Rittermere Farm Craft Studio Fonds, 1951-2006

During the 1950’s, the Rittenhouse family of Vineland in the Niagara Peninsula opened a craft store and studio. Within a short period of time, they realized that resources for the craft of rug hooking were in demand and they began to build their business around this niche. Edna Rittenhouse, the mother, was the wool dyer; Margaret Rowan, the daughter, was the pattern designer; Ted Rowan, the son-in-law, changed careers and became the manager of the family business. The 1960’s were a prosperous time, not only in the Niagara Peninsula, but also for the Rittenhouse business. Edna Rittenhouse had been hooking rugs for decades but she and her family worked at developing and sharing newer techniques with newer materials. Shading manuals were authored and published; students became teachers; creativity abounded in the demand for and the creation of new designs. Instead of using woolen yarn, they were using pure woolen fabric; instead of using a standard cutter, they began using a uniquely designed cutter; instead of using frames, they employed a table top method. The new material and technique resulted in a rug with a smooth, uniform texture and a soft nap. Since many crafters belonged to crafters guilds, Margaret and Ted Rowan began promoting the idea of a guild for rug hookers and in time the Ontario Hooking Craft Guild was also a reality. A joint project between Chatelaine magazine and the Rittermere studio for Canada’s centennial year of 1967 was extremely well received within the circle of hooking crafters and the Rittermere Farm Craft Studio became a North American landmark for crafters. From this point onward the studio had a large customer base not only in North America but also overseas. The studio remained popular until 1984 when Margaret and Ted Rowan decided to retire. The Rittermere name has been preserved in the name of Rittermere-Hurst-Field which is a similar business located in Aurora which is just north of Toronto.

Larval habitat associations with human land uses, roads, rivers, and land cover for Anopheles albimanus, A. pseudopunctipennis, and A. punctimacula (Diptera: Culicidae) in coastal and highland Ecuador

Larval habitat for three highland Anopheles species: Anopheles albimanus Wiedemann, Anopheles pseudopunctipennis Theobald, and Anopheles punctimacula Dyar and Knab was related to human land uses, rivers, roads, and remotely sensed land cover classifications in the western Ecuadorian Andes. Of the five commonly observed human land uses, cattle pasture (n = 30) provided potentially suitable habitat for A. punctimacula and A. albimanus in less than 14% of sites, and was related in a principal components analysis (PCA) to the presence of macrophyte vegetation, greater surface area, clarity, and algae cover. Empty lots (n = 30) were related in the PCA to incident sunlight and provided potential habitat for A. pseudopunctipennis and A. albimanus in less than 14% of sites. The other land uses surveyed (banana, sugarcane, and mixed tree plantations; n = 28, 21, 25, respectively) provided very little standing water that could potentially be used for larval habitat. River edges and eddies (n = 41) were associated with greater clarity, depth, temperature, and algae cover, which provide potentially suitable habitat for A. albimanus in 58% of sites and A. pseudopunctipennis in 29% of sites. Road-associated water bodies (n = 38) provided potential habitat for A. punctimacula in 44% of sites and A. albimanus in 26% of sites surveyed. Species collection localities were compared to land cover classifications using Geographic Information Systems software. All three mosquito species were associated more often with the category “closed/open broadleaved evergreen and/or semi-deciduous forests” than expected (P ≤ 0.01 in all cases), given such a habitat’s abundance. This study provides evidence that specific human land uses create habitat for potential malaria vectors in highland regions of the Andes.

Presentation from the Office of Macdonald and Rykert regarding the Case of O'Connor vs. the Great Western Railway Co.

Presentation from the Office of Macdonald and Rykert regarding the Case of O’Connor vs. the Great Western Railway Co. This is a handwritten, 9 ½ page double sided document). Some of the witnesses for the plaintiff included: Robert Johnson, John Ryder, Edward Duffy, Gilbert Gregory, John Cutter, James Patterson, Samuel Rush and Francis Bigger, among others. They claimed that the Great Western Railway Co. was destroying their land. Jacob Dittrick claimed that the culverts were not large enough to carry off water. Mr. Jackson noticed injury to his flats. Wild grass was destroying the bottom grass, May 6, 1836.