South American Coccinellidae (Coleoptera): part X: A systematic revision of Thalassa Mulsant (Hyperaspidinae)

The genus Thalassa Mulsant, 1850 is revised. Its five species are redescribed: T. pentaspilota (Chevrolat, 1853), T. flaviceps Mulsant, 1850, T. similaris Mulsant, 1850, T. montezumae Mulsant, 1850, and T. glauca (Mulsant, 1850). A new species is proposed, Thalassa korschefskyi sp.nov., from Colombia. The species are illustrated and a key to species is also provided. Lectotype of Thalassa reyi Mulsant, 1850 is here designated.

Les pruniers refleuris : poème tonquinois / transcrit par... Phan Ðưć Hoá... ; trad. et accompagné de notes par A. Landes,...

[Nhị độ mai (vietnamien). 1884]

Traité de la Connaissance de Dieu et de soi-même (Nouv. éd.) / par Bossuet ; Nouvelle édition précédée d'une introduction, d'une analyse développée et d'appréciations philosophiques et critiques, par É. Lefranc,...

Collection : Nouvelle bibliothèque philosophique des aspirants au baccalauréat ès lettres

[Archives de l'Opéra. Régie. Journal de régie. Troisième série]

Indique le nombre de représentations par ouvrage

Revisão das espécies brasileiras do gênero Exoplectra Chevrolat (Coleoptera, Coccinellidae, Exoplectrinae, Exoplectrini)

As espécies brasileiras de Exoplectra Chevrolat, 1844 são revisadas com base no estudo de caracteres morfológicos do exoesqueleto e genitália. Dentre as 37 espécies do gênero foram estudadas 14 brasileiras, incluindo as três propostas como novas. Foi examinado o material-tipo de nove espécies. São designados os lectótipos de E. angustifrons Weise, 1895, E. calcarata (Germar, 1824), E. coccinea (Fabricius, 1801) e E. miniata (Germar, 1824). Exoplectra companyoi Mulsant, 1850 é revalidada; E. aenea (Fabricius, 1801), E. bernardinensis Brèthes, 1925, E. impotens Mulsant, 1850, E. luteicornis Mulsant, 1850 e E. irregularis (Crotch, 1874) são provisoriamente removidas do gênero. São propostas duas novas espécies do Brasil: E. columba sp. nov., do Paraná e E. bimaculata sp. nov., do Amamzonas. É apresentada chave dicotômica para as espécies, fotos e desenhos das principais estruturas utilizadas para identificação.

Why England? Demand, growth and inequality during the Industrial Revolution

Why was England first? And why Europe? We present a probabilistic model that builds on big-push models by Murphy, Shleifer and Vishny (1989), combined with hierarchical preferences. The interaction of exogenous demographic factors (in particular the English low-pressure variant of the European marriage pattern)and redistributive institutions such as the old Poor Law combined to make an Industrial Revolution more likely. Essentially, industrialization is the result of having a critical mass of consumers that is rich enough to afford (potentially) mass-produced goods. Our model is then calibrated to match the main characteristics of the English economy in 1750 and the observed transition until 1850.This allows us to address explicitly one of the key features of the British IndustrialRevolution unearthed by economic historians over the last three decades the slowness of productivity and output change. In our calibration, we find that the probability of Britain industrializing is 5 times larger than France s. Contrary to the recent argument by Pomeranz, China in the 18th century had essentially no chance to industrialize at all. This difference is decomposed into a demographic and a policy component, with the former being far more important than the latter.