A review of the Arhythmacanthidae (Acanthocephala) with a description of Heterosentis hirsutus n. sp. from Cnidoglanis macrocephala (Plotosidae) in Australia

Heterosentis hirsutus n. sp. is described from Cnidoglanis macrocephalo (Siluriformes: Plotosidae) from the Swan Estuary, Western Australia. It is distinguished by having 14 longitudinal rows of 6-7 hooks per row on the proboscis, a trunk armed anteriorly and posteriorly (=genital spines) with minute spines and lemnisci that may extend to the poster;or margin of the proboscis receptacle The new species also has prominent fragmented nuclei in its trunk well. New information is given for Heterosentis plotosi Yamoguti, 1935 from Plotosus lineatus (Siluriformes: Plotosidae) and H. poraplagusiarum (Nickol, 1972) Amin, 1985 from Paraplogusia guttata (Pleuronectiformes: Cynoglossidoe), both from Queensland. A key to the species of Heterosentis Van Cleave, 1931 is provided. The Arhythmacanthidae subfamilies are reviewed: there is little utility in the recognition of these taxa because of the small number of genera involved and the validity/ of the characters on which they ore based is in doubt, particularly whether trunk spines are present or absent. Only Acanthocephaloides Meyer, 1932, Breizocanthus Golvon, 1969, Euzetocanthus Golvan & Houin, 1964, Heterosentis, Hypoechinorhynchus Yamaguti, 1939 and Paracanthocepholoides Golvan, 1969 of the Arhythmacanthidae are considered valid. A key to these genera is provided. The monotypic genus Neocanthocepholoides Cable & Quick, 1954 is considered a new synonym of Acanthocephaloides thus creating Acanthocephaloides spinicaudatus (Cable & Quick, 1954) n. comb. Arhythmocanthus Yamaguti, 1935 is maintained as a synonym of Heterosentis because the distinction between two and three hook types is made equivocal when the transition between the opical and subapical hooks is gradual.

Amphitheater staging: In-the-round or to the front (and what about asides)?

When the existence in Utrecht of the DeWitt/Van Buchel drawing of the Swan Theater became known in 1888, William Poel was already seven years into his inquiries into the best means of staging the public amphitheater and great hall plays of the English Renaissance.1 I mention this to emphasize that the discourse came before the fact: the belief that Shakespeare's plays are best staged as it was then imprecisely imagined they had once been staged-simply, without elaborate settings or time-consuming scene changes, with direct actor-audience address, "in-the-round"-had as much to do with reactions against the late nineteenth-century stage's pictorialism, with its set-changing interruptions and cut-and-paste revisions to Shakespeare's texts, as it had to do with presenting the Bard "authentically." Some of the confusion caused by the uneasy mixing of historical scholarship and the assumptions and practices of our own contemporary theater profession can be glimpsed in the phenomenon of modern in-the-round staging, often claimed as a more "authentic" approach to Shakespeare in performance, but one which is then modified to make possible post-Stanislavsky acting methods and to satisfy modern audience expectations.