160 research outputs found
Lonchura maja subsp. vietnamensis Restall
No full text[<i>Lonchura maja vietnamensis</i> Restall] <p> Restall (1995: 151) introduced this name based on three specimens ‘‘adult male, female and juvenile collected by Charuvarn Vanasin and Dr. Atichart Suntharos near Da Lat, 11 <b>°</b> 569N by 108 <b>°</b> 259E, in January 1995. Other similar birds were collected near the Cambodian border by Tay Ninh, 11 <b>°</b> 189N, 106 <b>°</b> 059E, in November 1994. These specimens are in my possession at the time of writing; they will be deposited in the AMNH collection in due course.’’ Presumably the first three specimens were to be considered syntypes. As of this writing no specimens have been deposited in AMNH. Dickinson (2003: 736) noted that Restall (personal commun.) had told him that the types had been destroyed, but no information regarding this has been provided to AMNH by Restall.</p>Published as part of <i>LeCroy, Mary, 2013, Type Specimens Of Birds In The American Museum Of Natural History Part 11. Passeriformes: Parulidae, Drepanididae, Vireonidae, Icteridae, Fringillinae, Carduelinae, Estrildidae, And Viduinae, pp. 1-155 in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2013 (381)</i> on page 120, DOI: 10.1206/832.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/4611863">http://zenodo.org/record/4611863</a>
Lonchura pallidiventer Restall 1996
No full text<i>Lonchura pallidiventer</i> Restall <p> <i>Lonchura pallidiventer</i> Restall, 1996: 137 (Jakarta, apparently from south-east Kalimantan, Indonesia).</p> <p> Now considered a hybrid <i>Lonchura punctulata</i> x <i>L. leucogastra</i>. See van Balen, 1998: 118–119; LeCroy, 1999: 219; Smythies, 2000: 617; and Dickinson, 2003: 735; fn. 8.</p> <p> HOLOTYPE: <b>AMNH 831287</b>, unsexed, purchased in Jakarta, Indonesia (but said to be from southeast Kalimantan, Indonesia), by R. Restall.</p> <p> COMMENTS: The AMNH number of the holotype was given in the original description. The second specimen, listed as the ‘‘syntype’’ is a paratype, <b>AMNH 831288</b> (not 8311288); it is a mummy and also unsexed. Two other birds are illustrated and said to be from among five observed in a dealer’s possession. The colors in Restall (1997: 32, pl. 5) are quite different from the color of the two specimens.</p>Published as part of <i>LeCroy, Mary, 2013, Type Specimens Of Birds In The American Museum Of Natural History Part 11. Passeriformes: Parulidae, Drepanididae, Vireonidae, Icteridae, Fringillinae, Carduelinae, Estrildidae, And Viduinae, pp. 1-155 in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2013 (381)</i> on page 117, DOI: 10.1206/832.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/4611863">http://zenodo.org/record/4611863</a>
Lonchura punctulata subsp. holmesi Restall 1992
No full text<i>Lonchura punctulata holmesi</i> Restall <p> <i>Lonchura punctulata holmesi</i> Restall, 1992: 115 (country east of Pontianak and Banjamarsin [Borneo]).</p> <p> Now <i>Lonchura punctulata nisoria</i> (Temminck, 1830). See Restall, 1995: 141; Restall, 1997: 34, 103–104; LeCroy, 1999: 214–215; Smythies, 2000: 616–617; Dickinson, 2003: 735; Mann, 2008: 356; Myers, 2009: 197; Payne, 2010: 366.</p> <p> LECTOTYPE: <b>AMNH 831281</b>, sex?, said to have come from Semitau, 00.30N, 111.59E, Kalimantan, Borneo, Indonesia, cage bird prepared by R. Restall.</p> <p> COMMENTS: As noted by LeCroy (1999: 214–215) there are a number of problems associated with this name. Although claimed by Restall (1997: 103–104) to have been described in 1995 (Restall, 1995: 141), it had been described prior to that date by Restall (1992: 115). That description was based on nine individuals said to have been captured east of Pontianak, 00.05S, 109.16E (Times atlas), and shipped from that city and on 20 individuals shipped from Banjarmasin (5 Banjamarsin), 03.22S, 114.33E (Times atlas); all 29 of these individuals are syntypes of <i>holmesi</i>. Restall (1995: 141) listed only three specimens as syntypes, with their AMNH numbers given. They are said to have come from Semitau, 00.30N, 111.59E, and are apparently from among the nine syntypes said to have come from ‘‘east of Pontianak.’’ Because the supposed collecting locality of the two groups of syntypes were widely separated (with a mountain range between them) and because apparently only the three listed syntypes were preserved, I (LeCroy, 1999: 214) designated AMNH 831281 as the lectotype, citing the 1985 Code, then in use. The other two syntypes, <b>AMNH 831282</b> and <b>AMNH 831283</b>, became paralectotypes.</p> <p>Because none of these specimens was sexed by dissection Restall must have used tail measurements as his means of sexing them. His statement that the male had a longer tail appears to be a circular argument. Restall’s method of measuring the tail, shown in one of his diagrams (Restall 1992: 116), was made from the tip of the wing to the tip of the tail, which makes comparison with published measurements of other populations impossible.</p> <p> There has been much discussion of this subspecies in the literature. Smythies (2000: 616) noted the similarity to <i>nisoria</i> from Java and suggested that they might have been introduced into Kalimantan from that Island and then escaped. Payne (2010: 366) synonymized <i>holmesi</i> with <i>nisoria</i>.</p>Published as part of <i>LeCroy, Mary, 2013, Type Specimens Of Birds In The American Museum Of Natural History Part 11. Passeriformes: Parulidae, Drepanididae, Vireonidae, Icteridae, Fringillinae, Carduelinae, Estrildidae, And Viduinae, pp. 1-155 in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2013 (381)</i> on page 117, DOI: 10.1206/832.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/4611863">http://zenodo.org/record/4611863</a>
Lonchura atricapilla subsp. selimbaue Restall
No full text<i>Lonchura atricapilla selimbaue</i> Restall <p> <i>Lonchura atricapilla selimbaue</i> Restall, 1995: 155 (Selimbau, Kalimantan Barut, 0 <b>°</b> 379N, 112 <b>°</b> 089E).</p> <p> Now <i>Lonchura atricapilla jagori</i> (Martens, 1866). See Snow, 1997: 4; Restall, 1997: 129; LeCroy, 1999: 219; Smythies, 2000: 614–616; Dickinson, 2003: 735; and Payne, 2010: 369–370.</p> <p> HOLOTYPE: <b>AMNH 831285</b>, unsexed, said to be from Selimbau, 00.37N, 112.08E, Kalimantan Barat (not Barut), Borneo, Indonesia, no date of collection given, collected by C. Choa.</p> <p> COMMENTS: The AMNH number of the holotype was given in the original description. A second specimen from the same locality (also unsexed) was given to AMNH at the same time and is presumably a paratype: <b>AMNH 831284</b>. The number of specimens seen by Restall is not given, nor are we told how they were sexed, but inclusive measurements were given for males and females (LeCroy, 1999: 219), although Restall’s method of taking measurements does not allow them to be compared to standard avian measurements.</p> <p> Dickinson (2003: 735) included <i>atricapilla</i> in the broad species <i>L. malacca</i>; Payne (2010: 369–370) considered <i>atricapilla</i> a separate species based on recent mitochondrial DNA studies.</p> <p> Snow (1997: 4) suggested that the spelling of <i>selimbaue</i> should be amended to <i>selimbauensis</i>, and this was followed by Restall (1997: 129), Smythies (2000: 615, under <i>L. malacca</i>), and Payne (2010: 369), but it is my understanding now that <i>selimbaue</i> is not necessarily an incorrect original spelling, rather that the original spelling, <i>selimbaue</i>, is a non-Latin or -latinized word and that it should be treated as indeclinable. In such a case the original spelling is to be retained with the termination unchanged (ICZN, 1985: 63, Art. 31 (b); ICZN, 1999: 38, Art. 31.2.3).</p>Published as part of <i>LeCroy, Mary, 2013, Type Specimens Of Birds In The American Museum Of Natural History Part 11. Passeriformes: Parulidae, Drepanididae, Vireonidae, Icteridae, Fringillinae, Carduelinae, Estrildidae, And Viduinae, pp. 1-155 in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2013 (381)</i> on pages 118-119, DOI: 10.1206/832.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/4611863">http://zenodo.org/record/4611863</a>
Lonchura monticola subsp. myolae Restall
No full text<i>Lonchura monticola myolae</i> Restall <p> <i>Lonchura monticola myolae</i> Restall, 1995: 145 (Mt. Scratchley and Mt. Knotsford [sic], Owen Stanley Range, Papua New Guinea).</p> <p> Now <i>Lonchura monticola</i> (De Vis, 1897). See LeCroy, 1999: 216–217; Dickinson, 2003: 736; and Payne, 2010: 373–374.</p> <p> LECTOTYPE: <b>AMNH 721471</b> (not 421471), unsexed, collected on Mount Scratchley, 08.40S, 147.30E (PNG General Reference Map, 1984), Owen Stanley Mountains, Papua New Guinea, undated, collector not noted. From the Rothschild Collection.</p> <p>COMMENTS: Restall designated syntypes in the original description by citing (incorrectly) the AMNH numbers. The second listed syntype was AMNH 721469 (not 421469) from Mount Knutsford (not Knotsford) in the Owen Stanley Mountains south of Mount Scratchley. According to Rothschild and Hartert (1915: 55) both of these specimens were collected by A.S. Anthony.</p> <p> Restall said that the type locality of nominate <i>Lonchura monticola</i> was Mount ‘‘Edward Albert’’; however, its type locality is not Mount Albert Edward, but is Mount Scratchley, the same as that from which he named <i>myolae</i>. For a discussion of these localities and the types of <i>Lonchura monticola</i>, see LeCroy (1999: 216–217). Because the syntypes of <i>myolae</i> are from different localities and the position of the two localities were confused in the original description, I (LeCroy, 1999: 216) designated AMNH 721471 from Mount Scratchley as the lectotype of <i>L. m. myolae</i>. Thus it becomes a topotypical synonym of the nominate form. The specimens in AMNH, including the paralectotype, <b>AMNH 721469</b>, from Mount Knutsford do not appear to differ from Mount Scratchley specimens. Although Hicks (1987: 60) observed <i>L. monticola</i> at Myola and reported it as a downward extension of range, he noted no color differences and there are no specimens known from Myola.</p> <p> Sharpe (1898: 60) described <i>Munia nigritorquis</i> from Mt. Albert Edward. <i>M. nigritorquis</i> has been shown to be a synonym of <i>L. monticola</i> (Mayr 1941: 222). Thus, the known range of <i>L. monticola</i> extends from Mount Albert Edward, 08.25S, 147.25E, at least to Mount Knutsford, 08.50S, 147.27E, in the Owen Stanley Mountains, including the Wharton Range.</p>Published as part of <i>LeCroy, Mary, 2013, Type Specimens Of Birds In The American Museum Of Natural History Part 11. Passeriformes: Parulidae, Drepanididae, Vireonidae, Icteridae, Fringillinae, Carduelinae, Estrildidae, And Viduinae, pp. 1-155 in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2013 (381)</i> on page 125, DOI: 10.1206/832.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/4611863">http://zenodo.org/record/4611863</a>
On permutation in simplified semantics
No full textThis note explains an error in Restall’s ‘Simplified Semantics for Relevant Logics (and some of their rivals)’ (Restall, J Philos Logic 22(5):481–511, 1993) concerning the modelling conditions for the axioms of assertion A → ((A → B) → B) (there called c6) and permutation (A → (B → C)) → (B → (A → C)) (there called c7). We show that the modelling conditions for assertion and permutation proposed in ‘Simplified Semantics’ overgenerate. In fact, they overgenerate so badly that the proposed semantics for the relevant logic R validate the rule of disjunctive syllogism. The semantics provides for no models of R in which the “base point” is inconsistent. This problem is not restricted to ‘Simplified Semantics.’ The techniques of that paper are used in Graham Priest’s textbook An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic (Priest, 2001), which is in wide circulation: it is important to find a solution. In this article, we explain this result, diagnose the mistake in ‘Simplified Semantics’ and propose two different corrections.33
Calf wastage - how big an issue is it?
No full textWhat is calf wastage. Breeding female cattle in north Australia contribute best to business success by producing a heavy weaner each year at the first weaning round. This maximises increase in value by the cow unit over the year, generally from mid-year to mid-year. The ability to cycle in both maiden heifers and lactating cows is the primary limitation to achieving this. Wastage of a calf at any stage between conception and weaning also substantially limits fertility and value increase at a herd level. Embryo loss may result in later calves as cows re-conceive; the calves produced are smaller at weaning and have to be weaned later into the dry season. Late calf wastage usually results in breeders missing a calf for the year. Late calving often also results in failure to cycle, thus cows rear a calf in the subsequent year
Reseña de: Matthew Restall. 2019. Cuando Moctezuma conoció a Cortés. La verdad del encuentro que cambió la historia. México: Taurus. [When Montezuma Met Cortés: The True Story of the Meeting that Changed History. 2018. Nueva York: HarperCollins Publishers].
No full textThis review analyzes Matthew Restall’s When Montezuma Met Cortés, a provocative work that challenges traditional narratives of the Conquest of Mexico. Restall rejects the portrayal of a submissive Moctezuma and an exceptional strategist Cortés, arguing that much of the story was shaped by the conquerors themselves and later historians. However, the author is criticized for his use of non-historical sources, documentary inaccuracies, lack of context regarding sixteenth-century Spain, and the projection of modern perspectives onto past events. Despite its contentious aspects, the book serves as a historiographical exploration of how the Conquest has been reimagined over the centuriesEsta reseña examina el libro Cuando Moctezuma conoció a Cortés de Matthew Restall, una obra polémica que cuestiona las narrativas tradicionales de la Conquista de México. Restall rechaza la figura de un Moctezuma débil y de un Cortés brillante estratega, proponiendo que gran parte del relato fue construido por los propios conquistadores y reproducido por la historiografía posterior. Sin embargo, el autor es criticado por su uso metodológico de fuentes no históricas, errores documentales, omisiones contextuales sobre la España del siglo XVI y por proyectar juicios contemporáneos sobre los hechos. A pesar de sus controversias, el libro ofrece una revisión historiográfica que ilustra cómo la Conquista ha sido reinterpretada a lo largo del tiempoUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Instituto de Investigaciones Histórica
- …
