1,721,046 research outputs found

    A supplementary note on the Carcinological work of C. S. Rafinesque

    No full text
    Shortly after the printing of my 1954 paper on C. S. Rafinesque as a carcinologist (Holthuis, 1954, Zool. Verhand. Leiden, no. 25, pp. 1-43) had been completed, I became aware of the fact that, when preparing the above publication, I unfortunately had overlooked the existence of one more publication by Rafinesque which contains information on Crustacea. The present note deals with this 8th carcinological publication by Rafinesque, the reference to which is the following: 1818 (August). Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Vol. i. Part I. Philadelphia. 8 vo. pp. 220, and 9 plates. May to December, 1817. Amer. monthly Mag. crit. Rev., vol. 3, pp. 269-274. A (very) critical review of the publication mentioned in the title of Rafinesque's paper. Two new generic names (for Brachyura) are proposed, other Crustacean genera and species are discussed or mentioned (Notostraca, Amphipoda, Decapoda). The following Crustacean genera and species have been mentioned in this review by Rafinesque: Subclass Branchiopoda Order Notostraca Generic names. Apus Latreille (= Apus Cuvier, 1797), Phyllopus Rafinesque, 1815 (Rafinesque, 1818, p. 271). Subclass Malacostraca Order Amphipoda Generic names. Cerapus Say, 1817 (Rafinesque, 1818, pp. 271, 272), Jassa Leach, 1814 (Rafinesque, 1818, p. 272). The following remarks concerning Cerapus are made by Rafinesque : "Cerapus of Say, is a good name

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Get PDF
    The 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
    corecore