitisation projects usually only realise outcomes that focus on making visually rich, key, or canonical documents, or those documents that are considered high use and at risk, available online. Such materials are extracted from the larger full body of records while other lesser-known components are often omitted. Digitisation projects therefore tend to be devised for a broader audience where contextual questions are less central to the methodology in favour of presenting notable or famous documents online only. Documents can be profiled as an exhibition separate from their complete collection and, critically, their wider context. Libraries of course are not neutral spaces and this practice of (re)enforcing the canon through digitisation is a challenge that cultural institutions, in partnerships, need to address (Franks and Ensor n.p.). Indeed, our digital collections are as affected by power relationships and the ongoing impacts of colonisation as our physical collections. These power relationships can be seen through an organisation’s “processes that support acquisitions, as purchases and as the acceptance of artefacts offered as donations. Throughout such processes decisions are continually made (consciously and unconsciously) that affect what is presented and actively promoted as the official history” (Thorpe et al. 8). While it is important to acknowledge what we do collect, it is equally important to look, too, at what we do not collect and to consider how we continually privilege and exclude stories. Especially when these stories are not always our own, but are held, often as accidents of collecting. For example, an item comes in as part of a larger suite of materials while older, city-based institutions often pre-date regional repositories. An essential point here is that cultural institutions can often become comfortable in what they collect, building on existing holdings. This, in turn, can lead to comfortable digitisation. If we are to be truly disruptive, we need to embrace feeling uncomfortable in what we do, and we need to view digitisation as an intervention opportunity; a chance to challenge what we ‘know’ about our collections. This is especially relevant in any attempts to decolonise collections.Case Study One: The Proclamation BoardThe first case study looks at an example of re-digitisation. One of the seven Proclamation Boards known to survive in a public collection is held by the Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales, having been purchased from Tasmanian collector and photographer John Watt Beattie (1859–1930) in May 1919 for £30 (Morris 86). Why, with so much material to digitise—working in a program of limited funds and time—would the Library return to an object that has already been privileged? Unanswered questions and advances in digitisation technologies, created a unique opportunity. For the First Peoples of Van Diemen’s Land (now known as Tasmania), colonisation by the British in 1803 was “an emotionally, intellectually, physically, and spiritually confronting series of encounters” (Franks n.p.). Violent incidents became routine and were followed by a full-scale conflict, often referred to as the Black War (Clements 1), or more recently as the Tasmanian War, fought from the 1820s until 1832. Image 1: Governor Arthur’s Proclamation to the Aborigines, ca. 1828–1830. Image Credit: Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales, Call No.: SAFE / R 247.Behind the British combatants were various support staff, including administrators and propagandists. One of the efforts by the belligerents, behind the front line, to win the war and bring about peace was the production of approximately 100 Proclamation Boards. These four-strip pictograms were the result of a scheme introduced by Lieutenant Governor George Arthur (1784–1854), on the advice of Surveyor General George Frankland (1800–38), to communicate that all are equal under the rule of law (Arthur 1). Frankland wrote to Arthur in early 1829 to suggest these Proclamation Boards could be produced and nailed to trees (Morris 84), as a Eurocentric adaptation of a traditional method of communication used by Indigenous peoples who left images on the trunks of trees. The overtly stated purpose of the Boards was, like the printed proclamations exhorting peace, to assert, all people—black and white—were equal. That “British Justice would protect” everyone (Morris 84). The first strip on each of these pictogram Boards presents Indigenous peoples and colonists living peacefully together. The second strip shows “a conciliatory handshake between the British governor and an Aboriginal ‘chief’, highly reminiscent of images found in North America on treaty medals and anti-slavery tokens” (Darian-Smith and Edmonds 4). The third and fourth strips depict the repercussions for committing murder (or, indeed, any significant crime), with an Indigenous man hanged for spearing a colonist and a European man hanged for shooting an Aboriginal man. Both men executed in the presence of the Lieutenant Governor. The Boards, oil on Huon pine, were painted by “convict artists incarcerated in the island penal colony” (Carroll 73).The Board at the State Library of New South Wales was digitised quite early on in the Library’s digitisation program, it has been routinely exhibited (including for the Library’s centenary in 2010) and is written about regularly. Yet, many questions about this small piece of timber remain unanswered. For example, some Boards were outlined with sketches and some were outlined with pouncing, “a technique [of the Italian Renaissance] of pricking the contours of a drawing with a pin. Charcoal was then dusted on to the drawing” (Carroll 75–76). Could such a sketch or example of pouncing be seen beneath the surface layers of paint on this particular Board? What might be revealed by examining the Board more closely and looking at this object in different ways?An important, but unexpected, discovery was that while most of the pigments in the painting correlate with those commonly available to artists in the early nineteenth century there is one outstanding anomaly. X-ray analysis revealed cadmium yellow present in several places across the painting, including the dresses of the little girls in strip one, uniform details in strip two, and the trousers worn by the settler men in strips three and four (Kahabka 2). This is an extraordinary discovery, as cadmium yellows were available “commercially as an artist pigment in England by 1846” and were shown by “Winsor & Newton at the 1851 Exhibition held at the Crystal Palace, London” (Fiedler and Bayard 68). The availability of this particular type of yellow in the early 1850s could set a new marker for the earliest possible date for the manufacture of this Board, long-assumed to be 1828–30. Further, the early manufacture of cadmium yellow saw the pigment in short supply and a very expensive option when compared with other pigments such as chrome yellow (the darker yellow, seen in the grid lines that separate the scenes in the painting). This presents a clearly uncomfortable truth in relation to an object so heavily researched and so significant to a well-regarded collection that aims to document much of Australia’s colonial history. Is it possible, for example, the Board has been subjected to overpainting at a later date? Or, was this premium paint used to produce a display Board that was sent, by the Tasmanian Government, to the 1866 Intercolonial Exhibition in Melbourne? In seeking to see the finer details of the painting through re-digitisation, the results were much richer than anticipated. The sketch outlines are clearly visible in the new high-resolution files. There are, too, details unable to be seen clearly with the naked eye, including this warrior’s headdress and ceremonial scarring on his stomach, scars that tell stories “of pain, endurance, identity, status, beauty, courage, sorrow or grief” (Australian Museum n.p.). The image of this man has been duplicated and distributed since the 1830s, an anonymous figure deployed to tell a settler-centric story of the Black, or Tasmanian, War. This man can now be seen, for the first time nine decades later, to wear his own story. We do not know his name, but he is no longer completely anonymous. This image is now, in some ways, a portrait. The State Library of New South Wales acknowledges this object is part of an important chapter in the Tasmanian story and, though two Boards are in collections in Tasmania (the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart and the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Launceston), each Board is different. The Library holds an important piece of a large and complex puzzle and has a moral obligation to make this information available beyond its metropolitan location. Digitisation, in this case re-digitisation, is allowing for the disruption of this story in sparking new questions around provenance and for the relocating of a Palawa warrior to a more prominent, perhaps even equal role, within a colonial narrative. Image 2: Detail, Governor Arthur’s Proclamation to the Aborigines, ca. 1828–1830. Image Credit: Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales, Call No.: SAFE / R 247.Case Study Two: The George Augustus Robinson PapersThe second case study focuses on the work being led by the Indigenous Engagement Branch at the State Library of New South Wales on the George Augustus Robinson (1791–1866) Papers. In 1829, Robinson was granted a government post in Van Diemen’s Land to ‘conciliate’ with the Palawa peoples. More accurately, Robinson’s core task was dispossession and the systematic disconnection of the Palawa peoples from their Country, community, and culture. Robinson was a habitual diarist and notetaker documenting much of his own life as well as the lives of those around him, including First Nations peoples. His extensive suite of papers represents a familiar and peculiar kind of discomfort for Aboriginal Australians, one in which they are forced to learn about themselves through the eyes and words of their oppressors. For many First Nations peoples of Tasmania, Robinson remains a violent and terrible figure, but his observations of Palawa culture and language are as vital as they are problematic. Importantly, his papers include vibrant and utterly unique descriptions of people, place, flora and fauna, and language, as well as illustrations revealing insights into the routines of daily life (even as those routines were being systematically dismantled by colonial authorities). “Robinson’s records have informed much of the revitalisation of Tasmanian Aboriginal culture in the twentieth century and continue to provide the basis for investigations of identity and deep relationships to land by Aboriginal scholars” (Lehman n.p.). These observations and snippets of lived culture are of immense value to Palawa peoples today but the act of reading between Robinson’s assumptions and beyond his entrenched colonial views is difficult work.Image 3: George Augustus Robinson Papers, 1829–34. Image Credit: Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales, A 7023–A 7031.The canonical reference for Robinson’s archive is Friendly Mission: The Tasmanian Journals and Papers of George Augustus Robinson, 1829–1834, edited by N.J.B. Plomley. The volume of over 1,000 pages was first published in 1966. This large-scale project is recognised “as a monumental work of Tasmanian history” (Crane ix). Yet, this standard text (relied upon by Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers) has clearly not reproduced a significant percentage of Robinson’s Tasmanian manuscripts. Through his presumptuous truncations Plomley has not simply edited Robinson’s work but has, quite literally, written many Palawa stories out of this colonial narrative. It is this lack of agency in determining what should be left out that is most troubling, and reflects an all-too-familiar approach which libraries, including the State Library of New South Wales, are now urgently trying to rectify. Plomley’s preface and introduction does not indicate large tranches of information are missing. Indeed, Plomley specifies “that in extenso [in full] reproduction was necessary” (4) and omissions “have been kept to a minimum” (8). A 32-page supplement was published in 1971. A new edition, including the supplement, some corrections made by Plomley, and some extra material was released in 2008. But much continues to be unknown outside of academic circles, and far too few Palawa Elders and language revival workers have had access to Robinson’s original unfiltered observations. Indeed, Plomley’s text is linear and neat when compared to the often-chaotic writings of Robinson. Digitisation cannot address matters of the materiality of the archive, but such projects do offer opportunities for access to information in its original form, unedited, and unmediated.Extensive consultation with communities in Tasmania is underpinning the digitisation and re-description of a collection which has long been assumed—through partial digitisation, microfilming, and Plomley’s text—to be readily available and wholly understood. Central to this project is not just challenging the canonical status of Plomley’s work but directly challenging the idea non-Aboriginal experts can truly understand the cultural or linguistic context of the information recorded in Robinson’s journals. One of the more exciting outcomes, so far, has been working with Palawa peoples to explore the possibility of Palawa-led transcriptions and translation, and not breaking up the tasks of this work and distributing them to consultants or to non-Indigenous student groups. In this way, people are being meaningfully reunited with their own histories and, crucially, given first right to contextualise and understand these histories. Again, digitisation and disruption can be seen here as allies with the facilitation of accessibility to an archive in ways that re-distribute the traditional power relations around interpreting and telling stories held within colonial-rich collections.Image 4: Detail, George Augustus Robinson Papers, 1829–34. Image Credit: Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales, A 7023–A 7031.As has been so brilliantly illustrated by Bruce Pascoe’s recent work Dark Emu (2014), when Aboriginal peoples are given the opportunity to interpret their own culture from the colonial records without interference, they are able to see strength and sophistication rather than victimhood. For, to “understand how the Europeans’ assumptions selectively filtered the information brought to them by the early explorers is to see how we came to have the history of the country we accept today” (4). Far from decrying these early colonial records Aboriginal peoples understand their vital importance in connecting to a culture which was dismantled and destroyed, but importantly it is known that far too much is lost in translation when Aboriginal Australians are not the ones undertaking the translating. ConclusionFor Aboriginal Australians, culture and knowledge is no longer always anchored to Country. These histories, once so firmly connected to communities through their ancestral lands and languages, have been dispersed across the continent and around the world. Many important stories—of family history, language, and ways of life—are held in cultural institutions and understanding the role of responsibly disseminating these collections through digitisation is paramount. In transitioning from physical collections to hybrid collections of the physical and digital, the digitisation processes conducted by memory institutions can be—and due to the size of some collections is inevitably—selective. Limited resources, even for large-scale and well-resourced digitisation projects usually realise outcomes that focus on making visually rich, key, or canonical documents, or those documents considered high use or at risk, available online. Such materials are extracted from a full body of records. Digitisation projects, as noted, tend to be devised for a broader audience where contextual questions are less central to the methodology in favour of presenting notable documents online, separate from their complete collection and, critically, their context. Our institutions carry the weight of past collecting strategies and, today, the pressure of digitisation strategies as well. Contemporary librarians should not be gatekeepers, but rather key holders. In collaborating across sectors and with communities we open doors for education, research, and the repatriation of culture and knowledge. We must, always, remember to open these doors wide: the call of Aboriginal Australians of ‘nothing about us without us’ is not an invitation to collaboration but an imperative. Libraries—as well as galleries, archives, and museums—cannot tell these stories alone. Also, these two case studies highlight what we believe to be one of the biggest mistakes that not just libraries but all cultural institutions are vulnerable to making, the assumption that just because a collection is open access it is also accessible. Digitisation projects are more valuable when communicated, contextualised and—essentially—the result of community consultation. Such work can, for some, be uncomfortable while for others it offers opportunities to embrace disruption and, by extension, opportunities to decolonise collections. For First Nations peoples this work can be more powerful than any simple measurement tool can record. Through examining our past collecting, deliberate efforts to consult, and through digital sharing projects across metropolitan and regional Australia, we can make meaningful differences to the ways in which Aboriginal Australians can, again, own their histories.Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the Palawa peoples: the traditional custodians of the lands known today as Tasmania. The authors acknowledge, too, the Gadigal people upon whose lands this article was researched and written. We are indebted to Dana Kahabka (Conservator), Joy Lai (Imaging Specialist), Richard Neville (Mitchell Librarian), and Marika Duczynski (Project Officer) at the State Library of New South Wales. Sincere thanks are also given to Jason Ensor of Western Sydney University.ReferencesArthur, George. “Proclamation.” The Hobart Town Courier 19 Apr. 1828: 1.———. Proclamation to the Aborigines. Graphic Materials. Sydney: Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales, SAFE R / 247, ca. 1828–1830.Australian Museum. “Aboriginal Scarification.” 2018. 11 Jan. 2019 <https://australianmuseum.net.au/about/history/exhibitions/body-art/aboriginal-scarification/>.Brown, Molly. “Disruptive Technology: A Good Thing for Our Libraries?” International Librarians Network (2016). 26 Aug. 2018 <https://interlibnet.org/2016/11/25/disruptive-technology-a-good-thing-for-our-libraries/>.Carroll, Khadija von Zinnenburg. Art in the Time of Colony: Empires and the Making of the Modern World, 1650–2000. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 2014.Clements, Nicholas. The Black War: Fear, Sex and Resistance in Tasmania. St Lucia, U of Queensland P, 2014.Crane, Ralph. “Introduction.” Friendly Mission: The Tasmanian Journals and Papers of George Augustus Robinson, 1829-1834. 2nd ed. Launceston and Hobart: Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and Quintus Publishing, 2008. ix.Darian-Smith, Kate, and Penelope Edmonds. “Conciliation on Colonial Frontiers.” Conciliation on Colonial Frontiers: Conflict, Performance and Commemoration in Australia and the Pacific Rim. Eds. Kate Darian-Smith and Penelope Edmonds. New York: Routledge, 2015. 1–14.Edmonds, Penelope. “‘Failing in Every Endeavour to Conciliate’: Governor Arthur’s Proclamation Boards to the Aborigines, Australian Conciliation Narratives and Their Transnational Connections.” Journal of Australian Studies 35.2 (2011): 201–18.Fiedler, Inge, and Michael A. Bayard. Artist Pigments, a Handbook of Their History and Characteristics. Ed. Robert L. Feller. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1986. 65–108. Franks, Rachel. “A True Crime Tale: Re-Imagining Governor Arthur’s Proclamation Board for the Tasmanian Aborigines.” M/C Journal 18.6 (2015). 1 Feb. 2019 <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/1036>.Franks, Rachel, and Jason Ensor. “Challenging the Canon: Collaboration, Digitisation and Education.” ALIA Online: A Conference of the Australian Library and Information Association, 11–15 Feb. 2019, Sydney.Kahabka, Dana. Condition Assessment [Governor Arthur’s Proclamation to the Aborigines, ca. 1828–1830, SAFE / R247]. Sydney: State Library of New South Wales, 2017.Lehman, Greg. “Pleading Robinson: Reviews of Friendly Mission: The Tasmanian Journals and Papers of George Augustus Robinson (2008) and Reading Robinson: Companion Essays to Friendly Mission (2008).” Australian Humanities Review 49 (2010). 1 May 2019 <http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p41961/html/review-12.xhtml?referer=1294&page=15>. Morris, John. “Notes on A Message to the Tasmanian Aborigines in 1829, popularly called ‘Governor Davey’s Proclamation to the Aborigines, 1816’.” Australiana 10.3 (1988): 84–7.Pascoe, Bruce. Dark Emu. Broome: Magabala Books, 2014/2018.Plomley, N.J.B. Friendly Mission: The Tasmanian Journals and Papers of George Augustus Robinson, 1829–1834. Hobart: Tasmanian Historical Research Association, 1966.Robinson, George Augustus. Papers. Textual Records. Sydney: Mitchell Library, State Library of NSW, A 7023–A 7031, 1829–34. Thorpe, Kirsten, Monica Galassi, and Rachel Franks. “Discovering Indigenous Australian Culture: Building Trusted Engagement in Online Environments.” Journal of Web Librarianship 10.4 (2016): 343–63.

Special Care Notice This paper discusses trauma and violence inflicted upon the Indigenous peoples of Tasmania through the process of colonisation. Content within this paper may be distressing to some readers. Introduction The decimation of the First Peoples of Van Diemen’s Land (now Tasmania) was systematic and swift. First Contact was an emotionally, intellectually, physically, and spiritually confronting series of encounters for the Indigenous inhabitants. There were, according to some early records, a few examples of peaceful interactions (Morris 84). Yet, the inevitable competition over resources, and the intensity with which colonists pursued their “claims” for food, land, and water, quickly transformed amicable relationships into hostile rivalries. Jennifer Gall has written that, as “European settlement expanded in the late 1820s, violent exchanges between settlers and Aboriginal people were frequent, brutal and unchecked” (58). Indeed, the near-annihilation of the original custodians of the land was, if viewed through the lens of time, a process that could be described as one that was especially efficient. As John Morris notes: in 1803, when the first settlers arrived in Van Diemen’s Land, the Aborigines had already inhabited the island for some 25,000 years and the population has been estimated at 4,000. Seventy-three years later, Truganinni, [often cited as] the last Tasmanian of full Aboriginal descent, was dead. (84) Against a backdrop of extreme violence, often referred to as the Black War (Clements 1), there were some, admittedly dubious, efforts to contain the bloodshed. One such effort, in the late 1820s, was the production, and subsequent distribution, of a set of Proclamation Boards. Approximately 100 Proclamation Boards (the Board) were introduced by the Lieutenant Governor of the day, George Arthur (after whom Port Arthur on the Tasman Peninsula is named). The purpose of these Boards was to communicate, via a four-strip pictogram, to the Indigenous peoples of the island colony that all people—black and white—were considered equal under the law. “British Justice would protect” everyone (Morris 84). This is reflected in the narrative of the Boards. The first image presents Indigenous peoples and colonists living peacefully together. The second, and central, image shows “a conciliatory handshake between the British governor and an Aboriginal ‘chief’, highly reminiscent of images found in North America on treaty medals and anti-slavery tokens” (Darian-Smith and Edmonds 4). The third and fourth images depict the repercussions for committing murder, with an Indigenous man hanged for spearing a colonist and a European man also hanged for shooting an Aborigine. Both men executed under “gubernatorial supervision” (Turnbull 53). Image 1: Governor Davey's [sic - actually Governor Arthur's] Proclamation to the Aborigines, 1816 [sic - actually c. 1828-30]. Image Credit: Mitchell Library, State Library of NSW (Call Number: SAFE / R 247). The Board is an interesting re-imagining of one of the traditional methods of communication for Indigenous peoples; the leaving of images on the bark of trees. Such trees, often referred to as scarred trees, are rare in modern-day Tasmania as “the expansion of settlements, and the impact of bush fires and other environmental factors” resulted in many of these trees being destroyed (Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania online). Similarly, only a few of the Boards, inspired by these trees, survive today. The Proclamation Board was, in the 1860s, re-imagined as the output of a different Governor: Lieutenant Governor Davey (after whom Port Davey, on the south-west coast of Tasmania is named). This re-imagining of the Board’s creator was so effective that the Board, today, is popularly known as Governor Davey’s Proclamation to the Aborigines. This paper outlines several other re-imaginings of this Board. In addition, this paper offers another, new, re-imagining of the Board, positing that this is an early “pamphlet” on crime, justice and punishment which actually presents as a pre-cursor to the modern Australian true crime tale. In doing so this work connects the Proclamation Board to the larger genre of crime fiction. One Proclamation Board: Two Governors Labelled Van Diemen’s Land and settled as a colony of New South Wales in 1803, this island state would secede from the administration of mainland Australia in 1825. Another change would follow in 1856 when Van Diemen’s Land was, in another process of re-imagining, officially re-named Tasmania. This change in nomenclature was an initiative to, symbolically at least, separate the contemporary state from a criminal and violent past (Newman online). Tasmania’s violent history was, perhaps, inevitable. The island was claimed by Philip Gidley King, the Governor of New South Wales, in the name of His Majesty, not for the purpose of building a community, but to “prevent the French from gaining a footing on the east side of that island” and also to procure “timber and other natural products, as well as to raise grain and to promote the seal industry” (Clark 36). Another rationale for this land claim was to “divide the convicts” (Clark 36) which re-fashioned the island into a gaol. It was this penal element of the British colonisation of Australia that saw the worst of the British Empire forced upon the Aboriginal peoples. As historian Clive Turnbull explains: the brutish state of England was reproduced in the English colonies, and that in many ways its brutishness was increased, for now there came to Australia not the humanitarians or the indifferent, but the men who had vested interests in the systems of restraint; among those who suffered restraint were not only a vast number who were merely unfortunate and poverty-stricken—the victims of a ‘depression’—but brutalised persons, child-slaughterers and even potential cannibals. (Turnbull 25) As noted above the Black War of Tasmania saw unprecedented aggression against the rightful occupants of the land. Yet, the Aboriginal peoples were “promised the white man’s justice, the people [were] exhorted to live in amity with them, the wrongs which they suffer [were] deplored” (Turnbull 23). The administrators purported an egalitarian society, one of integration and peace but Van Diemen’s Land was colonised as a prison and as a place of profit. So, “like many apologists whose material benefit is bound up with the systems which they defend” (Turnbull 23), assertions of care for the health and welfare of the Aboriginal peoples were made but were not supported by sufficient policies, or sufficient will, and the Black War continued. Colonel Thomas Davey (1758-1823) was the second person to serve as Lieutenant Governor of Van Diemen’s Land; a term of office that began in 1813 and concluded in 1817. The fourth Lieutenant Governor of the island was Colonel Sir George Arthur (1784-1854); his term of office, significantly longer than Davey’s, being from 1824 to 1836. The two men were very different but are connected through this intriguing artefact, the Proclamation Board. One of the efforts made to assert the principle of equality under the law in Van Diemen’s Land was an outcome of work undertaken by Surveyor General George Frankland (1800-1838). Frankland wrote to Arthur in early 1829 and suggested the Proclamation Board (Morris 84), sometimes referred to as a Picture Board or the Tasmanian Hieroglyphics, as a tool to support Arthur’s various Proclamations. The Proclamation, signed on 15 April 1828 and promulgated in the The Hobart Town Courier on 19 April 1828 (Arthur 1), was one of several notices attempting to reduce the increasing levels of violence between Indigenous peoples and colonists. The date on Frankland’s correspondence clearly situates the Proclamation Board within Arthur’s tenure as Lieutenant Governor. The Board was, however, in the 1860s, re-imagined as the output of Davey. The Clerk of the Tasmanian House of Assembly, Hugh M. Hull, asserted that the Board was the work of Davey and not Arthur. Hull’s rationale for this, despite archival evidence connecting the Board to Frankland and, by extension, to Arthur, is predominantly anecdotal. In a letter to the editor of The Hobart Mercury, published 26 November 1874, Hull wrote: this curiosity was shown by me to the late Mrs Bateman, neé Pitt, a lady who arrived here in 1804, and with whom I went to school in 1822. She at once recognised it as one of a number prepared in 1816, under Governor Davey’s orders; and said she had seen one hanging on a gum tree at Cottage Green—now Battery Point. (3) Hull went on to assert that “if any old gentleman will look at the picture and remember the style of military and civil dress of 1810-15, he will find that Mrs Bateman was right” (3). Interestingly, Hull relies upon the recollections of a deceased school friend and the dress codes depicted by the artist to date the Proclamation Board as a product of 1816, in lieu of documentary evidence dating the Board as a product of 1828-1830. Curiously, the citation of dress can serve to undermine Hull’s argument. An early 1840s watercolour by Thomas Bock, of Mathinna, an Aboriginal child of Flinders Island adopted by Lieutenant Governor John Franklin (Felton online), features the young girl wearing a brightly coloured, high-waisted dress. This dress is very similar to the dresses worn by the children on the Proclamation Board (the difference being that Mathinna wears a red dress with a contrasting waistband, the children on the Board wear plain yellow dresses) (Bock). Acknowledging the simplicity of children's clothing during the colonial era, it could still be argued that it would have been unlikely the Governor of the day would have placed a child, enjoying at that time a life of privilege, in a situation where she sat for a portrait wearing an old-fashioned garment. So effective was Hull’s re-imagining of the Board’s creator that the Board was, for many years, popularly known as Governor Davey’s Proclamation to the Aborigines with even the date modified, to 1816, to fit Davey’s term of office. Further, it is worth noting that catalogue records acknowledge the error of attribution and list both Davey and Arthur as men connected to the creation of the Proclamation Board. A Surviving Board: Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales One of the surviving Proclamation Boards is held by the Mitchell Library. The Boards, oil on Huon pine, were painted by “convict artists incarcerated in the island penal colony” (Carroll 73). The work was mass produced (by the standards of mass production of the day) by pouncing, “a technique [of the Italian Renaissance] of pricking the contours of a drawing with a pin. Charcoal was then dusted on to the drawing” (Carroll 75-76). The images, once outlined, were painted in oil. Of approximately 100 Boards made, several survive today. There are seven known Boards within public collections (Gall 58): five in Australia (Mitchell Library, State Library of NSW, Sydney; Museum Victoria, Melbourne; National Library of Australia, Canberra; Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart; and Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Launceston); and two overseas (The Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University and the Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, University of Cambridge). The catalogue record, for the Board held by the Mitchell Library, offers the following details:Paintings: 1 oil painting on Huon pine board, rectangular in shape with rounded corners and hole at top centre for suspension ; 35.7 x 22.6 x 1 cm. 4 scenes are depicted:Aborigines and white settlers in European dress mingling harmoniouslyAboriginal men and women, and an Aboriginal child approach Governor Arthur to shake hands while peaceful soldiers look onA hostile Aboriginal man spears a male white settler and is hanged by the military as Governor Arthur looks onA hostile white settler shoots an Aboriginal man and is hanged by the military as Governor Arthur looks on. (SAFE / R 247) The Mitchell Library Board was purchased from J.W. Beattie in May 1919 for £30 (Morris 86), which is approximately $2,200 today. Importantly, the title of the record notes both the popular attribution of the Board and the man who actually instigated the Board’s production: “Governor Davey’s [sic – actually Governor Arthur] Proclamation to the Aborigines, 1816 [sic – actually c. 1828-30].” The date of the Board is still a cause of some speculation. The earlier date, 1828, marks the declaration of martial law (Turnbull 94) and 1830 marks the Black Line (Edmonds 215); the attempt to form a human line of white men to force many Tasmanian Aboriginals, four of the nine nations, onto the Tasman Peninsula (Ryan 3). Frankland’s suggestion for the Board was put forward on 4 February 1829, with Arthur’s official Conciliator to the Aborigines, G.A. Robinson, recording his first sighting of a Board on 24 December 1829 (Morris 84-85). Thus, the conception of the Board may have been in 1828 but the Proclamation project was not fully realised until 1830. Indeed, a news item on the Proclamation Board did appear in the popular press, but not until 5 March 1830: We are informed that the Government have given directions for the painting of a large number of pictures to be placed in the bush for the contemplation of the Aboriginal Inhabitants. […] However […] the causes of their hostility must be more deeply probed, or their taste as connoisseurs in paintings more clearly established, ere we can look for any beneficial result from this measure. (Colonial Times 2) The remark made in relation to becoming a connoisseur of painting, though intended to be derogatory, makes some sense. There was an assumption that the Indigenous peoples could easily translate a European-styled execution by hanging, as a visual metaphor for all forms of punishment. It has long been understood that Indigenous “social organisation and religious and ceremonial life were often as complex as those of the white invaders” (McCulloch 261). However, the Proclamation Board was, in every sense, Eurocentric and made no attempt to acknowledge the complexities of Aboriginal culture. It was, quite simply, never going to be an effective tool of communication, nor achieve its socio-legal aims. The Board Re-imagined: Popular Media The re-imagining of the Proclamation Board as a construct of Governor Davey, instead of Governor Arthur, is just one of many re-imaginings of this curious object. There are, of course, the various imaginings of the purpose of the Board. On the surface these images are a tool for reconciliation but as “the story of these paintings unfolds […] it becomes clear that the proclamations were in effect envoys sent back to Britain to exhibit the ingenious attempts being applied to civilise Australia” (Carroll 76). In this way the Board was re-imagined by the Administration that funded the exercise, even before the project was completed, from a mechanism to assist in the bringing about of peace into an object that would impress colonial superiors. Khadija von Zinnenburg Carroll has recently written about the Boards in the context of their “transnational circulation” and how “objects become subjects and speak of their past through the ventriloquism of contemporary art history” (75). Carroll argues the Board is an item that couples “military strategy with a fine arts propaganda campaign” (Carroll 78). Critically the Boards never achieved their advertised purpose for, as Carroll explains, there were “elaborate rituals Aboriginal Australians had for the dead” and, therefore, “the display of a dead, hanging body is unthinkable. […] being exposed to the sight of a hanged man must have been experienced as an unimaginable act of disrespect” (92). The Proclamation Board would, in sharp contrast to feelings of unimaginable disrespect, inspire feelings of pride across the colonial population. An example of this pride being revealed in the selection of the Board as an object worthy of reproduction, as a lithograph, for an Intercolonial Exhibition, held in Melbourne in 1866 (Morris 84). The lithograph, which identifies the Board as Governor Davey’s Proclamation to the Aborigines and dated 1816, was listed as item 572, of 738 items submitted by Tasmania, for the event (The Commissioners 69-85). This type of reproduction, or re-imagining, of the Board would not be an isolated event. Penelope Edmonds has described the Board as producing a “visual vernacular” through a range of derivatives including lantern slides, lithographs, and postcards. These types of tourist ephemera are in addition to efforts to produce unique re-workings of the Board as seen in Violet Mace’s Proclamation glazed earthernware, which includes a jug (1928) and a pottery cup (1934) (Edmonds online). The Board Re-imagined: A True Crime Tale The Proclamation Board offers numerous narratives. There is the story that the Board was designed and deployed to communicate. There is the story behind the Board. There is also the story of the credit for the initiative which was transferred from Governor Arthur to Governor Davey and subsequently returned to Arthur. There are, too, the provenance stories of individual Boards. There is another story the Proclamation Board offers. The story of true crime in colonial Australia. The Board, as noted, presents through a four-strip pictogram an idea that all are equal under the rule of law (Arthur 1). Advocating for a society of equals was a duplicitous practice, for while Aborigines were hanged for allegedly murdering settlers, “there is no record of whites being charged, let alone punished, for murdering Aborigines” (Morris 84). It would not be until 1838 that white men would be punished for the murder of Aboriginal people (on the mainland) in the wake of the Myall Creek Massacre, in northern New South Wales. There were other examples of attempts to bring about a greater equity under the rule of law but, as Amanda Nettelbeck explains, there was wide-spread resistance to the investigation and charging of colonists for crimes against the Indigenous population with cases regularly not going to trial, or, if making a courtroom, resulting in an acquittal (355-59). That such cases rested on “legally inadmissible Aboriginal testimony” (Reece in Nettelbeck 358) propped up a justice system that was, inherently, unjust in the nineteenth century. It is important to note that commentators at the time did allude to the crime narrative of the Board: when in the most civilized country in the world it has been found ineffective as example to hang murderers in chains, it is not to be expected a savage race will be influenced by the milder exhibition of effigy and caricature. (Colonial Times 2) It is argued here that the Board was much more than an offering of effigy and caricature. The Proclamation Board presents, in striking detail, the formula for the modern true crime tale: a peace disturbed by the act of murder; and the ensuing search for, and delivery of, justice. Reinforcing this point, are the ideas of justice seen within crime fiction, a genre that focuses on the restoration of order out of chaos (James 174), are made visible here as aspirational. The true crime tale does not, consistently, offer the reassurances found within crime fiction. In the real world, particularly one as violent as colonial Australia, we are forced to acknowledge that, below the surface of the official rhetoric on justice and crime, the guilty often go free and the innocent are sometimes hanged. Another point of note is that, if the latter date offered here, of 1830, is taken as the official date of the production of these Boards, then the significance of the Proclamation Board as a true crime tale is even more pronounced through a connection to crime fiction (both genres sharing a common literary heritage). The year 1830 marks the release of Australia’s first novel, Quintus Servinton written by convicted forger Henry Savery, a crime novel (produced in three volumes) published by Henry Melville of Hobart Town. Thus, this paper suggests, 1830 can be posited as a year that witnessed the production of two significant cultural artefacts, the Proclamation Board and the nation’s first full-length literary work, as also being the year that established the, now indomitable, traditions of true crime and crime fiction in Australia. Conclusion During the late 1820s in Van Diemen’s Land (now Tasmania) a set of approximately 100 Proclamation Boards were produced by the Lieutenant Governor of the day, George Arthur. The official purpose of these items was to communicate, to the Indigenous peoples of the island colony, that all—black and white—were equal under the law. Murderers, be they Aboriginal or colonist, would be punished. The Board is a re-imagining of one of the traditional methods of communication for Indigenous peoples; the leaving of drawings on the bark of trees. The Board was, in the 1860s, in time for an Intercolonial Exhibition, re-imagined as the output of Lieutenant Governor Davey. This re-imagining of the Board was so effective that surviving artefacts, today, are popularly known as Governor Davey’s Proclamation to the Aborigines with the date modified, to 1816, to fit the new narrative. The Proclamation Board was also reimagined, by its creators and consumers, in a variety of ways: as peace offering; military propaganda; exhibition object; tourism ephemera; and contemporary art. This paper has also, briefly, offered another re-imagining of the Board, positing that this early “pamphlet” on justice and punishment actually presents a pre-cursor to the modern Australian true crime tale. The Proclamation Board tells many stories but, at the core of this curious object, is a crime story: the story of mass murder. Acknowledgements The author acknowledges the Palawa peoples: the traditional custodians of the lands known today as Tasmania. The author acknowledges, too, the Gadigal people of the Eora nation upon whose lands this paper was researched and written. The author extends thanks to Richard Neville, Margot Riley, Kirsten Thorpe, and Justine Wilson of the State Library of New South Wales for sharing their knowledge and offering their support. The author is also grateful to the reviewers for their careful reading of the manuscript and for making valuable suggestions. ReferencesAboriginal Heritage Tasmania. “Scarred Trees.” Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, 2012. 12 Sep. 2015 ‹http://www.aboriginalheritage.tas.gov.au/aboriginal-cultural-heritage/archaeological-site-types/scarred-trees›.Arthur, George. “Proclamation.” The Hobart Town Courier 19 Apr. 1828: 1.———. Governor Davey’s [sic – actually Governor Arthur’s] Proclamation to the Aborigines, 1816 [sic – actually c. 1828-30]. Graphic Materials. Sydney: Mitchell Library, State Library of NSW, c. 1828-30.Bock, Thomas. Mathinna. Watercolour and Gouache on Paper. 23 x 19 cm (oval), c. 1840.Carroll, Khadija von Zinnenburg. Art in the Time of Colony: Empires and the Making of the Modern World, 1650-2000. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 2014.Clark, Manning. History of Australia. Abridged by Michael Cathcart. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1997 [1993]. Clements, Nicholas. The Black War: Fear, Sex and Resistance in Tasmania. St Lucia, Qld.: U of Queensland P, 2014.Colonial Times. “Hobart Town.” Colonial Times 5 Mar. 1830: 2.The Commissioners. Intercolonial Exhibition Official Catalogue. 2nd ed. Melbourne: Blundell & Ford, 1866.Darian-Smith, Kate, and Penelope Edmonds. “Conciliation on Colonial Frontiers.” Conciliation on Colonial Frontiers: Conflict, Performance and Commemoration in Australia and the Pacific Rim. Eds. Kate Darian-Smith and Penelope Edmonds. New York: Routledge, 2015. 1–14. Edmonds, Penelope. “‘Failing in Every Endeavour to Conciliate’: Governor Arthur’s Proclamation Boards to the Aborigines, Australian Conciliation Narratives and Their Transnational Connections.” Journal of Australian Studies 35.2 (2011): 201–18.———. “The Proclamation Cup: Tasmanian Potter Violet Mace and Colonial Quotations.” reCollections 5.2 (2010). 20 May 2015 ‹http://recollections.nma.gov.au/issues/vol_5_no_2/papers/the_proclamation_cup_›.Felton, Heather. “Mathinna.” Companion to Tasmanian History. Hobart: Centre for Tasmanian Historical Studies, University of Tasmania, 2006. 29 Sep. 2015 ‹http://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/M/Mathinna.htm›.Gall, Jennifer. Library of Dreams: Treasures from the National Library of Australia. Canberra: National Library of Australia, 2011.Hull, Hugh M. “Tasmanian Hieroglyphics.” The Hobart Mercury 26 Nov. 1874: 3.James, P.D. Talking about Detective Fiction. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009.Mace, Violet. Violet Mace’s Proclamation Jug. Glazed Earthernware. Launceston: Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, 1928.———. Violet Mace’s Proclamation Cup. Glazed Earthernware. Canberra: National Museum of Australia, 1934.McCulloch, Samuel Clyde. “Sir George Gipps and Eastern Australia’s Policy toward the Aborigine, 1838-46.” The Journal of Modern History 33.3 (1961): 261–69.Morris, John. “Notes on a Message to the Tasmanian Aborigines in 1829, popularly called ‘Governor Davey’s Proclamation to the Aborigines, 1816’.” Australiana 10.3 (1988): 84–7.Nettelbeck, Amanda. “‘Equals of the White Man’: Prosecution of Settlers for Violence against Aboriginal Subjects of the Crown, Colonial Western Australia.” Law and History Review 31.2 (2013): 355–90.Newman, Terry. “Tasmania, the Name.” Companion to Tasmanian History, 2006. 16 Sep. 2015 ‹http://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/T/Tasmania%20name.htm›.Reece, Robert H.W., in Amanda Nettelbeck. “‘Equals of the White Man’: Prosecution of Settlers for Violence against Aboriginal Subjects of the Crown, Colonial Western Australia.” Law and History Review 31.2 (2013): 355–90.Ryan, Lyndall. “The Black Line in Van Diemen’s Land: Success or Failure?” Journal of Australian Studies 37.1 (2013): 3–18.Savery, Henry. Quintus Servinton: A Tale Founded upon Events of Real Occurrence. Hobart Town: Henry Melville, 1830.Turnbull, Clive. Black War: The Extermination of the Tasmanian Aborigines. Melbourne: Sun Books, 1974 [1948].