(FAB12_1_002) 'Would you know the new, you must search the old': William Lethaby's 'Architecture, Mysticism and Myth' (1891) and the 'Hypnerotomachia Poliphili' (1499)

Published in the final months of 1891, Architecture, Mysticism and Myth was the first architectural treatise written by the late nineteenth-century English architect and theorist William Richard Lethaby (1857-1931).' Documenting the characteristic attributes of the architectural myth of the "temple idea", and its presence amongst architectures of multiple ancient cultures, the text was endowed with a distinctly historical tone. In examining the motives behind myth, which Lethaby defined as the interaction and reaction between the natural universe and the built environment, Lethaby also injected a series of theoretical considerations into the text. It is clear that Lethaby's interest in the temple idea was not limited to its curious, prolific presence in past architectures, hut also embraced a consideration of what lessons the temple idea may contribute to the struggle of the late nineteenth-century English architect to define an "art of the future".

The subfamily Aephnidiogeninae Yamaguti, 1934 (Digenea: Lepocreadiidae), its status and that of the genera Aephnidiogenes Nicoll, 1915, Holorchis Stossich, 1901, Austroholorchis n g, Pseudaephnidiogenes Yamaguti, 1971, Pseudoholorchis Yamaguti, 1958 and N

The status of all of the putative member genera of the subfamily Aephnidiogeninae is reconsidered, based mainly on the morphology of the terminal genitalia, Aephnidiogenes Nicoll, 1915 is the only genus retained in the Aaephnidiogeninae. Aephnidiogenes major Yamaguti, 1934 from Diagramma labiosum from the southern Great Barrier Reef is redescribed with particular reference to the terminal genitalia, and is shown to lack a true cirrussac, a condition considered to be diagnostic of the Aephnidiogeninae. Holorchis Stossich, 1901 is placed in the subfamily Lepidapedinae. Holorchis pycnoporus Stossich, 1901 from Pagellus acarne from off Spanish Sahara and from Diplodus vulgaris from off Italy and H. legendrei Dollfus, 1946 from Sparodon durbanensis and D. sargus from off eastern Cape Province, South Africa and from Pagellus erythrinus from the Adriatic Sea and Italy are studied and illustrated. The terminal genitalia of H. pycnoporus are found to be enigmatic, but those of H. legendrei are found to fit clearly into the 'Lepidapedon-like' pattern. A new genus Austroholorchis is erected in the Lepidapedinae, with A. sprenti (Gibson, 1987) n. comb. as the type-species. Its diagnostic features are its ani, infundibuliform oral sucker and the position of the ovary at about mid-level of the uterus. A. sprenti is illustrated, its hosts in Queensland waters being Sillago maculata, S, analis and S. ciliata. A, levis n. sp. is described from Sillago bassensis from south-western Western Australia. The genus Pseudaephnidiogenes Yamaguti, 1971 is placed in the Lepidapedinae. P. rhabdosargi (Prudhoe, 1956) from Rhabdosargus sarba from off Natal, South Africa is illustrated and the terminal genitalia of P. rhabdosargi from R. sarba and from R. holubi from off eastern Cape Province and Pseudaephnidiogenes vossi Bray, 1985 from Caffrogobius nudiceps from off eastern Cape Province, South Africa are illustrated. The genus Pseudoholorchis Yamaguti, 1958 is placed in the subfamily Lepocreadiinae. The terminal genitalia of P. pulcher (Manter, 1954) from Latridopsis ciliaris from New Zealand are illustrated, The genus Neolepocreadium Thomas, 1960 is placed in the Lepocreadiidae.

Synonymy of Boophilus Curtice, 1891 with Rhipicephalus Koch, 1844 (Acari : Ixodidae)

Recent molecular and morphological studies of the genera Rhipicephalus Koch, 1844 and Boophilus Curtice, 1891 revealed that the five species of Boophilus make the genus Rhipicephalus paraphyletic. Thus, Rhipicephalus Koch, 1844 is not a monophyletic ( natural) lineage and some species of Rhipicephalus are more closely related to the species of Boophilus than to other species of Rhipicephalus. Here, we revise these genera: Boophilus is synonymised with Rhipicephalus, and Rhipicephalus ( sensu lato) ( including Boophilus) is redefined. By synonymising Boophilus with Rhipicephalus, we have changed the nomenclature so that it reflects our understanding of the phylogeny of these ticks. Boophilus is retained as a subgenus of Rhipicephalus, so the synonymy of Boophilus with Rhipicephalus does not result in the loss of the name Boophilus. In addition, Rhipicephalus is a well- known genus and the change proposed is simple - all five species of Boophilus become members of Rhipicephalus ( Boophilus).