4,546 research outputs found
People want to press the button themselves; interview
No full textPeople can be strange creatures, as ergonomics expert Professor Peter Vink (Industrial Design Engineering) knows. They will sit in tight and uncomfortable seating to save money, complain about it in surveys and then do it all over again. These are the enigmas of environmental ergonomics.Delft University of Technolog
Contracting arrangements in agribusiness procurement practices in South Africa
No full textContracting arrangements in agribusiness procurement practices in South AfricaProcurement, contracting, agro-processing,
Preface.
No full textAbstractProceedings LCMAS 2003LCMAS 2003, the first international workshop on Logic and Communication in Multi-Agent Systems, was held on June 29th, 2003 in Eindhoven, the Netherlands as a pre-conference satelite of the thirtieth International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming ICALP 2003. These proceedings contain invited and contributed papers that were revised based on the feedback of a reviewing process and discussions during the workshop and have been collected in this volume.The LCMAS workshop series aims at bringing together researchers interested in topics related to the development and use of formal tools when applied to modelling, specifying, verifying, and reasoning about multi-agent systems in which communication and updating play a crucial role. Therefore, the workshop wants to provide a forum for discussing technical issues that arise in formalisms (epistemic, temporal, dynamic and authentication logics and tools) inspired by the needs of modelling information exchanges in multi-agent systems. The papers contained in this volume illustrate various approaches of dealing with interpretation and profilation of information in multi-agent systems.The program commitee for LCMAS 2003 consisted of David Basin (Zurich), Johan van Benthem (Amsterdam), Frank de Boer (CWI Amsterdam, Utrecht), Marco Colombetti (Milan), Tim Finin (Baltimore), Yannis Labrou (Fujitsu Labs of America), Marek Sergot (Imperial College London) and Paul Syverson (Naval Research Lab). Additional reviewing was carried out by the organisers. At the workshop two invited talks were welcomed: one by Pierre-Yves Schobbens (Namur) entitled Alternating-time logic with imperfect recall, and one by Alexandru Baltag (Oxford) entitled Epistemic Program Constructs: learning, updating, responding, intercepting. Many thanks to all who have contributed to and participated in LCMAS 2003. The financial support of the ICALP 2003 organisation and of Technische Universiteit Eindhoven is gratefully acknowledged.December 2003,Wiebe van der Hoek, Alessio Lomuscio, Erik de Vink and Mike Wooldridge(workshop organizers
Comfort
No full textStreven naar comfort of het tegengaan van gebrek aan comfort (discomfort) kan de samenleving veel geld schelen. Comfort is geen luxe. Het is riskant te vertrouwen op ontwerpen die worden aangeboden onder het motto van comfort. Ontwerpers en ergonomen kunnen een unieke aanpak bieden waarin aangetoond wordt hoeveel mensen het product comfortabel zullen vinden. Spreker pleit voor meer kennis aangaande discomfort toe te passen in participatief ergonomische ontwerptrajecten. Ook is nieuwe kennis nodig over de relatie tussen beleving en comfort. Dit kan aan de hand van experimenten waarin vanuit de doelgroep over een zo reëel mogelijke situatie gerapporteerd wordt over comfort
Revision of Magodendron (Sapotaceae) with observations on floral development and morphology
No full textThe genus Magodendron Vink is revised. A second species, M. mennyae, is described. In the developing flower the staminodes are initiated when the stamens are already distinctly differentiated into filament and anther. The probability of movements of the staminodes during anthesis is discussed. In the youngest stages observed the pistil is a single, apically open locule; the sept primordia on its wall are free from the pistil base. The septs grow towards the centre of the pistil. The concrescence of the septs is imperfect, resulting in open connections between the ovarial locules and towards the stigma
Oedicerina teresae Jażdżewska & Brandt & Arbizu & Vink 2022
No full textOEDICERINA TERESAE JAżDżEWSKA, SP. NOV. (FIGS 7–12) Z o o b a n k r e g i s t r a t i o n: u r n: l s i d: z o o b a n k. org:act: 8B11C501-328E-4F33-AA78-F2229D4847A1. Type material Holotype: Immature ♂, 5.5 mm, body remnants and two slides with appendages, ZMH K-60661, DSB_3680, St. Ma 16–25, 11°49.143’ N, 116°58.492’ W- 11°49.975’ N, 116°57.797’ W; 4107– 4101 m, 29 April 2016, leg. Annika Janssen. Allotype: Mature ♀ (oostegites setose, no egg), 5.8 mm, ZMH K-60662, DSB_3818, St. AB2-EB12, 12°02.72’ N, 117°25.43’ W- 12°03.03’ N, 117°24.28’ W; 4223–4299 m, 16 March 2015, leg. Inga Mohrbeck. Paratype: One juvenile, 3.4 mm, ZMH K-60663, DSB_3681, St. Ma 16–28, 11°49.654’ N, 117°00.299’ W- 11°49.902’ N, 116°59.174’ W; 4143 – 4133 m, 1 May 2016, leg. Annika Janssen. Additional material: One individual sex undetermined, broken in two parts, DNA extracted from anterior part, posterior part preserved but not used for taxonomic evaluation, ZMH K-60664, DSB_3683, St. Ma 16–95, 11°47.862’ N, 117°30.639’ W- 11°47.152’ N, 117°29.490’ W, 4356–4359 m, 9 May 2016, leg. Annika Janssen. The registered type material is deposited in the Zoological Museum of Hamburg, Germany. Type locality: Eastern central Pacific, CCZ, St. Ma 16–25, 11°49.143’ N, 116°58.492’ W- 11°49.975’ N, 116°57.797’ W; 4107– 4101 m. Etymology: The species is named for Dr. Teresa Jażdżewska, the first author’s mother and a specialist in ephemeropteran and hirudinean taxonomy, diversity and ecology. Description: Based on male, 5.5 mm, St. Ma 16–25. Head (Fig. 7): longer than deep, longer than pereonites 1–2 combined; no eyes or ocular pigment visible; rostrum curved but not deflexed, the angle between head dorsal margin and rostrum margin more than 90 °, rostrum reaching 2/3 of first article of peduncle of antenna 1; interantennal lobe moderate, subtriangular. Antenna 1 (Fig. 8): subequal in length to antenna 2; length ratios of peduncle articles 1–3 1:0.7:0.4; flagellum 12-articulate, first article longer than article 3 of peduncle; accessory flagellum 1-articulate, minute, slender, length 0.1 × first flagellum article; peduncle sparsely setose, flagellum naked. Antenna 2 (Fig. 8): peduncle moderately setose; length of article 4 0.9 × article 5; flagellum broken at sixth article (right antenna 2–7-articulate). Upper lip (labrum) (Fig. 8): damaged during preparation. Mandible (Fig. 8): incisor margins with five (left) or six (right) teeth; left lacinia mobilis six-cusped; right lacinia mobilis narrower with four cusps; accessory spine rows with four slender, pectinate spines; molar columnar, strongly triturative, denticulate, with one associated seta; palp 3-articulate, article 1 short, article 2 length 0.7 × article 3, with seven posterodistal setae, article 3 slightly tapering distally, anterior margin with three (left) or four (right) setae, posterior margin with 11 setae, apically with two or three setae. Lower lip (Fig. 8): outer lobes broadly rounded, mandibular lobes narrow; inner lobes large, separate. Maxilla 1 (Fig. 8): inner plate oval, with two distal setae; outer plate with eight acute setal-teeth (three/four with bifurcate tips); palp 2-articulate, longer than outer plate, robust, rounded apically, article 1 short, length 0.25 × article 2, article 2 with eight apical/subapical setae and one long, lateral setae. Maxilla 2 (Fig. 8): inner plate wider than outer, right inner plate also shorter than outer (left subequal in length), inner plate with setae and spines apically and subapically, fine setules along inner and outer margins; outer plate rounded with apical spines and setae, with one moderately long apicolateral setae. Maxilliped (Fig. 9): inner plate subrectangular, reaching about 0.3 × basal article of palp, apical margin with seven slender spines; outer plate slender and slightly curved, long, reaching 0.5 × length of palp article 2, apical and medial margins with setae and small spines; palp 4-articulate, strong; article 1 tapering distally; article 2 triangular, widest at the midpoint, with strong medial setae; article 3 expanded mediodistally, not produced along article 4; article 4 strong, slightly curved; length ratios of articles 1–4 1:1.8:0.7:1. Pereon. Pereonite 1 (Fig. 7) longer than pereonite 2, pereonites 3–6 of similar length, longer than 2, pereonite 7 the longest, extending dorsally into a sharp posteriorly directed tooth. Gnathopod 1 (Fig. 9): coxa subtriangular, anterodistal corner subacute, posterodistal corner rectangular, ventral margin with single short seta anteriorly placed, width to depth ratio 1:1; basis straight, slightly expanded distally, distal half of anterior margin with row of long setae, posterior margin with long setae (some delicately plumose), posterodistal corner with single spine, some short setae on the inner surface; merus, posterodistal lobe rounded, moderately setose; carpus strongly expanded, anterior margin with six setae along distal half (some delicately plumose), posterior lobe rounded with setae along posterior and distal margins; propodus subchelate, triangular, strongly widening distally, anterior margin moderately setose, palm almost as long as hind margin, transverse, convex, margin crenate, with fine denticulations, with medial spines and lateral row of submarginal setules, palmar corner subrectangular with one spine; dactylus curved, distinctly longer than palm. Gnathopod 2 (Fig. 10): coxa narrow, slightly tapering distally, width 0.5 × depth, apex rounded, ventral margin naked; basis straight, c. 15 long setae forming circular patch anterodistally, four long setae at posterior margin, three setae at posterodistal corner, some setae at the surface; merus, posterodistal lobe narrow, subacute, moderately setose; carpus strongly expanded, wider than propodus, anterior margin with two setae, posterodistal lobe subacute, extending palmar corner of propodus, distal margin oblique armed with a row of spines, posterior margin with moderately long setae; propodus longer than carpus, subchelate, triangular, strongly widening distally, anterior margin with four long setae regularly placed, group of setae at anterodistal corner, palm shorter than hind margin, transverse, convex, margin crenate, with fine denticulations, with medial spines and lateral row of submarginal setules, palmar corner subrectangular with one spine; dactylus curved, just longer than palm. Pereopod 3 (Fig. 10): coxa subrectangular, wider and deeper than coxa 2, ventral margin naked; basis longer than coxa, narrow, length 5.4 × width, some long setae anteriorly; merus slightly expanded distally, two groups of setae anterodistally and three groups of setae posteriorly; carpus narrow, length 1.1 × merus, one group of setae at anterodistal corner, posteriorly armed with long setae organized in eight groups; propodus length 0.6 × carpus, with a group of setae anterodistally and five groups of moderately long setae along posterior margin; dactylus thin, as long as propodus. Pereopod 4 (Fig. 10): coxa wider than deep, anterior margin strongly convex, extending distally, coxa the widest almost at 2/3 of its depth, ventral margin naked, posteroventral lobe huge, blunt (width to depth ratio of the lobe 1:0.7), posterior margin deeply excavated; basis long and narrow, length 5.4 × width, sparse long setae at anterior and posterior margin as well as on the surface; merus slightly expanded, sparsely setose; carpus-dactylus broken off. Pereopod 5 (Fig. 11): coxa about as deep as coxa 4, bilobed, posterior lobe expanded ventrally, ventral margin straight, with one seta anteriorly placed, anterior lobe 0.5 × depth of posterior lobe; basis narrow, length 2.8 × width, five long, delicately plumose setae at anterior margin, three long setae along posterior margin; merus as long as basis, sparsely setose; carpus-dactylus broken off. Pereopod 6 (Fig. 11): coxa partly damaged; basis narrow, length 3.3 × width, sparsely setose; merus as long as basis, sparsely setose; carpus-dactylus broken off. Pereopod 7 (Fig. 11): coxa wider than deep, rounded posteriorly; basis ovate, length 1.6 × width, widest in the mid length, tapering distally, anterior margin strongly convex, one short spine at anterodistal corner, posterior margin slightly oblique in distal half, denticulate, posterodistal lobe absent; merus distally damaged, with groups of setae both anteriorly and posteriorly (some setae broken); carpus-dactylus broken off. Pleon. Pleonites 1–3 (Fig. 7) with distinct mid-dorsal, posteriorly directed teeth. Epimera: 1 and 3 evenly rounded, epimeron 2 posterodistal corner subquadrate, epimeron 3 delicately serrate. Pleopods [pleopod 1 (Fig. 12)]: powerful, peduncles and rami long. Urosome. Urosomite 1 (Fig. 7) longest, produced distally into a sharp, large, upright tooth; urosomite 3 longer than 2. Uropods (Fig. 12): Uropod 1 (damaged): peduncle margins with some moderately long setae; rami broken off. Uropod 2 (rami damaged): peduncle with some moderately long setae; inner ramus with sparse setae. Uropod 3: peduncle short, peduncle length 0.3 × inner ramus; inner and outer ramus with short spines along lateral margins. Telson: (Fig. 12) short, length 1.5 × width, cleft 35%, lobes subacute, widely diverging, notched subapically, tips unequal in size (inner slightly shorter than outer; on one side outer tip broken), single seta placed in the notch. Intraspecific variation: No distinct differences were observed between the holotype and the mature female collected. The difference between adult individuals and the juveniles is expressed by the number of articles of flagella of antenna 1 and antenna 2 which is smaller in the latter. Molecular identification: Following the definition given by Pleijel et al. (2008), the sequence of the holotype male of O. teresae (ZMH K-60661, GenBank accession number MW 377944) is designed as a hologenophore of all obtained sequences. The sequences of the paratype and additional individuals of the species are deposited in GenBank with the following accession numbers: MW 377925, MW 377934, MW 377942. The species has received also a Barcode Index Number from BOLD: AEB1523 (dx.doi.org/10.5883/ BOLD: AEB1523). Distribution: Eastern central Pacific, CCZ (Fig. 25), 4101–4359 m.Published as part of Jażdżewska, Anna M., Brandt, Angelika, Arbizu, Pedro Martínez & Vink, Annemiek, 2022, Exploring the diversity of the deep sea-four new species of the amphipod genus Oedicerina described using morphological and molecular methods, pp. 181-225 in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 194 on pages 193-199, DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlab032, http://zenodo.org/record/579930
Anticiperen versus improviseren: Over recyclebaar bouwen en hergebruik
No full textWhen the SS Normandie was launched in the early 1930s, it was one of the most famous and most luxurious ships of its time. In the end it would only serve as a passenger liner for six years. During the Second World War the US Navy appropriated it for use as a troopship. The ship was crippled by suspected sabotage in 1942. Shortly after the war, a mere 15 years after it had been launched, the ship was taken apart and the steel recycled. The luxury interiors were removed; the doors, the furniture and thousands of parts of the SS Normandie were scattered all over the world. This dismantling did not mean the ship was destroyed; pieces of it survive in countless cities, hotels, churches and homes.The status of architecture is different from that of shipbuilding; in the collective consciousness it is of another order entirely. Demolition is destruction and the mere announcement of demolition often elicits violent reactions. The question is whether this is always a good thing. Would it not be better for some buildings, however beautiful they once were, to be disassembled into elements for reuse? The pragmatism of shipbuilding can improve the functioning of our cities. It would present opportunities for a unique, new architecture if we showed more daring in slicing into, hollowing out or upending the existing built environment. Reuse of existing structures, and certainly of landmarks, requires a lot from designers, but it can lead to startling, strange and exciting proposals when the dismantling of elements becomes an option.Anticipation versus improvisation contrasts design for disassembly, in which a second life for construction materials is anticipated from the outset, with reuse, in which second-hand materials are used for construction. Both approaches centre on the process and not the final design. They therefore do not generate new styles or aesthetics, but rather dismantlable prototypes and unexpected architectural improvisations. The motivation for reuse and design for disassembly is the necessity for a more frugal use of materials. Not just to prevent the production of waste material, but also because of the impending shortage of raw materials.Teachers of Practic
Oedicerina henrici Jażdżewska & Brandt & Arbizu & Vink 2022
No full textOEDICERINA HENRICI JAżDżEWSKA, SP. NOV. (FIGS 2–6) Z o o b a n k r e g i s t r a t i o n: u r n: l s i d: z o o b a n k. org:act: 9A993D45-B781-4479-A4D6-2EC840D1BC3E. Type material Holotype: ♂, 6.5 mm, body remnants and two slides with appendages, ZMH K-60658, DSB_3762, St. AB2-EB04, 12°07.83’ N, 117°18.67’ W- 12°08.02’ N, 117°17.52’ W, 4111–4122 m, 25 February 2015, leg. Inga Mohrbeck. Paratype: Immature ♂, urosome missing, individual originally in one piece, broke into three parts during examination, one slide with appendages, ZMH K-60659, DSB_3682, St. Ma 16–95, 11°47.862’ N, 117°30.639’ W- 11°47.152’ N, 117°29.490’ W, 4356–4359 m, 9 May 2016, leg. Annika Janssen. Additional material: One ovigerous ♀ (single egg), individual found in two parts, DNA is extracted from the anterior part, posterior part preserved but not used for taxonomic evaluation, ZMH K-60660, DSB_3582, St. SO 262-156, 11°49.381’ N, 117°32.663’ W- 11°49.752’ N, 117°30.760’ W, 4340– 4340 m, 9 May 2018, leg. Pedro Martínez Arbizu. The registered type material is deposited in the Zoological Museum of Hamburg, Germany. Type locality: Eastern central Pacific, CCZ, St. AB 2-EB04, 12°07.83’ N, 117°18.67’ W- 12°08.02’ N, 117°17.52’ W, 4111–4122 m. Etymology: The species is named for Prof. Krzysztof Henryk (Latin Henricus) Jażdżewski, the first author’s father and renowned specialist in amphipod taxonomy, diversity and ecology. Description: Based on male, 6.1 mm, St. AB2-EB04. Head (Fig. 2): longer than deep, longer than pereonites 1–3 combined; no eyes or ocular pigment visible; rostrum strongly deflexed, the angle between head dorsal margin and rostrum margin 90 ° or less, rostrum as long as first article of peduncle of antenna 1; interantennal lobe weak, rounded. Antenna 1 (Fig. 3; broken in holotype at first peduncular article, description based on paratype): length ratios of peduncle articles 1–3 1:0.7:0.3; flagellum broken at 11th article; accessory flagellum 1-articulate, minute, slender, one fourth of the length of first flagellum article; sparse setae placed both on peduncle and flagellar articles. Antenna 2 (Fig. 3; broken in holotype at first peduncular article, description based on paratype): peduncle moderately setose; length of article 4 1.4 × article 5; peduncular article 5 with short setae along dorsal margin; flagellum shorter than peduncle article 5, 7-articulate (but last flagellar articles broken off), sparse setae placed distally on flagellar articles. Upper lip (labrum) (Fig. 3): wider than long, rounded apically, with fine setules laterally. Mandible (Fig. 3): incisor margins with five teeth; left lacinia mobilis five-cusped; right lacinia mobilis narrower with five cusps; accessory spine rows with five-six serrate setae; molar columnar, strongly triturative, denticulate, with one associated seta; palp 3-articulate, article 1 short, article 2 equal in length to article 3, with 9–10 posterodistal setae, article 3 slightly tapering distally, anterior margin with three to four setae, posterior margin with a row of 30 setae of different length. Lower lip (Fig. 3): outer lobes broadly rounded, mandibular lobes narrow; inner lobes large, separate. Maxilla 1 (Fig. 3): inner plate oval, with two distal setae; outer plate with nine acute setal-teeth (three with bifurcate tips); palp 2-articulate, longer than outer plate, slender, rounded apically, article 1 short, length 0.3 × article 2, article 2 with 10–11 apical/subapical setae and two lateral setae. Maxilla 2 (Fig. 3): left— inner plate shorter than outer, right—plates subequal in length, inner plate slightly tapering distally, width about 1.1 × outer, with setae and spines apically and subapically, fine setules along inner margin; outer plate rounded with apical spines and setae, with four apicolateral setae. Maxilliped (Fig. 4) (due to very strong staining of the holotype during preparation for CLSM some setae, especially placed on the surface of maxilliped not visible): inner plate subrectangular, reaching about 0.3 × basal article of palp, apical margin with eight slender spines; outer plate slender and slightly curved, long, reaching almost 0.5 × length of palp article 2, apical and medial margins with setae and small spines; palp 4-articulate, strong; surface of article 2 with minute, triangular scales; article 1 slightly tapering distally; article 2 triangular, widest at the midpoint, with strong medial setae; article 3 expanded mediodistally, but not produced along article 4; article 4 strong, slightly curved; length ratios of articles 1–4 1:1.7:0.7:1. Pereon. Pereonite 1 (Fig. 2) longer than 2, pereonite 3 same length as 2; pereonites 4–5 successively longer; pereonite 6 shorter than pereonite 5, pereonite 7 the longest, extending dorsally into sharp posteriorly directed tooth. Gnathopod 1 (Fig. 4): coxa subtriangular, distinctly produced anteriorly, anterodistal corner narrowly rounded, posterodistal corner rectangular, ventral margin naked, width to depth ratio 1:0.7; basis straight, weakly expanded, distal half of anterior margin with four long setae and c. 10 moderately long setae, posterior margin without setae, single spine at posterodistal corner; merus, posterodistal lobe rounded, moderately setose; carpus strongly expanded, anterior margin naked, posterior lobe subacute with setae along posterior margin and a few setae placed at distal margin; propodus subchelate, triangular, strongly widening distally, anterior margin with four setae in two groups, palm slightly shorter than hind margin, transverse, convex, margin crenate, with fine denticulations, with medial spines and lateral row of submarginal setules, palmar corner subrectangular with single spine; dactylus curved, longer than palm. Gnathopod 2 (Figs 4, 5) (broken in holotype at basis; described based on paratype): coxa narrow, slightly tapering distally, width 0.7 × depth, apex rounded, ventral margin naked; basis straight, six thin setae at inner surface of anterior margin, 20 long setae forming circular patch anterodistally, posterior margin with two moderately long setae, single spine at posterodistal corner; merus, posterodistal lobe narrow, moderately setose; carpus strongly expanded, wider than propodus, anterior margin with a few sparsely placed setae, posterodistal lobe subacute, exceeding palm of propodus, distal margin oblique armed with a row of spines, posterior margin with moderately long setae; propodus shorter than carpus, subchelate, triangular, strongly widening distally, anterior margin with six long setae regularly placed, palm shorter than hind margin, transverse, convex, margin crenate, with fine denticulations, with medial spines and lateral row of submarginal setules, palmar corner subrectangular with single spine; dactylus curved, longer than palm. Pereopod 3 (Fig. 5): coxa subrectangular, slightly larger than coxa 2, ventral margin naked; basis long and narrow, length 4.5 × width, posterior margin with traces of three short setae, single short spine at posterodistal corner; merus expanded distally, almost naked; carpus length 1.2 × merus, posteriorly armed with long setae organized in eight groups; propodus length 0.6 × carpus, with three groups of long setae anterodistally and c. 15 moderately long setae along posterior margin; dactylus thin, shorter than propodus (0.7 × propodus). Pereopod 4 (Fig. 6): right—coxa wider than deep, anterior margin slightly convex, posteroventral lobe huge, blunt, slightly narrowing distally (width to depth ratio of the lobe 1:0.5), posterior margin deeply excavated; basis long and narrow, length 5.8 × width, single short spine at posterodistal corner; merus weakly expanded; carpus-dactylus broken off; left—coxa partially damaged, not dissected; basis long and narrow, length 6 × width, two short setae along posterior margin, single short spine at posterodistal corner; merus weakly expanded; carpus subequal in length to merus, posteriorly armed with long setae organized in eight groups; propodus length 0.6 × carpus, with three groups of long setae anterodistally and long setae along posterior margin; dactylus slender, shorter than propodus (0.8 × propodus). Pereopod 5 (Fig. 6): coxa bilobed (partly broken); basis narrow, length 3.4 × width, traces of nine setae along distal half of anterior margin, two short setae at anterodistal corner; merus length 0.9 × basis, with traces of four setae along anterior margin; carpus 0.5 × length of merus armed with 13 setae organized in four groups along posterior margin; propodus slender, 1.1 × length of merus, with groups of setae at posterior margin and at lateral surface; dactylus slender, length 0.7 × propodus. Pereopod 6 (Fig. 6): coxa bilobed but anterior lobe very small, posterior lobe long, distal margin slightly convex; basis narrow, length 3.1 × width, traces of nine setae along distal half of anterior margin, one short seta at anterodistal corner; merus length 0.7 × basis; carpus-dactylus broken off. Pereopod 7 (Fig. 6): coxa wider than deep, rounded posteriorly; basis ovate, length 1.7 × width, tapering distally, anterior margin strongly convex with a few sparse short setae, posterior margin rather straight, crenate, posterodistal lobe absent; merus as long as basis with a few setae along anterior and posterior margins; carpus-dactylus broken off. Pleon. Pleonites 1–2 (Fig. 2) with mid-dorsal, relatively long posteriorly directed teeth; pleonite 3 with short, slender, posteriorly directed tooth. Epimera: 1–3 evenly rounded, epimeron 3 crenulated. Pleopods [pleopod 2 (Fig. 6)]: powerful, peduncles and rami long. Urosome. Urosomite 1 (Fig. 2) longest, with a small hump on dorsal surface in the mid length of the urosomite and a distinct, sharp upright tooth at the posterior margin; urosomite 3 longer than 2, depressed anteriorly, with acute mid-dorsal projection over telson. Uropods: damaged. Telson (Fig. 6): short, length 1.4 × width, cleft 45%, lobes apically damaged, widely diverging, with one seta on dorsal surface. Intraspecific variation: Due to the bad condition of the individuals not much can be said about sexual or size-dependent dimorphism within the studied species. The only observed difference is the smaller size of the posterodorsal tooth on pleonite 3 in the immature male. Molecular identification: Following the definition given by Pleijel et al. (2008), the sequence of the holotype male of O. henrici (ZMH K-60658, GenBank accession number MW 377935) is designed as a hologenophore of all obtained sequences. The sequences of the paratype and an additional individual of the species are deposited in GenBank with the following accession numbers: MW 377932, MW 377937. The species has also received a Barcode Index Number from BOLD: AEB1524 (dx.doi. org/10.5883/ BOLD: AEB1524). Distribution: Eastern central Pacific, CCZ (Fig. 25), 4111–4359 m.Published as part of Jażdżewska, Anna M., Brandt, Angelika, Arbizu, Pedro Martínez & Vink, Annemiek, 2022, Exploring the diversity of the deep sea-four new species of the amphipod genus Oedicerina described using morphological and molecular methods, pp. 181-225 in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 194 on pages 186-192, DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlab032, http://zenodo.org/record/579930
The Priestly code and seven other studies, /
No full textEnglish, French, or German.Bibliography: p. 5-8.The date and origin of the Priestly Code in the Old Testament / J. G. Vink. -- Jakob segnet Josephs Söhne. Darstellungen von Genesis XLVIII in der Überlieferung und bei Rembrandt / J. C. H. Lerman. -- Some translation problems. Judges v 29, Pslam cxx 7, Jona iv 4.9. / Chr. H. W. Brekelmans. -- Der Zornesbecher / H. A. Brongers. -- Ezekiel xiv 1-8 / J. Schoneveld. -- [Hebrew phrase] in the psalms / N. A. van Uchelen. -- Die Theophanie in Ps. 1 1-6 / Nic. H. Ridderbos. / Huibert Duifhuis (1531-1581) et l'exégèse du psaume lxxxiv 4 / M. J. Mulder
- …
