191,950 research outputs found
Prionocerus viridiflavus Geiser 2007
No full textPrionocerus viridiflavus Geiser, 2007 Prionocerus viridiflavus Geiser, 2007: 168. Type material examined: Holotype 3 and 2 paratypes 3 and Ƥ, NHMB, see Geiser, 2007 for details. This species was described in a recent paper, so there is no need to repeat all details of the description here. A photograph of the habitus is given in fig. 39 (3), a drawing of the last male abdominal sternite in fig. 25. Differential diagnosis: Very easily recognizable by uniformously green pronotum and large yellow humeral patches on the elytra, as well as by the distinctive shape of the elytra (narrowed in the middle, slightly dilated subapically). The last abdominal sternite in males is smallest of all Prionocerus, the aedeagus somewhat similar to P. coeruleipennis. Distribution (fig. 45): So far known only from three localities on the island of Sumatra, Indonesia. It seems to be endemic to this island.Published as part of Geiser, Michael, 2010, Studies on Prionoceridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). II. A revision of the genus Prionocerus Perty, 1831, pp. 1-48 in Zootaxa 2328 on page 34, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19309
Carl Friedrich Geiser and Ferdinand Rudio : the men behind the first International Congress of Mathematicians
No full textThe first International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM) was held in Zurich in 1897, setting the standards for all future ICMs. Whilst giving an overview of the congress itself, this thesis focuses on the Swiss organisers, who were predominantly university professors and secondary school teachers. As this thesis aims to offer some insight into their lives, it includes their biographies, highlighting their individual contributions to the congress. Furthermore, it explains why Zurich was chosen as the first host city and how the committee proceeded with the congress organisation.
Two of the main organisers were the Swiss geometers Carl Friedrich Geiser (1843-1934) and Ferdinand Rudio (1856-1929). In addition to the congress, they also made valuable contributions to mathematical education, and in Rudio’s case, the history of mathematics. Therefore, this thesis focuses primarily on these two mathematicians.
As for Geiser, the relationship to his great-uncle Jakob Steiner is explained in more detail. Furthermore, his contributions to the administration of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology are summarised. Due to the overarching theme of mathematical education and collaborations in this thesis, Geiser’s schoolbook "Einleitung in die synthetische Geometrie" is considered in more detail and Geiser’s methods are highlighted.
A selection of Rudio’s contributions to the history of mathematics is studied as well. His book "Archimedes, Huygens, Lambert, Legendre" is analysed and compared to E W Hobson’s treatise "Squaring the Circle". Furthermore, Rudio’s papers relating to the commentary of Simplicius on quadratures by Antiphon and Hippocrates are considered, focusing on Rudio’s translation of the commentary and on "Die Möndchen des Hippokrates". The thesis concludes with an analysis of Rudio’s popular lectures "Leonhard Euler" and "Über den Antheil der mathematischen Wissenschaften an der Kultur der Renaissance", which are prime examples of his approach to the history of mathematics
Lamellipalpus pacholatkoi Brancucci & Geiser, 2009, sp. nov.
No full textLamellipalpus pacholatkoi sp. nov. (Fig. 7) Type locality: NE India, Assam, Bhalukpong. Description. 3. Habitus: Oblong to elongate, testaceous, with the last 9 joints of the antennae and the elytra except for a large testaceous patch around shoulders dark brown. Underside completely testaceous. Head: Slightly depressed, transverse, testaceous; distance from eye to pronotum about 0.5–0.9 times diameter of an eye. Interocular space large, 2.7 times as large as eye diameter. Anterior margin of frons straight, only slightly curved; head slightly depressed on antero-median part. Surface shining, covered with fine punctures and very fine and long yellow setae. Mandibles long, slender, slightly curved. Last segment of maxillary palpi testaceous, only 3.1 times as long as broad, narrowly rounded posteriorly, flattened and about 1 / 3 the length of the mandibles, with a fine and dense pubescence; labial palpi broad, somewhat shorter, broadly rounded posteriorly. Antennae short, 1 st, 3 rd, 4 th, 5 th and 6 th joints elongate, 2.2 times as long as broad, 2 nd joint very small, globose, 7 th– 10 th joints subequal, about 1.4 times as long as broad, 11 th joint 3 times as long as broad. Pronotum: Testaceous, slightly transverse, strongly depressed posteriorly before angles; sides almost straight. Posterior angles protruding and obliquely carinate. Entire surface shining with small punctures, each with a long and very fine yellow seta. Scutellum broad, triangular and testaceous. Elytra: Dark brown, testaceous yellow on base around shoulders and narrowly so along margin on whole length. Sides slightly dilated, almost parallel, broadest behind middle, with 3 distinct costae and coarsely punctured. Punctures very large, individually visible, deeply impressed, partly confluent and much closer together than their own diameter, except at extreme base where they are smaller and more distant. Pubescence dense; setae short, very fine and brown. Elytral margins distinctly bordered. Underside: Completely testaceous, finely and densely pubescent. Aedeagus: Lateral lobes narrow, rounded posteriorly, ending in a short and sharp point dorsally. Median lobe with a sharp ridge dorsally. Female: Unknown. Measurements: TL: 5.8–7.2 mm (6.56 mm, n= 13); TL-H: 5.1–6.4 mm (5.75 mm, n= 13); HL: 0.7–1.1 mm (0.85 mm, n= 13); HW: 1.5 – 1.9 mm (1.68 mm, n= 13); LP: 1.2–1.8 mm (1.63 mm, n = 13). Type material: Holotype 3 (NHML): “NE India, Assam, Bhalukpong, 26.V.– 3.VI.2006, 27°02’N, 92 ° 35 ’E, 150 m, P. Pacholátko leg. / L. Dembicky & P. Pacholátko, NHML (E), 2006 - 48 ”; “ Holotype Lamellipalpus pacholatkoi pacholatkoi n.ssp. Brancucci & Geiser 08” [red printed label]. 93 paratypes (8 ex., NHML; 1 ex., NHMB): same data as holotype. 13 paratype (NHMB): “NE India, Meghalaya, SW of Cherrapunjee, 25 ° 13–14 ’N 91 ° 40 ’E, 900 m, P. Pacholátko, 23–25.VI.07 ”. 13 paratype (NHMB): “Assam, Kaziranga, nördl. Mikir-Hills, Brahmaputra V. 1961, leg. G. Scherer / Museum Frey Tutzing, / Lamellipalpus nigripennis Pascoe, det. W. Wittmer”. 13 paratype (NHMB): “Ghoom-Jorbanla, 5.5. 1976 / Darjeeling Distr., W. Wittmer”. 13 paratype (NHML): “N. India, G.Z. Brunner, 1931.96 ”. 13 paratype (CMB, later NMP): "NE India, Arunachalpr., 8 km S Jamiri, Sessa env., 27.08 N 97.34 E, 350 m, 30.May 2005, P. Pacholatko". All paratypes have a red printed paratype label with the data: “ Paratype Lamellipalpus pacholatkoi pacholatkoi n.ssp. Brancucci & Geiser 08”. Etymology: The species is dedicated to our friend and colleague Petr Pacholátko who collected this beautiful species together with many other interesting insects in this region which is so difficult to reach. Affinities: This species is closely related to L. manipurensis Maulik but can be easily distinguished by its larger size and by the distinctly longer and more developed last joints of the palpi. Distribution: NE India (Assam, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh and Darjeeling Distr.)Published as part of Brancucci, Michel & Geiser, Michael, 2009, A revision of the genus Lamellipalpus Maulik, 1921 (Coleoptera, Lampyridae), pp. 1-20 in Zootaxa 2080 on pages 8-10, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18733
Prionocerus wittmeri Geiser 2010
No full textPrionocerus wittmeri Geiser, 2010 Prionocerus wittmeri Geiser, 2010: 39, Figs. 7, 14, 21, 29–30, 42. Two paratypes are deposited in NMPC (general collection): PARATYPE (J): ‘Java, 12.-18.4./ 1996, Baburan [Baluran NP, mistyped] /S. Jákl leg. [p] // PARATYPE J / Prionocerus / wittmeri Geiser / des. M. Geiser 2007 [p, red label]’. PARATYPE (♀): ‘Java, 12.-18.4. / 1996, Baburan [Baluran NP, mistyped] / S. Jákl leg. [p] // PARATYPE ♀ / Prionocerus / wittmeri Geiser / des. M. Geiser 2007 [p, red label]’. Current status. Valid species.Published as part of Hájek, Jiří & Švihla, Vladimír, 2012, Catalogue of the type specimens of beetles (Coleoptera) deposited in the National Museum, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 603-654 in Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 52 (2) on page 608, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.533282
Peltariosilis major Biffi & Geiser 2020, sp. nov.
No full text<i>Peltariosilis major</i> sp. nov. <p> <b>(Figs. 4 E-H, 5F, 10F, 12F, 13C, 14C, 15I-L)</b></p> <p> <b>Type series:</b> HOLOTYPE ♂ (INPA):“ BRASIL, Amapá, Serra do Navio, / Estrada Lagoa Azul, / 0˚52′52″N–51˚58′49″W, / Varredura, 18.iv.2014, J. T. / Câmara, A. Plant & J.A. Rafael // Peltariosilis / n. sp. / det. M. Geiser 2018” (Fig. 5F).</p> <p> <b>Diagnosis:</b> Pronotum with laterobasal lobe flattened, apex curved downwards, with acute lateral spine; dorsal projections very small, sharp, distal margins sinuous, with acute lateral apex acute, pointing posteriorly; scutellar projection lamellar, long, triangular, nearly symmetrical, regularly narrowing apically. <i>Peltariosilis major</i> sp. nov. differs from all other species by the very small dorsal projections of pronotum and by laterobasal lobes flattened dorsally with apex acute curved downwards.</p> <p> <b>Description:</b> Head mostly black, slightly lighter at anterior margin of clypeus; maxillae and labium testaceous yellow; mandibles light brown, darker apically; antennae mostly black, antennomeres I-II orange brown, X-XI dark brown; pronotum and scutellum light orange brown, slightly translucent; elytra dark brown, lighter at lateral margins; legs light orange brown; thorax and abdomen dark brown.</p> <p> <b>Male:</b> (Fig. 5F): Antennae short; antennomere I elongate, slightly wider apically,II short, cylindrical,III-VIII nearly fusiform,slightly swollen,IX-XI slender.Pronotum (Fig.10F): anterior margin broadly arched, continuous with frontolateral lobes; laterobasal lobe with one small acute lateral spine, dorsal surface flattened, posterior margin sharp, oblique, apex acute, strongly curved downwards; dorsal projections very small, posterior margin sharp, sinuous, with small acute lateral spine pointing posteriorly. Scutellum (Fig. 12F) with a long, nearly symmetrical, triangular lamellar projection, regularly narrowing apically. Elytra nearly parallel,slightly wider posteriorly;apex truncate. Abdominal tergite VIII (Fig. 13C) very broad, trapezoidal, lateral margins broadly rounded, wider medially; glandular pores not protruding; distal margin concave, with a small, shallow rounded median notch. Ventrite VII (Fig. 14C) wide, lateral margins slightly convergent posteriorly, wider anteriorly; posterior margin arched; internal margins of median incision nearly parallel, halves broadly separated. Aedeagus (Fig. 15 I-L): ventral plaque of tegmen lateroventral, as long as internal sac, flattened laterally, broad, apex oblique with an acute dorsal pointing tip; parameres fused at base and broadly divergent apically and curved dorsally, apex rounded with small tip pointing dorsally; median lobe membranous, translucent; internal sac tubular, very elongate, slightly curved dorsally, moderately sclerotised, apex membranous; one pair of median dorsal sclerites sinuous, divergent at base than convergent at apex,apex acute, slightly curved ventrally; one pair of short, acute, sclerotised lateral sclerites; paramedian dorsal sclerites elongate, slightly curved internally narrowing at apex, flanking median dorsal sclerites; ventral sclerites not flanking internal sac, parallel to dorsal sclerites and paramedian dorsal sclerites, very elongated, slender, sinuous, curved internally, apex acute, convergent, directed ventrally.</p> <p> <b>Female:</b> Unknown.</p> <p> <b>Etymology:</b> The specific epithet <i>major</i> (Latin for“larger”) refers to the larger size of the species in comparison with the others.</p> <p> <b>Distribution:</b> Brazil (Amapá state) (Fig. 18).</p>Published as part of <i>Biffi, Gabriel & Geiser, Michael, 2020, A revision of Peltariosilis Wittmer (Coleoptera: Cantharidae), a surprisingly diverse Amazonian radiation, pp. 1-26 in Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia (Pap. Avulsos Zool., S. Paulo) (Pap. Avulsos Zool., S. Paulo) 60 (16)</i> on pages 7-9, DOI: 10.11606/1807-0205/2020.60.special-issue.16, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/4984973">http://zenodo.org/record/4984973</a>
Prionocerus championi Geiser, 2010, n. sp.
No full textPrionocerus championi n. sp. Holotype 3: "W Sumatra, Padang env., 200–500 m, S. Jakl lgt., IV. 1995 "; NHMB. Paratypes (1 3 ): 1 3: same data as the holotype (NHMB). Type locality: Padang, Sumatra, Indonesia. Measurements 3 (n = 2): TBL 9.9–10.7 mm, L-h 8.4 –9.0 mm HL 1.5–1.7 mm, PL 1.7–1.8 mm, EL 6.7–7.2 mm Differential diagnosis: Very similar in coloration to P. m a l a y s i a c u s and P. opacipennis, distinguished mainly by the shape of the aedeagus and the last abdominal sternite in males, but also easily recognizable by antennal shape. Elytra and pronotum slightly more slender than in P. coeruleipennis. Body size smaller than in P. wittmeri. Easily distinguished from P. b i c o l o r, P. paiensis and P. viridiflavus by coloration. Description: Habitus as in fig. 40 (3). Body metallic dark blue, partly with greenish lustre. Pronotum bright reddish orange. Elytra metallic dark green, in a small area at the base and around the shoulder, as well as the scutellum metallic blue. Antennae black, with the last segment reddish brown and the first three segments lighter reddish and a bluish black stripe on the dorsal surface. Maxillary and labial palpi mostly reddish brown, parts of each segment infuscate to almost black. Outer edge of labrum yellowish brown. Legs dark bluish black, claws reddish brown. Head behind the eyes about half as wide than the middle part of the pronotum. Vertex not very shining, sparsely and very finely punctate. Frons between eyes sparsely punctate, at its narrowest part about half as broad as the length of the first antennal joint (males); in front of the eyes depressed and slightly rugose. Clypeus almost rectangular, broader than long, slightly shagreened. Labrum about as long as wide, rather flat and more coarsely punctate then the head, with wrinkly microsculpture and some longer blackish setae. Male antennae reaching the first quarter of the elytra in length, until slightly after the humeral callus. First three segments subfiliform (basal one slightly incrassate), segments 4 and 5 slightly widened and flattened, 6– 10 of subtriangular shape, gradually more strongly widened and flattened. Last segment robust, not conspicuously widened, but clearly emarginate. First segment long, second very short, less than one third as long, third to fifth again long, although not quite as the first, sixth to tenth slightly decreasing in length, but increasing in width, the last segment longest, about one third longer than the first. Pronotum slightly longer than broad, widest around the middle, maximal length: maximal width 1: 0.95; subhexagonal, all angles rounded, hind angles approximately 100 °; all pronotal margins distinctly bordered, broadly and conspicuously around hind angles, narrowly at the front margin; basal half shallowly, obliquely impressed at both sides of the disc, part around hind angles slightly convex; shining and without any microsculpture; basal half with some yellowish, suberect pubescence, while the sparse hairs on the fore half are more blackish; the outer margin bearing few longer, black, hair-like setae. Elytra almost exactly fitting the description of P. opacipennis above, apical half slightly less flattened, punctures slightly deeper and a bit less dense and rugose in the basal area. Scutellum like in P. coeruleipennis. Femora slightly metallic, with fine punctures and short blackish hairs and setae. Tibiae also slightly metallic, covered with blackish setae. Tarsi not metallic, with blackish or brownish setae. Abdomen with rather long, sparse, greyish, recumbent pubescence and some longer black, suberect setae; with rather sparse, shallow punctures and somewhat rugose texture. Male: Last abdominal sternite larger, especially longer, than in all the preceding species, basal half of almost cylindrical shape, apical half nearly semicircular (fig. 27). Basal margin rather deeply emarginate, in the middle with almost triangular incision (although the angle is still rounded). The apical margin deeply incised, deeper than in P. coeruleipennis, the opening large and of subtriangular shape with rounded angles. The last tergite very shallowly, inconspicuously emarginate. Aedeagus (figs. 5, 12, 19): Process of phallobase straight; the whole phallobase strongly curved and bent downwards to an angle of about 90 ° (in relation to the apex of the parameres). Parameres (lateral view) after the base very thick (more than double as broad as in P. coeruleipennis), then with a very conspicuous semicircular emargination, bearing some long, brownish hairs along its edge; after the emargination again thickened, drawn into an almost spoon-shaped tip, with some minute teeth around the inner edge of the apex. Seen in dorsal view, the parameres are narrow, largely gaping, slightly curved and never parallel as in P. coeruleipennis and relatives. Median lobe rather robust, with its basal part strongly curved (about 90 °), then not straight but slightly sinuate, apical part not abruptly flattened and without dorsal hook. In dorsal view with very elongate, subparallel ostium, whose hind end is not clearly delimited; after the ostium narrowed and with a long, parallel-sided tip with a very fine central furrow. Sexual dimorphism: Unknown, there were no females available. Variability: Unknown, the available material is too limited. Distribution (fig. 45): So far known only from the type locality in West Sumatra, Indonesia. Probably endemic to this island. Derivatio nominis: Named in honour of the famous British entomologist George Charles Champion (1851–1927), author of the most important and most useful work on Prionoceridae ever published (Champion 1919).Published as part of Geiser, Michael, 2010, Studies on Prionoceridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). II. A revision of the genus Prionocerus Perty, 1831, pp. 1-48 in Zootaxa 2328 on pages 36-37, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19309
Geiser, Burns, Becker, & Beauchaine: P Factor Models
No full textInvestigations of a higher-order factor of psychopathology—often referred to as the P factor—have received increasing attention from clinical scientists. Statistically, P is often examined using higher-order or bifactor models via confirmatory factor analysis. Notably, these models often yield inadmissible or anomalous solutions that change the meaning of P from a general to a specific factor (i.e., rather than a factor underlying all symptom dimensions, P actually underlies only a subset of dimensions). We review these problems and provide an explanation for likely causes. We present an alternative bifactor model with S – 1 correlated specific factors (Eid et al., 2017) whereby P is defined a priori based on a reference symptom group. We illustrate the model using three different hypothetical data sets and compare results to hierarchical and bifactor models. The bifactor S – 1 model produces proper estimates and clearly interpretable results across a range of conditions, whereas hierarchical and bifactor models show typical problems encountered in many applications. We conclude that conventional models typically fail to properly identify P as a general factor and recommend that researchers adopt the S – 1 approach when analyzing P. The S – 1 model leads to (1) a clear definition of what P represents, (2) proper and easily interpretable parameter estimates across conditions, and (3) invariance of the meaning of P across different informants, samples, and studies
Geiser, Burns, Becker, & Beauchaine: P Factor Models
No full textInvestigations of a higher-order factor of psychopathology—often referred to as the P factor—have received increasing attention from clinical scientists. Statistically, P is often examined using higher-order or bifactor models via confirmatory factor analysis. Notably, these models often yield inadmissible or anomalous solutions that change the meaning of P from a general to a specific factor (i.e., rather than a factor underlying all symptom dimensions, P actually underlies only a subset of dimensions). We review these problems and provide an explanation for likely causes. We present an alternative bifactor model with S – 1 correlated specific factors (Eid et al., 2017) whereby P is defined a priori based on a reference symptom group. We illustrate the model using three different hypothetical data sets and compare results to hierarchical and bifactor models. The bifactor S – 1 model produces proper estimates and clearly interpretable results across a range of conditions, whereas hierarchical and bifactor models show typical problems encountered in many applications. We conclude that conventional models typically fail to properly identify P as a general factor and recommend that researchers adopt the S – 1 approach when analyzing P. The S – 1 model leads to (1) a clear definition of what P represents, (2) proper and easily interpretable parameter estimates across conditions, and (3) invariance of the meaning of P across different informants, samples, and studies
Geiser, Burns, Becker, & Beauchaine: P Factor Models
No full textInvestigations of a higher-order factor of psychopathology—often referred to as the P factor—have received increasing attention from clinical scientists. Statistically, P is often examined using higher-order or bifactor models via confirmatory factor analysis. Notably, these models often yield inadmissible or anomalous solutions that change the meaning of P from a general to a specific factor (i.e., rather than a factor underlying all symptom dimensions, P actually underlies only a subset of dimensions). We review these problems and provide an explanation for likely causes. We present an alternative bifactor model with S – 1 correlated specific factors (Eid et al., 2017) whereby P is defined a priori based on a reference symptom group. We illustrate the model using three different hypothetical data sets and compare results to hierarchical and bifactor models. The bifactor S – 1 model produces proper estimates and clearly interpretable results across a range of conditions, whereas hierarchical and bifactor models show typical problems encountered in many applications. We conclude that conventional models typically fail to properly identify P as a general factor and recommend that researchers adopt the S – 1 approach when analyzing P. The S – 1 model leads to (1) a clear definition of what P represents, (2) proper and easily interpretable parameter estimates across conditions, and (3) invariance of the meaning of P across different informants, samples, and studies
Studies on Prionoceridae (Coleoptera, Cleroidea). II, a revision of the genus Prionocerus Perty, 1831
No full textFIGURES 35–38. Dorsal habitus of P. paiensis n. sp. 3 holotype (35), Ƥ paratype (36), P. malaysiacus n. sp. 3 holotype (37), Ƥ paratype (38).Published as part of Geiser, Michael, 2010, Studies on Prionoceridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). II. A revision of the genus Prionocerus Perty, 1831, pp. 1-48 in Zootaxa 2328 on page 9, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19309
- …
