105,416 research outputs found
Prout, William H. - An inaugural dissertation on pneumonia per se
No full textHandwritten inaugural dissertation on pneumonia (per se) by William H. Prout, of Alabama.Inaugural dissertation; no. 344
Prout, V H, VX63036
No full textThis record was harvested from a previous catalogue system and will be withdrawn in 2025. Information in this record may be superseded or incomplete. Visit this record in UMA's new catalogue at: https://archives.library.unimelb.edu.au/nodes/view/411845Surname: PROUT. Given Name(s) or Initials: V H. Military Service Number or Last Known Location: VX63036. Missing, Wounded and Prisoner of War Enquiry Card Index Number: 47158.227556
Item: [2016.0049.44109] "Prout, V H, VX63036
Major H. G. Prout, General Staff, Egyption Army, ca. 1877
No full textMajor H. G. Prout, Corps of Engineers, on the staff of the Egyptian Army in the 1870'sitem affixed to bound volum
Hierochthonia Prout 1912
No full textHierochthonia Prout, 1912 and “ H.” alexandraria Prout, 1912 Prout diagnosed the genus Hierochthonia (Type species: Microloxia pulverata Warren, 1901) using external characters as antennae bipectinate up to the last apical segments; hindwing with the subcostal vein fused with the fore margin of the discal cell near to its end; hindtibia provided with one pair of spurs (Prout 1912: 204). Hausmann (1996) redescribed the genus Hierochthonia using H. pulverata Warren and H. semitaria Püngeler. Comparison of the characteristics of H. alexandraria (also Figs 9–11, 23) with those of southern species (Figs 7, 8, 22) indicates the following differences. Both Hierochthonia-- H. pulverata and H. semitaria-- possess long, flat postvaginal lamellae and roundish lateral sclerites attached to the ostium in female genitalia (Hausmann 1996, Figs 144, 145). These structures are missing in “ H.” alexandraria and “H.” petitaria females (Figs 24, 25). The valva in male genitalia of typical Hierochthonia has a medial harpe (Figs 22), and aedeagus is spoon shaped (distally dilated) with a complex apical sclerotization. However, “ H.” alexandraria has a tubular aedeagus with two thorn shaped cornuti on the vesica, and a simple valva (Fig. 23). Prout (1912) stressed the peculiar venation of hindwing with Sc free when characterizing “ Hierochthonia ” alexandraria. We use this synergy of differences in wing venation and in male and female genitalia characteristics to separate “ H.” alexandraria in a new genus of its own, Ratsa Viidalepp & Kostjuk, gen. nov. will be described below for this species.Published as part of Viidalepp, Jaan & Kostjuk, Igor, 2021, Taxonomic notes on two endemic geometrine genera from Middle Asia (Lepidoptera: Geometridae, Geometrinae), pp. 137-144 in Zootaxa 5052 (1) on page 140, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5052.1.9, http://zenodo.org/record/556614
[Report : Petition of Holden W. Prout]
No full textR-P of H. Prout. 25 Feb. SD 49, 17-1, vl, lp. [59] Creek Indians; 1815-1816
Rhodostrophia anchotera Prout 1935
No full text<i>Rhodostrophia anchotera</i> Prout, 1935 <p>Fig. 13</p> <p> <i>Rhodostrophia anchotera</i> Prout, 1935, <i>in</i> Seitz, <i>Macrolepid. World</i>, 4 (Suppl.): 25, pl. 4: a. Holotype <i>♁</i>, China: Sichuan, S of Muli, 8850 ft (NHM).</p> <p> <b>Diagnosis.</b> The species is similar to <i>R. acidaria</i> Staudinger, 1892, but can be distinguished by the following characters: the male hind tibia has three spurs, but it has four spurs in <i>R. acidaria</i>; the antemedial line of the forewing is less sharply angled near the costa in <i>R. anchotera</i> than that in <i>R. acidaria</i>, the postmedial line of the hind wing is less sinuous (Prout 1920 –1941).</p> <p> <b>Material examined. CHINA: Yunnan</b> (ZFMK): 1 <i>6</i>, Li-kiang, 22.III.1935, coll. H. Höne. More material is available at ZFMK.</p> <p> <b>Distribution.</b> China (Sichuan, Yunnan).</p>Published as part of <i>Cui, Le, Xue, Dayong & Jiang, Nan, 2019, Description of two new species of Rhodostrophia Hübner, 1823 from China (Lepidoptera, Geometridae), pp. 337-353 in Zootaxa 4563 (2)</i> on page 350, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4563.2.7, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/2601267">http://zenodo.org/record/2601267</a>
Lithostege ancyrana Prout
No full textL. ancyrana Prout (Figs. 23, 49; Map 5) Lithostege ancyrana Prout, 1938: 239, pl. 6: i. Holotype 3, paratype 3, BMNH (examined). Type locality: Ankara (Turkey). Lithostege ancyrana: Viidalepp, 1996: 47; Parsons et al., 1999: 545. Material examined. Type material: Holotype and paratype (both 3); ‘ Turkey, Angora [Ankara] 1930 Sureya Bay’, ‘ Lithostege ancyrana male Prout type; Geom 1937 – 316 ’, ‘Pres. Imp. Inst. Ent. Brit. Mus. 1933 – 172 ’; in BMNH. Additional material: 7 3, 11 Ƥ: 1 3, 4 Ƥ: Türkei, Konya, Taurus, Aladag, 25.5. 1986, 1000m, leg. P. Kuhna; 5 3, 3 Ƥ, preps Ƥ 1627, 3 1629 / 2011 H. R.: same data, 30.5. 1975, preps 3 1625, 1626, / 2011 H. R.; 2 Ƥ: Türkei, Taurus, Aladag, Göksu-tal, 30.5. 1976, leg. P. Kuhna, gen. prep. 3 1628 / 2011 H. R.; 2 Ƥ: Ost-Türkei, Gürün, 1400m, 11.6. 1985, leg. P. Kuhna, gen. prep. 1607 / 2010 H. R.; all in ZFMK. 1 3: Asia Min., Gürün, 19.- 30. Juni 1976, leg. Friedel, gen. prep. 1013 / 2010 H. R.; in ZSM. Preparations of genitalia: 5 3, 2 Ƥ. Description & Diagnosis. Wingspan 24–26 mm, in general smaller than the externally similar L. farinata which also occurs in Turkey. Forewings a little narrower than those of farinata, greyish white, without discal dot, grey underneath, with the basal and central area brown. Hindwings on upper- and underside like forewings (Fig. 23). Male genitalia (Fig. 49) similar to those in L. griseata griseata, with short sclerotized costa with weakly marked distal tip (not a free process like in farinata and coassata), differing in the much larger harpe with a pointed, tooth-like apex and the longer dorsal arm.Juxta in L. ancyrana vase-shaped, nearly two times longer than in L. griseata griseata. Saccus much shorter than in farinata, but longer compared to griseata; aedaegous longer and more distinctly curved compared to griseata (Figs 47 –53). Bionomics. Collected in May and June at 1400m. Distribution. Turkey (Map 5). May also occur in W. Iran.Published as part of Sh, Hossein Rajaei, Stüning, Dieter & Viidalepp, Jaan, 2011, A review of the species of Lithostege Hübner, [1825] 1816 (Lepidoptera: Geometridae, Larentiinae), occurring in Iran and adjacent countries, with description of two new species from Iran and Pakistan, pp. 1-46 in Zootaxa 3105 on page 19, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.27920
Hamodes pendleburyi Prout 1932
No full textHamodes pendleburyi Prout, 1932, new record to mainland China (Figs. 5, 9) Hamodes pendleburyi Prout, 1932, Bull. Hill Mus. Witley, 4: 287. Hamodes pendleburyi: Holloway, 1976: 38; Holloway, 2005: 269; Kononenko & Pinratana 2005: 46; Park et al., 2007: 33. Material examined. 1 male. CHINA, Hainan province, Baisha Li Nationality Autonomous County, Yinggeling Natural Reserve, 109°50′90.78″E 19°09′70.39″N, altitude 470 m, 30-V-2018, leg. Shi-fang Mo and Fu-hong Wei. Diagnosis. Compared with the other species that we mentioned above, this species is larger. The submarginal line is black and thin relatively. There is a darker shading which diffused with yellow color exterior to the submarginal line. In male genitalia, it can be distinguished from other species that we mentioned above by the shorter and thinner uncus and the acute apex of valvae, and the broad saccus. In H. pendleburyi, uncus is short and thin, valva with acute apex and saccus broad, but in H. pseudobutleri, H. hainana and H. butleri, uncus long and strongly curved, valva with blunt circle distal end and the saccus moderate. Distribution. China: Hainan new record, Taiwan, India (Kononenko & Pinratana 2005; Park et al. 2007), Indonesia (Holloway 2005; Kononenko & Pinratana 2005; Park et al. 2007), Malaysia (Holloway 2005; Kononenko & Pinratana 2005; Park et al. 2007), Thailand (Holloway 2005; Kononenko & Pinratana 2005; Park et al. 2007), Vietnam (Kononenko & Pinratana 2005).Published as part of Wei, Fu-Hong & Wang, Min, 2019, Two new species of the genus Hamodes Guenée, 1852 (Lepidoptera: Erebidae: Erebinae) from China, with notes on a new record in mainland China, pp. 594-600 in Zootaxa 4590 (5) on pages 598-599, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4590.5.7, http://zenodo.org/record/265651
Lithostege fissurata subsp. inanis Prout
No full textL. fissurata inanis Prout (Figs. 18, 68; Map 4) Lithostege inanis Prout, 1941: 331, pl. 34: i. Holotype 3, allotype Ƥ, BMNH (examined by photo). Type locality: Saudi-Arabia: Khafs. Lithostege fitzgeraldi Wiltshire, 1947: 10, pl. Fig. 15; text-fig. 10. Holotype 3, BMNH (not examined). Type locality: Saudi- Arabia: Artawiya. Lithostege fissurata inanis: Wiltshire, 1990: 125, fig 81. Lithostege inanis: Parsons et al., 1999. Lithostege fissurata inanis: Hausmann & Seguna, 2005: 11 –15. Material examined. Type material: Holotype 3: ‘Arabia: Khafs. 26.ii. 1935. H. St. J. B. Philby, B. M. 1935 – 222 ’, ‘Type’, ‘ Lithostege inanis Prout Holotype 3 ’; allotype Ƥ: same data; coll. BMNH. Additional material: 1 Ƥ: Iran, Belutschistan, Iranshahr, 800 m, 1.- 10.III. 1954, [leg.] Richter u. Schäuffele, gen. prep. 1012 / 2010 H. R. Preparations of genitalia: 1 3, 2 Ƥ. Description & Diagnosis. Wingspan of the single specimen from Iran: 22 mm. Wings similar to L. fissurata, but without apical dark grey line on forewing (Fig. 18). Female genitalia (Fig. 68) with very short apophyses anteriores (0.1 of apophyses posteriores) and a short funnel-shaped antrum; the pear-shaped corpus bursae fully spinulate, with a small anterior diverticulum. Female genitalia of fissurata without distinct differences. Also the male genitalia of the holotype (studied) almost identical. Taxonomic note. Wiltshire (1990) synonymised L. fitzgeraldi Wiltshire, 1947 with L. inanis Prout, 1941 and simultaneously downgraded this taxon to a subspecies of L. fissurata Mabille, 1888. The single examined specimen from Iran was recorded by Hausmann & Seguna (2005) as L. fissurata inanis Prout, 1941. The female genitalia of this specimen are highly similar to those of L. fissurata (figured in Hausmann & Seguna (2005)). Also the male genitalia of the holotype of L. inanis Prout fit well with those of L. fissurata Mabille. On the other hand, a separation on species-level of inanis and fissurata is supported by genetic differentiation between these two taxa. DNAbarcoding of 5 specimens of fissurata from a wide area of distribution (Mauretania: 2; Tunisia: 2; Israel: 1) does not show any intraspecific variation, but comparing these with three barcodes of inanis (from United Arab Emirates) reveals a distance of 2.35%, suggesting inanis to be a distinct species. Conventionally, a barcode difference exceeding 2 % is understood as an argument of a species-level difference. It seems not unlikely that long-term isolation between Iranian and Arab populations led to a cryptic species (“in statu nascendi”) in Iran, but without further studies of more material we are not able to decide this question. So here we follow Hausmann & Seguna (2005), regarding inanis as a subspecies of L. fissurata. Bionomics. Specimens studied are collected in January and February. Distribution. Saudi Arabia, Iraq and SE of Iran ( Hausmann & Seguna, 2005) (Map 4).Published as part of Sh, Hossein Rajaei, Stüning, Dieter & Viidalepp, Jaan, 2011, A review of the species of Lithostege Hübner, [1825] 1816 (Lepidoptera: Geometridae, Larentiinae), occurring in Iran and adjacent countries, with description of two new species from Iran and Pakistan, pp. 1-46 in Zootaxa 3105 on pages 15-16, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.27920
- …
