text:
Talk:Patriarch of Antioch

Redirect
This Talk page originally redirected to Talk:List_of_Patriarchs_of_Antioch, which is very confusing, since there are separate pages for Patriarch of Antioch and List of Patriarchs of Antioch. I fixed. --Jfruh 23:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Head

 * ACTUALLY PATRIACH OF ANTIOCH IS THE SUCCESSOR OF ST. PETER. THE HEAD OF THE WHOLE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IS THE PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH. THESE ROMAN POPES AND PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE HAVE GOT IMPORTANCE ONLY FROM THE SUPPORT OF ROMAN AND BYZANTAINE EMPERORS. THEY TRIED TO DESTROY THE PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH.

 * Silly me. I thought that Jesus Christ was head of the whole Christian church. Majoreditor 17:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Influence
The author writes that "The Antiochene church was a centre of Christian learning, second only to Alexandria. In contrast to the Hellenistic-influenced Christology of Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinople, Antiochene theology was greatly influenced by Rabbinic Judaism and other modes of Semitic thought."

Does he have doctrinal/theological examples of how Antiochene theology was "greatly influenced by Rabbinic Judaism" and would therefore differ from Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinope? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.60.250 (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I've added a one-sentence explanation of the supposed Semitic influences behind Antiochene theology: the transcendent unity of the Divinity can produce adoptionism among extremists, and led to the dyophysite view of Christ. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

POV sentence
"The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches both recognize that Cyril VI was legally elected Patriarch in 1724 and that that current Greek Orthodox church of Antioch was a later creation to serve the faithful that did not choose to enter full communion with Rome. As such, the Melkite Patriarch has the legal claim to the Patriarchate."

Er, I would assume that the Greek Orthodox church does not, in fact, recognize that the Melkite Patriarch has the legal claim to the patriarchate. Can someone who knows a bit more about this try to suss this out? I will try to do some research nobody else fixes... --Jfruh (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * You can try to reword this if you want. The author had worded each entry to validate that claimant to the Patriarchy. So, no the Greeks didn't, the Catholics did, and he "therefore" is a legitimate claimant!

 * Not the easiest read, but the original editor clarified it a lot. As I remember, people were arguing over it weekly until this layout of information. So it was definitely an improvement over what was there. I suppose it can be improved. :) Student7 (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Syriac Catholics non-Chaldeconian?
The opening of the article identifies the Syriac Catholic Church as "non-Chaldeconian." I know this church is a descendent of the Syriac Church that broke with the main body of Christians after the Council of Chaldecon, and that the Christological controversies of the early church councils were of less important by the time this group re-established communion with Rome. But surely the Catholics haven't abandoned Chaldecon, and surely Syriac Catholics would have had to affirm it as well before they could re-enter communion with Rome? My understanding about these Uniate Eastern churches is that, while they are permitted to keep their own ritual and practices, they had to conform their theology to Rome. Does anyone know more on this? --Jfruh (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Can't help on WP:RELY ref but you have to be right. Thanks for catching this. They probably did not care for Chalcedon prior to their reconciliation in 1791 or whatever. But they would have to support it after that. Student7 (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

SUCCESSION
By definition, the legitimate successor of the Antiochian See, must be in communion with the other eastern patriarchal sees. How can you claim legitimate succession by a church not acknowledged by the other eastern sees? The only church with a seated patriarch in communion with and acknowledged by the other eastern sees, is the Greek Orthodox Church. The Syriac Catholic, Syriac Orthodox, Melkite and Maronite churches are not in communion with the other eastern sees and are not acknowledged by them as the legitimate successor. (Jmorrash (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Wikipedia shall follow a WP:NPOV (neutral Point of view), ie all Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views. Thus, in case of different and opposite claims (as who is the legittimate Patriarch of Antioch?) Wiki shall list all the claims. For example, the break between the Syriac and the Greek tradition happened in the V century, and Wiki cannot decide who is wrong and who is right (it is a religious issue), nor wiki can state who is right in the 1724 melkite schism. By the way, any of the 5 Pariarchs of Antiochs is in communion with some other patriarchal sees (for example the Syriac Pariarch in in communion with the Coptic and Armenian Patriarch, the Melkite and Maronite are in communion between them and with the Syriac Catholic and with the Pope of Rome). A ntv (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. And none of the Patriarchs recognizes the others as legitimate, nor do their respective churches that each is in communion with.Student7 (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The section entitled "Claims to legitimacy", in my opinion, does not and cannot reflect a neutral point of view. This is due to the following: To conclude, I think it would be best to remove this section entirely. I will probably remove it in a few weeks if there are no objections. Mikhael1C (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Conflicting understandings of ecclesiology and sacramentology (in particular in regard to ordination of bishops) between different Church's and their respective traditions: Currently the way the section is presented is only relevant if one presumes Saint Augustine's sacramentology (which the Roman Catholic Church holds), a position which is not held by the Chalcedonian (Eastern) Orthodox Churches or the Miaphysite (Oriental) Orthodox Churches. Given that the article is about an "eastern" Patriarchate, it would stand to reason that the positions of two of the most significant "eastern" Churches should be held as at least equal to the "western" position. Writing as a Chalcedonian (Greek) Orthodox Christian, I would say that legitimacy is tied intrinsically to communion with the Church. Thus only bishops in visible communion with the Church are legitimate claimants. For the Chaledonians, this means Ignatius IV is the legitimate claimant. For the Miaphysites, Ignatius Zakka I Iwas is the legitimate patriarch. I am not familiar with the way sui iuris Churches are handled in Roman Catholicism, so I will not comment much on the Catholic claimants.
 * 2) Saying that Cyril VI was recognized by both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is misleading. He was in communion with the Orthodox when he was elected, but fell out of communion during the Melkite schism of 1724. By virtue of this he was not recognized as the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch as of his Greek Orthodox successor Sylvester's enthronement during the same year.
 * 3) The article for Cyril VI Tanas states that the Catholic Pope Benedict XIII recognized Cyril as the legitimate Catholic Patriarch of Antioch (citing Catholic Encyclopedia), which brings into question how the other Catholic claimants should be viewed. But again, I don't understand how how the Eastern Catholic Churches function within the larger Catholic communion.
 * I disagree in removing this section, whichanyway is the result of a long editing process. It is a matter of fact that 5 patriarchs consider themself the "right" patriarch of Antioch due to historical reasons. This section explain to the general reader which are these reasons. Otherwise it is not explained why there are 5 patriarchs. Of course we as WP cannot take any stand. We cannot for example state wheather Cyril Tanas or Sylvester were the 'right' patriarch. We shall only list the different positions and explain the historical reasons of each party. A ntv (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We certainly can state that their respective groups, which have continued until the present day, considered them respectively the legitimate patriarch (Sylvester was the legitimate successor of Cyril Tanas in the Eastern Orthodox communion; Cyril Tanas was legitimate Melkite patriarch from the Roman Catholic POV). The whole position of "Patriarch of Antioch" is one that has no meaning outside of the Christian Church. Because the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches each consider themselves to be the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", there is no reason that one who belongs to one of said communions would speculate on the legitimacy of an honorary position held outside of the communion that one belongs to. The whole issue of the legitimacy of the claimants of the title is one that is only relevant within their respective Churches.
 * I can't fathom a "neutral POV" on the issue which can be concerned with the legitimacy of the claimants. Using the excuse of the historical claims reflects a bias in itself, as it seeks to imply that the succession in the patriarchate follows a tradition similar to European royal succession. Such a tradition may be relevant from the Catholic perspective due to Roman Catholic ecclesiology and sacramentology (though, again I don't know the specifics), as I stated above, but is alien to the concerns of the Orthodox parties, where visible communion with the Church is the entire deciding factor at the present time (because there is only one claimant from each communion). Assuming that the historical evidences that are given strengthen a claim to legitimacy reflects either a bias toward western ecclesiology (again I don't know the specifics), or it is an invented bias which is alien to all three parties and thus irrelevant. What notion of legitimacy can be applied to this case if not the notions understood by the parties involved?
 * If it is a matter of fact that each parties does use the historical evidences listed in the section both internally (within their respective communions) and external (in dialogue between the communions) then authoritative sources using said evidences need to be directly cited. A good example of this would be a document from a representative from one of the Churches (a bishop) which uses a historical claim to defend the legitimacy of a claimant in the way the section in question is presenting it. I am unfamiliar with such sources and would be willing to wager that the Orthodox parties would not use the historical data in the way presented, at least internally to strengthen claims of legitimacy. It is a non-issue to the Orthodox because of their ecclesiology (legitimacy = communion). Currently, the section is unsourced. Without authoritative sources from all three parties that make use of the historical claims in the manner the section wants to use them, the section is biased and misleading. Mikhael1C (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Mikhael1C, are you claiming that the Orthodox churches don't hold to the concept of Apostolic succession? The Wikipedia article on that subject states otherwise, though that's the limit of my knowledge on the topic.
 * No, no, the Orthodox Churches certainly believe in Apostolic succession. However, the Orthodox position would be that Apostolic succession is an attribute of the Church. Apostolic succession is not found in heretical or schismatic communions because they are heretical or schismatic. For example: because the Roman Catholic Church is viewed as both heretical and schismatic by both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox communions, the Catholics cannot be said to have Apostolic succession. This is the kind of unintentional bias toward western ecclesiology and sacramentology that I'm trying to make you aware of. The Orthodox perspective would be that if a bishop leaves the Church, he has forfeited any claim to Apostolic succession. Said vagante bishop would not be able to legitimately ordain priests or bishops nor would the vagante be able to perform legitimate sacraments. By implying that there is an observable legitimacy of an ecclesiastical title outside of the context of the ecclesia is nonsense from the Orthodox POV. This is why I was insistent the section reflects a bias which is contradictory to the positions of two of three parties involved. Mikhael1C (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See this link for details of Orthodox ecclesiology and sacramentology relevant to this issue: http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/pheidas_limits_1.html Mikhael1C (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 * The point of this section is (or perhaps should be) not theological but historical. Perhaps it would be best to refrain from discussing "legitimacy" at all but simply to frame it in terms of the lists of bishops that each claimant to the patriarchate would recongize.  I.e., all five churches recognize all patriarchs up until Flavian II, etc.  I do think that somehow (maybe with a chart or illustration) showing the history of the churches via the holders of the office at their heads can help the reader get their minds around the complex interrlated history of the churches and the title.  You seem to be taking a strongly ahistorial viewpoint on this -- that is, the person with the correct theology, as acknowledged by others who hold similar theology, is always the office holder, and that any historical or institutional considerations are irrelevant.  This strikes me as a viewpoint that contains its own set of biases, foremost among them being that theology is more important to human history than human institutions. --Jfruh (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood, but it seems to me that to dismiss the theological and ecclesiological aspects of the topic makes the whole notion of legitimacy irrelevant. Certainly I am approaching this topic with particular biases, as it is impossible not to. I'm not trying to imply that the historical element is unimportant. I am just trying to make it apparent that the various and conflicting biases of the parties involved should be taken into account when the meaning of the topic ("legitimacy") is understood differently due to said biases. The way that the section is formatted and written currently is implying a notion of legitimacy which is not common to all the parties involved, so it is misleading. If the section was to stay, it needs to be retitled and rewritten to properly represent the positions of the groups it is speaking about. Particularly the "if... then" format is biased in one direction.
 * To be clear, what are the "institutional considerations" that you speak of? What institutions are we speaking of? Does the Syrian government recognize one claimant over the others? Are there other non-Church bodies to which the legitimacy (a notion that needs to be defined relatively) of the patriarchal claimants is relevant? Mikhael1C (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In this article we speaking nor about the validity of the bishop consecrations nor about the theology under it. We are speaking only about who bear the title of "Patriarch of Antioch" (which is a completely different issue). It is a jurisdictional level, not a sacramental level, and because the sacramental level involves all the bishops of all the world, not only the one who bear the title of Patriarch of Antioch, this is not the right Article. The terms "legitimacy" is correct because it is used (also among EO) to describe a claim to jurisdiction. It is almost a technical term which is the proper one in this case. it does not involve any judgment about the cause (i.e. canonical mistake or heretical view) of the lack of legitimacy, nor it involve any judgment about the consequences (loss or maintain of the bishop sacramental  A ntv (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then, from the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox POV, either Ignatius IV (Hazim) and Ignatius Zakka I Iwas is the legitimate patriarch respectively. Your statement that the EO uses the term legitimacy is irrelevant, because that question of legitimacy does not extended beyond the canonical borders of the Church. I suppose that the section can be fixed by making it very clear that the notion of legitimacy being explored is decidedly the Catholic one and making it clear that the two Orthodox communions find this question irrelevant. However, if this is done, there's no reason to include the Orthodox claimants as direct contenders. Is the title "Patriarch of Antioch" one that is supposed to be exclusive in Catholicism? If so, has Rome ever acknowledged one claimant's lineage over another? If not, why is the notion of legitimacy important in this case? In any case, the word "Catholic" needs to be in the title of the section if it wants to use the term "legitimacy" and remain in a similar format to what it is now. Mikhael1C (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the current section really does explain that very well. In the least it needs a major rewrite - and sourcing - if not outright removal and replacement with something better.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes perhaps you are right, anyway the big problem of this Article is section "History'" which is fully oriented towards the Greek Church of Antioch, and it don't give any space to the Syrian Church (nor mentioning for example his 18th century split) and it not even mention the Maronite church. These information are present only the section "Claims to legitimacy" that therefore cannot be deleted without a complete re-organization of the whole both sections.A ntv (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I watched someone create the current "Claim to legitimacy" some years back. I was impressed since it brought it out of the "my claim is better than yours" revert wars which preceded. It seemed npov to me. It may well need rewriting, but I thought it tried to be npov and treat each claimant on an equal basis. It needs this subsection, however it reads in the future. Material can always be better referenced, I suppose. Student7 (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

East West split
A respected editor changed some of the words which seemed to indicate that the Patriarchs suddenly became aware of their churches in their backyard. But they were elected to these posts for a thousand years or more and simply continued doing whatever they were doing in respect to their charges. The one major change is that they stopped talking to each other formally and stopped coordinating religious decisions. Student7 (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Bishop of Antioch
When the bishop of Antioch took the title of "Patriarch"; It is not mentionned in the article.--Vagrand (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The first official use of the title of "Patriarch" (Πατριάρχης) was until the 451 in the Council of Chalcedon.--Vagrand (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

When did the Bishop/Patriarch of Antioch stop Living there?
IT should be mentioned that none of the people claiming to be Patriarch of Antioch actually LIVES in Antioch.Ericl (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we want a chronicle of that separately? This varied with politics. I suspect, but do not know, that the Orthodox Bishop probably lived there until the Turkish split after WWI. Maybe the last one? Student7 (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Patriarch of Antioch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030417235752/http://www.kwtelecom.com/heraldry/lazarus/history.html#T5 to http://www.pgc-lb.org/english/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Patriarchate of Antioch (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Help needed with Syriac Orthodox Church
Please help: Talk:Syriac_Orthodox_Church. PPEMES (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

So many patriarchs
When I have looked for the "patriarch of Antioch" in other sources, the results generally focus on the Greek Orthodox patriarchs. Encyclopedia of World Religions calls his flock the "largest Arab Christian church in the Middle East." Yet the Greek Orthodox leader is not even the patriarch listed first here. This is a very long article to have only four sources. All four are used to make tangential points. None of them cover the patriarchy as a subject, much less justify covering it in this way. The article is going five different directions when hierarchy and priorities would make it easier to follow. Colin Gerhard (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Because of Neutral point of view, we cannot decide who is the true Patriarch of Antioch, but we shall list all claiming patriarchs. The solution, years ago, to list the five patriarchs by order of appointment was a neutral choice. By the way, in the Middle East by number of adherents and by political importance the Maronite Patriarch surpasses the others, while the adherents in India of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch overcome the others, and so on. But I strongly suggest not to go on in this way, which will simply create lots of edit wars. Let's stay very Neutral, and don't change the existing status quo. A ntv (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what NPOV means. Our coverage should reflect coverage in the sources: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (WP:UNDUE) Britannica has two articles on this subject, one on the Greek Orthodox patriarch and the other on the Syriac Orthodox patriarch. On Encyclopedia.com, "Patriarch of Antioch" "Syriac Orthodox" gave me four results compared to 36 for "Patriarch of Antioch" "Greek Orthodox". The Maronite leader is usually called the "Maronite patriarch" and thus doesn't come up when you search for "patriarch of Antioch." Colin Gerhard (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Five Patriarchs of Antioch.jpg

title: Talk:Patriarch of Antioch


text:
Sled dog

A sled dog is a dog trained and used to pull a land vehicle in harness, most commonly a sled over snow.

Sled dogs have been used in the Arctic for at least 8,000 years and, along with watercraft, were the only transportation in Arctic areas until the introduction of semi-trailer trucks, snowmobiles and airplanes in the 20th century, hauling supplies in areas that were inaccessible by other methods. They were used with varying success in the explorations of both poles, as well as during the Alaskan gold rush. Sled dog teams delivered mail to rural communities in Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. Sled dogs today are still used by some rural communities, especially in areas of Russia, Canada, and Alaska as well as much of Greenland. They are used for recreational purposes and racing events, such as the Iditarod Trail and the Yukon Quest.

History
Sled dogs are used in countries and regions such as Canada, Greenland, Siberia, Russia, Norway, Sweden, and Alaska.

Russia
A 2017 study showed that 9,000 years ago, the domestic dog was present at what is now Zhokhov Island, northeastern Siberia, which at that time was connected to the mainland. The dogs were selectively bred as either sled dogs or hunting dogs, implying that a sled dog standard and a hunting dog standard co-existed. The optimal maximum size for a sled dog is 20 – based on thermo-regulation, and the ancient sled dogs were between 16 and 25 kg. The same standard has been found in the remains of sled dogs from this region 2,000 years ago and in the modern Siberian Husky breed standard. Other dogs were more massive at 30 kg and appear to be dogs that had been crossed with wolves and used for polar bear hunting. At death, the heads of the dogs had been carefully separated from their bodies by humans. Anthropologists speculated that this might have been for ceremonial reasons.

The Kungur Chronicle and the Remezov Chronicle, created at the end of the 16th century and 1703 respectively, tells about the people living along Siberian rivers, whose primary means of transport was riding on reindeer or dogs. In these documents, the rivers Olenyok, Yana, Indigirka and Kolyma were called “dog rivers”, as they were rich in fish for the dogs to eat. Rivers with no fish or not enough to feed the dogs were called "deer rivers,” as reindeer were then used for transportation.

From the 1940s to the 1990s, Russian dog sled numbers were in decline. The breed population reached an all-time low of 3,000 in 1998 before revival efforts took off. Reasons for their decline include
 * introduction of mechanization in the Arctic
 * reduced capacity to keep dogs, especially with reduced fish catches and collectivization of farming and reindeer herding.
 * decline of fur hunting.

Greenland

The Greenlandic Inuit have a very long history of using sled dogs and they are still widely used today. As of 2010, some 18,000 Greenland dogs were kept in western Greenland north of the Arctic Circle and in eastern Greenland (because of the effort of maintaining the purity of this culturally important breed, they are the only dogs allowed in these regions) and about half of these were in active use as sled dogs by hunters and fishers. As a result of reduced sea ice (limiting their area of use), increasing use of snowmobiles, increasing dog food prices and disease among some local dog populations, the number has been gradually falling in decades and by 2016 there were 15,000 Greenland dogs. A number of projects have been initiated in an attempt of ensuring that Greenland's dog sledding culture, knowledge and use are not lost.

The Sirius Patrol, a special forces unit in the Danish military, enforces the sovereignty of the remote unpopulated northeast (essentially equalling the Northeast Greenland National Park) and conduct long-range dog sled patrolling, which also record all sighted wildlife. The patrols averaged 14876 km per year during 1978–1998. By 2011, the Greenland wolf had re-populated eastern Greenland from the National Park in the northeast through following these dog-sled patrols over distances of up to 560 km.

North America

In 2019, a study found that those dogs brought initially into the North American Arctic from northeastern Siberia were later replaced by dogs accompanying the Inuit during their expansion beginning 2,000 years ago. These Inuit dogs were more genetically diverse and more morphologically divergent when compared with the earlier dogs. Today, Arctic sledge dogs are the last descendants in the Americas of this pre-European dog lineage.

Historical references of the dogs and dog harnesses that were used by Native American cultures date back to before European contact. The use of dogs as draft animals was widespread in North America. There were two main kinds of sled dogs; one kind was kept by coastal cultures, and the other kind was kept by interior cultures such as the Athabascan Indians. These interior dogs formed the basis of the Alaskan husky. Russian traders following the Yukon River inland in the mid-1800s acquired sled dogs from the interior villages along the river. The dogs of this area were reputed to be stronger and better at hauling heavy loads than the native Russian sled dogs.

The Alaskan Gold Rush brought renewed interest in the use of sled dogs as transportation. Most gold camps were accessible only by dogsled in the winter. "Everything that moved during the frozen season moved by dog team; prospectors, trappers, doctors, mail, commerce, trade, freighting of supplies … if it needed to move in winter, it was moved by sled dogs." This, along with the dogs' use in the exploration of the poles, led to the late 1800s and early 1900s being nicknamed the "Era of the Sled Dog".

Sled dogs were used to deliver the mail in Alaska during the late 1800s and early 1900s. Alaskan Malamutes were the favored breed, with teams averaging eight to 10 dogs. Dogs were capable of delivering mail in conditions that would stop boats, trains, and horses. Each team hauled between 500 and 700 lb of mail. The mail was stored in waterproofed bags to protect it from the snow. By 1901, dog trails had been established along the entirety of the Yukon River. Mail delivery by dog sled came to an end in 1963 when the last mail carrier to use a dog sled, Chester Noongwook of Savoonga, retired. He was honored by the US Postal Service in a ceremony on St. Lawrence Island in the Bering Sea.

Airplanes took over Alaskan mail delivery in the 1920s and 1930s. In 1924, Carl Ben Eielson flew the first Alaskan airmail delivery. Dog sleds were used to patrol western Alaska during World War II. Highways and trucking in the 40s and 50s, and the snowmobile in the 50s and 60s, contributed to the decline of the working sled dog.

Recreational mushing came into place to maintain the tradition of dog mushing. The desire for larger, stronger, load-pulling dogs changed to one for faster dogs with high endurance used in racing, which caused the dogs to become lighter than they were historically. Americans and others living in Alaska then began to import sled dogs from the native tribes of Siberia (which would later evolve and become the Siberian Husky breed) to increase the speed of their own dogs, presenting "a direct contrast to the idea that Russian traders sought heavier draft-type sled dogs from the Interior regions of Alaska and the Yukon less than a century earlier to increase the hauling capacity of their lighter sled dogs."

Outside of Alaska, dog-drawn carts were used to haul peddler's wares in cities like New York.

Scandinavia
After World War II, skijor and pulka style dog sled racing gained rapidly in popularity in Norway and neighboring Scandinavian countries. These styles of racing required small, fast teams of 1-4 dogs who competed over short, hilly distances of 15 –. Required to use purebred dogs by the Norwegian Sled Dog Racing Association, the German Shorthair Pointer quickly emerged as the dog breed of choice. At the beginning of the 1970s, the "sled pointer" had emerged, a pointing dog who was bred exclusively for sledding and not hunting. During the 1970s, "Nome-style" sled racing, which mimicked the big sled dog teams running long distances and overnighting in subzero temperatures seen in North American-style races, started to attract interest in Scandinavia. In 1974, the first Nome-style sled race, the Skjelbreia Sweepstakes, was hosted near Oslo. For this style of racing, Norwegian mushers began to import Alaskan huskies; popularized by mushers like Stein Havard Fjelstad and Roger Leegaard who traveled to Alaska to race in the Iditarod. However, as a performance crossbreed, the Alaskan husky could not be legally raced in Norway until 1985, when the Norwegian Sled Dog Racing Association removed the requirement that sled dogs be purebred.

This new ruling also paved the way for Nordic-style mushers to breed their best performing dogs regardless of breed, with mushers mixing Alaskan husky and German Shorthair Pointer to produce the Eurohound as well as Greyhound with German Shorthair Pointer to produce the Greyster. These Nordic-style crossbreeds gained in popularity across Europe and later North America, especially with the rise in popularity of dryland mushing, such as bikejoring and canicross.

Sled dogs and husky safaris are not native to Sápmi (Lapland) and Finland and are considered a major nuisance by reindeer herders as they directly impact their livelihoods. These and glass-domed "iglus" have been appropriated from other cultures by the tourist industry in the 1980s and falsely portrayed as being part of the Sámi and Finnish cultures.

Alaska and the Iditarod
In 1925, a massive diphtheria outbreak crippled Nome, Alaska. There was no serum in Nome to treat the people infected by the disease. There was serum in Nenana, but the town was more than 600 mi away, and inaccessible except by dog sled. A dog sled relay was set up by the villages between Nenana and Nome, and 20 teams worked together to relay the serum to Nome. The serum reached Nome in six days.

The Iditarod Trail was established on the path between these two towns. It was known as the Iditarod Trail because, at the time, Iditarod was the largest town on the trail. During the 1940s, the trail fell into disuse. However, in 1967, Dorothy Page, who was conducting Alaska's centennial celebration, ordered 9 mi of the trail to be cleared for a dog sled race. In 1972, the US Army performed a survey of the trail, and in 1973 the Iditarod was established by Joe Redington, Sr. The race was won by Dick Wilmarth, who took three weeks to complete the race.

The modern Iditarod is a 1100 mi endurance sled dog race. It usually lasts for ten to eleven days, weather permitting. It begins with a ceremonial start in Anchorage, Alaska on the morning of the first Saturday in March, with mushers running 20 mi to Eagle River along the Alaskan Highway, giving spectators a chance to see the dogs and the mushers. The teams are then loaded onto trucks and driven 30 mi to Wasilla for the official race start in the afternoon. The race ends when the last musher either drops out of the race or crosses the finish line in Nome. The winner of the race receives a prize of US$50,000. It has been billed as the "World Series of mushing events" and "The Last Great Race on Earth".

Antarctica

The first Arctic explorers were men with sled dogs. Due to the success of using sled dogs in the Arctic, it was thought they would be helpful in the Antarctic exploration as well, and many explorers made attempts to use them. Sled dogs were used until 1992, when they were banned from Antarctica by the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty.

Carsten Borchgrevink used Sámi sled dogs with Finnish handlers in Antarctica during his Southern Cross Expedition (1898–1900), but it was much colder than expected at Cape Adare. The dogs were used to working on snow, not on ice, in much milder temperatures. The dogs were also inadequately fed, and eventually all of the dogs died.

Erich von Drygalski used Kamchatka sled dogs in his 1901–1903 expedition, and fared much better because his dogs were used to the cold and he hired an experienced dog handler. His dogs were allowed to breed freely and many had to be shot because there was no room on the ship to take them home. Many that were not shot were left behind on the Kerguelen Islands.

Otto Nordenskjöld intended to use Greenland dogs in his 1901–1904 expedition, but all but four of his huskies died on the journey south. He picked up a mixed breed in the Falklands, but after his arrival in the Antarctic, these were all hunted down and killed by his four surviving huskies hunting as a pack because of dog handler Ole Jonassen's failure to tether the dogs. These huskies were later able to pull 265 kg over 18 mi in three and a half hours.

Robert Falcon Scott brought twenty Samoyeds with him during his 1902 journey. The dogs struggled under the conditions Scott placed them in, with four dogs pulling heavily loaded sleds through 45 cm of snow with bleeding feet. Scott blamed their failure on rotten dried fish. In 1910, Scott returned with 33 Sakhalin huskies but noted that they performed poorly in deep snow and their docked tails prevented them from curling up to keep warm.

Douglas Mawson and Xavier Mertz were part of the Far Eastern Party, a three-man sledging team with Lieutenant B.E.S. Ninnis, to survey King George V Land, Antarctica. On 14 December 1912, Ninnis fell through a snow-covered crevasse along with most of the party's rations, and was never seen again. Their meagre provisions forced them to eat their remaining dogs on their 315 mi return journey. Their meat was tough, stringy and without a vestige of fat. Each animal yielded very little, and the major part was fed to the surviving dogs, which ate the meat, skin and bones until nothing remained. The men also ate the dog's brains and livers. Unfortunately eating the liver of sled dogs produces the condition hypervitaminosis A because canines have a much higher tolerance for vitamin A than humans do. Mertz suffered a quick deterioration. He developed stomach pains and became incapacitated and incoherent. On 7 January 1913, Mertz died. Mawson continued alone, eventually making it back to camp alive.

Roald Amundsen's expedition was planned around 97 Esquimaux dogs (possibly Canadian Eskimo Dogs, Greenland Dogs or both). On his first try, two of his dogs froze to death in the -56 C temperatures. He tried a second time and was successful. Amundsen was covering 17 mi a day, with stops every 3 mi to build a cairn to mark the trail. He had 55 dogs with him, which he culled until he had 14 left when he returned from the pole. On the return trip, a man skied ahead of the dogs and hid meat in the cairns to encourage them to run.

Sled dog breeds
The original sled dogs were chosen for size, strength and stamina, but modern dogs are bred for speed and endurance Most sled dogs weigh around 25 kg, but they can weigh as little as 16 kg, and can exceed 32 kg. Sled dogs have a very efficient gait, and "mushers strive for a well balanced dog team that matches all dogs for both size (approximately the same) and gait (the walking, trotting or running speeds of the dogs as well as the 'transition speed' where a dog will switch from one gait to another) so that the entire dog team moves in a similar fashion which increases overall team efficiency." They can run up to 45 km/h. Because of this, sled dogs have very tough, webbed feet with closely spaced toes. Their webbed feet act as snow shoes.

Sled dog breeds can typically be divided into further sub-types:

 * sprint dogs, bred to pull sleds quickly
 * freight dogs, bred to pull massive weights
 * long distance dogs, bred to travel hundreds or even thousands of miles
 * aboriginal multipurpose sled dogs, such as Russian laikas who pull sleds as well as herd reindeer and hunt game.

A dog's fur depends on its use. Freight dogs should have dense, warm coats to hold heat in, and sprint dogs have short coats that let heat out. Most sled dogs have a double coat, with the outer coat keeping snow away from the body, and a waterproof inner coat for insulation. In warm weather, dogs may have problems regulating their body temperature and may overheat. Their tails serve to protect their nose and feet from freezing when the dog is curled up to sleep. They also have a unique arrangement of blood vessels in their legs to help protect against frostbite.

Appetite is a big part of choosing sled dogs; picky dogs off trail may be pickier on the trail. They are fed high-fat diets, and on the trail may eat oily salmon or blubbery sea mammals. Sled dogs also must not be overly aggressive with other dogs. They also need a lot of exercise.

Alaskan husky
The most commonly used dog in dog sled racing, the Alaskan husky is a mongrel bred specifically for its performance as a sled dog. There are two genetically distinct varieties of the Alaskan husky: a sprinting group and a long-distance group. Alaskan Malamutes and Siberian Huskies contributed the most genetically to the long-distance group, while English Pointers and Salukis contributed the most to the sprinting group. Anatolian Shepherd Dogs contributed a strong work ethic to both varieties. There are many Alaskan huskies that are part Greyhound, which improves their speed.

Alaskan Malamute
Alaskan Malamutes are large, strong freight dogs. They weigh between 80 and 120 lb and have round faces with soft features. Freight dogs are a class of dogs that includes both pedigree and non-pedigree dogs. Alaskan Malamutes are thought to be one of the first domesticated breeds of dogs, originating in the Kotzebue Sound region of Alaska. These dogs are known for their broad chests, thick coats, and tough feet. Speed has little to no value for these dogs - instead, the emphasis is on pulling strength. They are used in expedition and long adventure trips, and for hauling heavy loads. Alaskan Malamutes were the dog of choice for hauling and messenger work in World War II.

Canadian Eskimo Dog
The Canadian Eskimo Dog or Canadian Inuit Dog, also known as the Exquimaux Husky, Esquimaux Dog, and Qimmiq (an Inuit language word for dog), has its origins in the aboriginal sled dogs used by the Thule people of Arctic Canada. The breed as it exists today was primarily developed through the work of the Canadian government. It is capable of pulling between 45 and 80 kg per dog for distances between 15 and 70 mi. The Canadian Eskimo Dog was also used as a hunting dog, helping Inuit hunters to catch seals, muskoxen, and polar bears. On 1 May 2000, the Canadian territory of Nunavut officially adopted the "Canadian Inuit Dog" as the animal symbol of the territory. They are considered genetically to be the same breed as the Greenland Dog, as research shows they have not yet diverged enough genetically to be considered separate breeds.

Chinook
The Chinook is a rare breed of sled dog developed in New Hampshire in the early 1900s by Arthur Walden, a gold rush adventurer and dog driver, and is a blend of English Mastiff, Greenland Dog, German Shepherd Dog, and Belgian Shepherd. It is the state dog of New Hampshire and was recognized by the American Kennel Club (AKC) in the Working Group in 2013. They are described as athletic and "hard bodied" with a "tireless gait". Their coat colour is always tawny, ranging from a pale honey color to reddish-gold.

Chukotka Sled Dog
The Chukotka Sled Dog (чукотская ездовая) is the aboriginal spitz breed of dog indigenous to the Chukchi people of Russia. Chukotka sled dog teams have been used since prehistoric times to pull sleds in harsh conditions, such as hunting sea mammals on oceanic pack ice. Chukotka sled dogs are most famous as the progenitor of the Siberian husky.

Eurohound
A Eurohound is a type of dog bred for sprint-style sled dog racing. The Eurohound is typically crossbred from the Alaskan husky group and any of a number of pointing breeds ("pointers").

Greenland Dog
Greenland Dogs are heavy dogs with high endurance but little speed. They are frequently used by people offering dog sled adventures and long expeditions. As of 2016, there were about 15,000 Greenland Dogs living in Greenland, but decades ago the number was significantly higher and projects have been initiated to ensure the survival of the breed. In many regions north of the Arctic Circle in Greenland, they are a primary mode of transportation in the winter. Most hunters in Greenland favour dog sled teams over snowmobiles, as the dog sled teams are more reliable. They are considered genetically to be the same breed as the Canadian Eskimo Dog, as research shows they have not yet diverged enough genetically to be considered separate breeds.

Greyster
The Greyster is a type of sled dog bred for sled dog racing, especially dryland sports like canicross and bikejoring. The Greyster is crossbred from the Greyhound and the German Shorthair Pointer.

Kamchatka Sled Dog
The Kamchatka Sled Dog (Russian: Камчатских ездовых собак, literally "Kamchatka riding dog") is a rare landrace of sled laika developed by the Itelmen and Koryak people of Kamchatka, Russia. There are currently efforts underway to revive the breed.

Labrador Husky
The Labrador Husky originated in the Labrador portion of the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The breed probably arrived in the area with the Inuit who came to Canada around 1300 AD. Despite the name, Labrador huskies are not related to the Labrador retriever, but in fact most closely related the Canadian Eskimo Dog. There are estimated to be 50-60 Labrador huskies in the world.

MacKenzie River Husky
The term Mackenzie River husky describes several overlapping local populations of Arctic and sub-Arctic sled dog-type dogs, none of which constitutes a breed. Dogs from Yukon were crossed with large European breeds such as St. Bernards and Newfoundlands to create a powerful freighting dog capable of surviving harsh Arctic conditions.

Samoyed
The Samoyed is a laika developed by the Samoyede people of Siberia, who used them to herd reindeer and hunt, in addition to hauling sleds. These dogs were so prized, and the people who owned them so dependent upon them for survival, that the dogs were allowed to sleep in the tents with their owners. Samoyeds weigh about 45 to 65 lb for males and 35 to 50 lb for females and stands from 19 to 23.5 in at the shoulder.

Sakhalin Husky
The Sakhalin Husky, also known as the Karafuto Ken (樺太犬), is a breed of sled dog developed on the island of Sakhalin. Sakhalin huskies are prized for their hardiness, great temperaments and easy trainability, even being the preferred dog used by the Soviet army for hauling gear in harsh condition prior to World War II. Unfortunately with the advent of mechanized travel, Soviet officials determined that the cost of maintaining Sakhalins was wasteful and exterminated them, with only a handful residing in Japan surviving. There are approximately 20 Sakhalin Huskies remaining on Sakhalin Island.

Siberian Husky
Smaller than the similar-appearing Alaskan Malamute, the Siberian Husky pulls more, pound for pound, than a Malamute. Descendants of the sled dogs bred and used by the native Chukchi people of Siberia which were imported to Alaska in the early 1900s, they were used as working dogs and racing sled dogs in Nome, Alaska throughout the 1910s, often dominating the All-Alaska Sweepstakes. They later became widely bred by recreational mushers and show-dog fanciers in the United States and Canada as the Siberian Husky, after the popularity garnered from the 1925 serum run to Nome. Siberians stand 20 –, weigh between 35 and 60 lb (35 - 50 lb for females, 45 - 60 lb for males), and have been selectively bred for both appearance and pulling ability. They are still used regularly today as sled dogs by competitive, recreational, and tour-guide mushers.

Yakutian Laika
The Yakutian Laika (Russian: Якутская лайка) is an ancient working dog breed that originated in the Arctic seashore of the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic. In terms of functionality, Yakutian Laikas are a sled laika, being able to herd, hunt, and as well as haul freight. The Yakutian Laika is recognized by the Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI) and the AKC's Foundation Stock Service. The Yakutian Laika is a medium size, strong and compact dog, with powerful muscles and thick double coat to handle bitter Arctic temperatures. They were the preferred dog of Russian polar explorer Georgy Ushakov, who prized them for their hardiness and versatility, being able to hunt seals and polar bears as well as haul sleds for thousands of miles.

Other breeds
Numerous non-sled dog breeds have been used as sled dogs. Poodles, Irish Setters, German Shorthaired Pointers, Labrador Retrievers, golden retriever, Newfoundlands, Chow Chows and St. Bernards have all been used to pull sleds in the past.

World Championships
FSS held the first World Championships in Saint Moritz, Switzerland in 1990 with classes in only Sled Sprint (10-Dog, 8-Dog, and 6-Dog) and Skidog Pulka for men and women. 113 competitors arrived in the starting chutes to mark the momentous occasion. At first World Championships were held each year, but after the 1995 events, it was decided to hold them every two years, which facilitated the bidding process and enabled the host organization more time for preparation.

Balto
Balto was the lead dog of the sled dog team that carried the diphtheria serum on the last leg of the relay to Nome during the 1925 diphtheria epidemic. He was driven by musher Gunnar Kaasen, who worked for Leonhard Seppala. Seppala had also bred Balto.

In 1925, 10 months after Balto completed his run, a bronze statue was erected in his honour in Central Park near the Tisch Children's Zoo. The statue was sculpted by Frederick George Richard Roth. Children frequently climb the statue to pretend to ride on the dog. The plaque at the base of the statue reads "Endurance · Fidelity · Intelligence". Balto's body was stuffed following his death in 1933, and is on display at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History.

In 1995, a Universal Pictures animated movie based loosely on him, Balto, was released.

Togo
Togo was the lead sled dog of Leonhard Seppala and his dog sled team in the 1925 serum run to Nome across central and northern Alaska. Seppala considered Togo to be the greatest sled dog and lead dog of his mushing career, and of that age in Alaska, stating in 1960: "I never had a better dog than Togo. His stamina, loyalty and intelligence could not be improved upon. Togo was the best dog that ever traveled the Alaska trail."

Katy Steinmetz in Time Magazine named Togo the most heroic animal of all time, writing that “the dog that often gets credit for eventually saving the town is Balto, but he just happened to run the last, 55-mile leg in the race. The sled dog who did the lion's share of the work was Togo. His journey, fraught with white-out storms, was the longest by 200 miles and included a traverse across perilous Norton Sound — where he saved his team and driver in a courageous swim through ice floes.”

Togo would go on to become one of the foundation dogs for lines of Siberian sled dogs, and including eventually the Siberian Husky registered breed.

In 2019, Walt Disney Pictures released Togo, a film starring Willelm Dafoe as Leonard Seppala.

Taro and Jiro
In 1958, an ill-fated Japanese research expedition to Antarctica made an emergency evacuation, leaving behind 15 sled dogs. The researchers believed that a relief team would arrive within a few days, so they left the dogs chained up outside with a small supply of food; however, the weather turned bad and the team never made it to the outpost. One year later, a new expedition arrived and discovered that two of the dogs, Taro and Jiro, had survived. The breed spiked in popularity upon the release of the 1983 film Nankyoku Monogatari. A second film from 2006, Eight Below, provided a fictional version of the occurrence, but did not reference the breed. Instead, the film features only eight dogs: two Alaskan Malamutes, and six Siberian Huskies.

Other dogs
Anna was a small sled dog who ran on Pam Flower's team during her expedition to become the first woman to cross the Arctic alone. She was noted for being the smallest dog to run on the team, and a picture book was created about her journey in the Arctic.

There are numerous stories of blind sled dogs that continue to run, either on their own or with assistance from other dogs on the team.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Sled dog


text:
Rhizobia

Rhizobia are diazotrophic bacteria that fix nitrogen after becoming established inside the root nodules of legumes (Fabaceae). To express genes for nitrogen fixation, rhizobia require a plant host; they cannot independently fix nitrogen. In general, they are gram negative, motile, non-sporulating rods.

Rhizobia are a "group of soil bacteria that infect the roots of legumes to form root nodules". Rhizobia are found in the soil and, after infection, produce nodules in the legume where they fix nitrogen gas (N2) from the atmosphere, turning it into a more readily useful form of nitrogen. From here, the nitrogen is exported from the nodules and used for growth in the legume. Once the legume dies, the nodule breaks down and releases the rhizobia back into the soil, where they can live individually or reinfect a new legume host.

History
The first known species of rhizobia, Rhizobium leguminosarum, was identified in 1889, and all further species were initially placed in the Rhizobium genus. Most research has been done on crop and forage legumes such as clover, alfalfa, beans, peas, and soybeans; more research is being done on North American legumes.

Taxonomy
Rhizobia are a paraphyletic group that fall into two classes of Pseudomonadota—the alphaproteobacteria and betaproteobacteria. As shown below, most belong to the order Hyphomicrobiales, but several rhizobia occur in distinct bacterial orders of the Pseudomonadota.

These groups include a variety of non-symbiotic bacteria. For instance, the plant pathogen Agrobacterium is a closer relative of Rhizobium than the Bradyrhizobium that nodulate soybean.

Importance in agriculture

Although much of the nitrogen is removed when protein-rich grain or hay is harvested, significant amounts can remain in the soil for future crops. This is especially important when nitrogen fertilizer is not used, as in organic rotation schemes or in some less-industrialized countries. Nitrogen is the most commonly deficient nutrient in many soils around the world and it is the most commonly supplied plant nutrient. The supply of nitrogen through fertilizers has severe environmental concerns.

Specific strains of rhizobia are required to make functional nodules on the roots able to fix the N2. Having this specific rhizobia present is beneficial to the legume, as the N2 fixation can increase crop yield. Inoculation with rhizobia tends to increase yield.

Legume inoculation has been an agricultural practice for many years and has continuously improved over time. 12–20 million hectares of soybeans are inoculated annually. An ideal inoculant includes some of the following aspects; maximum efficacy, ease of use, compatibility, high rhizobial concentration, long shelf-life, usefulness under varying field conditions, and survivability.

These inoculants may foster success in legume cultivation. As a result of the nodulation process, after the harvest of the crop, there are higher levels of soil nitrate, which can then be used by the next crop.

Symbiotic relationship
Rhizobia are unique in that they are the only nitrogen-fixing bacteria living in a symbiotic relationship with legumes. Common crop and forage legumes are peas, beans, clover, and soy.

Nature of the mutualism
The legume–rhizobium symbiosis is a classic example of mutualism—rhizobia supply ammonia or amino acids to the plant and, in return, receive organic acids (mainly malate and succinate, which are dicarboxylic acids) as a carbon and energy source. However, because several unrelated strains infect each individual plant, a classic tragedy of the commons scenario presents itself. Cheater strains may hoard plant resources such as polyhydroxybutyrate for the benefit of their own reproduction without fixing an appreciable amount of nitrogen. Given the costs involved in nodulation and the opportunity for rhizobia to cheat, it may be surprising that this symbiosis exists.

Infection and signal exchange
The formation of the symbiotic relationship involves a signal exchange between both partners that leads to mutual recognition and the development of symbiotic structures. The most well understood mechanism for the establishment of this symbiosis is through intracellular infection. Rhizobia are free living in the soil until they are able to sense flavonoids, derivatives of 2-phenyl-1.4-benzopyrone, which are secreted by the roots of their host plant, triggering the accumulation of a large population of cells and eventually attachment to root hairs. These flavonoids then promote the DNA binding activity of NodD, which belongs to the LysR family of transcriptional regulators and triggers the secretion of nod factors after the bacteria have entered the root hair. Nod factors trigger a series of complex developmental changes inside the root hair, beginning with root hair curling and followed by the formation of the infection thread, a cellulose lined tube that the bacteria use to travel down through the root hair into the root cells. The bacteria then infect several other adjacent root cells. This is followed by continuous cell proliferation, resulting in the formation of the root nodule. A second mechanism, used especially by rhizobia that infect aquatic hosts, is called crack entry. In this case, no root hair deformation is observed. Instead, the bacteria penetrate between cells through cracks produced by lateral root emergence.

Inside the nodule, the bacteria differentiate morphologically into bacteroids and fix atmospheric nitrogen into ammonium using the enzyme nitrogenase. Ammonium is then converted into amino acids like glutamine and asparagine before it is exported to the plant. In return, the plant supplies the bacteria with carbohydrates in the form of organic acids. The plant also provides the bacteroid oxygen for cellular respiration, tightly bound by leghaemoglobins, plant proteins similar to human hemoglobins. This process keeps the nodule oxygen poor in order to prevent the inhibition of nitrogenase activity.

Recently, a Bradyrhizobium strain was discovered to form nodules in Aeschynomene without producing nod factors, suggesting the existence of alternative communication signals other than nod factors, possibly involving the secretion of the plant hormone cytokinin.

It has been observed that root nodules can be formed spontaneously in Medicago without the presence of rhizobia. This implies that the development of the nodule is controlled entirely by the plant and simply triggered by the secretion of nod factors.

The sanctions hypothesis
There are two main hypotheses for the mechanism that maintains legume-rhizobium symbiosis (though both may occur in nature). The sanctions hypothesis theorizes that legumes cannot recognize the more parasitic or less nitrogen fixing rhizobia and must counter the parasitism by post-infection legume sanctions. In response to underperforming rhizobia, legume hosts can respond by imposing sanctions of varying severity to their nodules. These sanctions include, but are not limited to, reduction of nodule growth, early nodule death, decreased carbon supply to nodules, or reduced oxygen supply to nodules that fix less nitrogen. Within a nodule, some of the bacteria differentiate into nitrogen fixing bacteroids, which have been found to be unable to reproduce. Therefore, with the development of a symbiotic relationship, if the host sanctions hypothesis is correct, the host sanctions must act toward whole nodules rather than individual bacteria because individual targeting sanctions would prevent any reproducing rhizobia from proliferating over time. This ability to reinforce a mutual relationship with host sanctions pushes the relationship toward mutualism rather than parasitism and is likely a contributing factor to why the symbiosis exists.

However, other studies have found no evidence of plant sanctions.

The partner choice hypothesis
The partner choice hypothesis proposes that the plant uses prenodulation signals from the rhizobia to decide whether to allow nodulation, and chooses only noncheating rhizobia. There is evidence for sanctions in soybean plants, which reduce rhizobium reproduction (perhaps by limiting oxygen supply) in nodules that fix less nitrogen. Likewise, wild lupine plants allocate fewer resources to nodules containing less-beneficial rhizobia, limiting rhizobial reproduction inside. This is consistent with the definition of sanctions, although called "partner choice" by the authors. Some studies support the partner choice hypothesis. While both mechanisms no doubt contribute significantly to maintaining rhizobial cooperation, they do not in themselves fully explain the persistence of mutualism. The partner choice hypothesis is not exclusive from the host sanctions hypothesis, as it is apparent that both of them are prevalent in the symbiotic relationship.

Evolutionary history
The symbiosis between nitrogen fixing rhizobia and the legume family has emerged and evolved over the past 66 million years. Although evolution tends to swing toward one species taking advantage of another in the form of noncooperation in the selfish-gene model, management of such symbiosis allows for the continuation of cooperation. When the relative fitness of both species is increased, natural selection will favor symbiosis.

To understand the evolutionary history of this symbiosis, it is helpful to compare the rhizobia-legume symbiosis to a more ancient symbiotic relationship, such as that between endomycorrhizae fungi and land plants, which dates back to almost 460 million years ago.

Endomycorrhizal symbiosis can provide many insights into rhizobia symbiosis because recent genetic studies have suggested that rhizobia co-opted the signaling pathways from the more ancient endomycorrhizal symbiosis. Bacteria secrete Nod factors and endomycorrhizae secrete Myc-LCOs. Upon recognition of the Nod factor/Myc-LCO, the plant proceeds to induce a variety of intracellular responses to prepare for the symbiosis.

It is likely that rhizobia co-opted the features already in place for endomycorrhizal symbiosis because there are many shared or similar genes involved in the two processes. For example, the plant recognition gene SYMRK (symbiosis receptor-like kinase) is involved in the perception of both the rhizobial Nod factors as well as the endomycorrhizal Myc-LCOs. The shared similar processes would have greatly facilitated the evolution of rhizobial symbiosis because not all the symbiotic mechanisms would have needed to develop. Instead, the rhizobia simply needed to evolve mechanisms to take advantage of the symbiotic signaling processes already in place from endomycorrhizal symbiosis.

Other diazotrophs
Many other species of bacteria are able to fix nitrogen (diazotrophs), but few are able to associate intimately with plants and colonize specific structures like legume nodules. Bacteria that do associate with plants include the actinomycete, Frankia, which form symbiotic root nodules in actinorhizal plants, although these bacteria have a much broader host range, implying the association is less specific than in legumes. Additionally, several cyanobacteria like Nostoc are associated with aquatic ferns, Cycas, and Gunneras, although they do not form nodules.

Additionally, loosely associated plant bacteria, termed endophytes, have been reported to fix nitrogen in planta. These bacteria colonize the intercellular spaces of leaves, stems, and roots in plants but do not form specialized structures like rhizobia and Frankia. Diazotrophic bacterial endophytes have very broad host ranges, in some cases colonizing both monocots and dicots.

title: Rhizobia


text:
Trajan's Column

Trajan's Column (Colonna Traiana, Columna Traiani) is a Roman triumphal column in Rome, Italy, that commemorates Roman emperor Trajan's victory in the Dacian Wars. It was probably constructed under the supervision of the architect Apollodorus of Damascus at the order of the Roman Senate. It is located in Trajan's Forum, north of the Roman Forum. Completed in AD 113, the freestanding column is most famous for its spiral bas relief, which depicts the wars between the Romans and Dacians (101–102 and 105–106). Its design has inspired numerous victory columns, both ancient and modern.

The structure is about 30 m in height, 35 m including its large pedestal. The shaft is made from a series of 20 colossal Carrara marble drums, each weighing about 32 tons, with a diameter of 3.7 m. The 190 m frieze winds around the shaft 23 times. Inside the shaft, a spiral staircase of 185 steps provides access to a viewing deck at the top. The capital block of Trajan's Column weighs 53.3 tons, and had to be lifted to a height of about 34 m. Ancient coins indicate preliminary plans to top the column with a statue of a bird, probably an eagle. After construction, a statue of Trajan was put in place; this disappeared in the Middle Ages. On December 4, 1587, the top was crowned with a bronze figure of Saint Peter the Apostle by Pope Sixtus V, which remains to this day.

Trajan's Column was originally flanked by two sections of the Ulpian Library, a Greek chamber and a Latin chamber, which faced each other and had walls lined with niches and wooden bookcases for scrolls. The Latin chamber likely contained Trajan's commentary on the Roman-Dacian Wars, the Dacica, which most scholars agree was intended to be echoed in the spiralling, sculpted narrative design of Trajan's Column.

Design
The column shows 2,662 figures and 155 scenes; Trajan himself appears on the column 58 times.

The continuous helical frieze winds 25 times from base to capital and was an architectural innovation in its time. The design was adopted by later emperors such as Marcus Aurelius. The narrative band expands from about 1 m at the base of the column to 1.2 m at the top. The scenes unfold continuously. Often a variety of different perspectives are used in the same scene, so that more can be revealed (e.g., a different angle is used to show men working behind a wall).

Historical content portrayed
The relief portrays Trajan's two victorious military campaigns against the Dacians; the lower half illustrating the first (101–102), and the top half illustrating the second (105–106). These campaigns were contemporary to the time of the column's construction. The frieze repeats standardized scenes of imperial address (adlocutio), sacrifice (lustratio), and the army setting out on campaign (profectio). Scenes of battle are very much a minority on the column; instead it emphasizes images of orderly soldiers carrying out ceremony and construction. The aim of the Dacian campaigns was to incorporate and integrate Dacia into the Roman Empire as a province. On Trajan's Column, imagery related to wartime violence in general seems to have been downplayed and depictions of violent action towards foreign women and children are nonexistent. Some scholars suggest the lack of battle scenes and large number of construction scenes was meant to speak to the urban population of Rome (the primary audience), addressing their fear and distrust of the army by depicting its warfare as one with little collateral damage. The portrayal of the Roman army as relatively gentle may have been designed to support Trajan's image as a man of "justice, clemency, moderation, and restraint". Others have argued that the number of tree-felling scenes on the Column (48 of the 224 trees on the Column are being felled) work alongside the bridging of the Danube at the base, and are meant to speak to a more total conquest of the province than had previously been achieved. Key specific events portrayed are the first crossing of the Danube by the Roman legion, Trajan's voyage up the Danube, the surrender of the Dacians at the close of the first war, the great sacrifice by the Danube bridge during the second war, the assault on the Dacian capital, and the death of the Dacian king Decebalus. The two sections are separated by a personification of victory writing on a shield flanked on either side by trophies.

Great care was taken to distinguish the men and women from both sides of the campaign as well as the ranks within these distinct groups. The scenes are crowded with sailors, soldiers, statesmen and priests, showing about 2,500 figures in all. It also exists as a valuable source of information on Roman and barbarian arms and methods of warfare (such as forts, ships, weapons, etc.) and costume. The relief shows details such as a ballista or catapult. This detail is evident in the variety of trees on the Column, each individually stylised following 37 types, which has led some scholars to identify particular species. The precise details create a strong effect of verisimilitude; the designer presents the images as objective historical truth. The emperor Trajan is depicted realistically in the veristic style, making 58 appearances as the central hero among his troops.

Women for the most part occupy and define the margins of the scenes. However, mortal females in Roman state art are so rare it is remarkable that they are included at all in a war monument. In the male discourse of warfare, women are a visual trope that develops further the idea of subjugation by feminizing the foreign conquered. However, on the column is "one of the most unusual, disturbing, and violent depictions of women in Roman art, the torture scene." In this unusual scene, four Dacian women are depicted torturing two naked men.

Setting

Today, Trajan's Column is the most prominent architectural feature of Trajan's Forum, left nearly intact but now isolated from its original setting. The column was placed toward the northernmost point of the forum, acting as the focal point of the entire forum complex. It was surrounded on three sides by two flanking libraries and the Basilica Ulpia. The two libraries to the northeast and southwest of the column were for the study of scrolls written in Latin and in Greek. These libraries were built in tandem with the column. They apparently included upper level viewing platforms for two sides of the column. By having an elevated vantage point, the figures of the scenes, carved in shallow relief and detailed with paint and metal fittings, could be seen more closely (nevertheless it remained impossible for the ancient viewer to follow sequentially the continuous spiral of the reliefs). The problem with visibility of the upper areas is further apparent when we compare Trajan's Column to the Column of Marcus Aurelius. The figures in the later Column of Marcus Aurelius are more deeply cut and even simplified over the height of the shaft because there were no surrounding buildings to serve as viewing platforms. The different carving style seems to have been adopted to enhance visibility.

The two libraries flanking the column helped to further the emperor's program of propaganda. In addition to serving as viewing platforms for the column, they housed valuable works of literature for the people of Rome. Surely one important text kept here was Trajan's own account of the Dacian Wars, now lost. The reliefs on the column documenting the Dacian campaigns would have provided a vivid complement to Trajan's account of the wars. The people of Rome were reminded of his victories every time they enjoyed the open space and amenities of the forum. The combination of the column and the magnificent buildings that surrounded it would have created an awe-inspiring spectacle.

Purpose

It is unclear whether the column was meant to serve a commemorative function, as political propaganda, or both. Traditional scholarship held that the column was a glorifying monument, upholding Trajan as Rome's great emperor. However, recent reconstructions of Trajan's Forum have determined that any wide view of the column would have been mostly obstructed by two libraries in the Forum which tightly bookended it. Also, because it would have been difficult to follow the spiral frieze from end to end (walking in circles with head inclined), the column's narrative power would have been fairly limited.

On the other hand, as French archaeologist Paul Veyne notes, the relief could be read "vertically" from below, with the figure of the emperor recognizable across the bands of images—just as, on the Colonne Vendôme, Napoleon's figure can be picked up, scene after scene. Additionally, the two libraries surrounding it provided platforms from which to observe the column if the viewer stood on the top floors, making the complete view of frieze much more visible.

While there is certainly evidence that the Trajan's Column was not put in an ideal spot for visibility, it is impossible to reject the column as some form of a glorification structure. There is the significant point that the column was extremely challenging to construct, so it is unlikely that it would have been placed in the Forum with the intentions of being hidden or out of plain sight.

There is also the important idea of the column as a symbol for Trajan. Trajan's ashes were buried in a chamber at the base of the column. At the top of the column was a statue of Trajan. The ground level of the Forum, which is a center of life for Romans, is where the earthly remains of Trajan are buried. The narrative on Trajan's Column unfurls from the base going up, taking a viewer through Trajan's triumph in the Dacian wars and (as originally constructed) finishes with a statue of Trajan above the forum. Considering the practice of deification of emperors which was expected during this time period, especially of glorious Trajan, the symbolism may be interpreted as Trajan's earthly remains staying in the Forum with the Roman people while his conquests ascend him up into the heavens.

After Trajan's death in 117, the Roman Senate voted to have Trajan's ashes buried in the column's square base, which is decorated with captured Dacian arms and armor. His ashes and those of his wife, Plotina, were set inside the base in golden urns (which later disappeared from the monument). One reading of this is that Trajan may have intended the column to be his final resting place from the project's inception, and that the similarities in design to other funerary structures made it a natural choice for the Roman Senate. In particular, the circumambulation demanded of onlookers of the column's frieze is evocative of Roman funerary practice, drawing attention toward the center – and consequently, the finial of Trajan.

Inscription

The inscription at the base of the column reads:

Translated to English: "The Senate and People of Rome, to the Divine Emperor Caesar Nerva Trajan, son of Nerva, High Priest, [conqueror of] Germany and Dacia, [vested] with the power of the tribune 17 [times], imperator 6 [times], consul 6 [times], father of the nation, for demonstrating [that] a mountain and a place of such height were excavated for such works."

It was believed that the column was supposed to stand where the saddle between the Capitoline and Quirinal Hills used to be, having been excavated by Trajan, but excavation has revealed that this is not the case. The saddle was where Trajan's Forum and Trajan's Market stood. Hence, the inscription refers to the Trajan's entire building project in the area of the Imperial fora.

This is perhaps the most famous example of Roman square capitals, a script often used for stone monuments and, less often, for manuscript writing. As it was meant to be read from below, the bottom letters are slightly smaller than the top letters, to give proper perspective. Some, but not all, word divisions are marked with a dot, and many of the words, especially the titles, are abbreviated. In the inscription, numerals are marked with a titulus, a bar across the top of the letters. A small piece at the bottom of the inscription has been lost.

The typeface Trajan, designed in 1989 by Carol Twombly, uses letter forms based on this inscription, working from the research of Edward Catich. There have been many other typefaces based on the inscription from such designers as Frederic Goudy and Warren Chappell.

Spiral stair

The interior of Trajan's Column is hollow: entered by a small doorway at one side of the base, a spiral stair of 185 steps gives access to the platform above, having offered the visitor in antiquity a view over the surrounding Trajan's forum; 43 window slits illuminate the ascent.

The column stands 38.4 m high from the ground to the top of the statue base: Located immediately next to the large Basilica Ulpia, it had to be constructed sufficiently tall in order to function as a vantage point and to maintain its own visual impact on the forum. The column proper, that is the shaft without the pedestal, the statue and its base, is 29.76 m high, a number which almost corresponds to 100 Roman feet; beginning slightly above the bottom of the base, the helical staircase inside measures a mere 8 cm less.

The column is composed of 29 blocks of Luni marble, weighing in total more than 1100 t. The spiral stair itself was carved out of 19 blocks, with a full turn every 14 steps; this arrangement required a more complex geometry than the more usual alternatives of 12 or 16. The quality of the craftsmanship was such that the staircase is practically even, and the joints between the huge blocks still fit accurately. Despite numerous earthquakes in the past, the column today leans at an angle of less than half a degree.

Trajan's Column, especially its helical stairway design, exerted a considerable influence on subsequent Roman architecture. While spiral stairs were before still a rare sight in Roman buildings, this space-saving form henceforth spread gradually throughout the empire. Apart from the practical advantages it offered, the design also became closely associated with imperial power, being later adopted by Trajan's successors Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. In Napoleon's time, a similar column decorated with a spiral of relief sculpture was erected in the Place Vendôme in Paris to commemorate his victory at Austerlitz.

Construction

It is assumed that the column drums were lifted by cranes into their place. Ancient sources, as well as a substantial body of archaeological evidence, show that Roman engineers were capable of raising large weights clear off the ground. The typical drum of Trajan's Column weighs c. 32 t, while the capital, the heaviest block above the base and pedestal, is even at 53.3 t, which had to be lifted 34 m high. To save weight, the treads had probably been carved out before either at the quarry or in situ.

Even so, for such loads, the typical Roman treadwheel crane, which could only reach a maximum height of 15 to(-) in any event, was clearly inadequate. Instead, a tower-like wooden construction was erected around the building site, in the midst of which the marble blocks were raised by a system of pulleys, ropes and capstans; these were powered by a large workforce of men and possibly also draught animals, spread out on the ground. According to modern calculations, eight capstans were needed to hoist the 55 t base block, while the length of rope required for the highest drums measured some 210 m assuming two-block pulleys.

Such a lifting tower was later also used to great effect by the Renaissance architect Domenico Fontana to relocate obelisks in Rome. From his report, it becomes obvious that the coordination of the lift between the various pulling teams required a considerable amount of concentration and discipline, since, if the force was not applied evenly, the excessive stress on the ropes would make them rupture. In case of Trajan's Column, the difficulties were exacerbated even further by the simultaneous work on the neighbouring Basilica Ulpia, which limited the available space so that the capstan crews had proper access only from one side.

Reproduction

Plaster casts of the relief were taken in the 19th and 20th centuries. After a century of acid pollution, they are now more legible in some details than the original, and the way they are displayed offers students a closer look at the reliefs than at the original site. Examples can be studied at:

 * Museum of Roman Civilization in Rome, where each "frame" of the narrative has been cut into a separate section and the sections are then displayed horizontally in order
 * National Museum of Romanian History, Bucharest, Romania, which displays the frieze horizontally in segments
 * Cast Courts at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Displayed in column form and, including the base, the column is chopped into two halves.
 * Archaeological Collection of the University of Zürich, University of Zürich

Additionally, individual casts of the frieze are on display in various museums, for example, in the Museum for Ancient Navigation in Mainz. A complete survey in monochrome was published by the German archaeologist Conrad Cichorius between 1896 and 1900 (see Commons), still forming the base of modern scholarship. Based on Cichorius's work, and on the photographic archive of the German Archaeological Institute, a research-oriented Web-based viewer for Trajan's Column was created at the German-language image database.

Dimensions

 * Height of base: 1.7 m
 * + Height of shaft: 26.92 m
 * Typical height of drums: 1.521 m
 * Diameter of shaft: 3.695 m
 * + Height of capital: 1.16 m
 * = Height of column proper: 29.78 m
 * Height of helical part of stair: 29.68 m (c. 100 Roman feet)
 * Height of column, excluding plinth: 28.91 m
 * + Height of pedestal, including plinth: 6.16 m
 * = Height of top of column above ground: 35.07 m

Influence
Rome
 * Column of Antoninus Pius
 * Column of Marcus Aurelius

Constantinople
 * Column of Arcadius
 * Column of Theodosius

Medieval
 * Bernward Column in Hildesheim Cathedral, Germany

Modern
 * Astoria Column in Astoria, Oregon
 * Colonne Vendôme in Paris
 * Congress Column in Brussels
 * Karlskirche in Vienna
 * Marian and Holy Trinity columns, religious monuments built in honour of the Virgin Mary
 * Washington Monument (Baltimore)
 * Monument to the Great Fire of London
 * Nelson's Column

title: Trajan's Column


text:
List of patriarchs of Alexandria

The Patriarch of Alexandria (also known as the Bishop of Alexandria or Pope of Alexandria) is the highest-ranking bishop of Egypt. The Patriarchs trace back their lineage to Mark the Evangelist.

Following the Council of Chalcedon in 451, a schism occurred in Egypt, between those who accepted and those who rejected the decisions of the council. The former are known as Chalcedonians and the latter are known as miaphysites. Over the next several decades, these two parties competed on the See of Alexandria and frequently still recognized the same Patriarch. But after 536, they permanently established separate patriarchates, and have maintained separate lineages of Patriarchs. The miaphysites became the Coptic Church (part of Oriental Orthodoxy) and the Chalcedonians became the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria (part of the wider Eastern Orthodox Church).

Therefore, this list only contains those Patriarchs who served up until 536. For later Popes and Patriarchs, follow the links at the bottom of this page.

List of patriarchs (prior to 536)

 * 1) Mark the Evangelist (43–68)
 * 2) Anianus (68–85)
 * 3) Avilius (85–98)
 * 4) Kedron (98–109)
 * 5) Primus (109–121)
 * 6) Justus (121–131)
 * 7) Eumenes (131–141)
 * 8) Markianos (142–152)
 * 9) Celadion (152–166)
 * 10) Agrippinus (167–178)
 * 11) Julian (178–189)
 * 12) Demetrius I (189–232)
 * 13) Heraclas (232–248)
 * 14) Dionysius (248–264)
 * 15) Maximus (265–282)
 * 16) Theonas (282–300)
 * 17) Peter I (300–311)
 * 18) Achillas (312–313)
 * 19) Alexander I (313–326), First Ecumenical Council occurred
 * 20) Athanasius I (328–339, 346–373) Served as a Deacon for the First Council; later became Pope of Alexandria
 * 21) Pistos (336 or 338), an Arian appointee.
 * 22) Gregory of Cappadocia (339–346), an Arian appointee.
 * 23) Georgius (357-361), an Arian appointee.
 * 24) Lucius of Alexandria (365, 375-378), an Arian appointee.
 * 25) Peter II (373–380)
 * 26) Timothy I (380–385), Second Ecumenical Council occurred
 * 27) Theophilus I (385–412)
 * 28) Cyril I (412–444), Third Ecumenical Council occurred
 * 29) Dioscorus I (444–451), Second Council of Ephesus occurred. Pope Dioscorus was later deposed by the Council of Chalcedon but still recognized by Miaphysites until his death in 454.
 * 30) Proterius (451–457) Deposed by Coptic (Alexandrian) Synod under Timothy II Aelurus, Chalcedonian
 * 31) Timothy II Aelurus (457–460), Miaphysite
 * 32) Timothy III Salophakiolos (460–475), Chalcedonian but not recognized by Miaphysites who continued to recognise Timothy II Aelurus
 * Timothy II Aelurus (restored) (475–477), Miaphysite
 * 1) Peter III Mongus (477), Miaphysite
 * Timothy III Salophakiolos (restored) (477–481), Chalcedonian
 * 1) John I Talaia, (481–482), Chalcedonian but not recognized by Miaphysites who continued to recognise Peter III Mongus
 * Peter III Mongus (restored) (482–490), Miaphysite
 * 1) Athanasius II Kelites (490–496), Miaphysite
 * 2) John II (496–505), Miaphysite
 * 3) John III (505–516), Miaphysite
 * 4) Dioscorus II (516–517), Miaphysite
 * 5) Timothy III (517–535), Miaphysite
 * 6) Theodosius I (535–536), Miaphysite.

After 536, the Chalcedonians and Miaphysites recognised different patriarchs.

For the later succession of Miaphysite (Coptic) patriarchs and Greek (Chalcedonian) patriarchs, see:
 * List of Coptic Orthodox popes.
 * List of Greek Orthodox patriarchs of Alexandria.

title: List of patriarchs of Alexandria