669 research outputs found
Glacial-interglacial sea level rise from ostracod assemblages (Gulf of Corinth IODP Exp 381) - Roberta Parisi, Ilaria Mazzini
No full textGlacial-interglacial sea level rise from ostracod assemblages (Gulf of Corinth IODP Exp 381) - Roberta Parisi, Ilaria Mazzini</p
Social partenrship as public private cooperation. Thoughts from the Italian experience
No full textBottom-up initiatives in urban transformation and public goods management, as promoted by recent legislation in Italy, have been indicated by Dr. Eduardo Parisi of the University of Milan as distinctive examples of public-private cooperation that promotes efficiency and inclusion in governance.
The Author discussed how – even under the influence of the international debate – public private partnership is more and more often a cultural and social phenomenon, consistent with the principles of solidarity, participation and inclusion in governance. 
Dallo scarabocchio al disegno infantile.
No full textIntroduzione
La maggior parte dei lavori sul disegno infantile si sono concentrati sullo studio del disegno figurativo, che viene fatta coincidere con la produzione dei primi disegni con caratterizzazione simbolica (Luquet, 1927; Piaget, 1923; Wallon e Lurcat, 1949; Freeman, 1972; Barrett e Light, 1976). Di contro, ha ricevuto scarsa attenzione tutta quella fase preparatoria costituita dagli scarabocchi, considerata meramente come una tardiva manifestazione della fase sensomotoria dello sviluppo dell’intelligenza (Piaget, 1923). Tuttavia è possibile che, sin da questa fase, i bambini siano in grado di riconoscere la propria produzione grafica e che tale abilità possa preludere all’attribuzione di significato vera e propria. Sulla base di tali considerazioni, il nostro lavoro ha intesto indagare se e su quali basi i bambini, che ancora non eseguono un disegno figurativo, sono in grado di riconoscerlo. A tal fine un gruppo di bambini frequentanti l’asilo nido sono stati valutati tramite una prova di riconoscimento del proprio scarabocchio, a distanza di qualche giorno dalla sua produzione, e di attribuzione di significato di uno scarabocchio altrui. E’ stato controllato il possibile ruolo del colore nel riconoscimento a distanza di tempo del disegno, tramite l’impiego di un disegno di ricerca che ha confrontato le prestazioni dei bambini in una condizione in cui era disponibile un unico colore e in cui erano disponibili più colori a scelta.
METODO
Partecipanti
Hanno partecipato alla ricerca 22 bambini (9 M; 13 F), di età compresa tra i 23 e i 39 mesi (età media=32 mesi), frequentanti l’asilo nido.
Materiali
A ciascun bambino è stato fornito un pastello blu, giallo, verde, arancione, rosso e marrone e dei fogli extra strong formato A4.
Procedura
Dopo un periodo di familiarizzazione, è stato chiesto ai bambini di eseguire due disegni, uno utilizzando il colore blu (condizione monocromatica) e uno lasciando a disposizione di ogni bambino sei colori (condizione policromatica), secondo un ordine controbilanciato per soggetti, e di denominarli. Per ciascuna condizione, a distanza di tre giorni, a ciascun bambino è stato chiesto di riconoscere il proprio disegno tra sette scarabocchi prodotti da altri bambini e di denominarlo. Sono stati inoltre mostrati i disegni degli altri bambini ed è stato chiesto a ciascun bambino di attribuire un significato ad un disegno dell’altro. E’ stato valutato se: 1) il bambino ha riconosciuto il disegno; 2) la denominazione fornita al proprio disegno; 3) la denominazione fornita al disegno dell’altro. Tale valutazione è stata condotta tenendo conto del colore (disegno blu o disegno colorato).
Risultati
I risultati hanno indicato che 16 bambini del nostro campione (72%) sono stati in grado di denominare lo scarabocchio dopo averlo tracciato, nella condizione colore blu. La stessa percentuale si mantiene nella condizione del disegno colorato, con 17 bambini su 22 che denominano lo scarabocchio. Dei 16 bambini che hanno denominato il disegno blu, 8 hanno riconosciuto il proprio disegno blu a distanza di tempo (36%). Dei 17 bambini che hanno denominato il disegno colorato, solo 4 (25%) hanno riconosciuto il loro disegno colorato a distanza di tempo. Nessuno dei bambini considerati ha riconosciuto il disegno del compagno, ad eccezione di una bambina di 39 mesi, che ha attribuito un significato allo scarabocchio dell’altro corrispondente all’intenzione rappresentativa dell’autore del disegno.
Discussione
I risultati del nostro lavoro sembrerebbero indicare l’esistenza di uno “stile” personale, che costituisce la base sia per il riconoscimento, sia per la denominazione dello scarabocchio. Questa modalità personale non sembra dipendere dal colore ma piuttosto dal tipo di tracciato grafico. Infatti, i bambini che riconoscono e che denominano i propri scarabocchi lo fanno in percentuale identica sia per i disegni monocromatici che per quelli policromi. Inoltre, non sembra neppure che il riconoscimento e la a denominazione derivino da una qualche corrispondenza tra il "significante" e il "significato", in termini piagetiani, cioè tra la forma del disegno e l'oggetto che il bambino identifica nello scarabocchio, dato che nessun bambino attribuisce al disegno dei compagni il significato che questi gli hanno attribuito e soprattutto che tra la prima e la seconda seduta i bambini modificano la denominazione del proprio disegno. Sembra, quindi, che in questa fase lo sviluppo del controllo motorio ed in particolare la padronanza dell'atto grafico e del mezzo grafico giochino un ruolo importante e costituiscano il substrato elementare per il riconoscimento della propria produzione grafica e successivamente della denominazione, che sarà resa possibile solo con lo sviluppo della capacità simbolica
Interactions between Reflection and Praxis in the History of Economic Thought. The case of the Franciscan Cicles from XIII Century Assisi to the Present
No full textResumen: Daniela Parisi analiza el impacto de la vida de San F rancisco de Asís desde la perspectiva de la historia del pensamiento económico. Haciendo referencia particularmente a la atención otorgada en los círculos franciscanos a los signos de los tiempos, la autora traza el camino desde la vida de San Francisco, pasando por la vida de la Orden hasta el presente, y revela los orígenes del movimiento franciscano como un intento de reforma social y religiosa. En primer lugar, el artículo presenta la vida que llevó San Francisco como una “pobreza material voluntaria” en el contexto de los cambios socio-económicos que tuvieron lugar en el siglo XIII, con el advenimiento de la sociedad comercial. Luego, explica cómo la propuesta de San Francisco creció hasta convertirse en una orden religiosa. Finalmente, el artículo intenta iluminar aquellos aspectos en que la Orden Franciscana puede todavía considerarse un signo de los tiempos a través de una existencia comprometida con la pobreza, eliminando lo superfluo de nuestra vida y viviendo en consonancia con el Evangelio.Abstract: Daniela Parisi analyses the impact of the life of Saint Francis of Assisi, from the perspective of the history of economic thought. By referring in particular to the attention given in Franciscan circles to the signs of times, the author draws the path from Saint Francis’s life to the life of the Order until the present, and reveals the origins of the Franciscan movement as an attempt for social and religious reformation. First, the article presents St. Francis’s life of a “voluntary material poverty” in the context of the social and economic changes that took place in the XIII century, with the rise of the commercial society. Then, the author explains how St. Francis’ proposal grew into an Order. Finally, the article aims at illuminating the aspects in which the Franciscan Order can be still considered a sign of the times by living the commitment to poverty and minority, eliminating the superfluous from our lives and living close to the Gospel
Malthodes (Malthodes) marialuisae Parisi & Fanti 2020
No full textMalthodes (Malthodes) marialuisae PARISI & FANTI sp. nov. (Figs. 7–8, 11C) Description. Male, winged. Body length 4.2 mm; elytra 1.1 mm; pronotum 0.2 mm; antennae about 4.4 mm. Entirely blackish-dark brown, without yellow spots on the elytral apex. Head exposed, rounded, with shallow punctation. Eyes rounded, very prominent, inserted in the lateral-upper part of the head. Maxillary palpi 4-segmented, with the last palpomere globular and distally pointed (point thin and very elongate). Labial palpi 3-segmented, last palpomere globular and distally pointed. Antennae filiform, 11-segmented, extremely long, slightly surpassing the last abdominal segment; antennomere I very elongate, club-shaped; antennomere II enlarged apically and about 1.3 times shorter than antennomere I; antennomere III enlarged apically and slightly shorter than antennomere II; antennomeres IV–VIII sub-equal and very elongate; antennomere IX very slightly shorter than previous ones; antennomere X shorter than previous; antennomere XI elongate and with rounded apex; all antennomeres densely covered by short setae. Pronotum transverse, narrower than the head, surface with sparce punctation, anterior margin undulate, posterior margin straight and slightly bordered, sides straight and slightly bordered. Elytra very short, reaching the middle of the abdomen, slightly wider than pronotum, covered with scattered and short setae, parallel-sided, rounded at apices. Hind wings transparent, almost reaching the last abdominal segment (left wing totally extroverted and equipped with few nervations well visible). Legs long, slender, densely pubescent; coxae elongate; trochanters robust with rounded apex; femora slightly enlarged and almost straight; tibiae cylindrical with a spur near the apex, pro- and metatibiae shorter than pro- and metafemora, mesotibiae longer than mesofemora; tarsi 5-segmented, pubescent; tarsomeres I thin, elongate; tarsomeres II slightly enlarged apically and shorter than tarsomeres I; tarsomeres III short, triangular-shaped; tarsomeres IV strongly bilobed and robust; tarsomeres V elongate and slender; claws simple. Metasternum sub-quadrate. Sternites transverse and pubescent. Last tergite (tg10) in the shape of an elongate and broad lobe, strongly curved, narrower to the middle, with the apical margin sinuous equipped with two small points at the middle and with the apical sides slightly expanded; last sternite (st9) short, elongate, curved, flat and apically deeply forked (with robust, apically rounded lobes). Aedeagus not visible. Female unknown. Etymology. Named in honor of Marialuisa Vessella, mother of the first author. Holotype. Male, in Baltic amber, deposited at the University of Molise (Unimol) with accession No. Unimol AAA006FP. Type locality. Yantarny mine, Sambian Peninsula, Kaliningrad region, Russia. Type horizon. Middle Eocene (Lutetian) (47.8–41.2 MYA) to Late Eocene (Priabonian) (37.8–33.9 MYA). Syninclusions. Air bubbles, debris, stellate hairs, a disarticulated spider. Differential diagnosis. The shape of the penultimate and last tergite makes Malthodes marialuisae sp. nov. unique and easily distinguishable from all the known fossil species of Malthodes, both from Baltic amber, Bitterfeld amber, and Rovno amber (Fanti 2017, 2019; Fanti & Vitali 2017; Fanti & Sontag 2019; Parisi & Fanti 2019c). Remarks. The yellow amber piece measures 15 x 8 x 3 mm. The inclusion is complete except for the left antenna preserved up to the sixth antennomere and has also extruded left elytron with the metathoracic wing clearly visible.Published as part of Parisi, Francesco & Fanti, Fabrizio, 2020, Baltic amber: A new Cacomorphocerus Schaufuss, 1892 with two specimens preserved in a single piece, and four new Malthodes Kiesenwetter, 1852, pp. 546-560 in Zootaxa 4778 (3) on pages 553-555, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4778.3.6, http://zenodo.org/record/382878
Urocythereis ilariae Aiello & Barra & Parisi 2016, sp. nov.
No full textUrocythereis ilariae sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 607A810F-773C-4F8F-91E7-D2EB5223CB7D Figs 2B; 3 G–H; 4G–H; 5G–H; 6G–H; 14; 18A–J; 19A–C, E–J Urocythereis favosa (Roemer) n. ssp. Bassiouni, 1965: pl. 40, figs 8–9. Urocythereis favosa (Roemer) subsp. – Wouters 1973: 385, pl. 2, fig. 7. Urocythereis sp. – Bonaduce, Ciampo & Masoli 1976: 46, pl. 22, fig. 9. ? Urocythereis sp. – Athersuch 1977: pl. 17, fig. 2. Urocythereis aff. U. favosa (Roemer) – Arbulla, Pugliese & Russo 2001: fig. 3t. ? Urocythereis sp.1 – Barra 1997: 82, pl. 4, fig. 6. Urocythereis sp.1 – Aiello et al. 2006: tables 3, 10. — Aiello, Barra & Parisi 2013: fig. 1d. Diagnosis A large reticulate species of Urocythereis, subrectangular in lateral view, inflated-ovate in dorsal view. Reticulum with large polygonal-rounded, frequently coalescing, large fossae separated by broad muri. In the anteroventral area the muri form distinct riblets running parallel to the margin. Etymology In honour of our friend and collegue Ilaria Mazzini, in recognition of her important contribution to ostracodology. Type material (4 carapaces, 43 valves: 29 adults and 14 juveniles) Holotype IONIAN SEA: ABMC 2014 /03 Paratypes IONIAN SEA: ABMC2 014/026–036, ABMC 2014/038, ABMC 2014/042, ABMC 2014/044, ABMC 2014/046–049, ABMC 2014/063–064, ABMC 2014/069, ABMC 2014/072–073, ABMC 2014/080, ABMC 2014/097–103, ABMC 2014/120–135. Stratum typicum Recent. Locus typicus La Strea Bay (Porto Cesareo Lagoon), Southern Italy, Ionian Sea, sampling station E4, 17°54'25" N, 40°15'59" E, depth 1.5 m bsl. Description Measurements (holotype): LV: L = 0.85 mm, H = 0.44 mm (Fig. 18A). Large (L = 0.85–0.90 mm) species of Urocythereis, characterized by large fossae and strongly developed muri, subrectangular in lateral view, inflated-ovate in dorsal view. Valves strongly calcified and thick. Dorsal margin gently, unevenly convex, ventral margin weakly sinuous; anterior end broadly rounded, denticulate in the lower part; upper part of the posterior margin concave, lower part of the posterior margin convex, variably denticulate, forming short blunt caudal process located below mid-height. Maximum height at anterior cardinal angle, greatest length below mid-height. Surface of valves coarsely reticulate. Fossae, showing subrounded or irregular shape, coalesce, especially in marginal areas, forming both multiple anastomized elongated fossae and deep sulci parallel to margin. The corresponding muri tend to form a system of concentric riblets. Marginal rim starts from anterior part of dorsal margin, behind eye tubercle (Fig. 19C), and ends in posteroventral angle. Second riblet, constantly well developed, runs parallel to margin of valve except posterior end. This ocular riblet is connected with eye tubercle and rises above dorsal margin. Marginal rim and second riblet not connected. Third riblet, irregularly developed, delimits anteriorly the reticulum stricto sensu from subocular area to posterior part of ventral area and is connected with second riblet anteriorly, at mid height, through single radial murus; in the ventral area second and third riblets converge and, in lateral view, they seem apparently to be connected, but ventral view (Fig. 19A) shows they remain separate. The fossae between second and third riblet mainly anastomized. Fourth riblet fully part of reticulum, and shows a rather regular parallel trend only in anterocentral area. Surface of central area irregularly reticulate with subrounded/polygonal fossae with a low degree of anastomosis. Conversely, fossae located in proximity of caudal process coalesce following a longitudinal trend. Rare specimens show celation, never fully developed. Muri smooth, not papillate (Fig. 19E). Hinge holamphidont (sensu Scott 1961): in left valve posterior hinge socket elongate and curved; anterior element formed by ovate-rounded (or elongate) tooth and elongate socket; median bar smooth; its posterior thickening forms, in some cases, barely defined toothlet; right valve hinge complementary, with faintly crenulate teeth (Figs 18 I–J; 19G–J). Inner lamella, marginal pore canals and muscle scar pattern (Fig. 19F) characteristic of genus (details in Athersuch 1977). Distribution The species occurs in the Recent of the Mediterranean: Gulf of Naples (Bassiouni 1965), Sardinia (Arbulla et al. 2001), South Adriatic Sea (Bonaduce et al. 1976) and possibly Libya (see section Remarks); it has previously been recorded in fossil associations from the Tyrrhenian (upper Pleistocene) of Tunisia only (Wouters 1973). Distribution data are summarized in Fig. 14. Remarks U. ilariae sp. nov. has previously been assigned to U. favosa (Bassiouni 1965; Wouters 1973), type species of the genus Urocythereis (neotype figured by Athersuch 1977). The reticulation of U. favosa differs from that of U. ilariae sp. nov. in the different style of fossal anastomosis. This is mostly evident, for example, in the anterodorsal zone, where the continuous depressed area formed by the fossal pattern C1-C2/B1-B4 is present in U. ilariae sp. nov. and absent in the Pliocene species. The shell characters of U. exedata, described by Uliczny (1969) as a subspecies of U. favosa (SEM micrographs in Mostafawi & Matzke-Karasz 2006), show a close resemblance to those of U. ilariae sp. nov., especially in the structure of the ocular riblet, homologous to Bradleya ’s “ocular ridge” (Benson 1972). The Pliocene species probably represents an ancestor of the living form. The two species differ in some reticulum features. In the anteroventral area of U. ilariae sp. nov. the third and the fourth riblets are connected ventrally and anteriorly; consequently they delimit the merged C fossae, forming an anteroventral furrow enclosed by muri. Conversely, in U. exedata the anteroventral area is characterized by a segment of the third riblet encircled by an elongated ring made up of B and C anastomized fossae, anteriorly and ventrally connected. In the anterodorsal area of U. ilariae sp. nov., the third concentric riblet is more or less developed in different specimens (Figs 2B; 18D, F), while in U. exedata in the anterodorsal area the fossae of the B group coalesce with C and D fossae, the muri follow a radial trend and consequently the third concentric riblet is virtually absent. The assignment of the North-African form, figured by Athersuch (1977) as Urocythereis sp. and by Barra (1997) as Urocythereis sp. 1, to U. ilariae sp. nov. needs further investigation. At the current state of knowledge we are inclined to interpret the morphological differences between the central Mediterranean species and the Lybian deme as the beginning of an allopatric speciation. Urocythereis margaritifera (G.W. Müller, 1894) Figs 2A; 3 A–F; 4A–F; 5A–F; 6A–F; 16A–K; 17A–J; 19D Cythere oblonga Brady, 1866: 353, pl. 59, figs 5a–d (non C. oblonga M’Coy, 1844). Cythereis margaritifera G.W. Müller, 1894: 368, pl. 32, figs 26, 29, 32, 35–37. Cythereis (Auris) distinguenda Neviani, 1928: 105 (synonymy only) (non p. 105 description and pl. 2, figs 91–93). Urocythereis margaritifera alba Uliczny, 1969: 65, pl. 15, fig. 9. Urocythereis sp. Athersuch, 1977: pl. 17, fig. 5. Urocythereis sp. 2 Barra, 1997: 82-83, pl. 4, fig.8. Urocythereis sp. 3 Barra, 1997: 83, pl. 4, fig. 11. Hemicythere (Urocythereis) margaritifera – Ruggieri 1953: 94, pl. 6, fig. 1. Urocythereis britannica Athersuch – Kubanc 1995: 32–33, pl. 8, figs 4a–b. Urocythereis crenulosa (Terquem) – Mostafawi & Matzke-Karasz 2006: pl. 6, fig. 9 (non pl. 8, fig. 1; non Cythere crenulosa Terquem, 1878). Urocythereis distinguenda – Athersuch 1977: 257, 259, pl. 7, figs 1–6; pl. 8, figs 1–6; pl. 9, figs 1–5; pl. 12, figs 5–6; figs 3c–d. — Athersuch 1979: fig. 2.19. — Aiello et al. 2006: tabs. 3, 7, 10. — Aiello, Barra & Parisi 2013: fig. 1b. Urocythereis favosa (Roemer) – Barbeito-Gonzalez 1971: 279, pl. 13, figs 1b, 3b, 4b, 6b, pl. 46, figs 24- 27 (non pl. 13, figs 2b, 5b, pl. 46, figs 28–29). — Doruk 1974: pl. 38, fig. 3, pl. 40, figs 1–3 (non pl. 34, figs 1-2, pl. 38, figs 1-2). — Puri 1974: pl. 13, fig. 3. — Tunoglu 1999: pl. 7, fig. 1. Urocythereis aff. U. favosa – Bonaduce, Ciampo & Masoli 1976: 45, pl. 22, fig. 8 (sic fig. 7). ? Urocythereis favosa – Triantaphyllou, Tsourou, Koukousioura & Dermitzakis 2005: pl. 3, fig 11. Urocythereis margaritifera – Athersuch 1977: 260, 262, pl. 12, figs 1–4; pl. 13, figs 1–6; pl. 14, figs 1–5; figs 3e–f. — Tsapralis 1981: 100, pl. 1, fig. 1. — Lachenal 1989: 175–176, pl. 3, fig. 14. — Kubanç 1995: 31–32, pl. 8, figs 3a–c. — Aiello et al. 2006: tabs. 3, 5. — Perçin-Paçal & Balkis 2012: pl. 2, fig. 3. — Aiello, Barra & Parisi 2013: fig. 1a. ? Urocythereis margaritifera – Aranki 1987: 72, pl. 19, figs 5–7. — Stancheva 1989: pl. 2, fig. 9. — Şafak, Avşar & Meriç 1999: pl. 3, fig. 12. Urocythereis cf. U. margaritifera – Arbulla, Pugliese & Russo 2001: fig. 3s. Urocythereis ? margaritifera – Aiello, Barra & Parisi 2013: fig. 1c. Urocythereis margaritifera alba – Breman 1976: 63-64, pl. 9, fig. 124. — Aiello, Barra, De Pippo & Donadio 2012: pl. 2, fig. 8. ? Urocythereis margaritifera alba – Uffenorde 1972: 79, pl. 8, fig. 9. Urocythereis margaritifera margaritifera – Uliczny 1969: 65, pl. 15, fig. 8. ? Urocythereis margaritifera margaritifera – Sissingh 1972: 128, pl. 10, fig. 8. Urocythereis seminulum (Seguenza) – Şafak, Avşar & Meriç 1999: pl. 3, fig. 11. Urocythereis sp. – Mostafawi, 1994: 107, pl. 7, fig. 6. Distribution The species is widely distributed in the infralittoral waters of the Eastern Mediterranean (Brady 1866; Barbeito-Gonzalez 1971; Doruk 1974; Athersuch 1977, 1979; Kubanç 1995; Tunoglu 1999; Perçin- Paçal & Balkis 2012), the Tyrrhenian Sea (G.W. Müller 1894; Puri 1974) and the southern Mediterranean (Athersuch 1977; Lachenal 1989; Barra 1997). Recordings from the Black Sea are uncertain: the specimen figured by Stancheva (1989) is a young instar, and Schornikov (1969) reported Müller’s original drawings. The species is present in the southern part of the Adriatic Sea; the findings in the central and northern Adriatic are doubtful (Uffenorde 1972; Bonaduce et al. 1976; Breman 1976). Fossil specimens have been reported from the Upper Pleistocene–Holocene of the Gulf of Gabès (Lachenal 1989), the Pleistocene of Southern Italy (Ruggieri 1953; Aiello et al. 2012), Zakynthos (Tsapralis 1981), the Northern Peloponnesus (Mostafawi 1994) and, possibly, Rhodes (Sissingh 1972) and from the Pliocene of Cephalonia (Uliczny 1969). Distribution data are summarized in Fig. 14. The presence of the species in Miocene sediments (Şafak et al. 1999) has to be confirmed by further studies. Remarks The analysis of the shell features of the Urocythereis population in the La Strea Bay and comparisons with the literature have convinced us that U. margaritifera and U. distinguenda (= U. oblonga) are two morphotypes of the same species. In particular, we consider the latter “species” as the celated variation of the former. Celation is not expressed homogeneously on the valves in all the specimens; consequently, also “transitional” shells show different morphs. The original illustration by Müller (1894: pl. 32, fig. 26) shows anteroventral fossae horizontally merged; the lectotype reported by Athersuch (1977: pl. 13, fig. 2) and the Libyan specimen figured by Barra (1997, as U. sp. 2) shows the same feature. Presently, we do not regard this character as diagnostic, due to the observed variability. Athersuch (1977) figured some appendages, including the right copulatory appendage, of U. distinguenda and the left copulatory appendage of U. margaritifera. Regarding the discrimination of the two species, the author stated that in U. margaritifera the ductus ejaculatorius is short and is contained within the area of the appendage, whereas in U. distinguenda the duct is much longer and passes beyond the ventral margin. Examination of Athersuch’s illustrations (figs 4.d; 5.i) and a comparison with Müller’s drawing of the male copulatory appendage of Cythereis margaritifera (pl. 32, fig. 32) show that only very subtle differences are present and they represent, in our opinion, intraspecific variations. The maximum mesh size is reached in the subspecies Urocythereis margaritifera alba Uliczny, 1969. This form, in which celation is not developed, does not occur in the La Strea Bay. In some specimens the SEM micrographs revealed a feeble trace of the muri underlying the secondary calcification, as shown in Fig. 15. The comparison of this hidden reticulation with the specimens figured by Uliczny (1969), Breman (1976) and Aiello et al. (2012) suggests that U. m. alba is a non-celate morphotype of U. margaritifera. The North Adriatic form figured by Uffenorde (1972) (very similar to the Pliocene specimen figured by Şafak et al. 1999 as U. margaritifera) shows some tiny differences in the reticulation pattern and the assignment to U. margaritifera is queried. The Libyan form figured by Athersuch (1977: pl. 17, fig. 5) as U. sp. and by Barra (1997) as U. sp. 3 fits the U. margaritifera morph c (Fig. 17E) well. The left valve, figured by Aranki (1987) from the western Mediterranean shallow waters, shows some minor differences in the reniform outline and in some details of the reticulum. The relationships between Mediterranean and Atlantic forms (i.e., between U. margaritifera and U. britannica, frequently reported as U. oblonga) need further investigations. Ruggieri (1953) hypothesized that U. favosa and U. margaritifera might be conspecific, the latter species representing a subspecies of the former. In spite of the similarity of the two forms, some features of the reticulum seem to allow a separation of the two species. In U. favosa (neotype figured in Athersuch 1977) the fossae B3 and B4 are merged, as well as C3 and C4; in U. margaritifera they are distinct; in U. favosa the fossae D2-D1 and α4 coalesce while in U. margaritifera they are distinct. In the caudal group the fossa Cg 4 in U. margaritifera is separate, whereas in U. favosa the arrangement of the fossae is similar to that in U. ilariae sp. nov. In the La Strea Bay, and possibly in the Recent of the Mediterranean, U. favosa s.s. is not recorded and we prefer to retain them as separate species. Some Urocythereis spp. from the Pliocene of Rhodes have been described by Terquem (1878) and figured by Mostafawi (1989). They are distinct from U. margaritifera in some characters of the reticulum. By contrast, the specimen from Cephalonia figured by Mostafawi & Matzke-Karasz (2006) as U. crenulosa fits well with some specimens of U. margaritifera from Porto Cesareo. The Atlantic forms reported as U. britannica and (erroneously) as U. oblonga (e.g., Guillaume et al. 1985; Ruiz et al. 2006) show a high variability and a complex affinity with U. margaritifera and U. favosa and they have not been considered in the present study.Published as part of Aiello, Giuseppe, Barra, Diana & Parisi, Roberta, 2016, Intra- and interspecific shell variability of the genus Urocythereis Ruggieri, 1950 (Ostracoda: Hemicytheridae) in the La Strea Bay (Ionian Sea, Italy), pp. 1-35 in European Journal of Taxonomy 193 on pages 18-23, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2016.193, http://zenodo.org/record/383779
- …
