Revision of Hawaiian, Australasian, Oriental, and Japanese Parandrinae (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae)

A comprehensive revision of the Subfamily Parandrinae (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) from the Hawaiian, Australasian, Oriental, and Japanese regions is presented. Seven (7) new genera are described: Komiyandra, Melanesiandra, Papuandra, Storeyandra, Hawaiiandra, Caledonandra, and Malukandra. All known, indigenous species from these regions are assigned to new genera resulting in the following new combinations: Komiyandra janus (Bates, 1875), K. shibatai (Hayashi, 1963), K. formosana (Miwa and Mitono, 1939), K. lanyuana (Hayashi, 1981), Melanesiandra striatifrons (Fairmaire, 1879), M. solomonensis (Arigony, 1983), Caledonandra austrocaledonica (Montrouzier, 1861), C. passandroides (Thomson, 1867), Hawaiiandra puncticeps (Sharp, 1878), Malukandra heterostyla (Lameere, 1902), Storeyandra frenchi (Blackburn, 1895), and Papuandra araucariae (Gressitt, 1959). Thirty-one (31) new species are described: Komiyandra javana, K. nayani, K. ohbayashii, K. luzonica, K. philippinensis, K. mindanao, K. mehli, K. vivesi, K. lombokia, K. sulawesiana, K. irianjayana, K. menieri, K. sangihe, K. mindoro, K. niisatoi, K. drumonti, K. cabigasi, K. koni, K. johkii, K. poggii, K. uenoi, Melanesiandra bougainvillensis, M. birai, Papuandra gressitti, P. weigeli, P. queenslandensis, P. norfolkensis, P. rothschildi, P. oberthueri, Malukandra jayawijayana and M. hornabrooki. A lectotype is designated for Parandra janus Bates, 1875. Komiyandra janus (Bates, 1875) is excluded from nearly all previously reported locations, even one location given in the original description, and is now only known from Sulawesi. A paralectotype of Parandra janus Bates, 1875, is designated as a paratype for Komiyandra menieri, new species. Komiyandra formosana is excluded from the Japanese (Ryukyu Is.) fauna. Parandra vitiensis Nonfried, 1894, is again placed in synonymy with P. striatifrons Fairmaire (now Melanesiandra striatifrons). A neotype is designated for Parandra austrocaledonica Montrouzier, 1861. A lectotype is designated for Parandra janus Bates, 1875. The lectotype of Parandra gabonica Thomson, 1858, designated by Quentin and Villiers (1975) is considered invalid. Papuandra araucariae (Gressitt, 1959) is excluded from the fauna of Norfolk Island. The African species Stenandra kolbei (Lameere, 1903) is reported for the first time from Asia (N. Vietnam). Keys are presented to separate worldwide genera of Parandrini and all species within the study regions. Illustrations are provided for all species including many special characters to differentiate genera and species.

Food Handling Practices, Knowledge and Beliefs of Families with Young Children Based on the Health Belief Model

Objective: To determine current food handling practices, knowledge and beliefs of primary food handlers with children 10 years old and the relationship between these components. Design: Surveys were developed based on FightBac!™ concepts and the Health Belief Model (HBM) construct. Participants: The majority of participants (n= 503) were females (67%), Caucasians (80%), aged between 30 to 49 years old (83%), had one or two children (83%), prepared meals all or most of the time (76%) and consumed meals away from home three times or less per week (66%). Analysis: Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (rho) (p<0.05 and one-tail) and Chi-square were used to examine frequency and correlations. Results: Few participants reached the food safety objectives of Healthy People 2010 for safe food handling practices (79%). Mixed results were reported for perceived susceptibility. Only half of the participants (53-54%) reported high perceived severity for their children if they contracted food borne illness. Most participants were confident of their food handling practices for their children (91%) and would change their food handling practices if they or their family members previously experienced food poisoning (79%). Participants’ reasons for high self-efficacy were learning from their family and independently acquiring knowledge and skills from the media, internet or job. The three main barriers to safe food handling were insufficient time, lots of distractions and lack of control of the food handling practices of other people in the household. Participants preferred to use food safety information that is easy to understand, has scientific facts, causes feelings of health-threat and has lots of pictures or visuals. Participants demonstrate high levels of knowledge in certain areas of the FightBac!TM concepts but lacked knowledge in other areas. Knowledge and cues to action were most supportive of the HBM construct, while perceived susceptibility was least supportive of the HBM construct. Conclusion: Most participants demonstrate many areas to improve in their food handling practices, knowledge and beliefs. Adviser: Julie A. Albrecht

Parental Ethnotheories of Child Development: Looking Beyond Independence and Individualism in American Belief Systems

Over the past several decades, the topic of child development in a cultural context has received a great deal of theoretical and empirical investigation. Investigators from the fields of indigenous and cultural psychology have argued that childhood is socially and historically constructed, rather than a universal process with a standard sequence of developmental stages or descriptions. As a result, many psychologists have become doubtful that any stage theory of cognitive or socialemotional development can be found to be valid for all times and places. In placing more theoretical emphasis on contextual processes, they define culture as a complex system of common symbolic action patterns (or scripts) built up through everyday human social interaction by means of which individuals create common meanings and in terms of which they organize experience. Researchers understand culture to be organized and coherent, but not homogenous or static, and realize that the complex dynamic system of culture constantly undergoes transformation as participants (adults and children) negotiate and re-negotiate meanings through social interaction. These negotiations and transactions give rise to unceasing heterogeneity and variability in how different individuals and groups of individuals interpret values and meanings. However, while many psychologists—both inside and outside the fields of indigenous and cultural psychology–are now willing to give up the idea of a universal path of child development and a universal story of parenting, they have not necessarily foreclosed on the possibility of discovering and describing some universal processes that underlie socialization and development-in-context. The roots of such universalities would lie in the biological aspects of child development, in the evolutionary processes of adaptation, and in the unique symbolic and problem-solving capacities of the human organism as a culture-bearing species. For instance, according to functionalist psychological anthropologists, shared (cultural) processes surround the developing child and promote in the long view the survival of families and groups if they are to demonstrate continuity in the face of ecological change and resource competition, (e.g. Edwards & Whiting, 2004; Gallimore, Goldenberg, & Weisner, 1993; LeVine, Dixon, LeVine, Richman, Leiderman, Keefer, & Brazelton, 1994; LeVine, Miller, & West, 1988; Weisner, 1996, 2002; Whiting & Edwards, 1988; Whiting & Whiting, 1980). As LeVine and colleagues (1994) state: A population tends to share an environment, symbol systems for encoding it, and organizations and codes of conduct for adapting to it (emphasis added). It is through the enactment of these population-specific codes of conduct in locally organized practices that human adaptation occurs. Human adaptation, in other words, is largely attributable to the operation of specific social organizations (e.g. families, communities, empires) following culturally prescribed scripts (normative models) in subsistence, reproduction, and other domains [communication and social regulation]. (p. 12) It follows, then, that in seeking to understand child development in a cultural context, psychologists need to support collaborative and interdisciplinary developmental science that crosses international borders. Such research can advance cross-cultural psychology, cultural psychology, and indigenous psychology, understood as three sub-disciplines composed of scientists who frequently communicate and debate with one another and mutually inform one another’s research programs. For example, to turn to parental belief systems, the particular topic of this chapter, it is clear that collaborative international studies are needed to support the goal of crosscultural psychologists for findings that go beyond simply describing cultural differences in parental beliefs. Comparative researchers need to shed light on whether parental beliefs are (or are not) systematically related to differences in child outcomes; and they need meta-analyses and reviews to explore between- and within-culture variations in parental beliefs, with a focus on issues of social change (Saraswathi, 2000). Likewise, collaborative research programs can foster the goals of indigenous psychology and cultural psychology and lay out valid descriptions of individual development in their particular cultural contexts and the processes, principles, and critical concepts needed for defining, analyzing, and predicting outcomes of child development-in-context. The project described in this chapter is based on an approach that integrates elements of comparative methodology to serve the aim of describing particular scenarios of child development in unique contexts. The research team of cultural insiders and outsiders allows for a look at American belief systems based on a dialogue of multiple perspectives.

Revision of the genus Holocephalus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae: Coprini)

The genus Holocephalus Hope is revised and now contains five species: H. cristatus (Gillet), H. eridanus (Olivier), H. julieni sp.nov. H. sculptus (Gillet), and H. simoni sp.nov. All taxa are described and illustrated. A key to speies of Holocephalus is included. Lectotypes are designated for H. eridanus and H. sculptus. Scarabaeus eridanus Olivier is designated as the type species for the generic name Atrichius Gillet (a junior synonym of Holocephalus). On révise le genre Holocephalus Hope qui regroupe maintenant cinq es-pèces, soit H. cristatus (Gillet), H. eridanus (Olivier), H. julieni sp.nov., H. sculptus (Gillet) et H. simoni sp.nov. Outre les descriptions et illustrations pour chaque espèces on propose un tableau de détermination pour les espèces maintenant comprises dans le genre Holocephalus. On désigne des lectypes pour H. eridanus et H. sculptus. Enfin, on désigne l’espèce Scarabaeus eridanus Olivier comme type du genre Atrichius Gillet (considéré comme synonymec junior du genre Holocephalus).