103 research outputs found
Haeckel und das Schöne in der Natur
No full textZusammenfassung Der Evolutionsbiologe Ernst Haeckel hat mit seiner ganzheitlichen Weltsicht versucht, Wissenschaft, Philosophie, Ethik und Kunst zusammenzuführen. Im vorliegenden Artikel werden seine Auseinandersetzung mit den Schönheiten der Natur und ihrem Anwendungsbezug dargestellt. Die Kunst solle sich Haeckels Auffassung zu Folge in ihrer Motivfindung vor allem an den Formen des Lebens orientieren. Diese betrachtete er als die höchsten Ausprägungen ästhetischer Erscheinungen. Durch sie solle der Mensch einen Zugang zur Natur gewinnen, zumal der Mensch nicht im Gegensatz zur Natur stehen dürfe. Künstlerisch hoch begabt, hat Haeckel selber durch die zeichnerische Darstellung tausender, meist mikroskopisch kleiner Organismen wesentliche Anregungen für einen solchen Weg gegeben. Zugleich hatte er mit seinen Zeichnungen Einblicke in zuvor weitgehend unbekannte natürliche Strukturen geboten. Auf diese Weise hat er in erheblichem Maße Einfluss auf die Malerei und Bildgestaltung, auf Schmuck‐ und Glaskunst, Architektur, Möbeldesign und Innenraumgestaltung um die Wende des 19. zum 20. Jahrhunderts genommen.Summary The influential evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919), well‐known as a highly disputatious defender of Darwin's work, sought to unite science, philosophy, ethics and art in an all‐embracing world view that he called „monism“. In this essay his ideas and reflections on aesthetics in nature and their application are reviewed. According to Haeckel, art should be based on motifs that are to be found in the diversity of life forms, which represent, in his opinion, the highest imagineable specification in aesthetics. Beauty in nature should open men's way to nature, and man must not place himself in opposition to nature. Haeckel himself, who was also a gifted artist, helped find the way to such an attitude by publishing thousands of drawings of organisms, mostly microscopically small marine species. His illustrations made organismic structures accessible that a broader public was previously almost unaware of. With these representations he was most influential in almost all areas of art around the turn of the century, including architecture, interior design, painting, glass art and furniture design
Zoologe, Künstler, Philosoph und Freidenker
No full textDass Humboldt und Darwin die Welt mit ihren Forschungen und Erkenntnissen verändert haben, ist evident. Obwohl Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) gleichbedeutend neben beiden Forschern steht – er gilt als der deutsche Darwin –, scheint er vergleichsweise unbekannt zu sein. Das ändert sich nun mit dieser brillanten Biografie von Rainer Willmann. Er erzählt detailreich von einem Leben für die Wissenschaft und dem Kampf für die Freiheit des Denkens. Haeckel ist vehementer Verfechter der Darwinschen Lehre und entwickelt diese weiter. Die Kirche, aber auch Wissenschaftskollegen attackieren ihn deswegen heftig, bringt er doch deren Weltbild ins Wanken. Haeckel verdanken wir unter anderem die uns so selbstverständliche Freiheit von Forschung und Lehre. Dass er auch ein begabter Künstler war, beweisen seine Zeichnungen von Meeresorganismen ... Eine packende und hoch interessante Lebensgeschichte eines außergewöhnlichen Freidenkers und Wissenschaftlers
Arachnocorys Haeckel 1860
No full textGenus <i>Arachnocorys</i> Haeckel, 1860, 1887, emend. Petrushevskaya, 1971 <p> Type species: <i>Arachnocorys circumtexta</i> (Haeckel, 1862) Petrushevskaya, 1971</p> <p> <b>Description.</b> Lophophaenidae with a gap in the shell wall between cephalis and thorax. This gap can be large (as in <i>Arachnocorys circumtexta</i> Haeckel) or small (as in <i>Arachnocorys umbellifera</i> Haeckel). The thorax of <i>Arachnocorys</i> typically exhibits ~6–12 strong ribs, and the cephalis has multiple anastomosing spines.</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> This genus was originally described by Haeckel (1860) as having two segments separated by a deep stricture, with many spines on the cephalis and a thorax with strong ribs, resembling the structure and shape of an umbrella. In 1887, Haeckel added to this description of <i>Arachnocorys</i> that there are numerous “siliceous threads” that form an “arachnoidal framework” around the exterior of the shell. Haeckel (1887) listed three subgenera under <i>Arachnocorys</i>: <i>Arachnocorallium, Arachnocoronium</i>, and <i>Arachnocorythium</i>. Petrushevskaya (1971) emended the concept of <i>Arachnocorys</i> to include Haeckel’s subgenus <i>Arachnocoronium</i> but not <i>Arachnocorallium,</i> which she elevated to a separate genus. Haeckel (1887) only included one species under the third subgenus <i>Arachnocorythium</i> (<i>Arachnocorys polyptera</i> Haeckel), and he did not illustrate it. Although Campbell (1954) recognized <i>Arachnocorythium</i> as a valid subgenus, with <i>Arachnocorys polyptera</i> Haeckel as the type species, neither the species nor subgenus names have been used in subsequent literature. To our knowledge only one illustration of <i>Arachnocorys</i> (<i>Arachnocorythium</i>) <i>polyptera</i> Haeckel has been published; it was hand-drawn by Popofsky (1913), and it is questionable whether this specimen fits Haeckel (1887) ’s original concept of the species and/or subgenus. Therefore, here we follow Petrushevskaya (1971) ’s concept of <i>Arachnocorys</i>, which includes the broad genus concept defined by Haeckel (1860, 1887) as well as the subgenus concept of <i>Arachnocoronium</i> (Haeckel, 1887), but not the subgenera <i>Arachnocorallium</i> (which has been elevated to the genus level) nor <i>Arachnocorythium</i> (which has not been sufficiently documented and may not be distinct from other <i>Arachnocorys</i>).</p> <p> Here we observed the following species of <i>Arachnocorys</i>: <i>Arachnocorys circumtexta</i> (Haeckel, 1862) Petrushevskaya, 1971, <i>Arachnocorys jorogumoae</i> n. sp, <i>Arachnocorys pentacantha</i> (Popofsky, 1913) Petrushevskaya, 1971, <i>Arachnocorys pentacantha wanii</i> n. subsp., <i>Arachnocorys spinosissima</i> (Tan and Tchang, 1976) n. comb., and <i>Arachnocorys umbellifera</i> (Haeckel, 1862) Petrushevskaya, 1971.</p> <p> We consider the following <i>Arachnocorys</i> species to be <i>nomina dubia</i>, due to a combination of inadequate text description, lack of illustration, and unavailable type materials: <i>Arachnocorys</i> (<i>Arachnocoronium</i>) <i>arachnodiscus</i> Haeckel, 1887, <i>Arachnocorys</i> (<i>Arachnocorallium</i>) <i>discoides</i> Haeckel, 1887, <i>Arachnocorys</i> (<i>Arachnocoronium</i>) <i>enneaptera</i> Haeckel, 1887, <i>Arachnocorys</i> (<i>Arachnocorythium) polyptera</i> Haeckel, 1887, <i>Arachnocorys (Arachnocoronium) trifida</i> Haeckel, 1887. <i>Arachnocorys simplex</i> Pantanelli and Stefani, 1879 was misspelled as <i>Arachnocoris simplex</i> n. sp. when the name was first created. No description or illustration was provided by the authors, or any subsequent authors we are aware of, making <i>Arachnocorys simplex</i> Pantanelli and Stefani, 1879 a <i>nomen oblitum</i>. <i>Arachnocorys dubius</i> Dogiel and Reshetnyak, 1952 is not included here because it was transferred by Matsuzaki <i>et al.,</i> 2015 to the genus <i>Cryptogyrus</i> given that it does not fit the definition of <i>Arachnocorys. Arachnocorys? fimbria</i> Kozlova, 1984 was transferred to <i>Ceratocyrtis</i> by the same author in 1999.</p> <p> <b>Range.</b> ?Eocene—Recent.</p>Published as part of <i>Trubovitz, Sarah, Renaudie, Johan, Lazarus, David & Noble, Paula, 2022, Late Neogene Lophophaenidae (Nassellaria, Radiolaria) from the eastern equatorial Pacific, pp. 1-158 in Zootaxa 5160 (1)</i> on pages 18-19, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5160.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/10544058">http://zenodo.org/record/10544058</a>
Musterstandardarbeitsanweisung Präanalytik/Exemplary standard operation procedure pre-examination/Arbeitsgruppe Richtwerte der Deutschen Vereinten Gesellschaft für Klinische Chemie und Laboratoriumsmedizin
No full textZusammenfassung
DIN EN ISO 15189 und die Richtlinien der Bundesärztekammer zur Qualitätssicherung laboratoriumsmedizinischer Untersuchungen fordern die Regelung präanalytischer Variablen, um Ergebnisse so vergleichbar wie möglich zu machen. Die Arbeitsgruppe Richtwerte der Deutschen Vereinten Gesellschaft für Klinische Chemie und Laboratoriumsmedizin hat eine Musterstandardarbeitsanweisung entworfen, die an die lokalen Gegebenheiten angepasst werden kann. Die Anwendung dieser Standardarbeitsanweisung trägt zur Validität der bei der Überwachung von Referenzintervallen gewonnenen Ergebnisse bei.</jats:p
Jules Soury (1842-1915), traducteur de Ernst Haeckel
No full textChartiste parisien, Jules-Auguste Soury (1842-1915) a traduit en français trois ouvrages de l’éminent zoologue darwiniste allemand Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) : Les Preuves du transformisme (Germer Baillière, 1879), Le Règne des protistes (Reinwald, 1879) et Essais de psychologie cellulaire (Germer Baillière, 1880). Les archives du Ernst-Haeckel-Haus à Iéna conservent trente-cinq lettres inédites adressées par Soury à Haeckel entre 1878 et 1914. Ce corpus permet de suivre quelques étapes clés de la vie de Soury, comme l’échec de « sa » chaire d’Histoire des Religions au Collège de France et sa nomination par son mentor Paul Bert à l’École des Hautes Études, où il enseignera l’histoire de la psychologie physiologique et rédigera son opus magnum, Le Système nerveux central (1899) ; il confirme par ailleurs l’interprétation rigidement mécaniste, matérialiste et athée des théories haeckeliennes par Soury, déjà évidente dans les longues préfaces qu’il rédige pour ses traductions. Ces lettres illustrent également l’évolution des relations entre le traducteur et l’auteur, allant de l’admiration à la déception. Lorsque Haeckel lui envoie son livre Der Monismus, Soury rédigera une virulente lettre de rupture (27 décembre 1892), dans laquelle il affirme ne plus pouvoir suivre le maître dans sa nouvelle religion moniste, « avec sa trinité du Beau, du Vrai, du Bien ». Dans sa dernière lettre, envoyée en 1914 à l’occasion du 80e anniversaire de Haeckel, après un long intervalle et juste avant l’éclatement de la Grande Guerre, Soury évoquera toutefois le souvenir nostalgique du temps passé à ses traductions, de celles qui furent « ses meilleures heures, des heures de travail et de méditation ».Jules-Auguste Soury (1842-1915), a Parisian scholar trained at the École des Chartes, authored the French translations of three books by the famous German zoologist and darwinist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1939) : Les Preuves du transformisme (Germer Baillière, 1879), Le Règne des protistes (Reinwald, 1879) and Essais de psychologie cellulaire (Germer Baillière, 1880). The archives of the Ernst-Haeckel-Haus in Jena retain 35 unpublished letters sent by Soury to Haeckel between 1878 and 1914, illustrating some milestones in Soury’s life such as his failed attempt at obtaining “his” chair of History of religions at the Collège de France, or his subsequent nomination by his mentor Paul Bert at the École des Hautes Études, where he taught the history of “physiological psychology” and wrote his major work, Le Système nerveux central (1899). The letters confirm the strictly mechanistic, materialistic ant atheistic interpretation of Haeckel’s theories by Soury, that is already evident from his lengthy prefaces to the translations. They also show the evolution of the relationship between the translator and the author, from initial admiration to disillusion: upon reception of Haeckel’s book on Monism, Soury wrote a virulent break-up letter (December 27, 1892) asserting that he could not follow his master in his new monist religion, “with its trinity of the Beautiful, the True and the Good”. In his last letter sent to Haeckel in 1914 for his 80th birthday, after a long time interval and immediately before the Great War, Soury will nevertheless bring back his nostalgic memories of the time spent in translating, of those that had been “his best hours, hours of work and of meditation”
Hexacromyidae Haeckel 1882
No full textFamily HEXACROMYIDAE Haeckel, 1882 n. stat. Hexacromyida Haeckel, 1882: 453 [as a tribe]; 1887: 170, 201 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 9 [as a subfamily]. Hexalonchida Haeckel, 1882: 451 [nomen dubium, as a tribe];1887: 170, 179 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 8 [as a subfamily]. Staurocontida Haeckel, 1882: 452 [nomen dubium, as a tribe];1887: 152, 163 [as a subfamily]. Hexacontida Haeckel, 1882: 452 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 170, 191 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 9 [as a subfamily]. Staurocromyida Haeckel, 1882: 453 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 152, 166 [as a subfamily]. Hexadorida Haeckel, 1882: 455 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 170, 204 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 9 [as a subfamily]. Cubosphaerida Haeckel, 1887: 55, 169-170 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1952 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 146. — Schröder 1909: 2 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 23. Cubosphäriden [sic] – Haecker 1907: 118 [as a family]. Cubosphaeridae – Haecker 1908: 437. — Popofsky 1908: 209; 1912: 77, 84-87. — Enriques 1932: 982. — Clark & Campbell 1942: 31; 1945: 15. — Campbell & Clark 1944a: 14; 1944b: 5. — Deflandre 1953: 417. — Campbell 1954: D58. — Orlev 1959: 436. — Chediya 1959: 90. — Hollande & Enjumet 1960: 71-72. — Dieci 1964: 185. — Nakaseko & Sugano 1976: 122. — Tan & Su 1982: 142. — Tan 1998: 126. — Tan & Chen 1999: 146. Hexalonchinae – Clark & Campbell 1942: 31 [nomen dubium]; 1945: 15. — Campbell 1954: D58. — Chediya 1959: 91. — Kozur & Mostler 1979: 20 (sensu emend.). Hexacontinae – Campbell & Clark 1944a: 14 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D60. — Chediya 1959: 92. Hexadorinae – Campbell & Clark 1944b: 5 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 94. — Petrushevskaya 1979: 107-108 (sensu emend.). Staurocromyinae – Campbell 1954: D58 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 88. Staurocontiinae – Campbell 1954: D58 [nomen dubium]. Hexadoradinae – Campbell 1954: D60 [nomen dubium]. Cubosphaerinae – Campbell 1954: D58. Stauracontinae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 87 (= Stauracontiinae) [nomen dubium]. Hexacromyinae – Campbell 1954: D60. — Chediya 1959: 93. Hexadoridae – Dumitrica 1979: 21 [nomen dubium]. Nanininae Kozur & Mostler, 1982: 409. Hexalonchidae – Dumitrica 1984: 94 [nomen dubium]; 1985: 186. — De Wever et al. 2001: 210, 212. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S272-273. — Afanasieva & Amon 2006: 109. Stauracontidae – Cachon & Cachon 1985: 279 [nomen dubium]. TYPE GENUS. — Hexacromyum Haeckel, 1882: 453 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D60): Hexacromyum elegans Haeckel, 1887: 201]. INCLUDED GENERA. —? Carpocanthum Chen & Tan, 1989: 1. — Hexacromyum Haeckel, 1882: 453 (= Cubosphaera n. syn., Hexacontura n. syn.). — Hexalonchilla Haeckel, 1887: 184 (= Hexalonchusa synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 569; Staurolonchantha n. syn.). — Nanina Kozur & Mostler, 1982: 409 (= Pentactinosphaera with the same type species). NOMINA DUBIA. — Cromyostaurus, Cubaxonium, Hexacontanna, Hexacontarium, Hexacontosa, Hexacontium, Hexadoras, Hexalonchara, Hexaloncharium, Hexalonche, Hexalonchidium, Spongiuspinus, Staurancistra, Stauracontarium, Stauracontellium, Stauracontidium, Stauracontium, Stauracontonium, Staurocromyum, Staurolonchella, Staurolonchissa, Staurolonchura. DIAGNOSIS. — Bladed six primary radial spines or bladed six radial beams are directly arising from a tetrapetaloid microsphere or a heteropolar microsphere with tetrapetaloid apical structures. Two or three latticed spherical shells are present (except for Nanina). Protoplasmic characters seem to be different between shallow and deep-water species. As for shallow water Hexacromyum and Hexalonchilla, the spherical endoplasm, reddish brown in color, fills the medullary shell and is outside of it. Capsular wall always situated within the cortical shell. A robust, straight, thick axoflagellum appears in Hexacromyum at least. Algal symbionts may be present or absent. Algal symbionts, if present, surround the endoplasm or are scattered within the cortical shell. No algal symbionts are outside of the cortical shell. As for the mesopelagic taxa of Hexacromyum, the endoplasm is a dark gray in color and fills the medullary shell. It is also found outside of it. The Axopodial system is of centroaxoplastid-type: Axoplast is placed in the center of the endoplasm and is encrypted with a spherical nucleus. Bundles of axoneme penetrate through the one side of nucleus and form one thick bundle of axoneme in the endoplasmic reticulum zone of the intracapsular zone. This bundle probably forms a straight, thick and robust axoflagellum. A clear zone with radiated thin bundles of axoneme surrounds the nucleus. The axoplast is situated in the microsphere (the inner medullary shells) and the nucleus is placed in the outer medullary shell. A clear zone also appears inside the outer medullary shell. An endoplasmic reticulum occupies the space between the outer medullary shell and the cortical shell. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Paleocene-Living. REMARKS This family was originally called Hexalonchidae, but this family name is a nomen dubium. Yuasa et al. (2009) first proved that Hexacromyum (originally Hexacontium) is a member of Spumellaria. Several widely used taxon genus names such as Hexacontium and Hexalonche should be omitted in taxonomic works as they have been established on the basis of an un-illustrated type species. Internal skeletal structure, including growth line, was illustrated for Hexacromyum (Nishimura 1986: fig. 7.1; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 14, figs 5, 6, 8; van de Paverd 1995: pl. 33, fig. 7; pl. 34, fig. 5), Hexalonchilla (Nishimura 1986: fig. 7.2; Suzuki 1998b: pl. 6, figs 2, 5-9) and Nanina (Nakaseko et al. 1982: pl. 1, figs 1-3; Sugiyama 1992a; pl. 1, fig. 1). A living image was given for Hexacromyum (Yuasa et al. 2009: fig. 1a; Suzuki & Not 2015: fig. 8.8.8; Matsuoka 2017: figs 7.1, 7.2, 8.1, 8.2) and Hexalonchilla (Suzuki & Not 2015: fig. 8.10.12). Protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented by epi-fluorescent observation via DAPI dyeing or other dyeing methods in Hexacromyum (Ogane et al. 2010: figs 1.9-1.10, 2.9-2.10; Zhang et al. 2018: 11, figs 14, 15; p. 14, fig. 10; pl. 17, fig. 9) and Hexalonchilla (Zhang et al. 2018: 11, fig. 16). Protoplasm was also illustrated for fixed specimens of Hexacromyum (Aita et al. 2009: pl. 9, figs 1, 2; KrabberØd et al. 2011: figs 1.G-1.L). Fine protoplasmic structure was illustrated in Hexacromyum (Hollande & Enjumet 1960: pl. 33, fig. 4; pl. 35, fig. 4). Hexacromyum can be infected by Marine Alveolata of Group II (Ikenoue et al. 2016), but real images of these symbionts have not been captured as of yet. Classic Hexalonche is largely transferred to Hexalonchilla. It is also mixed with Hexalonchetta (Hexacaryidae), Hexancistra (Hexacaryidae), Hexarhizacontium (Rhizosphaeridae), the sixradial spine-form of Centrolonche (Centrolonchidae), and the six-radial spine-form of Stylosphaera (Stylosphaeridae).They are carefully identified by an examination of their internal structure. Two shelled spherical radiolarians with six radial spines are generally classified into Hexalonchilla. However, types of bladed or non-bladed radial beams, types of bladed or non-bladed radial spines, and types of spherical and tetrapetaloid microspheres are still overlooked. For instance, the supporting image of Hexalonchilla in the catalogue has non-bladed radial beams, non-bladed radial spines and a tetrapetaloid microsphere, whereas the typeillustration for the representative genus shows non-bladed radial beams, bladed radial beam and a spherical microsphere. Classic Hexacontium is largely transferred to Hexacromyum. It is also mixed with the six-radial spine-form of Axoprunum (Axoprunidae), the six-radial spine-form of Haliomma (Haliommidae) and Hexacontella (Haliommidae). Like in the case of Hexalonchilla, they were carefully identified by an examination of their internal structure. The morphological status of the radial spines, the radial beams and the microsphere were also poorly discriminated. Some three shelled morphospecies with six radial spines, likewise, have many radial beams between the outer double medullary shell and the cortical shell. Furthermore, some morphospecies, recovered from plankton samples, developed many fragile concentric shells between the outer double medullary shell and the cortical shell, which sometime is missing due to dissolution. VALIDITY OF GENERA Hexacromyum Hexacromyum itself was used as a valid genus inPetrushevskaya (1975: 569).The usage of this genus in our paper is corresponded to the widely accustomed usage of Hexacontium. The definition of Hexacromyum mentioned the four concentric shells (Campbell 1954: D60) but the “4th” shell of the neotype is additionally formed following the secondary growth mode of Ogane et al. (2009c) (See the supporting image for Cubosphaera in the Atlas part). Cubosphaera has “five or more concentric shells” (Campbell 1954: D58) and Hexacontura has three concentric shells with irregular pores of dissimilar sizes (Campbell 1954: D60). The subsequent “4th” or “5th” concentric shell illustrated in the type species of Cubosphaera is also the shell formed following the secondary growth mode of Ogane et al. (2009c). Pore size and shape continuously changed from regular pores with similar size, so this difference is related to species or within species variations, if we refer to the numerous photos in publications. Aita et al. (2009) observed Hexacromyum elegans in the plankton slide from the H.M.S. Challenger Station 271 which was examined by Haeckel himself.The type material for this species is from a “Central Pacific, Station, surface” (Haeckel 1887: 201). The valid name is the oldest synonym among them (1882 for Hexacromyum; 1887 for both Cubosphaera and Hexacontura). However, one concern is the taxonomic status of Haliphormis. The specimen corresponding to the type-illustration of Haliphormis hexacanhtus in the Ehrenberg collection have a single cortical shell, whereas other specimens in the same collection have three concentric shell (see support image for Haliphormis in the Atlas). If these specimens are conspecific, Haliphormis would not belong to the Hexacaryidae, and hence it would not be a senior synonym of Hexastylanthus, Hexastylettus, Hexastylissus and Hexastylurus. This means that Haliphormis is the oldest synonym among Hexacromyum, although the genus name Haliphormis has not been used for recent 50 years so the valid genus remains unchanged as Hexacromyum. Hexalonchilla Hexalonchilla partly corresponds to Hexalonche based on both concentric shells but is limited for those that have a heteropolar microsphere with un-bladed six radial beams. Hexalonchusa is characterized by irregular pores of dissimilar sizes and the spiny surface of the cortical shell (Campbell 1954: D60) but these differences are related to infra- or intra-specific variations. The spiny surface is also induced by the preservation effect. Staurolonchantha was considered to have four equidistant main radial spines (Campbell 1954: D56) but the lectotype has a typical structure with six radial spines (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 36, figs 2a-d). The lectotype of “ Haliomma hexagonum ” has an unclear innermost shell but has presumably three concentric shells. All these four “genera” were initially established with a subgenus rank in the same publication (Haeckel 1887: 170 for Hexalonchilla, 186 for Hexalonchusa and 158 for Staurolonchantha). In consideration of uncertainty for the type specimen of Staurolonchantha, the genus which is published first is selected as the valid name. Nanina Regarding the proposal of Nanina byKozur & Mostler (1982), the genus name was established as follows. The new taxon status for Nanina was first published as a tentative genus name: Pentactinosphaera Nakaseko et al. (1982) with the mention of “ We assigned it to Pentactinosphaera hokurikuensis (Nakaseko) as a tentative name ” (Nakaseko et al. 1982: 423). The available description for Pentactinosphaera was formally described by Nakaseko et al. (1983) with the same type species for Nanina by Kozur & Mostler (1982) published in December 1982. Under the description of Nanina, Kozur & Mostler (1982) cited Nakaseko et al. (1982) with the comment: “ described the internal structure of this genus for the first time ”, but they never cited the nomen nudum name “ Pentactinosphaera ” in the synonym list included in the English abstract or within the figure explanation ofNakaseko et al. (1982). At this time, the Code (ICZN 1964) included on page 93 a “code of ethics” which stated that: “ A zoologist should not establish himself a new taxon if he has reason to believe that another zoologist has already recognized the same taxon [...] He should communicate with the other zoologists [...] consider himself free to establish the new taxon only if the other zoologists [...] fail to do so in a reasonable period (not less than a year). ” As Kozur & Mostler (1982) recognized Nakaseko et al. (1982) as the first describer of the internal structure on page 409, there is no doubt they knew that Nakaseko would prepare a new taxonomic paper for “ Nanina ”. Despite the prescribed code of ethics, Kozur & Mostler (1982) established a new taxon without communicating with Nakaseko (Kozur, personal comm.; Nishimura, personal comm. to NS) and after a very short waiting period (less than a year). The problem is not to identify the first discoverer; instead, the problem lies in understanding why Kozur & Mostler (1982) did not respect the “code of ethics” which could have avoided future trouble regarding the author priority of the taxon, even though this is not a scientific requirement.Published as part of Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre & Dumitrica, Paulian, 2021, A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts, pp. 405-573 in Geodiversitas 43 (15) on pages 415-417, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15, http://zenodo.org/record/510175
An improved indirect approach for determining reference limits from intra-laboratory data bases exemplified by concentrations of electrolytes
No full textBackground: The current dogma of establishing intra-laboratory reference limits (RLs) and their periodical reviewing cannot be fulfilled by most laboratories due to the expenses involved. Thus, most laboratories adopt RLs from external sources often neglecting the problems of transferability. Presently accepted validation concepts still require experimental expenses. Several attempts were undertaken to derive RLs from the large data pools stored in modern laboratory information systems. Former indirect procedures were not generally accepted, but were recently further developed and combined with direct exclusion criteria and applied to estimate RLs of the catalytic activity concentrations of enzymes. This approach was now applied to several electrolytes in serum and plasma most commonly applied in clinical chemistry. Methods: A smoothed kernel density function was estimated for the distribution of the mixed data of the sample group (combined data of non-diseased and diseased subjects). It was assumed that the "central" part of the distribution of all data represents the non-diseased ("healthy") population (non-pathological values) with high probability. The central part was defined by truncation points using an optimisation method, and was used to estimate a Gaussian distribution of the values of nondiseased subjects. This distribution was now considered as the distribution of the non-diseased subgroup. The percentiles of this parametrical distribution were calculated to obtain unimodal reference intervals. Results: The RLs obtained from different laboratories were similar to recently published values established by direct procedures. Stratification for gender was not necessary, but in some cases for age. With rising age, an increase of the upper RL and of the reference range was observed for potassium. Hospitalisation affected the RLs of sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium, but not of phosphate. In the case of sodium, the data of at least five regional laboratories could be combined to common RLs. The presented indirect procedure was further validated with a large dataset of potassium concentrations from the NHANES III study with five groups of different health status. Conclusions: The proposed strategy of combining exclusion criteria with an indirect method led to RLs from intra-laboratory data pools for electrolytes which were plausible in comparison to published data obtained by the generally accepted direct approach. The combined concept, however, still requires further investigations. Therefore, it is presently only recommended for checking and reviewing already existing RLs
Haeckel, embryos, and evolution
No full textPT: J; NR: 7; TC: 7; J9: SCIENCE; PG: 3; GA: ZN615Source type: Electronic(1
The influence of age and other biological variables on the estimation of reference limits of cardiac troponin T
No full text
- …
