18 research outputs found
A “Safely Solipsized” Life: Lolita as Autobiography Revisited
No full text“As a book about the spell exerted by the past, Lolita is Nabokov's own parodic answer to his previous book, the first edition of Speak, Memory” (xxiii), notes Alfred Appel, Jr. in his introduction to The Annotated Lolita, after bringing our attention to the “extent to which Nabokov consciously projected his own life in his fiction” (xxi). This statement should not be taken to imply an existence of a correlation between Lolita's characters or plot and Nabokov's biography, but the possibility to approach the novel as another version of the author's autobiography that focuses on Nabokov's experiences of loss and his struggle to recapture and preserve his past, granting himself—as well as the people and places of his past—a sort of immortality, over which he has the final word. Once fictionalized, these themes stop being a part of the random and uncontrollable fate that governs Nabokov, and become a part of his creation, “safely solipsized” (60), like Humbert Humbert's Lolita, and thus, supposedly manageable. However, just as Lolita, once created, gains agency and escapes her creator, questioning his authorship and his power over her, Lolita the novel may suggest that the past can never be tamed and will continue, instead, to hold the author in its grip
A “Safely Solipsized” Life: Lolita as Autobiography Revisited
No full textDans son introduction à l'édition américaine annotée de Lolita, Alfred Appel Jr. remarque : “En tant que roman de l'ensorcellement exercé par le passé, Lolita est la réponse auto-parodique de Nabokov à son précédent ouvrage, la première édition de son autobiographie, Speak, Memory (Autres Rivages)” (xxiii). Cette remarque vient après qu'Appel a attiré notre attention sur la “manière dont Nabokov projetait de manière consciente sa propre existence dans sa fiction” (xxi). Cette affirmation ne saurait être interprétée comme impliquant une corrélation entre les personnages et l'intrigue de Lolita et la biographie de Nabokov, mais plutôt comme la possibilité d'envisager le roman comme une version autre de l'autobiographie de l'auteur, qui se concentre sur les expériences de la perte de Nabokov, et sur ses difficultés à retrouver et préserver son passé, s'accordant ainsi à lui-même—ainsi qu'aux personnes et lieux de son passé—une sorte d'immortalité, sur laquelle il a le dernier mot. Une fois fictionnalisés, ces thèmes cessent d'appartenir au destin hasardeux et incontrôlable qui préside à la vie de Nabokov, pour devenir l'un des éléments de sa création, tout aussi “définitivement solipsisés” (Lolita, trad. M. Couturier 2010, 867) que l'est Lolita par Humbert, et donc, maîtrisables, du moins en principe. Cependant, tout comme Lolita, une fois créée, acquiert son indépendance et échappe à son créateur, remettant en question son autorité d'auteur et son pouvoir, le roman Lolita peut suggérer que le passé ne peut jamais être apprivoisé, et ne cessera au contraire de tenir l'auteur enchaîné.“As a book about the spell exerted by the past, Lolita is Nabokov's own parodic answer to his previous book, the first edition of Speak, Memory” (xxiii), notes Alfred Appel, Jr. in his introduction to The Annotated Lolita, after bringing our attention to the “extent to which Nabokov consciously projected his own life in his fiction” (xxi). This statement should not be taken to imply an existence of a correlation between Lolita's characters or plot and Nabokov's biography, but the possibility to approach the novel as another version of the author's autobiography that focuses on Nabokov's experiences of loss and his struggle to recapture and preserve his past, granting himself—as well as the people and places of his past—a sort of immortality, over which he has the final word. Once fictionalized, these themes stop being a part of the random and uncontrollable fate that governs Nabokov, and become a part of his creation, “safely solipsized” (60), like Humbert Humbert's Lolita, and thus, supposedly manageable. However, just as Lolita, once created, gains agency and escapes her creator, questioning his authorship and his power over her, Lolita the novel may suggest that the past can never be tamed and will continue, instead, to hold the author in its grip
Wetlands as varied as our region
No full textby Rosemary Mannix and Janet Morlan.Title from PDF caption (viewed on June 4, 2021).This archived document is maintained by the State Library of Oregon as part of the Oregon Documents Depository Program. It is for informational purposes and may not be suitable for legal purposes.Includes bibliographical references (page 9).Mode of access: Internet from the Oregon Government Publications Collection.Text in English
larval development and pupal production in the FAO/IAEA mass-rearing rack and factors influencing sex sorting efficiency
No full textThe production of a large number of mosquitoes of high biological qualities and reliable sex sorting before release are key challenges when applying the sterile insect technique as part of an area-wide integrated pest management approach. There is a need to fully evaluate the production capacity of the equipment developed in order to plan and maintain a daily production level for large-scale operational release activities. This study aimed to evaluate the potential use of the FAO/IAEA larval rearing unit for Aedes aegypti and the subsequent female contamination rate after sex sorting with a Fay–Morlan glass separator. Trays from each rack were tilted and their contents sorted either for each individual tray or after mixing the content of all trays from the rack. The pupal production and the female contamination rate were estimated with respect to day of collection, position of the tray, type of pupae collection, and sorting operator. Results showed significant daily variability of pupal production and female contamination rate, with a high male pupal production level achieved on the second day of collection and estimated female contamination of male pupae reached around 1%. Neither tray position nor type of pupae collection affected the pupal production and female contamination rate. However, the operator had a significant effect on the female contamination rate. These results highlight the need to optimize pupal production at early days of collection and to develop a more effective and automated method of sex separation
α5β1 integrin recycling promotes Arp2/3-independent cancer cell invasion via the formin FHOD3
No full textInvasive migration in 3D extracellular matrix (ECM) is crucial to cancer metastasis, yet little is known of the molecular mechanisms that drive reorganization of the cytoskeleton as cancer cells disseminate in vivo. 2D Rac-driven lamellipodial migration is well understood, but how these features apply to 3D migration is not clear. We find that lamellipodia- like protrusions and retrograde actin flow are indeed observed in cells moving in 3D ECM. However, Rab-coupling protein (RCP)-driven endocytic recycling of α5β1 integrin enhances invasive migration of cancer cells into fibronectin- rich 3D ECM, driven by RhoA and filopodial spike-based protrusions, not lamellipodia. Furthermore, we show that actin spike protrusions are Arp2/3-independent. Dynamic actin spike assembly in cells invading in vitro and in vivo is regulated by Formin homology-2 domain containing 3 (FHOD3), which is activated by RhoA/ROCK, establishing a novel mechanism through which the RCP-α5β1 pathway reprograms the actin cytoskeleton to promote invasive migration and local invasion in vivo.</p
Substance-related psychopathology and aggressiveness in a nightlife holiday resort: Results from a pilot study in a psychiatric inpatient unit in Ibiza
No full textStenus (Nestus) vinnulus Casey 1884
No full textStenus (Nestus) vinnulus Casey, 1884 Stenus vinnulus Casey, 1884: 112. Stenus vinnulus – Fall 1926: 61. — Puthz 1972d: 107. Stenus (Nestus) vinnulus – Puthz 1972b: 171. — Ryvkin 1987: 159. — Silfverberg 1988: 20 . — Ryabukhin 1999: 46. Stenus (s. str.) vinnulus – Campbell & Davies 1991: 112. Stenus (Nestus) confusoides Renkonen, 1935: 27. Stenus confusoides – Strand 1954: 66. — Puthz 1970a: 39. Stenus (Nestus) confusoides – Renkonen 1936: 179. — Palm 1961: 90. — Puthz 1965: 27. — Puthz 1967a: 49. — Tichomirova 1973: 173. Material examined RUSSIA: 1 ♂, 1 ♀, Karelia, White Sea, Bay of Kandalaksha, N shore of Chupa Inlet, 500 m NE of Nizhnyaya Polunga: Blizhneye Lake, 18–19 Jul. 2005, P. Petrov leg. (AR); 1 ♀, Tuva, Todjenskiy District, Azas Nature Reserve, environs of Azas Lake, Zelyonoye Lake, 980 m a.s.l., mossy swamps with Ledum palustre, Eriophorum sp., Carex spp., Rubus chamaemorus, Rhododendron sp. etc. near banks of rill (rhadon!) – in moss, 3 Jun. 1990, A.B. Ryvkin leg. (AR); 1 ♀, Evenkia, Baykitskiy District, Central Siberian Biosphere Reserve, Stolbovaya River 8 km up-stream of river mouth, 60 m a.s.l., mosses and litter on open swamp with Carex spp., Comarum palustre, sparse Menyanthes trifoliata, true mosses, Sphagnum spp. etc., 20 Sep. 1991, A.B. Ryvkin leg. (AR); 1 ♀, Evenkia, Central Siberian Biosphere Reserve, Stolbovaya River basin: lower flow of Birapchana River near Kruten’kiy Stream, 110 m a.s.l., backwashing of limestone shingles at river bank, 29 Jun. 1993, V.B. Semenov leg. (AR); 1 ♂, 1 ♀, Putorana Highland, nr. Ayan Lake, Kapchug River, riverside ‘tundroid’, bog with mosses and Eriophorum sp., 11 Jun. 1983, K.Yu. Eskov leg. (AR); 1 ♂, Yakutia, Vilyui River basin, Kempendyayi River upstream of Kempendyay Village, 5 Aug. 1988, V. Blagoderov & V. Zherikhin leg. (AR); 1 ♂, Magadan Area, 3 km N of Shirokoye, 7 Jul. 1974, B.A. Korotyayev leg. (AR + 1ex: IBPM); 1 ♀, Amur Area, Selemdzhinskiy District, near Fevral’sk, 268th km of Belogorsk–Fevral’sk road, Tikhiy rill, 275 m a.s.l., mosses and plant debris between sedge & gramineous tussocks among Alnus sp., Salix sp., Spiraea sp. with Sphagnum squarrosum, Sph. spp., etc., 8 Oct. 2008, A.B. Ryvkin leg. (AR); 2 ♂♂, Amur Area, near Zeya Town, 4 Jun. 1978, V.V. Belov & S.A. Kurbatov leg. (AR); 1 ♀, Amur Area, near Zeya Town, Gulik, 19 Oct. 1979, S.A. Serbenyuk leg. (AR); 1 ♀, Amur Area, Selemdzhinskiy District, Norskiy Nature Reserve, Nora River basin, 2 km up-stream of Gryashchinskaya Mt., mosses and plant debris on small open swamp on high flood-plain: tussocks of Calamagrostis sp. and Carex spp. with Sphagnum ? girgensohnii, Sph. squarrosum, Sph. centrale, Sph. spp., Rubus arcticus, Convallaria keiskei, Salix sp., etc., 22 Aug. 2004, A.B. Ryvkin leg. (AR); 1 ♀, Amur Area, Selemdzhinskiy District, Norskiy Nature Reserve, Nora River basin near Maltsevskiy cordon, E side of Maltsevskoye Lake, 210 m a.s.l., sweeping on Carex spp., Poaceae gen. spp. & motley grass, 1 Oct. 2008, E.M. Veselova & A.B. Ryvkin leg. (AR); 1 ♂, Khabarovsk Territory, Jewish Autonomous Area, Obluchenskiy District, SE of Radde, Dichun River, about 2 km off river mouth, near water, 7 Aug. 1977, A.B. Ryvkin leg. (AR); 2ex, [Khabarovsk Territory,] Ussuri River basin, Bikinskiy District, Birskoye, 27 Jun. 1958, O.N. Kabakov leg. (ONK); 1 ex, same locality, 1 Jul. 1958, O.N. Kabakov leg. (ONK); 1 ♀, Maritime Province, Spasskiy District, nr. Novoselskoye, rice field, t=27°, pH =5.8, 11 Aug. 1986, A. Shatrovskiy leg. (AR); 1 ♂, Maritime Province, Spasskiy District, Yevseyevka, in stream, 17 Jul. 1976, E. Berlov leg., ‘ Stenus sp. ’, ‘ Stenus vinnulus Cas., det. V. Puthz 2006 ’ (ASh). CANADA: 1 ♀, Yukon Territory, Klokut Archeol. Site, 6 mi. N of Old Crow, 67°54’N 136°36’W, ex. shallow margin of small lake, 19 Jul. 1977, R.E. Morlan, J.V. Matthews, R.E. Roughley leg. (Yukon Refugium Project) (UASM); 1 ♀, ‘N.W.T. - 21 m. e. Tuktoyaktuk. 17–21.vii. [19]71. D.M. Wood’, ‘ Stenus illotulus Puthz det. V. Puthz 1978’, ‘ob abw. vinnulus ?’, ‘ Eigentum CNC!’ (CNC). Remarks Originally described from the USA. When revising Casey’ s heterogeneous type series, Puthz (1972a) designated the specimen from Cambridge, Massachusetts as the lectotype and placed S. confusoides Renkonen, 1935, that had been known until then from Fennoscandia (Renkonen 1936; Strand 1954; Palm 1961; Puthz 1965, 1970) and E Siberia (Puthz 1967a: Chita Area: ‘Dorf Udotschnoje am Ingodazufluss’), in the synonymy of S. vinnulus. The specimens from Isle Royale, Lake Superior and Marquette, Michigan, were also attributed to the latter species, but the paralectotypes from White Fish Point were identified as S. brivioi Puthz, which was described in the same year (Puthz 1972c). The same author cited E Siberian ‘Poppius-Funde von Ytyk-haja, Ust Aldan und Olekminsk’ for S. vinnulus in the same year (Puthz 1972d). Campbell & Davies (1991), without providing material, reported the species for Alaska and most provinces of Canada, excluding British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland (the first records for Alaska and the Yukon Territory had been provided by Fall 1926). Ryabukhin (1999) mentioned a single specimen of this species from the Magadan Area, Russia, based on my identifications from the IBPM collection (see Material examined above).Published as part of Ryvkin, Alexandr B., 2012, New species and records of Stenus (Nestus) of the canaliculatus group, with the erection of a new species group (Insecta: Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Steninae), pp. 1-62 in European Journal of Taxonomy 13 on pages 37-38, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2012.13, http://zenodo.org/record/385777
