1,722,496 research outputs found
Eclectus riedeli Meyer, AB 1882
No full textEclectus riedeli Meyer, AB, 1882 Proceedings of the Scientific Meetings of the Zoological Society of London, 1881 (4): 917–919 [printed April 1882]. Current name: Eclectus roratus riedeli Meyer, AB, 1882 Refuted NHMO-BI-64131 [I022717]; Mounted; F; Johann Gerard Friedrich Riedel, 1881–1886; Indonesia: Timorlaut [Tanimbar Islands]; 7.500° S 131.500° E; 10b, lower specimen. Refuted NHMO-BI-64132 [I022718]; Mounted; M; Johann Gerard Friedrich Riedel, 1881–1886; Indonesia: Timorlaut [Tanimbar Islands]; 7.500° S 131.500° E; 10b, upper specimen. Remarks: This mounted pair, a male and a female, have ‘(Typus)’ written on their labels (with parentheses; Figure 3c and 3d), but this is not mentioned in the letter that accompanied the specimens when they arrived at the museum (Figure 1). While these labels are in a different style than the labels of Ptilopus flavovirescens (Figure 3a) and the Geoffroyus timorlaoënsis female (Figure 3f), they are very similar to those of the Geoffroyus timorlaoënsis male (Figure 3e) and Artamus Musschenbroeki (Figure 3g), and to labels written by Meyer and found on other specimens currently in the SNSD collection. They, hence, apparently represent a ‘ prettier’ version of Meyer’s handwriting, and also these labels are therefore considered to be original. ‘Typus’ and ‘Mus. Dresd. 86’, however, seem to have been added after the main text, probably by two different persons, and may likely have been added at NHMO. The original description of this species (Meyer 1882) was, however, based on a single female specimen, which consequently should be regarded as the holotype. This was at the MTD (now SNSD) but was lost during WW2 (C6051; Eck & Quaisser 2004). Consequently, neither of the specimens in the NHMO collection can be the true holotype of this taxon. Most likely these specimens represent a similar case to the E. roratus riedeli (NMW 50.145) in NHMW, which was included in the type catalogue by Pelzeln & Lorenz (1888) and there described as a ‘typical specimen’ (‘typisches Exemplar’) but later dismissed as a type by Schifter (1990). While no neotype, to our knowledge, has been assigned for this taxon, we refrain from doing so with reference to article 75.2 of the Code (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999). No collecting date was provided for these specimens, but the same reasoning as explained for Ptilopus flavovirescens above has been applied. However, as the shipment containing these specimens was sent from Dresden in July 1886, and they are not part of the type series, they may have been collected as late as 1886.Published as part of Johannessen, Lars Erik & Lifjeld, Jan T., 2022, Type specimens of birds in the Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Norway, pp. 451-486 in Zootaxa 5150 (4) on pages 462-463, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5150.4.1, http://zenodo.org/record/662675
Artamus Musschenbroeki Meyer, AB 1884
No full textArtamus Musschenbroeki Meyer, AB, 1884 Sitzungsberichte und Abhandlungen der Naturwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft Isis in Dresden, Abhandlungen 1884: 30. Current name: Artamus leucorynchus musschenbroeki Meyer, AB, 1884 Paralectotype NHMO-BI-68621 [I027304]; Mounted; Ad.; Johann Gerard Friedrich Riedel, 1881–1883; Indone sia: Timorlaut [Tanimbar Islands]; 7.500° S 131.500° E; 12a. Remarks: A label (Figure 3g), in the same style as those of the specimens of Eclectus and Geoffroyus mentioned above, is glued under the base of the mount. A hole in this label indicates that it probably had been attached to the specimen by a string previously, which also fits well with the description of the birds from Dresden arriving as study skins (‘Vogelbälge’). In line with the arguments provided for the similar labels above, this is likely to be the original label that accompanied the skin. For reasoning behind the provided collecting date interval, see discussion under Ptilopus flavovirescens above. Meyer (1884) based his description on 17 specimens from ‘Tenimber et Timorlaut’ (which he defined as the northern/western and southern islands in the Tanimbar Islands, respectively), without assigning any holotype. Meise (1929) assigned specimen C7136, a male from ‘Tenimber’, as ‘typus’ (i.e. a lectotype) and listed seven other paratypes [sic; should be paralectotypes] (all from ‘Timorlaut’) as present in the MTD (now SNSD) (Table 5). According to Eck & Quaisser (2004) only the lectotype (C7136) and one of the paralectotypes (C7134) are still present in the SNSD collection (Table 5). Four of the original type specimens are confirmed to have been exchanged from MTD to the USNM, MNHN and ZSM (now SNSB) collections, and to ‘Gerrard’, which probably must be the taxidermy firm ‘Edward Gerrard & Sons ’ in London (dates of exchange were provided from the original catalogues by Martin Päckert at the museum in Dresden). The continued presence of all of these, except the ‘Gerrard’ specimen, has been confirmed (Table 5). The current location of C21880 is not known, and also the type status of this specimen seems unclear; it was not mentioned by Eck & Quaisser (2004), is currently not to be found in the SNSD collection, and there is no indication in the MTD/SNSD catalogue of it being a type or that it has been exchanged or lost (Martin Päckert, pers. comm.). Finally, the four remaining paralectotypes mentioned by Meise (1929) were lost during WW2. a: See Format section of main text for details about different catalogue numbers. b: All MTD/SNSD data provided by Martin Päckert (pers. comm.) c: 1. Eck & Quaisser (2004); 2. National Museum of Natural History (2022); 3. Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle Paris (France) (2020b); 4. Patrick Bousses, pers. comm.; 5. Meise (1929); 6. Markus Unsöld, pers. comm.; 7. Pelzeln & Lorenz (1887); 8. Schifter (1990); 9. Hans-Martin Berg, pers. comm.; 10. Current publication. d Time of exchange not noted in the MTD/SNSD catalogues, but as this specimen is not mentioned by Meise (1929) it had most likely been removed from the MTD collection before 1929. While Eck & Quaisser (2004) further noted that nothing was known about the remaining type specimens, there are apparently also three paralectotypes in NHMW (NMW 51.617 –51.619; Pelzeln & Lorenz 1887; Schifter 1990), obtained through Meyer in 1884 (Hans-Martin Berg, pers. comm.). As for the Geoffroyus specimens discussed above, Pelzeln & Lorenz (1887) described them as ‘authentische Exemplare’ but they are noted as ‘type’ in the acquisition catalogue (Hans-Martin Berg, pers. comm.). Based on information on the label and in the accompanying letter from Meyer, we conclude that the NHMO specimen should be considered one of the paralectotypes of this taxon.Published as part of Johannessen, Lars Erik & Lifjeld, Jan T., 2022, Type specimens of birds in the Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Norway, pp. 451-486 in Zootaxa 5150 (4) on pages 468-469, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5150.4.1, http://zenodo.org/record/662675
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
Geoffroyus timorlaoensis Meyer, AB 1884
No full textGeoffroyus timorlaoënsis Meyer, AB, 1884 Sitzungsberichte und Abhandlungen der Naturwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft Isis in Dresden, Abhandlungen 1884: 15–16. Current name: Geoffroyus geoffroyi timorlaoensis Meyer, AB, 1884 Syntype NHMO-BI-64130 [I022716]; Mounted; Ad. M; Johann Gerard Friedrich Riedel, 1881–1883; Indonesia: Timorlaut [Tanimbar Islands]; 7.500° S 131.500° E; 11a. Syntype NHMO-BI-64228 [I022813]; Study skin; Ad. F; Johann Gerard Friedrich Riedel, 1881–1883; Indonesia: Timorlaut [Tanimbar Islands]; 7.500° S 131.500° E; 11b. Remarks: These two parrots were indicated in the accompanying letter as ‘Typen’, and also have ‘Typus’ written on their labels (Figure 3e and 3f; on the female with the addition of ‘fem’). The label of the female is similar in style to that of Ptilopus flavovirescens mentioned above (Figure 3a), while that of the male is in the same style as the labels for Eclectus and Artamus (Figure 3c, 3d and 3g); both are assumed to be original and from before the specimens arrived in Oslo. In contrast to the Eclectus labels, ‘Typus’ and ‘fem’ seems to be in the same handwriting as the main text in the label for the female, while ‘Typus’ in the label for the male, and ‘Mus. Dresd. 86’ in both, are in a different handwriting. For reasoning behind the provided collecting date interval, see discussion under Ptilopus flavovirescens above. Meyer (1884) based his description on a series of 11 specimens, and at least 10 of these seem to be well accounted for (Table 4). Seven are still present in SNSD, and three syntypes are each documented in the MTD (now SNSD) catalogues (Martin Päckert, pers. comm.) to have been exchanged to MNHN, ZSM (now SNSB) and USNM; the continued existence of these in their current collections has also been verified (Table 4). a: See Format section of main text for details about different catalogue numbers. b: All MTD/SNSD data provided by Martin Päckert (pers. comm.) c: 1. Eck & Quaisser (2004); 2. Voisin & Voisin (2008); 3. Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle Paris (France) (2020a); 4. Patrick Bousses, pers. comm.; 5. Markus Unsöld, pers. comm.; 6. Deignan (1961); 7. Christopher Milensky, pers. comm.; 8. Hartert (1924); 9. Greenway (1978); 10. Pelzeln & Lorenz (1888); 11. Schifter et al. (2007); 12: Hans-Martin Berg, pers. comm.; 13: Current publication. According to Eck & Quaisser (2004), another specimen that was part of the 1930 exchange to USNM, C7596, was also a syntype (USNM 317784; Eck & Quaisser 2004). There are, however, no indications in either the MTD/ SNSD or USNM catalogues, or on the labels currently on the specimen in the USNM collection, of it being a type (in the USNM catalogue ‘cotype’ is noted for 317785, while for 317784 only ‘new to mus.’ is noted; Christopher Milensky, pers. comm.). Further, only 317785 is mentioned in the USNM type catalogue by Deignan (1961). On the other hand, a specimen in the AMNH should probably be added to the type series. Greenway (1978) listed specimen AMNH 620706, originating from the Rothschild collection at Tring, as a lectotype, stating that Hartert (1924) had designated this type. As also pointed out by Eck & Quaisser (2004), this was a misinterpretation of Hartert’s (1924) wording, as he referred to it as a ‘cotype’, but mentioned that Meyer had written ‘Typus’ on the label. While there is no evidence supporting that Meyer designated any holotype among the syntypes, the status of AMNH 620706 as a ‘cotype’, i.e. syntype, as stated by Hartert (1924), seems to be warranted. So far, it therefore seems plausible that AMNH 620706 represents an 11 th syntype of this taxon, rather than USNM 317784. The situation is, however, more complex, as there are in addition to the aforementioned specimens, also two specimens each in NHMW and NHMO that apparently are syntypes of this taxon. The two in NHMW are both included in type catalogues from the collection (Pelzeln & Lorenz 1888; Schifter et al. 2007), and although they are described as ‘authentische Exemplare’ by Pelzeln & Lorenz (1888), they are noted as ‘type’ in the acquisition catalogue (Hans-Martin Berg, pers. comm.; see Schifter (1990) and Schifter et al. (2007) for a discussion of the term ‘authentische Exemplare’ in NHMW). Regarding the two in NHMO, all available evidence in the NHMO, including original catalogue entries, the accompanying letter from Meyer and the labels, they both appear as valid, undebatable syntypes. The letter, in Meyer’s original handwriting, clearly states that four of the specimens listed as included in the shipment (this pair of Geoffroyus timorlaoënsis plus single specimens of Artamus Musschenbroeki and Ptilopus flavovirescens) are types (Figure 1). As shown in the entries for the two other taxa, there seems to be no reason to doubt the authenticity of the type status of those. It is also worth noting that the pair of Eclectus riedeli included in the shipment (see above) are not indicated as types, lending credibility to the reliability of the information provided in the letter. No documentation of this exchange has, however, been found in the MTD/SNSD catalogues. In conclusion, the number of alleged type specimens of this taxon exceed the 11 specimens on which Meyer based his description. As there seem to be reliable information supporting the type status of most or all of these (perhaps except C7596), we recommend more detailed investigations of all specimens allegedly included in the type series before any solid conclusions are made. We therefore maintain the two NHMO specimens as syntypes of this taxon.Published as part of Johannessen, Lars Erik & Lifjeld, Jan T., 2022, Type specimens of birds in the Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Norway, pp. 451-486 in Zootaxa 5150 (4) on pages 464-465, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5150.4.1, http://zenodo.org/record/662675
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
- …
