3 research outputs found
Synchronisation des systèmes chaotiques à base d’un observateur grand gain : Implémentation sur cartes Arduino
No full text70 p. : ill. ; 30 cm. (+ CD-Rom)La dynamique des systèmes est essentielle en ingénierie et sciences appliquées, couvrant des modèles mathématiques de phénomènes naturels et technologiques. Parmi eux, les systèmes chaotiques, découverts par Edward Lorenz, se distinguent par leur sensibilité aux conditions initiales et leur comportement apériodique déterministe. Cette imprévisibilité rend leur étude cruciale pour des applications comme le contrôle automatique et la modélisation climatique.
La synchronisation des systèmes chaotiques, introduite par Pecora et Carroll, permet de coordonner des systèmes complexes pour qu’ils évoluent de manière cohérente. Les observateurs d’état, notamment l’observateur à grand gain, sont des outils mathématiques clés pour estimer les états internes de ces systèmes à partir de mesures externes.
Ce mémoire explore les systèmes chaotiques, les techniques de synchronisation, et l’application de l’observateur à grand gain à travers des simulations et des implémentations pratiques, offrant des solutions concrètes pour le contrôle et la gestion des systèmes dynamiques
Probolus detritus
No full textProbolus detritus (Brullé, 1846) (Figures 4a, 34, 35) Ichneumon detritus Brullé, 1846: 302 (descr.); Cresson 1862: 208 (dist.); Berthoumieu 1904: 44 (cat.); Townes 1944: 376 (as a synonym of Ctenichneumon syphax (Cresson)); Townes and Townes 1951: 296 (as a synonym of Ctenichneumon syphax (Cresson)). Ichneumon indistinctus Provancher, 1875: 23, 75 (descr., key); Ichneumon indistinctus Berthoumieu 1904: 43 (cat.); Barron 1975: 487 (cat., syn.). Synonymised by Barron (1975: 487). Amblyteles illaetabilis Cresson, 1877: 190 (descr., key); Dalla Torre 1902: 817 (cat.); Berthoumieu 1904: 53 (cat.); Cresson 1916: 35 (cat.); Brimley 1938: 404 (dist.). Synonymised by Townes (1961: 107). Synonymised by Townes (1961: 107). Amblyteles innotabilis [sic] Ashmead 1900b: 567 (cat., dist., incorrect subsequent spelling). First reviser (ICZN 1999, Article 24.2): Townes (1944: 319). Amblyteles detritus Cresson 1877: 192 (descr., dist., key, notes); Provancher 1879: 11 (descr., key); Provancher 1883: 293, 299 (descr., dist., key); Cresson 1887: 184 (cat.); Smith 1890: 22 (dist.); Ashmead 1900b: 567 (cat.); Dalla Torre 1902: 809 (cat.); Johnson 1927: 144 (dist.); Cushman 1928: 923 (dist.); Johnson 1930: 98 (dist.). Amblyteles indistinctus Cresson 1877: 192 (descr., dist., key); Provancher 1879: 11 (descr., key); Provancher 1883: 293, 300 (descr., dist., key); Cresson 1887: 189 (cat.); Smith 1890: 22 (dist.); Fyles 1894: 54 (dist.); Slosson 1896 (dist.); Ashmead 1900b: 567 (cat.); Dalla Torre 1902: 818 (cat.); Fyles 1916: 56 (dist.); Gahan and Rohwer 1917: 306 (cat., lectotype designation); Johnson 1930: 98 (dist.). Amblyteles (Amblytelesi) detritus Viereck 1917: 360 (key). Probulus illaetabilis Townes 1944: 319 (cat.); Fattig 1950: 30 (dist.); Townes and Townes 1951: 283 (cat., dist.). Probulus indistinctus Townes 1944: 319 (cat.); Fattig 1950: 30 (dist.); Townes and Townes 1951: 283 (cat., dist.); Heinrich 1962a: 520 (as a synonym of Probolus expunctus (Cresson)). Probulus detritus Townes 1961: 107; Heinrich 1962a: 519 (descr., dist., key, notes); Heinrich 1977: 121 (descr., dist., key, notes); Carlson 1979: 514 (cat.); Yu and Horstmann 1997: 640 (cat.); Yu et al. 2016. Original type series Syntypes ♀ of Ichneumon detritus (MNHN); lectotype ♂ of Amblyteles illaetabilis (ANSP); lectotype ♀ of Ichneumon indistictus, designated by Gahan and Rohwer (1917, p. 306) (LUEC). Brullé (1846, p. 302) described Ichneumon detritus without specifying the number of specimens included in the description. Townes (1944, p. 376) and Townes and Townes (1951, p. 283) did not specify any number of specimens either. Later on, Heinrich (1962a, p. 519) referred to the specimen as the ‘Holotypus’. Heinrich’s (1962a, p. 776) employment of the term ‘holotypus’ did not constitute a valid lectotype designation (ICZN 1999, Article 74.5). In this paper, we decided to take a more conservative approach, referring to the specimen(s) as ‘syntypes’ ICZN (1999, Article 73.2). Cresson (1877, p. 190) described Amblyteles illaetabilis without specifying the number of specimens included in the description. Cresson (1916, p. 35), in his list of types, simply reported the type to be a male from Georgia and ‘In good condition’, without clarifying the number of specimens. Townes (1944, p. 319) and Townes and Townes (1951, p. 283) did not specify any number of specimens either. Later on, Heinrich (1962a, p. 519) referred to the specimen as the ‘Holotypus’. Carlson (1979, p. 317) stated that Cresson (1916) ‘indicated which single specimen was to be regarded as the type for each; thus he selected lectotypes for those cases in which he had described a species from more than one specimen’. Hopper (1984, p. 968) reported being unable to see how it can be claimed that Cresson (1916) indicated a single specimen to be the type. This statement contradicted Cresson’s (1916, p. 1) own statement that ‘In selecting the single type the author has been governed by the present condition of the original material, and has always selected the perfect, or more nearly perfect specimen’. Furthermore, it suggests that Hopper (1984) overlooked this clear indication of Cresson’s (1916) intention of selecting a single name-bearing type (i.e. a lectotype in the modern sense). Cresson’s (1916) lectotype designation was valid and no subsequent lectotype designation has any validity (ICZN 1999, Article 74.1.1). The fact that the selected specimen eventually could no longer be traced, as suggested by various subsequent authors (Heinrich 1962b, p. 780; Hopper 1984), could be explained by collection mismanagement and has no influence on the validity of the lectotype selection. Only a careful study of Cresson’s collection can provide more insights. Heinrich’s (1962a, p. 519) employment of the term ‘holotypus’ was in errror. Provancher (1875, p. 75) described Ichneumon indistinctus from Québec without specifying the number of specimens included in the description. Gahan and Rohwer (1917, p. 306) designated the lectotype, addressing it as ‘Type– Female, yellow label 185. 2nd Coll. Pub. Mus., Quebec’. Subsequently, Heinrich (1962a, p. 519) incorrectly employed the term ‘Holotypus’ for the same specimen. Barron (1975, p. 487) considered valid the designation of Gahan and Rohwer (1917, p. 75). Type locality United States of America, ‘la Caroline’ (Ichneumon detritus), Georgia (Amblyteles illaetabilis); Canada, Québec (Ichneumon indistinctus). Brullé (1846, p. 304) reported Ichneumon detritus for ‘la Caroline’. The same author, when reporting the locality for Ephialtes irritatus Fabricius, stated ‘l’Amérique du Nord (la Caroline)’. It is not clear what Brullé (1846, p. 304) was referring to with ‘la Caroline’ – possibly the region encompassed by the two Carolinas (North and South). Type specimens examined Syntypes ♀ of Ichneumon detritus: ‘[White round label] Caroline/L’herminier // [White label] Ich./ detritus Br. // [White label, red writing] TYPE // [Green label] MUSEUM PARIS // [White label] Muséum Paris/EY9952’ (images examined; available at https://science.mnhn.fr/insti tution/mnhn/collection/ey/item/ey9952) Material examined UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FLORIDA: Okaloosa Co., 1 mi. N. Holt, Blackwater River For., 03 November 1978, leg. L. Stange & H.V. Weems, Jr., 1♀ (FSCA). Updated distribution (Figure 35) CANADA: Ontario (Heinrich 1962a), Québec (Provancher 1875; Fyles 1894); UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Arkansas (Heinrich 1977), Delaware (Cresson 1877), Florida (new state record), Georgia (Cresson 1877; Fattig 1950), Louisiana (Heinrich 1977), Maine (Cresson 1877; Heinrich 1962a), Massachusetts (Cresson 1877; Johnson 1930), New Hampshire (Cresson 1877; Slosson 1896), New Jersey (Cresson 1877; Smith 1890), New York (Cresson 1877; Cushman 1928), North Carolina (Heinrich 1962a), Pennsylvania (Cresson 1877; Heinrich 1962a), Rhode Island (Heinrich 1962a), South Carolina (Heinrich 1962a). Host Unknown. Male The syntypes of Amblyteles illaetabilis Cresson, 1877 are males and thus their description functions as a description of the male. Moreover, Heinrich (1962a, p. 520) also provided a description of the males. Comments The taxonomic history of detritus is complicated. Cresson (1877, p. 192) synonymised Ichneumon syphax Cresson, 1864 under Amblyteles detritus (Brullé, 1846). Conversely, Townes (1944, p. 376) transferred syphax under the genus Ctenichneumon, and synonymised detritus under syphax disregarding that detritus was the senior name that should have had precedence (ICZN 1999, Article 23.1). In the same work, Townes (1944, p. 319) maintained as valid both illaetabilis and indistinctus, transferring them under the genus Probolus. This view was followed by Townes and Townes (1951, p. 283, 296). After Townes (1961, p. 107) examined the syntypes at MNHN, detritus was resurrected and transferred to the genus Probolus, treating Amblyteles illaetabilis as its synonym. Heinrich (1962a, p. 519) followed Townes’ (1961, p. 107) view, but treated indistictus as a synonym of Probulus expunctus (Cresson, 1864). It was Barron (1975, p. 487) who, based on the original type series of indistinctus, recognised indistictus as junior synonym of detritus instead of expunctus.Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1921-1924, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/739761
Ctenophilothis Kryzhanovskij 1987
No full textCtenophilothis Kryzhanovskij, 1987 Ctenophilothis Kryzhanovskij, 1987: 25. Type species: Xenonychus chobauti Théry, 1900, original designation. Ctenophilothis: Olexa (1990): 143; Mazur (1997): 268; Mazur (2004): 91; Lackner (2010): 64, 90; Mazur (2011): 213. Diagnosis. Ctenophilothis was recently diagnosed by Lackner (2010), to which the reader is referred for a complete diagnosis of the genus. Differential diagnosis. Ctenophilothis is most similar to the species of the genus Philothis, differing from them chiefly by the shape of protibia that is adorned with two distal teeth topped by denticles followed by numerous long denticles in Ctenophilothis, whereas the species of the genus Philothis have their outer margin of protibia with two large triangular teeth topped with tiny denticle without any subsequent denticles (Lackner 2010). See the key to the Palaearctic genera of the Saprininae by the author for correct generic placement (Lackner 2010). Biology. Ctenophilothis is a psammophilous genus with two described species. The type specimen of the genus, C. chobauti, has been collected in sand, near rotten stems of Orobanchaceae. The rest of the known specimens, as far as their biologies are known, have been collected in sand near decaying plants. Nothing is known about the biology of C. altus. According to Kovarik & Caterino (2005) Ctenophilothis “inhabits sandy areas where shifting sand can bury and kill vegetation occurring there. Histerids will prey upon larvae of Diptera and Coleoptera that colonize the decaying plant material”. Ctenophilothis belongs to the strict psammophiles and its species are morphologically well adapted to life in sand. Most of the examined specimens have been taken in spring, with some specimens of C. chobauti collected also in October. In the southern Palaearctic, there are two Saprininae taxa associated with Orobanchaceae: Paravolvulus syphax (Reitter, 1904) known from Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia (Mazur 2011) recently collected also from Syria (Gomy 2013) and Chalcionellus hauseri (Schmidt, 1894) known from Turkmenistan, Iran, Kazakhstan and Mongolia (Mazur 2011). Both these taxa develop in the dry and decaying stalks of Cystanche (Orobanchaceae) (Kovarik & Caterino 2005). C. hauseri can be occasionally found together with its larvae within the stalks of Cystanche flava as well as in the surrounding sand in large numbers, where they prey upon flies of the genus Eumerus (Kryzhanovskij & Reichardt, 1976). Distribution. Ctenophilothis is an element of the Sahara desert: C. chobauti is known from Algeria and has recently been discovered in Morocco (Lackner 2010, Gomy 2011) and C. altus is known exclusively from Egypt (Mazur 2011), see also Fig. 27.Published as part of Lackner, Tomáš, 2013, Revision of the genus Ctenophilothis Kryzhanovskij, 1987 (Coleoptera: Histeridae: Saprininae), pp. 273-282 in Zootaxa 3691 (2) on page 274, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3691.2.6, http://zenodo.org/record/25450
