1,720,956 research outputs found
FIGURE 2. A in Lectotypification of two names in Indian Millettia (Fabaceae-Papilionoideae)
No full textFIGURE 2. A. Habit and fruit of Millettia rubiginosa; B. Lectotype of M. rubiginosa (© the Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew); C. Habit and fruit of Millettia splendens; D. Lectotype of M. splendens (© the Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew).Published as part of Balan, Anoop Puthuparampil, Predeep, Sreevilas Vasudevan & Prakashkumar, Raveendran Pillai, 2021, Lectotypification of two names in Indian Millettia (Fabaceae-Papilionoideae), pp. 225-230 in Phytotaxa 494 (2) on page 228, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.494.2.5, http://zenodo.org/record/542340
Millettia splendens Wight & Arnott 1834
No full textMillettia splendens Wight & Arnott (1834: 263) FIGURE 2, C & D Lectotype ( designated here):— INDIA. Neelgheries, Ballsar, s.d., Wight 998 (K000848703), digital image!; isolectotypes CAL0000012590, E00174565, K000848704, M0233439 and P 02141868 (digital images!) Distribution:— India, endemic (Kerala and Tamil Nadu). Notes:— Wight & Arnott (1834) described Millettia splendens based on the collection Wight 998. The collection locality and date are not mentioned in the protologue. Six specimens of M. splendens collected by Wight were traced (CAL0000012590, E00174565, K000848703, K000848704, M0233439 and P 02141868). Of these, K000848703 is chosen here as the lectotype as it well exhibits the diagnostic characters of the species mentioned in the protologue. The exact collection locality, Ballsar, Neelgheries is written on this sheet in Wight’s hand. In the specimens deposited at CAL and M, the collection number was labelled as ‘807’, which was probably a mistake happened during remounting. Wight Cat. n. 807 is Alysicarpus nummularifolius DC. (1825: 353) and 802 to 809 are pertaining to different species of Alysicarpus. The specimens in CAL and K are examined by Dunn during the revisionary studies of the genus Millettia and labelled as ‘typus’.Published as part of Balan, Anoop Puthuparampil, Predeep, Sreevilas Vasudevan & Prakashkumar, Raveendran Pillai, 2021, Lectotypification of two names in Indian Millettia (Fabaceae-Papilionoideae), pp. 225-230 in Phytotaxa 494 (2) on page 227, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.494.2.5, http://zenodo.org/record/542340
Millettia rubiginosa Wight & Arnott 1834
No full textMillettia rubiginosa Wight & Arnott (1834: 263) FIGURE 2, A & B Lectotype (designated here ):— INDIA. Courtallum, s.d., Wight 912 (K000848706), digital image!; isolectotypes BR0000013459673, E00174560, E00174561, E00174562, E00174563, E00174564, K000848705, NY00026406, P 02141863, P 02141864 and P 02141865 (digital images!), MH! Accession no. 7863. Distribution:— India, endemic (Kerala and Tamil Nadu). Notes:— Wight & Arnott (1834) described Millettia rubiginosa based on the collections of Wight (Wight 912) from Courtallum in south India. Pertaining to the type specification provided in protologue, 13 specimens were traced in various herbaria across the globe. Robert Wight was an assistant surgeon and botanist in the service of East India Company in Madras and served as superintendent of Madras Botanic Garden during 1826–1828. He returned to England on a three-years furlough due to physical problems and spent most of this period in Edinburgh to work on his material for the Prodromus (Basak 1981). G.A.W. Arnott was a botanist and Professor of Botany in the University of Glasgow from 1845 to 1868. The specimens housed at E and K must have been used by the authors to describe M. rubiginosa. Of these, K000848706 is designated here as the lectotype as it agrees well with the protologue.Published as part of Balan, Anoop Puthuparampil, Predeep, Sreevilas Vasudevan & Prakashkumar, Raveendran Pillai, 2021, Lectotypification of two names in Indian Millettia (Fabaceae-Papilionoideae), pp. 225-230 in Phytotaxa 494 (2) on page 227, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.494.2.5, http://zenodo.org/record/542340
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
- …
