12 research outputs found
Factorial characters of the classical Lie groups
No full textJust as the definition of factorial Schur functions as a ratio of determinants allows one to show that they satisfy a Jacobi–Trudi-type identity and have an explicit combinatorial realisation in terms of semistandard tableaux, so we offer here definitions of factorial irreducible characters of the classical Lie groups as ratios of determinants that share these two features. These factorial characters are each specified by a partition, λ=(λ1,λ2,…,λn), and in each case a flagged Jacobi–Trudi identity is derived that expresses the factorial character as a determinant of corresponding factorial characters specified by one-part partitions, (m), for which we supply generating functions. These identities are established by manipulating determinants through the use of certain recurrence relations derived from these generating functions. The transitions to combinatorial realisations of the factorial characters in terms of tableaux are then established by means of non-intersecting lattice path models. The results apply to gl(n), so(2n+1), sp(2n) and o(2n), and are extended to the case of so(2n) by making use of newly defined factorial difference characters.</p
Factorial Q-functions and Tokuyama identities for classical Lie groups
No full textFactorial characters of each of the classical Lie groups have recently been defined algebraically as rather simple deformations of irreducible characters. Each such factorial character has been shown to satisfy a flagged Jacobi–Trudi identity, thereby allowing for its combinatorial realisation in terms of first a non-intersecting lattice path model and then a tableau model. Here we propose algebraic definitions of factorial Q-functions of the classical Lie groups and translate these definitions into combinatorial realisations in terms of non-intersecting lattice path and primed shifted tableaux models. By way of some justification of our chosen definitions, it is then shown that our factorial Q-functions satisfy Tokuyama-type identities and relate some special case of these to other identities that have appeared in the literature.</p
Les appellations d'origine dans la genèse des droits de propriété intellectuelle
No full textLes appellations d'origine représentent un rameau peu connu des droits « intellectuels ». Elles méritent que cet ouvrage leur ouvre une fenêtre. En effet, travailler sur les systèmes agroalimentaires localisés implique de prendre en compte ces dimensions importantes que sont les aspects juridiques. D'autant plus que sur de nombreux terrains, les chercheurs ont la chance d'observer, voire de participer à l'élaboration de ces normes et règles d'exclusivité et, en ce sens, à la construction du local. C'est pourquoi nous apprécions de pouvoir reprendre ici le texte d'une intervention de Marie-Angèle Hermitte sur «Les représentations de la qualité dans les dispositifs juridiques »2. Partant du cadre général des droits de la propriété intellectuelle, M.-A. Hermitte nous livre une approche nécessaire et éclairante sur l'histoire des idées et de leur propriété. Chemin faisant, elle nous montre les mécanismes qui sous-tendent le passage de la propriété des idées et de l'industrie à celle, avec les AOC, de la création d'un marché réservé. L'explicitation de ces changements l'amène à revisiter la vision classique en sciences sociales de la «tradition» et celle, sans doute plus d'actualité, des rapports entre terroirs et sociétés. Ces appellations consacrent, comme le souligne l'auteur, le « travail commun de l'homme et de la nature pour élaborer un produit».The issue of labels of origin is a poorly known branch of 'inteIlectual property rights'. Investigating localised agrifood systems means taking into account the important dimension oflegal aspects. This is aIl the more necessary since researchers are given the opportunity ofobserving and even participating in the elaboration ofexclusivity regulations and standards at many of their study sites and thus take part in the construction of locality. Starting from the general framework of inteIlectual property rights, Marie-Angèle Hermitte provides us with a necessary and clarifying approach to the history of ideas and of their property3. Meanwhile, she highlights the underlying mechanisms at play in the passage from the property ofideas and of the industry to that ofcreating a reserved market in the case of AGes. In explaining these changes, she re-examines the classical view of 'tradition' in the social sciences and that, maybe more topical, of the relationship between terroirs and societies. As the author puts it, these labels establish the 'joint work ofpeople and nature in elaborating a product'
Combinatorial and Algebraic Enumeration: a survey of the work of Ian P. Goulden and David M. Jackson
No full textHow plastic is our plastic culture? Reducing our consumption of single-use plastics
No full textOur deep attachment to plastics exists within a complex set of relationships between manufacturers, consumers, markets, and environmental forces. In this paper, I question the reasons behind these relationships and seek to discover why we have become so attached to plastics, and why it is so hard to break this attachment. The effects of plastics extend far beyond the issue of litter, but relate to our construction of identity and our sense of social justice. In this paper, I will argue that plastic is reflective of who we are, and also reflective of the global inequalities we have created and is thus an important social justice issue. I will employ the theory of political ecology to analyze the consumption of single-use plastics within industrialized countries and to untangle these complex relationships. This theory will highlight the influence of finance and power and help to unravel the role of industry and institutions in the seemingly agential decisions we make as consumers. I will then discuss why the plastics problem is so pressing, and why we need to change our culture of single-use plastics. The issue of single-use plastics has widespread global effects, and thus solving the plastics problem is a matter of social justice. I will then apply a political ecological framework to argue that single-use plastics are an integral part of consumer culture, and lie at the core of our identity as a society. Finally, I will turn to the question of how and if our plastic culture is capable of changing
Performance of logistic regression modeling: beyond the number of events per variable, the role of data structure
No full textReply to : Steyerberg EW, Schemper M, Harrell FE. Logistic regression modeling and the number of events per variable: selection bias dominates. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;64(12):1464-5; author reply 1463-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.016. PMID: 22032755. which is a comment on : Courvoisier DS, Combescure C, Agoritsas T, Gayet-Ageron A, Perneger TV. Performance of logistic regression modeling: beyond the number of events per variable, the role of data structure. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Sep;64(9):993-1000. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.012. Epub 2011 Mar 16. PMID: 21411281. https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:25409</a
H-chromatic symmetric functions
No full textWe introduce -chromatic symmetric functions, , which use the
-coloring of a graph to define a generalization of Stanley's chromatic
symmetric functions. We say two graphs and are -chromatically
equivalent if , and use this idea to study
uniqueness results for -chromatic symmetric functions, with a particular
emphasis on the case is a complete bipartite graph. We also show that
several of the classical bases of the space of symmetric functions, i.e. the
monomial symmetric functions, power sum symmetric functions, and elementary
symmetric functions, can be realized as -chromatic symmetric functions. We
end with some conjectures and open problems.Comment: 38 pages; corrected typos and clarified some detail
Comparison of the indoor performance of 12 commercial PV products by a simple model
No full textThis article presents a simple comparative model which has been developed for the estimation of the performance of photovoltaic (PV) products' cells in indoor environments. The model predicts the performance of PV solar cells, as a function of the distance from a spectrum of artificial (fluorescent light, halogen light, and light-emitting diodes) and natural light. It intends to support designers, while creating PV-integrated products for indoor use. For the model's validation, PV cells of 12 commercially available PV-powered products with power ranging from 0.8 to 4 mWp were tested indoors under artificial illumination and natural light. The model is based on the physical measurements of natural and artificial irradiance indoors, along with literature data of PV technologies under low irradiance conditions. The input data of the model are the surface of the solar cell (in m2), the wavelength-dependent spectral response (SR) of the PV cell, the spectral irradiance indoors, and solar cell's distance from light sources. The model calculates solar cells' efficiency and power produced under the specific indoor conditions. If using the measured SR of a PV cell and the irradiance as measured indoors, the model can predict the performance of a PV product under mixed indoor light with a typical inaccuracy of around 25%, which is sufficient for a design process. Measurements revealed that under mixed indoor lighting of around 20 W/m2, the efficiency of solar cells in 12 commercially available PV products ranges between 5% and 6% for amorphous silicon (a-Si) cells, 4–6% for multicrystalline silicon (mc-Si) cells, and 5–7% for the monocrystalline silicon (c-Si) cells.Design EngineeringIndustrial Design Engineerin
Differential Dynamics of Transposable Elements during Long-Term Diploidization of Nicotiana Section Repandae (Solanaceae) Allopolyploid Genomes
No full textPubMed ID: 23185607This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited
Pseudopolydesmus serratus
No full textPseudopolydesmus serratus (Say, 1821) Fig. 2-4 Diagnosis. A large-bodied species of Pseudopolydesmus possessing acropodal processes m1, m2, e2, and e 4 in addition to the endomerite (Fig. 2-3) (Withrow 1988). Variation. Hoffman (1974) proposed a terminology for the maximum of four processes on both the mesal (m) and ectal/lateral (e) surfaces of Pseudopolydesmus acropodites. Species are defined by the processes that are present, and P. serratus is the only one specifically possessing m1, m2, e2, and e4, and lacking the others (Fig. 2-3); gonopod illustrations of eastern males are available in Wood (1865), Williams and Hefner (1928), Verhoeff (1931), Attems (1898, 1940), Johnson (1954), and Shelley (1978, 1988). The North Dakota male possesses these projections, but they vary in both configurations and positions from those in eastern males, as represented by Shelley (1978: 60, fig. 54-55, and 1988: 1651, fig. 28). In the North Dakota male, the endomerite, or pulvillus/hairpad, located on the mesal surface, seems slightly longer in proportion to overall acropodal length, and m1, which is proportionally longer, stronger, and positioned slightly more distad, overlaps its basal corner; m1 is more proximal and does not overlap the pulvillus in eastern males. Process m2 is at the same position as in eastern males but appears more proximal because of the proportionally longer endomerite; m2 is also smaller and slightly bilobate, whereas it is stronger, acutely triangular, and projects farther from the acropodal stem in eastern males. On the lateral surface, e2 is sharply triangular, as in eastern males, but slightly more proximal and not directly opposite m2; however, e2 is in the same position relative to the endomerite as in eastern males, at the latter’s distal extremity. Process e4, located distad and partly obscured in both perspectives by the bristle-like apical setae, is a linear, inconspicuous, bilobate flange rather than triangular. These differences constitute intra-specific variation that may warrant subspecific recognition if additional males from the Dakotas and Minnesota exhibit these conditions. Variation of this magnitude in peripheral populations is typical in millipeds with such large distributions. Distribution (Fig. 4). Oriulus venustus, the most widespread native milliped species in North America, covers approximately ¾ of the continental US and southern Canada, ranging from the Atlantic Coast of Massachusetts and the Outer Banks of North Carolina to the Colorado Plateau and Wasatch Mountains, Utah, the Rocky Mountains of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, and the western Plains of Alberta; the southernmost records are in southern Louisiana (Shelley 2002a, c). Aniulus garius occupies a smaller, more northerly area extending from southern Québec, western New York, and northern Virginia to the Alberta Plains and northeastern Utah; the southernmost records in the contiguous range are in Kentucky, Missouri, and northern New Mexico, and there is an isolated site in western Mississippi (Shelley 2001a, McAllister et al. 2009). Other widespread, native, eastern species – Virgoiulus minutus (Brandt, 1841) (Julida: Blaniulidae), N. americanus, Scytonotus granulatus (Say, 1821) (Polydesmida: Polydesmidae), and the xystodesmids Apheloria virginiensis (Drury, 1770) and Pleuroloma flavipes – terminate varying distances into the Central Plains (Keeton 1960; Shelley 1980, 1994; Hoffman 1999; McAllister et al. 2005; Shelley and McAllister 2007; Shelley et al. 2003, 2005, 2006) as does Pseudopolydesmus serratus (Fig. 3). Ranging eastward to the Atlantic Ocean and even inhabiting offshore islands – Nantucket, Massachusetts; Gardiners, New York (in Gardiners Bay at the eastern end of Long Island); and Hatteras, North Carolina – Pseudopolydesmus serratus extends, north/south, from the Gaspé Peninsula, Québec, the Upper Peninsula (UP) of Michigan/adjacent Ontario, and the latitude of Fargo to Matagorda Bay, Texas, the Gulf Coast from Louisiana to east of the Apalachicola River in the Florida Panhandle, and central South Carolina. Dimensions vary from 1,139 -2,278 km (712-1,424 mi), east/west, and 1,402 -1,986 km (876-1,241 mi), north/south. As noted by Hoffman (1999), the species has never been taken in, and is apparently absent from, the southeastern Coastal Plain south of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, including peninsular Florida, and the entire state of Georgia, though it may occur in the southwestern corner (Seminole and Decatur cos.); occurrence cannot even be demonstrated in the southern Blue Ridge Physiographic Province of north Georgia, where the genus is common. The occupied area covers parts of three Canadian Provinces (Ontario, Québec, and New Brunswick), 36 US states plus the District of Columbia, and all of 23 states: Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Mississippi, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. It traverses such major rivers as the St. Lawrence, Connecticut, Hudson, Delaware, Potomac, James, Roanoke, Cape Fear, Apalachicola, Alabama, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, Cumberland, Wabash, Illinois, St. Croix, Red (of the North), Platte, Missouri, Arkansas, Canadian, Red (in Louisiana), Trinity, Brazos, and Colorado (in Texas). The eastern- and northernmost record is the unspecified site in the interior of the Gaspé Peninsula, Québec, Canada (Chamberlin 1920a, Kevan 1983, Shelley 1988, Hoffman 1999), denoted by the question mark (?) in Fig. 4. The eastern- and northernmost specific locality, Île d’Orléans, in the St. Lawrence River east of Québec City, implies occurrence in northwestern New Brunswick, and documentation is needed from this Canadian province. The sites in Algoma and Nipissing cos., Ontario, coincide with those in the UP of Michigan, but the true northern limits, in the interiors of Québec and Ontario, are unknown. The records from Fargo and Cass and Clearwater cos., Minnesota, also coincide with those in the UP and suggest occurrence in southeastern Manitoba, Canada, only 211 km (132 mi) to the north. In addition to being the northernmost locality in the northern Plains, Fargo is also the westernmost, so the boundary turns southward there, heads into eastern Nebraska, curves southwestward to Thayer Co., and angles across Kansas to Barber Co., on the border with Oklahoma and the westernmost overall record. In addition to Georgia, no samples of P. serratus are available from South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island, as well as New Brunswick, and we sampled in the projected area of occurrence in South Dakota but did not encounter any polydesmids. Connecting Barber Co., Kansas, with the westernmost Texas locality, in Coryell Co., results in ¾ of the main part of Oklahoma lying within the distribution, roughly equivalent to the area in that state occupied by Narceus Rafinesque, 1820 (Shelley et al. 2006). From Coryell Co., the boundary curves south-southeastward through Victoria to the Gulf of Mexico at Matagorda Bay. Records from Louisiana, Mississippi, and the western Florida Panhandle line the Gulf Coast, but P. serratus terminates abruptly in Gadsden Co., east of the Apalachicola River. A plethora of records hugs the Atlantic Coast from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, to Maine, where the border extends inland to Baxter State Park and New Brunswick, but at Myrtle Beach, it heads inland to Columbia then bends northward to Gaston and Lincoln cos., North Carolina, west of Charlotte. It then swings westward through the Blue Ridge (Mitchell Co.) and northern Tennessee, curves through the Cumberland Plateau and Nashville Basin, and angles south-southeastward through Alabama to Gadsden Co. The range thus also excludes most of eastern Alabama, the areas of Knoxville and Chattanooga, Tennessee, the entire Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP) except for Cades Cove, Blount Co., Tennessee, and all of southwestern North Carolina except for one site in Jackson Co.; the isolated records appear to represent localized allopatric populations. Withrow (1988) recorded a female of P. serratus from the GSMNP in Sevier Co., Tennessee, but it lacks credence without an accompanying male, and no other author has cited the species from the Park, the most recent being Snyder (2008). Therefore, the Cades Cove samples we report, primarily from the All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory (ATBI), are the first authentic records from both the Park and the Great Smoky Mountains in general. In western North Carolina, no individuals are available from the heavily sampled Nantahala and southern Pisgah National Forests or the vicinities of Mt. Mitchell, Asheville, Waynesville, Brevard, Cashiers, Bryson City, Franklin, and Highlands. The Jackson Co. locality is some 128 km (80 mi) south of Mitchell Co., which is detached by 40 km (25 mi) from the next one north in Watauga Co., after which P. serratus occurs continuously northward through Virginia and eastward into the North Carolina Piedmont Plateau. Consequently, the next locality south of Jackson Co., North Carolina, is that in Gadsden Co., Florida, some 584 km (365 mi) to the south-southwest. Copious field work by numerous collectors has taken place in the Blue Ridge of northern Georgia, and RMS has sampled widely in the Piedmont Plateaus and Coastal Plains of Georgia and South Carolina; consequently, it would seem that at least one male would have been taken in these areas by now if P. serratus truly occurred there. Its absence creates a sizeable lacuna in the southeast that extends northwestward from coastal Georgia to Cannon and Putnam cos., Tennessee, a distance of about 656 km (410 mi); the hiatus is somewhat narrower, around 496 km (310 mi) at maximal breadth. This gap seems analogous to that of its polydesmid counterpart, Scytonotus granulatus (Say, 1821), which is absent from a progressively narrowing area of the Blue Ridge from northern Georgia to northern Virginia, in which it is replaced by three endemic forms. In conjunction with a generic revision, Shelley (1994) concluded that the endemics are younger and perhaps more successful, that they had displaced S. granulatus from the Blue Ridge, and that they were actively expanding into adjacent physiographic provinces. The lacunae in the two polydesmids are congruent in being in southern range extremities and involving at least the southernmost Blue Ridge, suggesting that the causes may be similar; at present, however, we can only note that P. canadensis (Newport, 1844) and P. erasus (Loomis, 1943) occur in the hiatus (Withrow 1988, Hoffman 1999). Another distributional congruence involves the xystodesmid genus, Apheloria Chamberlin, 1929 (Shelley and McAllister 2007), whose range also turns inland at Myrtle Beach, angles northwestward in South Carolina north of that of P. serratus, crosses into North Carolina around Charlotte and curves into the western Piedmont before heading southward into through the Blue Ridge. A modern revision of Pseudopolydesmus is desirable, to assess both the true number of component species and evolutionary trends within the genus. Below, we summarize published records of P. serratus and report significant new county occurrences along with data for prior citations. Published Records. America Septentrionale (Gervais 1844). CANADA: Ontario: Ontario in general (Kevan 1983, Shelley 2002c). Northern Ontario (Kevan 1983). Algoma, Cochrane, Durham, Hastings, Lambton, Lanark, Middlesex, Niagara, Nipissing, and Parry Sound cos. (Chamberlin 1920a, b; Judd 1967; Shelley 1988). Québec: Québec in general (Hoffman 1999). Southern Québec (Withrow 1988). Gaspé Peninsula interior (Chamberlin 1920a, Kevan 1983, Shelley 1988, Hoffman 1999). Argenteuil, Gaspé-Ouest, Île de Montréal, Montmorency, and Vaudreuil census divisions (cd) (Kevan 1983, Shelley 1988). USA: Alabama: Lowndes Co. (Withrow 1988). Arkansas: Craighead, Jefferson, Phillips, Poinsett, and Pulaski cos. (Causey 1952b, Withrow 1988, McAllister et al. 2003). Connecticut: New Haven Co. (Withrow 1988). Florida: Bay, Escambia, and Gadsden cos. (McNeill 1887, Shelley 2001b). Illinois: Illinois in general (Wood 1865, Saussure and Humbert 1872, Bollman 1887). Adams, Calhoun, Champaign, Cook, Grundy, Jackson, Lake, and Rockford cos. (Withrow 1988). Indiana: Indiana in general (Bollman 1887, 1888b). Franklin, Grant, Greene, Monroe, Owen, Porter, Tippecanoe, and Vandenburg cos. (McNeill 1888, Dearolf 1938, Withrow 1988). Iowa: Iowa in general (Withrow 1988). Blackhawk, Boone, and Storey cos. (Chamberlin 1942, Chamberlin and Hoffman 1958, Withrow 1988, Hoffman 1999). Kansas: Kansas in general (Gunthorp 1921). Coffey and Johnson cos. (Gunthorp 1913, Withrow 1988) Kentucky: Adair, Anderson, Bell, Carstian, Carter, Christian, Estill, Fayette, Fulton, Holmes, Jackson, Jessamine, McCreary, Morgan, Powell, Whitley, and Wolf cos. (Causey 1955, Branson and Batch 1971, Withrow 1988). Louisiana. Louisiana in general (Chamberlin and Hoffman 1958). Allen, Ascension, Avoyelles, Bossier, Caddo, Caldwell, Catahoula, DeSoto, East Baton Rouge, East Carroll, East Feliciana, Evangeline, Iberia, Jefferson Davis, Lafayette, Lincoln, Livingston, Madison, Morehouse, Natchitoches, Plaquemines, Pointe - Coupee, Rapides, Sabine, St. Landry, St. Martin, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Tensas, Terrebonne, Vermilion, Vernon, Washington, West Baton Rouge, West Carroll, and West Feliciana pars. (Chamberlin 1918a; Viosca 1919; Causey 1952 b, 1963; Loomis 1959; Withrow 1988). Maine: Maine in general (Chamberlin and Hoffman 1958, Kevan 1983). Piscataquis Co. (Shelley 1988). Maryland: Allegany, Anne Arundel, Calvert, Caroline, Charles, Dorchester, Frederick, Garrett, Harford, Montgomery, Prince Georges, Queen Anne’s, St. Mary’s, Somerset, Talbot, and Washington cos. (Chamberlin 1947, 1951; Withrow 1988). Massachusetts: Barnstable, Middlesex, and Norfolk cos., and Nantucket Island (Blake 1931, Withrow 1988). Michigan: Michigan in general (Johnson 1954, Kevan 1983, Hoffman 1999). Alcona, Alger, Arenac, Barry, Bay, Cheboygan, Clare, Crawford, Dickinson, Emmet, Gladwin, Gogebic, Grand Traverse, Gratiot, Iosco, Jackson, Kalkaska, Lake, Lapeer, Leelanau, Livingston, Mackinac, Macomb, Manistee, Missaukee, Montcalm, Newaygo, Oceana, Ogemaw, Ontonagon, Osceola, Otsego, Presque Isle, Roscommon, Sanilac, Tuscola, and Washtenaw cos. (Chamberlin 1914, Withrow 1988, Snider 1991). Minnesota: Minnesota in general (Bollman 1887, 1893; Chamberlin and Hoffman 1958; Hoffman 1999). Hennepin and Winona cos. (Bollman 1893, Withrow 1988). Mississippi: Mississippi in general (Hoffman 1999). Adams, George, Hinds, Jefferson, Lincoln, Oktibbeha, Panola, Pearl River, Pike, Webster, and Wilkinson cos. (Causey 1955, Withrow 1988). Missouri: Franklin, St. Charles, and St. Louis cos. (Chamberlin 1928, Withrow 1988). Though geographically plausible, the record from St. Charles Co. was based on unidentifiable juveniles and is unreliable. Nebraska: Nebraska in general (Kenyon 1893a). Cass, Cuming, Lancaster, and Richardson cos. (Kenyon 1893b). New Jersey: New Jersey in general (Wood 1865, Saussure and Humbert 1872). Camden and Somerset cos. (Chamberlin 1947, Withrow 1988). New York: New York in general (Bailey 1928, Kevan 1983). Albany, Genesee, Greene, Monroe, Niagara, Onondaga, Tompkins, and Ulster cos. (Chamberlin 1947, Withrow 1988). North Carolina: North Carolina in general (Bollman 1887, Chamberlin and Hoffman 1958, Hoffman 1999). Mountains of North Carolina (Chamberlin and Hoffman 1958). Alleghany, Ashe, Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick, Burke, Carteret, Caswell, Chowan, Craven, Cumberland, Currituck, Dare, Durham, Edgecombe, Franklin, Gaston, Gates, Granville, Greene, Halifax, Harnett, Hyde, Lee, Jackson, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lincoln, Mitchell, Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Orange, Perquimans, Pitt, Randolph, Sampson, Stanly, Stokes, Vance, Wake, Warren, Watauga, and Wilkes cos. (Brimley 1938; Chamberlin 1940; Wray 1967; Shelley 1978, 2000; Withrow 1988). Ohio: Ohio in general (Williams and Hefner 1928, Kevan 1983). Adams, Ashland, Ashtabula, Butler, Champaign, Clermont, Columbiana, Coshocton, Fairfield, Geauga, Gallia, Greene, Hamilton, Highland, Hocking, Holmes, Jefferson, Knox, Lake, Licking, Medina, Montgomery, Ottawa, Pike, Summit, Tuscarawas, Warren, Washington, and Wayne cos.(Morse 1902, Chamberlin 1920 c, Withrow 1988). Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania in general (Koch 1847; Peters 1865; Wood 1865; Saussure and Humbert 1872; Bollman 1887, 1893; Attems 1898, 1940; Chamberlin and Hoffman 1958; Withrow 1988). Bedford, Berks, Bradford, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, McKean, Mifflin, Montgomery, Perry, Seward, and York cos. and the City of Philadelphia (Dearolf 1938, Loomis 1939, Chamberlin 1947, Withrow 1988). South Carolina: South Carolina in general (Saussure 1860; Bollman 1893; Attems 1898, 1940). Richland Co. (Withrow 1988). Tennessee: Tennessee in general (Hoffman 1999). Anderson, Davidson, Haywood, Humphreys, Obion, Putnam, Rutherford, and Sevier cos. (Chamberlin 1918b, Withrow 1988). Texas: Eastern Texas (Withrow 1988). Camp, Cass, Harris, Jasper, Lamar, Nacogdoches, Sabine, Smith, and Tyler cos. (Causey 1952b, Stewart 1969, McAllister and Robison 2011). Vermont: Bennington, Washington, and Windham cos. (Chamberlin 1951, Withrow 1988). Virginia: Virginia in general (Gervais 1847, 1859; Saussure and Humbert 1872; Bollman 1893). Eastern Shore in general (Say 1821, Chamberlin and Hoffman 1958, Hoffman 1999). Accomack, Albemarle, Alleghany, Augusta, Botetourt, Buchanan, Caroline, Chesterfield, Clarke, Craig, Dinwiddie, Fairfax, Frederick, Giles, Grayson, Greene, Hanover, Henrico, Highland, Loudoun, Louisa, Madison, Nansemond, Page, Princess Anne, Pulaski, Rockbridge, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, Warren, and Wythe cos., and the City of Norfolk (Bollman 1888b, Loomis 1944, Chamberlin 1947, Withrow 1988). West Virginia: Barbour, Cabell, Doddridge, Grant, Greenbrier, Hancock, Hardy, Marion, Marshall, Mason, Mercer, Monongalia, Monroe, Morgan, Nicholas, Ohio, Pendleton, Pleasants, Pocahontas, Preston, Raleigh, Randolph, Taylor, Tucker, and Webster cos. (Loomis 1944, Withrow 1988). Wisconsin: Clark, Crawford, Dane, Door, Fond du Lac, Marquette, Ozaukee, Racine, Washington, and Waukesha cos. (Withrow 1988, Watermolen 1995 b, Snyder and Draney 2008). New Records. CANADA: Ontario: Halton Co., Milton, Rattlesnake Pt., 2MM, F, 1 November 1921, JL Oughton (ROME). Ottawa-Carleton Co., 9.6 km (6 mi) W Richmond, 3MM, F, 6 May 1971, JEH Martin (CNC). York Co., Toronto, Rouge R., Kingston Rd., M, F, 2 June 1939, JL Oughton (ROME). Québec: Drummond cd, Drummondville, 2MM, 2FF, 12 October 1975, L. LeSage (NCSM). Hull cd, Ironside, M, 3FF, LM Stöhr (MHNG). Maskinongé cd, Sainte-Angèle, M, 10 October 1980, L. LeSage (NCSM). Pontiac cd, Shawville, M, 20 August 1972, Bowen (CNC). Vaudreuil cd, Rigaud, 22 May 1981, L. LeSage (CNC). USA: Alabama: Lowndes Co., 13. km (8.4 mi) NE Ft. Deposit, M, 19 April 1983, RM Shelley (NCSM). Macon Co., Tuskegee, M, 3 February 1980, AK Johnson (TMM). First Published Records. Connecticut: Fairfield Co., Norwalk, M, 21 July 1943, W. Ivie (USNM); and Redding Ridge, 30 March 1964, CL Remington (PMNH). Hartford Co., Stratton Brook and Penwood St. Pks. 29 October 1961, CL and EE Remington (PMNH). Litchfield Co., White Memorial, 2MM, 2FF, NM Mbumba (UCMS). New Haven Co., New Haven, 27 July 1868 (PMNH) and 16 September 1974, DC Southworth (PMNH); Oxford, M, F, 17 April 1871, O. Harger (PMNH); Bethany, 9 October 1960 and 7 May 1962, CL Remington (PMNH); North Haven, March 1961, EE Remington (PMNH); Woodbridge, 4 May 1961 (PMNH); West Rock, M, F, 25 September 1963, B. Vogel (PMNH); and Seymour, M, 7 October 1973, JR Lynch (PMNH). Tolland Co., Mansfield, 9 May 1961, JM Skinner (UCMS). First Published Records . Delaware: New Castle Co., 4.8 km (3 mi) E Ashland, along DE hwy 82, M, 21 April 1998, RM Shelley (NCSM); and Newark, University of Delaware campus, F, 21 April 1998, RM Shelley, CR Bartlett (NCSM). New State Record . District of Columbia: 2MM, 2FF, 28 February 1967, TJ Spilman (USNM). Glen Sligo, M, 2FF, April 1898 (USNM). New Record. Florida: Bay Co., Econfina Cr. floodplain at SR 388, M, 17 February 1994, R. Franz (NCSM). Gadsden Co., boat landing on Apalachicola R. S of I-10, 4MM, 2FF, 17 April 1997, RM Shelley (NCSM). Jackson Co., Florida Caverns St. Pk., M, 2 April 1964, AA Weaver (NCSM) and M, 15 June 1999, RM Shelley (NCSM). Illinois: Coles Co., M, 26 October 1977, RC Funk (INHS). Lake Co., Zion, Beach St. Pk., M, 2 November 1961, Evers, Stannard (INHS). Pope Co., Eddyville, M, F, 2 May 1969 (INHS). Indiana: Crawford Co., 6.4 km (4 mi) SW English, Hemlock Cliffs, 2MM, F, 6 June 2005, RM Shelley, JJ Lewis (NCSM). Jennings Co., 2MM, 26 April 1976, J. Rosenbalm (ULKY). Lake Co., Gary, M, 3 March 1900 (USNM). Monroe Co., Bloomington, M, 4FF, 1902, HW Brölemann (MNHN). Parke Co., Turkey Run St. Pk., M, F, 28 April 1945 (USNM). Union Co., Liberty, M, 2FF, October 1896, JN Rose (USNM). Iowa: Hancock Co., Forrest City, Pilot Knob, M, 3 June 1960, HW Levi (MCZ). Kansas: Barber Co., Barber Wildlife area nr. Medicine Lodge, juv., 4 May 2005, CT McAllister (NCSM). Kentucky: Allen Co., junction Reels Rd. and co. rd. 482, M, F, 25 September 2004, RM Shelley (NCSM); and Long Cr. at co. rd. 100, M, 25 September 2004, RM Shelley (NCSM). Jefferson Co., Louisville, M, 13 September 1975, LM Nash (ULKY). Leslie Co., 6.4 km (4 mi) SSW Hyden, KY hwy. 406 at Bowen Cr., M, 10 June 2001, RM Shelley (NCSM). Marshall Co., Kentucky Lake St. Pk., 2MM, 2FF, 13 Octo
