ALBERT

Description: Depuis longtemps certain aspect larvaire de nombreuses formes p\xc3\xa9lagiques faisant partie du plancton permanent a retenu l\xe2\x80\x99attention des naturalistes et a conduit quelques-uns d\xe2\x80\x99entre eux \xc3\xa0 consid\xc3\xa9rer cette faune comme primitive. Si cette conclusion s\xe2\x80\x99est par la suite av\xc3\xa9r\xc3\xa9e inexacte et si l\xe2\x80\x99origine littorale de types planctoniques m\xc3\xaame les plus sp\xc3\xa9cialis\xc3\xa9s, comme les Siphonophores par exemple (W. GARSTANG, 1946), a pu \xc3\xaatre mise en \xc3\xa9vidence, il n\xe2\x80\x99en reste pas moins que cet aspect larvaire, qui avait frapp\xc3\xa9 les premiers observateurs, demeure dans bien des cas \xc3\xa9vident.\nSans doute, beaucoup de larves d\xe2\x80\x99esp\xc3\xa9ces benthiques m\xc3\xa8nent aussi, durant un temps plus ou moins long, une existence p\xc3\xa9lagique; et le fait que les constituants de ce plancton temporaire et du plancton permanent fr\xc3\xa9quentent ainsi un m\xc3\xaame milieu, qui a ses exigences propres, peut rendre compte de certains traits d\xe2\x80\x99organisation communs aux uns et aux autres. Mais il y a plus, et nous savons bien que la ressemblance entre Appendiculaires et larves d\xe2\x80\x99Ascidies n\xe2\x80\x99est pas seulement superficielle; que le Dactylactis Benedeni Gravier (1904) est bien une larve sexu\xc3\xa9e de C\xc3\xa9rianthe; que l\xe2\x80\x99 Amphioxides n\xe2\x80\x99est qu\xe2\x80\x99un Amphioxus continuant ind\xc3\xa9finiment sa vie en haute mer (R. GOLDSCHMIDT, 1933); que les Grimothea, dont les essaims innombrables colorent en rouge, par place, la surface des Mers du Sud, ne sont que des larves de Munida qui peuvent, sous certaines conditions, arriver en cet \xc3\xa9tat \xc3\xa0 maturit\xc3\xa9 (MATTHEWS, 1932); que ces Gobiid\xc3\xa9s, transparents comme le cristal, appartenant aux genres Aphya et Crystallogobius, issus, comme tous les membres de leur famille, d\xe2\x80\x99oeufs fix\xc3\xa9s sur les fonds littoraux, prolongent leur existence p\xc3\xa9lagique jusqu\xe2\x80\x99au moment o\xc3\xb9 ils reviennent \xc3\xa0 la c\xc3\xb4te pondre \xc3\xa0 leur tour et mourir. Sans parler des cas encore incompl\xc3\xa8tement \xc3\xa9lucid\xc3\xa9s des grands Glaucotho\xc3\xa9s, larves de Pagures (THOMPSON, 1943) et des Eryoneicus, larves de Polycheles (BOAS, 1939), que d\xe2\x80\x99exemples encore \xc3\xa0 citer d\xe2\x80\x99organismes planctoniques auxquels on peut, \xc3\xa0 bon droit, reconna\xc3\xaetre pour origine des larves de formes littorales n\xe2\x80\x99ayant pas accompli sur le fond la m\xc3\xa9tamorphose qui leur eut assur\xc3\xa9, comme \xc3\xa0 leurs cong\xc3\xa9n\xc3\xa8res, la persistance de la vie benthique. La connaissance des facteurs susceptibles de retarder cette m\xc3\xa9tamorphose est donc de premi\xc3\xa8re importance si l\xe2\x80\x99on veut comprendre les processus qui ont pu conduire \xc3\xa0 un tel r\xc3\xa9sultat.

Description: De eisen die de practijk stelt zijn voor de toegepaste wetenschap de stimulans, welke de vragen die de werkhypothese suggereert voor de zuivere wetenschap zijn. Is aan die eisen voldaan dan loopt het onderzoek dood \xe2\x80\x94 tenzij de practijk aan het resultaat der onderzoekingen nieuwe eisen ontleent: naar analogie van een nieuwe hypothese steunend op feiten die men, geleid door een oudere hypothese, al eerder had opgespoord. Ik wil hiervan een voorbeeld geven: zowel van het doodlopen ener reeks onderzoekingen, als van haar resuscitatie.\nHet eerste stuk van mijn voorbeeld is bekend. Ik zal daar slechts zoveel van in herinnering brengen als voor het tweede stuk nodig is.

Description: 1. A review is given of some phenomena concerning pregnancy and parturition of the Cetacea, depending on data in literature and on observations made in Antarctic Blue and Fin Whales on board the f.f. \xe2\x80\x9cWillem Barendsz\xe2\x80\x9d (1946\xe2\x80\x941947). 2. In Mystacoceti the frequency of twins appears to be less than in man and the big domestic animals. The majority of twins is born by females that are longer than the average female in the period of greatest sexual activity. This does not mean, however, that just as in man most twins are born at an elder age than that corresponding with the maximum of sexual activity. It may also be possible that, just as in the big domestic animals, the ages correspond, but that twins are mostly produced by the physically stronger developed females. 3. In Odontoceti the left ovary shows a very distinct morphological and functional prevalence. The foetus is exclusively found in the left uterine cornu. In Mystacoceti there is a prevalence of about 60 % of the right ovary and the right uterine cornu with regard to ovulation and pregnancy. The above described phenomena have also been observed in other uniparous Mammals, whereas in multiparous Mammals no distinct prevalence of a special side has been found. Transference of an ovum from the ovary of one side to the cornu of the other has been observed twice in Cetacea. 4. In Mystacoceti the number of cephalic presentations of the foetus very distinctly increases during the last months of pregnancy, just as in man and the big domestic animals. There is a great possibility that, just as the other uniparous Mammals, which give birth to comparatively large infants, in Mystacoceti a very high percentage of the young is born in cephalic presentation. In Odontoceti, on the contrary, a great number of foetuses is apparently delivered in tail-presentation. With regard to their shape and dimensions, such a birth in tail-presentation must be considered as an unfavourable event. An attempt has been made to explain these facts with the aid of the peristaltic uterine contractions. If these contractions act in the same way as in other Mammals, it might be expected that most of the Cetacea should be born in tailpresentation. So it is highly possible that in Mystacoceti some other factors are responsible for the high percentage of cephalic presentations. 5. In Cetacea the relative length of the umbilical cord (in % of the length of the foetus) decreases markedly during the second part of pregnancy. At birth its length is about 40 % of the total length of the calf and 57 % of its snout-anus length. As compared with other Mammals the cord of the Cetacea is rather short and this fact may have some influence on the way in which the connection between mother and calf is broken. This may occur by rupture of the cord immediately after birth as in Ungulates. On the other hand it appears to be also possible that, just as in Primates, Carnivores and Chiropteres, the placenta and the cord stick to the baby for some time after birth. 6. Some congenital anomalies of foetal Cetacea are described. Abortus probably may occur during chasing of the big whales or when they are struck by the harpoon. A case of fibromyoma uteri is described in an old female Blue Whale that showed an abnormal lactation. Probably the fibromyoma had caused an abortus some months ago, this abortus causing the lactation.

Description: Hoewel ik in het voorjaar van 1948 slechts korte tijd op Cura\xc3\xa7ao en Bonaire verbleef, deed ik hier naast waarnemingen, die een bevestiging zijn van die van RUTTEN (1931), ook een aantal aanvullende observaties. Ik wil deze gaarne publiceren in de feestbundel ter ere van Prof. Dr. J. E. W. IHLE en Prof. Dr. L. F. DE BEAUFORT, met wie ik gedurende vele jaren op verschillend gebied zo aangenaam samengewerkt heb.\nOver de vogels der Benedenwindse Eilanden is nog slechts weinig geschreven. Eigenlijk bestaat er slechts \xc3\xa9\xc3\xa9n goed artikel en wel dat van RUTTEN (1931), die hierin niet alleen oude mededelingen van HARTERT en van CORY verwerkte, maar ook tal van nieuwe, eigen waarnemingen, deels van veldornithologische aard, mededeelde. De lijst van DE JONG (1948) is min of meer een uittreksel van die van RUTTEN \xc2\xb9) en bevat slechts enkele eigen aanvullende gegevens.

Description: Opinions are divided in relation to what generical name has priority, Heliacus or Torinia. In proof of this I will quote, leaving aside those of many others, the opinions of two authorities.\nThiele [1918, p. 80 (114)] writes: "Bez\xc3\xbcglich des Namens Torinia bemerkt Iredale, dass ihm Heliacus Orbigny, weil \xc3\xa4lter, vorzuziehen sei; es mag sein, dass dieser Name ein wenig \xc3\xa4lter ist \xe2\x80\x94 nach Hermannsen von 1841, nach Iredale 1842, es scheint also die Zeit des Erscheinens nicht ganz festzustehen \xe2\x80\x94, w\xc3\xa4hrend Torinia von Gray 1842 auf die Beschaffenheit des Deckels hin begr\xc3\xbcndet worden ist".\nThe opinion of Tomlin (1928, p. 333), however, is quite different: "Gray in Proc. Zool. Soc., 1847, \xce\xa1\xc2\xb7 151, gives his own genus Torinia precedence, quoting it as of 1840 and 1842. These two references are to different editions of the \'Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum\', and are fully explained by Iredale in Proc. Malac. Soc. (London), X, pp. 294-309.\nThe 1840 usage of Torinia is a nomen nudum; the 1842 edition gives a short comparative account of operculum only, quoted on p. 308. It hardly seems a sufficient diagnosis on which to found a genus, and the reasons for rejection given by Iredale on p. 301 may well be applied to this case at any rate".\nAs I mentioned already in a previous paper (1940, p. 223), I follow in this catalogue Thiele\'s "Handbuch der systematischen Weichtierkunde", in relation to the generic names and also as far as concerns the classification, but it is not my intention to state thereby hat I always completely agree with the opinions of his author.\nI wish to express here my heartiest thanks to the gentlemen who helped

Description: Au cours de l\'ann\xc3\xa9e 1935, le Directeur du Mus\xc3\xa9e de Prague a eu l\'amabilit\xc3\xa9 de m\'envoyer en communication les 3 syntypes de Synaptura lipophthalma Janos ; de son c\xc3\xb4t\xc3\xa9, M. Hardenberg, Directeur du Laboratoire oc\xc3\xa9anographique de Batavia (Laboratorium voor het Onderzoek der Zee), m\'a fait le don g\xc3\xa9n\xc3\xa9reux de 3 paratypes de son Typhlachirus caecus. C\'est avec joie que je saisis l\'occasion qui m\'est offerte ici de remercier ces deux savants de leur extr\xc3\xa8me courtoisie, gr\xc3\xa2ce \xc3\xa0 laquelle j\'ai pu examiner \xc3\xa0 loisir et comparer directement entre eux tous ces sp\xc3\xa9cimens.\nSommaire.\nI. \xe2\x80\x94 Revision du genre Typhla- Les \xc3\xa9piotiques......34\nchirus.........3 Le parasph\xc3\xa9no\xc3\xafde.....35\nRemarques .......21 Les prootiques......36\nII. \xe2\x80\x94 Esp\xc3\xa8ce dont il reste \xc3\xa0 pr\xc3\xa9ciser Les opisthotiques.....36\nla position syst\xc3\xa9matique . .22 Les pt\xc3\xa9rotiques......36\nIII. \xe2\x80\x94 Contribution \xc3\xa0 la morphologie Les sph\xc3\xa9notiques.....37\nanatomique de Typhlachirus L\'acrinioste.......37\nlipophthalmus......23 Les pari\xc3\xa9taux......38\nRemarques critiques relatives Les frontaux ......38\n\xc3\xa0 la nomenclature ost\xc3\xa9ologique Le parethmo\xc3\xafde nadiral . . 40 des T\xc3\xa9l\xc3\xa9ost\xc3\xa9ens .....23 Le parethmo\xc3\xafde z\xc3\xa9nithal . . 42 A. \xe2\x80\x94 L\'organe nasal z\xc3\xa9nithal ... 23 Le dermethmo\xc3\xafde.....42\nB. \xe2\x80\x94 Le clidoste.......24 Le vomer........43\nC. \xe2\x80\x94 Le neurocr\xc3\xa2ne......27 D. \xe2\x80\x94 Le rhachis abdominal .... 43\nCaract\xc3\xa8res g\xc3\xa9n\xc3\xa9raux .... 27 E. \xe2\x80\x94 L\'appareil digestif.....48\nLe basinioste ......32 F. \xe2\x80\x94 L\'appareil excr\xc3\xa9teur et l\'organe

Description: Neuwiedia (sect. Euneuwiedia) Griffithii Rehb.f. Xenia Orch. II (1874), 215; Rolfe in Journ. Linn. Soc. XXV (1890), 235, 241, t. XLVIII, fig. 2\xe2\x80\x949; in Orch. Rev. II (1894), 276; IV (1896), 329; Hook. f. Fl. Br. Ind. VI (1890), 176; in Bot. Mag. CXXI (1895), t. 7425; Krzl. Orch. I (1897), 4; Pfitz. in Pflanzenr. IV. 50 (1903), 5; Ridl. in Journ. Linn. Soc. XXXII (1896), 416; Mat. Fl. Mal. Penins. I (1907), 231; Fl. Mal. Penins. IV (1924), 296.\nPlanta in genere parva. Caulis erectus, rigidus, teres, dilute viridis, c. 14 cm longus, 0.63 cm diam., c. 10-folius. Folia erecto-patentia, recurva, lanceolata, sensim longe et acutissime acuminata, basi acuta sensim in petioluin contracta, plicaita, nervis c. 7 subtus prominentibus, nervis tenuioribus alternantibus, papyracea, utrinque nitidule viridia, c. 18.5\xe2\x80\x94 22 cm longa, 4\xe2\x80\x945 cm lata, summa minora; petiolus latus, canaliculatus, 3-costatus, cum vagina tubulosa antice basi excepta rumpente c. 5.5\xe2\x80\x946.5 cm longus. Inflorescentia erecta, foliis multo brevior, subdense multiflora, cylindrica, pedunculo hirtello, atroviridi, c. 4 cm longo, nonnullis vaginulis in bracteas vergentibus donato, rachide angulato-cylindrica, patentissime hirtella, atroviridi, c. 6.5 cm longa. Bracteae patentes, incurvulae, e basi ovata sensim longe subulato-acuminatae, anguste obtusae, basi rachidem semiamplectentes, praesertim basi concavae, dorso et margine hirtellae, 3-nerviae, virides, ad c. 1.4 cm longae, superiores minores. Flores quaquaversi, parvuli, patentes, nutantes, sepalis dorso patentissime superne patenter strigillosis petalisque conniventibus, concavis, tenuibus, albis, pallide flavescenti-apiculatis. Sepalum dorsale ellipticum, apiculo tereti strigilloso, valde concavum, totum c. 0.83 cm longum, apiculo 0.05 cm, 0.4 cm latum. Sepala lateralia oblique ovato-elliptiea, apice cucullatoobtusa cum apiculo recto tereti-subulato strigilloso 0.08 cm longo, concava, costa media dorso convexo-incrassata, tota c. 0.87 cm longa, 0.375 cm lata. Petala late elliptico-obovata, obtusa, apice vix cucullata, basi margine antico vix unguiculato-contraeta, concava, costa media dorso valde incrassata strigosaque apice in apiculum brevem producta in praefloratione inter sepala prominente, c. 0.8 cm longa, 0.525 cm lata. Labellum a gynostemio subrectangule patens et recurvulum, supra basin obtusangule incurvum, stigma paululum superans, valde concavum, explanatum cuneato-angulato-obovatum, apice cucullato-obtusissimum, ungue cuneato excepto leviter crispulum et erosulum, basi intus valde convexoincrassatum, costa media dorso valde prominente et strigosa apice in apiculum incurvulum teretem hirtellum producta, fere 0.8 cm longum, mucrone 0.05 cm longo, 0.6 cm latum. Gynostemium totum c. 0.62 cm, usque ad apicem antherarum 0.4 cm longum. Stamina 3, glabra, inferne cum stylo in columnam rotundato-trigonam supra subtusque 2-sulcatum, c. 0.13 cm longam connata, superne divergentia, filamenti dorsalis pars libera a dorso compressa, oblonga, vix flavescenti-alba, c. 0.1 cm longa; filainentorum lateralium pars libera dorsali similis, 0.13 cm longa; antherae conniventes, fere basifixae, introrsae, praesertim dorsalis valde incurvae, cordatae, apicem versus paululum angustatae, late obtusae, lobis basilaribus obtusis, dorso valde convexae cum sulco levi longitudinali, crassae, vix flaveseenti-albae, dorsalis fere c. 2 cm longa, 0.14 cm lata, laterales bene 0.2 cm longae, 0.175 cm latae. Stylus undatus, teres, leviter clavatus, apice (stigmate) obtusus et papillosus, albus, basi dilute. sulphureus, totus c. 0.6 cm, parte libera 0.525 cm longus. Ovarium pedieellatum curvulum, rotundato-trigonum, patentissime strigillosum, pedicello apicem versus incrassato, pallide viridi, c. 0.33 cm longo, ovario trigono-ellipsoideo, viridi, c. 0.4 cm longo, fere 0.3 cm diam., apice in rostrum apice obliquum pallide viride dorso c. 0.275 cm longum contractum.

Description: In Blumea V (1943), 316, I published a list of the Orchidaceae collected by Dr van Steenis in Atjeh. In this list a certain number of specimens were purposely omitted, on account of the fact that flowers had been preserved in alcohol, which material, however, was apparently not extant in Leiden. Under these conditions I have worked up the herbarium so far as possible from the dried specimens only.\nPeristylus goodyeroides (D. Don) Lndl. Gen. et Sp. Orch. (1835), 299; etc.

Description: In one of his papers on Malaysian Orchids R. Schleehter (1911) expresses his surprise that the flora of Celebes, though promising so much from a phytogeographical point of view, is very little known in comparison with that of the Philippines and Java and even with that of Borneo. In 1926 E. D. Merrill repeated this assumption with little less emphasis, and it is, indeed, still holding good even nowadays. I am not able to tell the reason why Celebes has been so much neglected in this respect, though it has been given ample attention by zoogeographers.\nYet, botanical exploration has been carried out ever since the French scientific world cruises of the \xe2\x80\x9cAstrolabe\xe2\x80\x9d (1828) and the \xe2\x80\x9cAstrolabe\xe2\x80\x9d and the \xe2\x80\x9cZelee\xe2\x80\x9d (1839). The more important collections have been enumerated in the \xe2\x80\x9cAppendix\xe2\x80\x9d to the present paper and among these the most outstanding ones are those made by the Neth. \xe2\x80\x93 Indian Forestry Service and by such individual collectors as Forsten (1840, N), Zollinger (1847, SW and Salajar), Teysmann and De Vriese (1860, N), Teysmann (1877, SW and Salajar), Warburg (1888, SW), Koorders (1894\xe2\x80\x94\xe2\x80\x9995, N), P. and F. Sarasin (1893\xe2\x80\x94\xe2\x80\x9996 and 1902\xe2\x80\x94\xe2\x80\x9903, all parts), Elbert (1909, SE), Schleehter (1910, N), Van Vuuren (1912\xe2\x80\x94\xe2\x80\x9914, SW, C, SE), Docters van Leeuwen (1913, Salajar, etc.), Kaudern (1917\xe2\x80\x94\xe2\x80\x9920, SE, C, E, N), Bunnemeyer (1921, SW), Lam (1926, Talaud), Kjellberg (1929\xe2\x80\x94\xe2\x80\x9930, SW, SE), Eyma (1938, C, E) and Monod de Froideville (1937\xe2\x80\x94\xe2\x80\x9939, SW, C, SE).

Description: The names Blumea intermedia Koster (syn. Bl. acutata DC. var. \xc3\x9f) and Blumea floresiana (Schultz-Bip.) Boerl. must be kept upright. Blumea humifusa (Miq.) Clarke var. monochasialis Koster has to be changed into Blumea tenella DC. var. monochasialis (Koster) Koster, for Blumea humifusa (Miq.) Clarke is a synonym of Blumea tenella DC.\nBlumea lacera (Burm.) DC. var. burmanni DC. is not a clearly distinguishable variety.\nBlumea runcinata DC. is a synonym of Blumea lacera (Burm.) DC.\nBlumea fasciculata DC. is a synonym of Blumea sessiliflora Decaisne, which is not a synonym of the closely related Blumea fistulosa (Roxb.) Kurz (syn. Bl. glomerata DC. and Bl. leptoclada DC.). Blumea chinensis (L.) DC. as well as Blumea semivestita DC. are a mixture of Blumea riparia (Bl.) DC. and Blumea bullata Koster.