135 research outputs found
Nectarinia philippensis Brisson
No full textNectarinia philippensis “Brisson” Meyen, 1834a: 82. Now: Cinnyris jugularis jugularis (Linnaeus, 1766). Gadow (1884: 63, 85), Stresemann (1952: 513). Lectotype (herein designated; see below for explanation): Specimen figured by Brisson (1760a, pl. 30, fig. 2). This specimen was collected by Pierre Poivre in 1751–1754 at Manila, Luzon, Philippines, and was deposited in the collection of Abbé Aubry in France when Brisson examined it (Stresemann 1952: 513). Its later fate is unknown. Note that this specimen is also the holotype of Certhia philippina Linnaeus, 1766: 187. Paralectotypes (lost): Specimens figured by Brisson (1760a, pl. 31, fig. 2–3; also Daubenton 1768, pl. 246, fig. 1–2). These specimens, which were collected by Pierre Poivre (1719–1786), were at first deposited in the collection of René Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur (1683–1757), then in the collection of King Louis XV of France (1710–1774), but now are lost (Stresemann 1952). Note that these specimens are also syntypes of Certhia sperata Linnaeus, 1766: 186. Paralectotypes (lost): Specimens figured by Sonnerat (1776, pl. 30, fig. A, B, D). They were probably collected by Pierre Sonnerat (1748–1814) on the island of Luzon, Philippines, but they were not preserved. Paralectotype (lost): ZMB 8075, ♂, (Lichtenstein 1832, Nr. 4–6 sub “ Nectarinia exspectata ”), collected by Meyen in “ October ” [= 1–9 October 1831; see below] in “ Manila ” [= Laguna de Bay, Luzon, Philippines; see below]. Paralectotype (lost): ZMB 8076 (Lichtenstein 1832, Nr. 7 sub “ Nectarinia exspectata ”), juv., collected by Meyen in “ October ” [= 1–9 October 1831; see below] in “ Manila ” [= Laguna de Bay, Luzon, Philippines; see below]. Paralectotype (lost): ZMB 8081 (Lichtenstein 1832, Nr. 8–12 sub “ Nectarinia gularis ”), collected by Meyen in “ October ” [= 1–9 October 1831; see below] in “ Manila ” [= Laguna de Bay, Luzon, Philippines; see below]. Paralectotype (lost): ZMB 8082 (Lichtenstein 1832, Nr. 8–12 sub “ Nectarinia gularis ”), collected by Meyen in “ October ” [= 1–9 October 1831; see below] in “ Manila ” [= Laguna de Bay, Luzon, Philippines; see below]. Paralectotype (lost): ZMB 8083 (Lichtenstein 1832, Nr. 8–12 sub “ Nectarinia gularis ”), collected by Meyen in “ October ” [= 1–9 October 1831; see below] in “ Manila ” [= Laguna de Bay, Luzon, Philippines; see below]. Paralectotypes (lost): ZMB uncatalogued (Lichtenstein 1832, Nr. 4–6 sub “ Nectarinia exspectata ”); two specimens, both collected by Meyen in “ October ” [= 1–9 October 1831; see below] in “ Manila ” [= Laguna de Bay, Luzon, Philippines; see below]. These specimens were presumably destined by M.H.C. Lichtenstein for exchange, but their fate remains unknown. Paralectotypes (lost): ZMB uncatalogued (Lichtenstein 1832, Nr. 8–12 sub “ Nectarinia gularis ”); two specimens, both collected by Meyen in “ October ” [= 1–9 October 1831; see below] in “ Manila ” [= Laguna de Bay, Luzon, Philippines; see below]. These specimens were presumably destined by M.H.C. Lichtenstein for exchange, but their fate remains unknown. Type locality. Due to lectotypification, the type locality is ascertained as Manila, island of Luzon, Philippines. Remarks. Meyen (1834a: 82) introduced Brisson’s (1760a: 655) name for this bird, believing that Linnaeus’s (1766: 186, 188) Certhia sperata and Certhia zeylonica were its females and males, respectively, and that Brisson’s (1760a) philippensis had precedence. Brisson’s species-group names are not available for nomenclatural purposes (see Melville & Smith 1987), so Meyen (1834a) is the author of Nectarinia philippensis. Meyen (1834a) did not specify the type series of this species, but Lichtenstein (1832) listed nine relevant specimens, which thus belong to the type series. Moreover, Meyen (1834a: 82–83) explicitly included in his Nectarinia philippensis specimens figured by Brisson (1760a, pl. 30, fig. 2, and pl. 31, fig. 2–3), Sonnerat (1776, pl. 30, fig. A, B, D), and Daubenton (1768, pl. 246, fig. 1–2; 1773, pl. 576, fig. 1–4), which also belong in the type series (see above for their list). Meyen (1834a) did not specify where and when exactly he collected his specimens. M.H.C. Lichtenstein (1832) said that all Meyen specimens were collected in “October” at “ Manila ”. However, Meyen (1834a) used “ Manila ” in the sense of both the city and Luzon Island. His itinerary shows (see above) that all specimens originated from southern Luzon, having been collected at the city of Manila and/or at Laguna de Bay. If M.H.C. Lichtenstein (1832) is correct in saying that the specimens were collected in October, then they must have been collected at Laguna de Bay, more particularly on the Jalajala Peninsula and/or on Talim Island, during 1– 9 October. In absence to any evidence to the contrary we accept this locality and date of collection. As correctly observed by Gadow (1884: 63, 85), Meyen’s (1834a) description of “males” of philippensis agrees with that of male Nectarinia sperata, while his description of “females” of philippensis agrees with that of male Nectarinia jugularis. Meyen’s (1834a) Nectarinia philippensis is thus based on a mixed type series and its nomenclatural fate needs to be determined via lectotypification. We found no surviving syntype, so we designate here the specimen figured by Brisson (1760a, pl. 30, fig. 2) as the lectotype of this species. Herewith, Nectarinia philippensis Meyen, 1834, becomes a junior objective synonym of Certhia philippina Linnaeus, 1766, of which this specimen is the holotype (see above). All other former syntypes of N. philippensis Meyen become herewith paralectotypes of this form.Published as part of Mlíkovský, Jiří & Frahnert, Sylke, 2017, Type specimens and type localities of birds (Aves) collected during F. J. F. Meyen's circumnavigation in 1830 – 1832, pp. 1-22 in Zootaxa 4250 (1) on pages 12-13, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4250.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/43977
HASAR: mining sequential association rules for atherosclerosis risk factor analysis
No full text@inproceedings{AI-HEBERT-2004, author = {Brisson, L. and Pasquier, N. and Hébert, C. and Collard, M.}, title = {HASAR: mining sequential association rules for atherosclerosis risk factor analysis}, booktitle = {PKDD'04 Discovery Challenge on risk factors of patients with atherosclerosis co-located with the 8th European Conference on Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases PKDD'04}, pages = {14-25}, year = {2004}, address = {Pisa, Italy}, month = {September} }International audienc
'Archytas: Author and Authenticator of Pythagoreanism'
No full textThis paper critically examines the use of the name 'Pseudo-Archytas' to refer to two aspects of the reception of Archytas of Tarentum in antiquity: the 'author-inflection' and the 'authority-inflection'. In order to make progress on our understanding of authority and authorship within the Pythagorean tradition, it attempts to reconstruct Porphyry's views on the importance of Archytas as guarantor of Pythagorean authenticity in the former's lost work On the History of the Philosophers by considering a fragment preserved in Arabic by Ibn Abī Uṣaybi‘a. The article finally argues that a range of problems attend our use of the term 'pseudo-Archytas', which is not fit for purpose when considering the evidence regarding authorship and authority in the Pythagorean tradition. It recommends a more critical approach to the notion of authenticity within the Pythagorean tradition and suggests a new term, 'Archytism', as a more useful point of reference
Correction: Atzberger, C. Advances in Remote Sensing of Agriculture: Context Description, Existing Operational Monitoring Systems and Major Information Needs. Remote Sens. 2013, 5, 949–981
No full textThe author mistakenly spelt Nadine Brisson as Nadine Gobron in the Acknowledgements of [1]
"Mathesis Universalis" en Proclo. De las aporías cosmológicas al universo euclídeo
No full textThe author shows how Proclo is a precursor of 'Mathesis universalis'
concept, without admiting the aporetic method of mathematics
which is in Plato, Aristotle and Euclides thought. Today,
his paradigm is rejected but it is a decisive factor to understand
the sources of western thought. This study deals with the works
of Brisson, Cleary, Trudeau, Beierwaltes and Schmitz
- …
