text:
Prenatal and perinatal psychology

Prenatal psychology can be seen as a part of developmental psychology, although historically it was developed in the heterogenous field of psychoanalysis. Its scope is the description and explanation of experience and behaviour of the individual before birth and postnatal consequences as well. In so far as the actual birth process is involved one can consider this perinatal psychology. Pre- and perinatal aspects are often discussed together.

Prenatal and perinatal psychology explores the psychological and psychophysiological effects and implications of the earliest experiences of the individual, before birth (prenatal), as well as during and immediately after childbirth (perinatal). Although there are various perspectives on the topic, a common thread is the importance of prenatal and perinatal experiences in the shaping the future psychological development. There is a debate among scientists regarding the extent to which newborn infants are capable of forming memories, the effects of any such memories on their personality, and the possibility of recovering them from an unconscious mind, which itself is the subject of argument in the field. A widespread assumption concerning the prenatal phase was that the fetus is almost completely shielded from outside stimuli. Thus, perception and consciousness would develop after birth. Meanwhile, there is a great number of scientific studies which show clearly that behaviour, perception and learning is already developed before birth. This also holds for nonhuman species, as for rat fetuses acoustic conditioning can be demonstrated.

Psycho-physiological aspects of the prenatal phase
The physiological development while in the prenatal phase – especially that of the brain – is of particular importance for prenatal psychology. In the first eight weeks after insemination, the developing child is called an embryo. After the inner organs have developed (from the ninth week on) it is called a fetus.

Prenatal development of the brain
The basis of perception, experience, and behaviour is the brain. While in gestation, a giant neuronal net is developing, delivering the condition for any mental process. About half of the developing neurons become destroyed again during the development of the brain because of the "programmed cell death" (apoptosis). At birth the infantile brain contains 100 billion neurons – as many as in the brain of an adult. At birth, every cortical neuron is connected with about 2500 neurons; after a year, with about 15 000. Synapses develop, and are destroyed, over the whole life span – a process called neuroplasticity.

Motor development
In the 1930s the physiologist Davenport Hooker examined reflexes or reactions, respectively of aborted fetuses extrauterine. Nowadays, the motor skills of embryo and fetus can be examined with ultrasound techniques quite easily. From the eighth week on the embryo moves the rump, shortly after that his extremities. With the means of sonography one could demonstrate that these were not simple reflexes, but also endogenously provoked movements. According to Alessandra Piontelli the fetus shows all patterns of movement, which later can be found in the newborn.

Breath movements can be seen from the 19th week on, with the fetus taking amniotic fluid into his lungs. Eye movements are shown to exist from the 18th week on, from the 23rd week on there are rapid-eye-movements (REM-phases). These are connected with sleeping patterns and dreaming. Fetuses drink amniotic fluid and urinate into it.

Development of perception and prenatal learning
The sense modalities of the fetus develop prenatally and are functioning very well at birth. The examination of such abilities is connected with experimental examination of behaviour, provoked by stimuli. Ray examined vibro-acoustic conditioning of human fetuses. According to Hepper it rested uncertain, if such conditioning was successful. Hepper claims to have repeat such conditioning experiments successfully, with the earliest vibro-acoustic conditioning in the 32nd week of gestation.

Prenatal learning often is examined by using the habituation paradigm. The fetus gets exposed to a stimulus, e.g. an acoustic one. Afterwards the experimenter watches the extinction of the reaction while repeating the same stimulus again and again. This procedure becomes completed by the use of a new stimulus and the recording of the according reaction. When the new stimulus is identified by the fetus as different from the old one, it releases a new pattern of reaction, e.g. accelerated frequency of the heart. If this does not happen, the new stimulus cannot be distinguished from the old focal stimulus. In 1991 a study demonstrated the acoustic habituation by recording the heart frequency of foetuses in the 29th week of gestation. Such studies can be used for examining memory. Fetuses older than 34 weeks of gestation can reproduce learned content over a period of 4 weeks. The earliest vibro-acoustic conditioning is successful at 22-week-old fetuses. Maybe habituation to taste is possible even earlier. Such habituation was also demonstrated in fetal rats.

Babies remember musical patterns they once heard in the womb, as W. Ernest Freud – a grandson of Sigmund Freud – could demonstrate. The empirical proof used the registration of heart frequency and motorical activity.

Also the development of speech is based on prenatal learning, as the study of DeCasper and Fifer from 1980 seems to demonstrate. This study used operant conditioning as a paradigm. Several empirical studies demonstrated that prenatal learning exists.

Historical development of psychoanalytical and depth psychological theories concerning prenatal life

Most psychoanalytical theories assume that the development of objects, the self and even consciousness begins after birth. Nevertheless, some psychoanalysts explicitly write that pre- and perinatal aspects are responsible for certain symptom formations, among them Otto Rank, Nandor Fodor, Francis J. Mott, Donald Winnicott, Gustav Hans Graber and Ludwig Janus. They think that the structuring of the unconscious psyche starts in the prenatal phase. The fetus already has early, emotionally relevant experiences. They assume the existence of perception in several sense modaliaties, states of asphyxia, fears and stress, which are stored and can be remembered after birth under certain circumstances. In psychoanalysis pre- and perinatal topics usually are seen as fantasies. The manifest prenatal content of dreaming or fantasizing of swimming under water while breathing, being inside of a cave, fighting with underwater monsters – are interpreted as re-projections in time onto the early phase. Janus assumes that in many psychoanalytical approaches there can be found contentual and phenomenological aspects close to prenatal psychology – but without explicit references. Janus wrote of the "hidden attendance of the prenatal existence" in the works of psychoanalysts such as Sandor Ferenczi, Carl Gustav Jung, Melanie Klein, Bela Grunberger, Françoise Dolto and others.

In 1924 Otto Rank (1884–1939), one of Sigmund Freud's disciples, published his book The Trauma of Birth (German: Das Trauma der Geburt und seine Bedeutung für die Psychoanalyse). There he stated that the emotional shock of being born is an individual's first source of anxiety. Because of this book the friendship between Freud and Rank came to an end. Rank was of the opinion that birth is connected with an overwhelming experience of fear of the fetus. He also presumed that this trauma was the cause of later anxieties. He also claimed that aspects of the later prenatal phase can be remembered. So already Rank himself had developed the outlines of a true prenatal psychology. In the light of such assumptions he interpreted cultural aspects, e.g. he understood Christian fantasies of the hell as being based on aversive intrauterine situations. In his book, he treated the interpretation of symbols, art and myths by using pre- and perinatal assumptions. Rank believed that a "primal fixation" with the prenatal state is the root of all neuroses and character disorders and developed a process of psychoanalysis based on birth experiences. Donald Winnicott (1896–1971) tried to understand very early forms of symbol formation. He described in several case studies the reenactment of perinatal experiences in psychotherapies, especially of children. A five-year-old boy climbed into Winnicott's jacket and then slit down the pants onto the ground. He repeated this again and again. Winnicott interpreted this game as a regression and a repeating of birth. He presumed that some babies developed a paranoid attitude by having problems at birth, e.g. in the case of asphyxia. Also psychosomatic symptoms (headaches, breast- and breathing problems and feelings of getting choked) were interpreted as possible consequences of birth experiences by Winnicott. Nevertheless, he rejected the assumption of a universal birth trauma.

In his book The Search for the Beloved: A Clinical Investigation of the Trauma of Birth and Prenatal Condition of 1949 the British-American psychoanalyst Nandor Fodor (1895–1964) traced certain forms of anxiety back to unprocessed and repressed birth experiences following Rank's assumptions, who had been his psychoanalyst. Fodor interpreted dreams, experiencing the lack of oxygen, claustrophobia and sexual disorders and their etiology, which he explained by assuming specific pre- and perinatal experiences.

Francis John Mott (1901–1980) was a disciple of Fodor and the first author who concentrated on the placenta as the first object of the fetus. He wrote, that the fetus fears his placenta as a "blood sucker" or experience it as a "feeder" or "life-giver". His work an prenatal aspects is connected with his speculative assumptions on a quasi-religious design of the universe.

Material emerging from sessions of psychedelic psychotherapy using LSD and other hallucinogenic drugs was the foundation for research into the enduring effects of pre- and perinatal experiences in adult life conducted by Frank Lake, Athanasios Kafkalides (1919–1989) and Stanislav Grof. Grof went on to formulate an extensive theoretical framework for the analysis of pre- and perinatal experiences, based on the four constructs he called Basic Perinatal Matrices. Lake and Grof independently developed breathing techniques, following Wilhelm Reich (1897–1957) as an alternative to the use of psychedelic drugs, which was subject to considerable legal difficulty from the mid-1960s onwards. A related technique called Rebirthing was developed by psychotherapist Leonard Orr in the 1970s, and Core Process psychotherapy trainees relive presumed birth trauma as part of their training.

The US-American social scientist Lloyd deMause (born 1931) compiled in his essay from 1981 the psychoanalytic approaches to prenatal mental life as well as the physiological findings of the human ontogenesis concerning fetal development. He took several assumptions from the works of Grof and Mott, but left away their metaphysical implications completely. In his own approach he assumes, that the placenta becomes the first object of the fetus, namely in two split versions: a positive and a negative one, he called the "nurturing" and the "poisonous placenta". DeMause presumed that in every gestation – especially at the end of this period – there are problems of supply with oxygen for the fetus. Because of physiological conditions the placenta would not be able anymore to supply the growing fetus with enough oxygen. This would give rise to states of pain and deprivation. Pre- and perinatal experiences lead to a mental script, a kind of pattern, to which later experiences would be connected with and internalized. He calls the experience of successive good and painful states the "fetal drama", long precursing the well known "oedipal drama" sensu Freud. Besides these theories about prenatal psychology deMause also developed approaches in the field of psychohistory – a system of cultural psychological assumptions, which explain historical processes and phenomenons by using psychological theories. Especially aspects of childhood history and prenatal psychology play an important role.

In 1992 the Italian child neuropsychiatrist Alessandra Piontelli (born 1945) published a study in her book From Fetus to Child: An Observational and Psychoanalytic Study (1992). Using sonography she examined the behaviour of 11 fetuses. The fetuses showed a very complex behavioural repertoire and were quite different concerning their forms of activities. They reacted to stimuli in complex ways. Piontelli's study suggested that certain prenatal experiences determined later mental life. Psychological traits, e.g. enhanced oral activity, were recognizable in the prenatal phase, and also after birth. Piontelli interpreted her observations in psychoanalytical terms. Piontelli saw a remarkable continuity between pre- and postnatal mental development. Her study is important, because it combines the assessment of empirical data with the observation of single case studies in the postnatal phase and also in infancy. Her study use equally the methods of academic psychology together with the hermeneutics of psychoanalysis, what makes it unique in the scientific landscape.

title: Prenatal and perinatal psychology


text:
Tamarix

The genus Tamarix (tamarisk, salt cedar, taray) is composed of about 50–60 species of flowering plants in the family Tamaricaceae, native to drier areas of Eurasia and Africa. The generic name originated in Latin and may refer to the Tamaris River in Hispania Tarraconensis (Spain).

Description
They are evergreen or deciduous shrubs or trees growing to 1-18 m in height and forming dense thickets. The largest, Tamarix aphylla, is an evergreen tree that can grow to 18 m tall. They usually grow on saline soils, tolerating up to 15,000 ppm soluble salt, and can also tolerate alkaline conditions.

Tamarisks are characterized by slender branches and grey-green foliage. The bark of young branches is smooth and reddish brown. As the plants age, the bark becomes gray-brown, ridged and furrowed.

The leaves are scale-like, almost like that of junipers, 1–2 mm (1/20" to 1/10") long, and overlap each other along the stem. They are often encrusted with salt secretions.

The pink to white flowers appear in dense masses on 5–10 cm (2" to 4") long spikes at branch tips from March to September, though some species (e.g., T. aphylla) tend to flower in the summer until as late as November.

Ecology
Tamarix aphylla can spread both vegetatively, by submerged stems producing adventitious roots, and sexually, by seeds. Each flower can produce thousands of tiny (1 mm; 1/20" diameter) seeds that are contained in a small capsule usually adorned with a tuft of hair that aids in wind dispersal. Seeds can also be dispersed by water. Seedlings require extended periods of soil saturation for establishment. Tamarisk trees are most often propagated by cuttings.

These trees grow in disturbed and undisturbed streams, waterways, bottom lands, banks, and drainage washes of natural or artificial water bodies, moist rangelands and pastures.

Whether Tamarix species are fire-adapted or not is unclear, but in many cases a large proportion of the trees are able to resprout from the stump after fires, although not notably more so than other riverine species. They likely cannot resprout from root suckers. In some habitats where they are native, wildfire appears to favour the establishment of riverine trees such as Populus, to the detriment of Tamarix. Conversely, they do appear to be more flammable, with more dead wood produced and debris held aloft. In the southwestern USA, most stands studied appear to be burning at faster intervals than they can fully mature and die of natural causes.

Tamarix species are used as food plants by the larvae of some Lepidoptera species including Coleophora asthenella which feeds exclusively on T. africana.

Uses

 * Tamarisk species are used as ornamental shrubs, windbreaks, and shade trees: notably T. ramosissima and T. tetrandra.
 * In the American Southwest, Tamarisk was introduced to help erosion control.
 * In Greece Tamarisk – known locally as almyriki is cooked and eaten as a wild green vegetable.
 * The wood was used by the Saka (combined with wood and ibex horn) to produce tremendously powerful bows hundreds of years before the common era.
 * The wood may be used for carpentry or firewood: it is a possible agroforestry species.
 * At certain times of year, scale insects feeding upon the tender twigs of tamarisk plants excrete a sweet substance known as honeydew, which has been gathered for use as a food source and sweetener for thousands of years. The substance is also known locally as manna, and some scholars have suggested that this substance is the biblical manna that fed the Israelites during their flight from Egypt, though others dispute this interpretation.
 * Plans are being made for the tamarisk to play a role in anti-desertification programs in China.

Invasive species
In some specific riparian habitats in the Southwestern United States and California, Tamarix ramosissima has naturalized and become a significant invasive plant species. In other areas, the plants form dense monocultures that alter the natural environment and compete with native species already stressed by human activity. Recent scientific investigations have generally concluded that the primary human-caused impact to desert riparian ecosystems within the Colorado River Basin is the alteration of the flood regime by dams; Tamarix ramosissima is relatively tolerant of this hydrologic alteration compared to flood-dependent native woody riparian species such as willow, cottonwood, and box elder.

Competition with native plants
Research on competition between tamarisk seedlings and co-occurring native trees has found that Tamarix seedlings are not competitive over a range of environments,  but stands of mature trees effectively prevent native species' establishment in the understory, due to low light, elevated salinity, and possibly changes to the soil biota. Box elder (Acer negundo, a native riparian tree) seedlings survive and grow under higher-shade conditions than Tamarix seedlings, and mature Tamarix specimens die after 1–2 years of 98% shade, indicating a pathway for successional replacement of Tamarix by box elder. Anthropogenic activities that preferentially favor tamarisk (such as changes to flooding regimens) are associated with infestation. To date, Tamarix has taken over large sections of riparian ecosystems in the western United States that were once home to native cottonwoods and willows,   and are projected by some to spread well beyond the current range.

In a 2013 study which examined if native plant growth was hindered by the microbiota associated with the presence of Tamarix, a relatively new invasive plant to the northern United States, Elymus lanceolatus and other native plants in fact grew better when a small soil sample from areas where Tamarix trees grew was mixed in with the potting soil, as opposed to samples without these plants. This was thought to indicate the presence of beneficial mycorrhizae. The presence of Tamarix plants has also been shown to boost soil fertility in a number of studies, and it also increases soil salinity. Two studies found that Tamarix plants are able to limit the recruitment of Salix and Populus tree species, in the latter case possibly due to interfering with the trees ability to form symbiotic relationships with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, in contrast to the grass and legume species studied in 2013.

Because it is much more efficient at both obtaining water from drying soil and conserving water during drought, it can outcompete many native species, especially after the habitat is altered by controlling flood regimes and disturbance of water sources. Because the trees are able to concentrate salts on the outside of their leaves, dense stands of the tree will form a layer of high salinity on the topsoil as the leaves are shed. Although this layer is easily washed off during flooding events, in areas where the rivers are channelled and floods are controlled, this salty layer inhibits the germination of a number of native plants. However, a study involving more than a thousand soil samples across gradients of both flood frequency and Tamarix density concluded that "flooding may be the most important factor for assessing floodplain salinity" and "soils under Tamarix canopies had lower surface soil salinity than open areas deprived of flooding suggesting that surface evaporation may contribute more to surface soil salinity than Tamarix".

Investigation of effects of invasion
Tamarix species are commonly believed to disrupt the structure and stability of North American native plant communities and degrade native wildlife habitat, by outcompeting and replacing native plant species, salinizing soils, monopolizing limited sources of moisture, and increasing the frequency, intensity, and effect of fires and floods. While individual plants may not consume larger quantities of water than native species, large, dense stands of tamarisk do consume more water than equivalent stands of native cottonwoods. An active and ongoing debate exists as to when the tamarisk can out-compete native plants, and if it is actively displacing native plants or it just taking advantage of disturbance by removal of natives by humans and changes in flood regimens.

Controls
Pest populations of tamarisk in the United States can be dealt with in several ways. The National Park Service has used the methods of physically removing the plants, spraying them with herbicides, and introducing northern tamarisk beetles (Diorhabda carinulata) in the national park system. Various attempts to control tamarisk have been implemented on federal lands including Dinosaur National Monument, San Andres National Wildlife Refuge, and White Sands Missile Range. After years of study, the USDA Agricultural Research Service found that the introduced tamarisk beetles (Diorhabda elongata) eat only the tamarisk, and starve when no more is available, not eating any plants native to North America.

Selected species

 * Tamarix africana Poir.
 * Tamarix androssowii
 * Tamarix aphylla (L.) H.Karst.
 * Tamarix arceuthoides
 * Tamarix articulata
 * Tamarix austromongolica
 * Tamarix boveana
 * Tamarix canariensis
 * Tamarix chinensis Lour.
 * Tamarix dalmatica
 * Tamarix dioica Roxb. ex Roth
 * Tamarix duezenlii
 * Tamarix elongata
 * Tamarix gallica L.
 * Tamarix gansuensis
 * Tamarix gennessarensis Zohary
 * Tamarix gracilis Willd.
 * Tamarix hampeana
 * Tamarix hispida Willd.
 * Tamarix indica
 * Tamarix jintaenia
 * Tamarix juniperina
 * Tamarix jordanis
 * Tamarix karelinii Bunge
 * Tamarix laxa Willd.
 * Tamarix leptostachys
 * Tamarix mannifera (Ehrenb.) Bunge
 * Tamarix mongolica
 * Tamarix negevensis
 * Tamarix nilotica
 * Tamarix parviflora DC.
 * Tamarix ramosissima Ledeb.
 * Tamarix sachuensis
 * Tamarix senegalensis DC.
 * Tamarix smyrnensis Bunge (=T. hohenackeri)
 * Tamarix taklamakanensis
 * Tamarix tarimensis
 * Tamarix tenuissima
 * Tamarix tetragyna Ehrenb.
 * Tamarix tetragyna var. meyeri (Boiss.) Boiss. (=T. meyeri)
 * Tamarix tetragyna var. tetragyna
 * Tamarix tetrandra Pall. ex M.Bieb.
 * Tamarix usneoides E.Mey. ex Bunge

Formerly placed here

 * Myricaria germanica (L.) Desv. (as T. germanica L. )

In North America
The tamarisk was introduced to the United States as an ornamental shrub, a windbreak, and a shade tree in the early 19th century. In the 1930s, during the Great Depression, tree-planting was used as a tool to fight soil erosion on the Great Plains, and different trees were planted by the millions in the Great Plains Shelterbelt, including salt cedars.

Eight species are found in North America. They can be divided into two subgroups:

Tamarix aphylla (Athel tree), a large evergreen tree, does not sexually reproduce in the local climate and is not considered a seriously invasive species. The Athel tree is commonly used for windbreaks on the edge of agricultural fields and as a shade tree in the deserts of the Southwestern United States.
 * Evergreen species

The second subgroup contains the deciduous tamarisks, which are small, shrubby trees, commonly known as "saltcedars". These include T. pentandra, T. tetrandra, T. gallica, T. chinensis, T. ramosissima and T. parviflora.
 * Deciduous species

Cultural history

 * A disputation poem dating to the 18th century BC, Tamarisk and Palm, features a personified tamarisk debating the date-palm over who is better.
 * In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh's mother, the goddess Ninsun, ceremoniously bathes in a bath of "tamarisk" and soapwort before allowing Gilgamesh and Enkidu to begin their conquest.

 * In the Iliad 10.466 Odysseus and Diomedes hide the spoils of Dolon in a tamarisk tree (μυρίκη). In myth, Myrica was a young woman who was transformed into a tamarisk.

 * In the Iliad 21.18 Achilles leaves his spear aside among the tamarisks by the banks of the river Xanthus.

 * In Genesis 21:33, Abraham is recorded to have "planted a tamarisk at Beer-sheba". He had built a well there, earlier. In 1 Samuel 22:6, Saul is sitting under a tamarisk tree on a hill at Gibeah when he learns that David has returned to Judah.

 * In 1 Samuel 31:13, Saul's bones are buried under a tamarisk tree in Jabesh.

 * In Shahnameh, only a tamarisk arrow to the eye can wound the otherwise invincible Prince Esfandiar.

 * In the Quran 34:16, the people of Saba were punished when "[Allah] converted their two garden (rows) into gardens producing bitter fruit and tamarisks...".

 * In Egyptian mythology, the body of Osiris is hidden for a time in a tamarisk tree in Byblos, until it was retrieved by Isis. A reference to this is also made in the computer game, Age of Mythology, in which the head of Osiris is said to be hidden inside the trunk of a great tamarisk tree.

 * Wedgwood made a "Tamarisk" china pattern.

 * According to the New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, the tamarisk plant is a favorite of the Greek god Apollo.

 * Australian author Gerald Murnane's debut novel Tamarisk Row (1974) is set on a farm bordered by a row of tamarisks in a northern Victorian town on the edge of the Mallee. In the novel, tamarisks are described as "famous for their hardiness" and as markers of the limits of "the most desolate land of all." (p.4)

 * The tamarisk features heavily in Paolo Bacigalupi's short story, "The Tamarisk Hunter". The story depicts a man in a drought-stricken near future who uproots and collects tamarisk plants in exchange for state-paid bounties. The story is collected in Bacigalupi's short story collection, Pump Six.

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

title: Tamarix


text:
2004 in video games

2004 saw many sequels and prequels in video games, such as Madden NFL 2005, NBA Live 2005, ESPN NBA 2K5, Tony Hawk's Underground 2, WWE Smackdown! vs. Raw, Doom 3, Dragon Quest VIII, Gran Turismo 4, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Half-Life 2, Halo 2, Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, Metroid Prime 2: Echoes, Myst IV: Revelation, Ninja Gaiden, Pokémon FireRed/LeafGreen/Emerald, Everybody's Golf 4 (Hot Shots Golf Fore!), Prince of Persia: Warrior Within, Silent Hill 4: The Room, Tekken 5, and World of Warcraft. New intellectual properties included Fable, Far Cry, FlatOut, Killzone, Katamari Damacy, Monster Hunter, N, Red Dead Revolver, SingStar, and Sacred. The Nintendo DS was also launched that year.

The year has been retrospectively considered one of the best and most important in video game history due to the release of numerous critically acclaimed, commercially successful and influential titles across all platforms and genres at the time. The year's best-selling video game was Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The year's most critically acclaimed titles were Dragon Quest VIII and Gran Turismo 4 in Japan, and Half-Life 2 and San Andreas in the West.

Events

 * January 20 – Wired's Vaporware Awards gives its first "Lifetime Achievement Award" to recurring winner Duke Nukem Forever.
 * February 26 – Castle Wolfenstein creator Silas Warner dies at age 54.
 * March 4 – Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences hosts 7th Annual Interactive Achievement Awards; inducts Peter Molyneux into the AIAS Hall of Fame.
 * March 22–26 – Game Developers Conference hosts 4th annual Game Developers Choice Awards and Gama Network's 6th annual Independent Games Festival (IGF).
 * May 11 – Nintendo officially announces its "Revolution" (later named Wii) console.
 * May 11–13 – The 10th annual E3 is held in Los Angeles, California, United States.
 * July – IEMA (Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association) hosts 5th annual Executive Summit.
 * August 1 – During the Evolution Championship Series, a match of Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike results in the viral "Evo Moment 37".
 * August 3 – Doom 3 is released, restarting the breakthrough franchise, and featured complex graphics features such as unified lighting and shadowing, real-time fully dynamic per-pixel lighting and stencil shadowing. The game became id's best selling game to date.
 * October 6-10 – The 2004 World Cyber Games are held in San Francisco.
 * October 12 – EA Sports launches the multi-format FIFA Football 2005. It is the last major title to be released for the original PlayStation console.
 * November – Counter-Strike: Source and Half-Life 2 are officially released on PC around the world, bringing in a new era for the first-person shooter genre of video games, with advanced graphics & physics.
 * November 5 – Nobuo Uematsu resigns from Square Enix and becomes a freelancer, starting his own business, called Smile Please Co., Ltd.

Business

 * January 12 – Ubisoft acquires Tiwak.
 * February – Electronic Arts consolidates, rolls most of Maxis and all of Origin Systems into its Redwood Shores, California HQ.
 * March – Microsoft announces XNA the successor of DirectX as the default API for "Longhorn", and Xenon.
 * April 6 – Midway Games acquires Surreal Software.
 * April 13 – T1, a South Korean esports organization, is founded.
 * May – Sammy Corporation buys a controlling share in Sega Corporation at a cost of $1.1 billion creating the new company, Sega Sammy Holdings, one of the biggest video game companies in the world.
 * July – Square Enix restructures executive branches around the world.
 * September 1 – Acclaim declares bankruptcy and closes its doors.
 * October – Kotaku, a video game website, is launched.
 * October 11 – Midway Games acquires Inevitable Entertainment and renames it Midway Studios Austin.
 * November 30 – Midway Games acquires developer Paradox Development.
 * December 13 – Electronic Arts purchases a 5-year exclusive agreement for the rights to the NFL, which includes NFL teams, stadiums and players for use in EA's football video games.
 * December 20 – Electronic Arts purchases 20% stake in Ubisoft. The purchase at the time was considered "hostile", by Ubisoft.

Trends
In 2004, the total U.S. sales of video game hardware, software and accessories was $9.9 billion compared with $10 billion in 2003. Total software sales rose 8 percent over the previous year to $6.2 billion. Additionally, sales of portable software titles exceeded $1 billion for the first time. Hardware sales were down 27 percent for the year due in part to shortages during the holiday season and price reductions from all systems.

Video game consoles

 * GameCube
 * Xbox
 * PlayStation 2
 * Sony released an internal hard drive for the PlayStation 2 on March 23
 * The third major hardware revision of the PlayStation 2 (model number SCPH-70000) was released in Japan on November 1

Handheld game systems
The dominant handheld systems in 2004 were:
 * Game Boy Advance SP
 * N-Gage

Additionally, Nokia released an updated version of their original N-Gage, called the N-Gage QD. Nintendo released the Nintendo DS on November 21 in the United States. In Japan Sony released the PlayStation Portable on December 12.

Famitsu
In Japan, the following video game releases in 2004 entered Famitsu magazine's "Platinum Hall of Fame" and received Famitsu scores of at least 36 out of 40.

Metacritic and GameRankings
In the West, Metacritic (MC) and GameRankings (GR) are aggregators of video game journalism reviews.

title: 2004 in video games


text:
South Wight

South Wight was a non-metropolitan district with the status of a borough on the Isle of Wight in England from 1974 to 1995.

The district was formed by the Local Government Act 1972, and was a merger of Sandown-Shanklin and Ventnor urban districts and Isle of Wight Rural District. It was one of two districts on the island formed in 1974 – the other was Medina.

Following a review by the Local Government Commission for England, the borough was abolished on 1 April 1995, when a single Isle of Wight Council replaced the island's county council and two district councils.

title: South Wight


text:
Base station

Base station (or base radio station) is – according to the International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) Radio Regulations (RR) – a "land station in the land mobile service."

The term is used in the context of mobile telephony, wireless computer networking and other wireless communications and in land surveying. In surveying, it is a GPS receiver at a known position, while in wireless communications it is a transceiver connecting a number of other devices to one another and/or to a wider area. In mobile telephony, it provides the connection between mobile phones and the wider telephone network. In a computer network, it is a transceiver acting as a switch for computers in the network, possibly connecting them to a/another local area network and/or the Internet. In traditional wireless communications, it can refer to the hub of a dispatch fleet such as a taxi or delivery fleet, the base of a TETRA network as used by government and emergency services or a CB shack.

Land surveying
In the context of external land surveying, a base station is a GPS receiver at an accurately-known fixed location which is used to derive correction information for nearby portable GPS receivers. This correction data allows propagation and other effects to be corrected out of the position data obtained by the mobile stations, which gives greatly increased location precision and accuracy over the results obtained by uncorrected GPS receivers.

Computer networking
In the area of wireless computer networking, a base station is a radio receiver/transmitter that serves as the hub of the local wireless network, and may also be the gateway between a wired network and the wireless network. It typically consists of a low-power transmitter and wireless router.

Wireless communications
In radio communications, a base station is a wireless communications station installed at a fixed location and used to communicate as part of one of the following:

 * a push-to-talk two-way radio system, or;
 * a wireless telephone system such as cellular CDMA or GSM cell site.
 * Terrestrial Trunked Radio

Base stations use RF power amplifiers (radio-frequency power amplifiers) to transmit and receive signals. The most common RF power amplifiers are metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistors (MOSFETs), particularly LDMOS (power MOSFET) RF amplifiers. RF LDMOS amplifiers replaced RF bipolar transistor amplifiers in most base stations during the 1990s, leading to the wireless revolution.

Professional
In professional two-way radio systems, a base station is used to maintain contact with a dispatch fleet of hand-held or mobile radios, and/or to activate one-way paging receivers. The base station is one end of a communications link. The other end is a movable vehicle-mounted radio or walkie-talkie. Examples of base station uses in two-way radio include the dispatch of tow trucks and taxicabs.

Professional base station radios are often one channel. In lightly used base stations, a multi-channel unit may be employed. In heavily used systems, the capability for additional channels, where needed, is accomplished by installing an additional base station for each channel. Each base station appears as a single channel on the dispatch center control console. In a properly designed dispatch center with several staff members, this allows each dispatcher to communicate simultaneously, independently of one another, on a different channel as necessary. For example, a taxi company dispatch center may have one base station on a high-rise building in Boston and another on a different channel in Providence. Each taxi dispatcher could communicate with taxis in either Boston or Providence by selecting the respective base station on his or her console.

In dispatching centers it is common for eight or more radio base stations to be connected to a single dispatching console. Dispatching personnel can tell which channel a message is being received on by a combination of local protocol, unit identifiers, volume settings, and busy indicator lights. A typical console has two speakers identified as select and unselect. Audio from a primary selected channel is routed to the select speaker and to a headset. Each channel has a busy light which flashes when someone talks on the associated channel.

Base stations can be local controlled or remote controlled. Local controlled base stations are operated by front panel controls on the base station cabinet. Remote control base stations can be operated over tone- or DC-remote circuits. The dispatch point console and remote base station are connected by leased private line telephone circuits, (sometimes called RTO circuits), a DS-1, or radio links. The consoles multiplex transmit commands onto remote control circuits. Some system configurations require duplex, or four wire, audio paths from the base station to the console. Others require only a two-wire or half duplex link.

Interference could be defined as receiving any signal other than from a radio in your own system. To avoid interference from users on the same channel, or interference from nearby strong signals on another channel, professional base stations use a combination of:
 * minimum receiver specifications and filtering.
 * analysis of other frequencies in use nearby.
 * in the US, coordination of shared frequencies by coordinating agencies.
 * locating equipment so that terrain blocks interfering signals.
 * use of directional antennas to reduce unwanted signals.

Base stations are sometimes called control or fixed stations in US Federal Communications Commission licensing. These terms are defined in regulations inside Part 90 of the commissions regulations. In US licensing jargon, types of base stations include:
 * A fixed station is a base station used in a system intended only to communicate with other base stations. A fixed station can also be radio link used to operate a distant base station by remote control. (No mobile or hand-held radios are involved in the system.)
 * A control station is a base station used in a system with a repeater where the base station is used to communicate through the repeater.
 * A temporary base is a base station used in one location for less than a year.
 * A repeater is a type of base station that extends the range of hand-held and mobile radios.

Amateur and hobbyist use
In amateur radio, a base station also communicates with mobile rigs but for hobby or family communications. Amateur systems sometimes serve as dispatch radio systems during disasters, search and rescue mobilizations, or other emergencies.

An Australian UHF CB base station is another example of part of a system used for hobby or family communications.

Wireless telephone
Wireless telephone differ from two-way radios in that:

 * wireless telephones are circuit switched: the communications paths are set up by dialing at the start of a call and the path remains in place until one of the callers hangs up.
 * wireless telephones communicate with other telephones usually over the public switched telephone network.

A wireless telephone base station communicates with a mobile or hand-held phone. For example, in a wireless telephone system, the signals from one or more mobile telephones in an area are received at a nearby base station, which then connects the call to the land-line network. Other equipment is involved depending on the system architecture. Mobile telephone provider networks, such as European GSM networks, may involve carrier, microwave radio, and switching facilities to connect the call. In the case of a portable phone such as a US cordless phone, the connection is directly connected to a wired land line.

Emissions issues
While low levels of radio-frequency power are usually considered to have negligible effects on health, national and local regulations restrict the design of base stations to limit exposure to electromagnetic fields. Technical measures to limit exposure include restricting the radio frequency power emitted by the station, elevating the antenna above ground level, changes to the antenna pattern, and barriers to foot or road traffic. For typical base stations, significant electromagnetic energy is only emitted at the antenna, not along the length of the antenna tower.

Because mobile phones and their base stations are two-way radios, they produce radio-frequency (RF) radiation in order to communicate, exposing people near them to RF radiation giving concerns about mobile phone radiation and health. Hand-held mobile telephones are relatively low power so the RF radiation exposures from them are generally low.

The World Health Organization has concluded that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects."

The consensus of the scientific community is that the power from these mobile phone base station antennas is too low to produce health hazards as long as people are kept away from direct access to the antennas. However, current international exposure guidelines (ICNIRP) are based largely on the thermal effects of base station emissions, NOT considering the non-thermal effects harmless.

Emergency power
Fuel cell backup power systems are added to critical base stations or cell sites to provide emergency power.

title: Base station


text:
Talk:Perspective distortion

STOP - We're forgetting viewing the presentation image as a necessary component of system perspective distortion
Nice first paragraph, containing:

"... Perspective distortion is determined by the relative distances at which the image is captured and viewed, and is due to the angle of view of the image (as captured) being either wider or narrower than the angle of view at which the image is viewed, hence the apparent relative distances differing from what is expected ..."

That is, according to the definition of distortion, we are comparing input to a system, to output from a system, and in this case, the input is the photographer's viewpoint or perspective, and the output is the audience's viewpoint or perspective of the presentation image.

BUT no one is following that criteria when subsequently exploring conditions where system perspective distortion may be observed, explained, and intentionally employed or avoided if desired.

An image captured with a wide angle lens is not distorted, it can't be, because it is only the system input.

It must be compared to the system output before assessing system distortion, if any.

It must be compared to the experience of the audience of the resulting presentation image, the system output, in order for there to be a discussion of system distortion, in this case, system perspective distortion.

If the audience positions themselves such that they see the presentation image from proportional distance resulting in an identical angle of view to the photographer's capture angle of view, then there is no distortion.

"... But wide angle lenses distort everything, especially close up ...", someone might say.

No, they do not.

If you get close enough to the resulting printed image, relative in distance that the photographer was from the subject, such that the photographer's angle of view and the print-viewer's angle of view are the same, then the audience will have the same experience of the subject, NO DISTORTION.

Please edit subsequent sections from the first paragraph to ALWAYS consider the definition of system distortion as a comparison of input to output.

See also https://www.edmundoptics.com/resources/application-notes/imaging/distortion/ and http://www.parallelhomeaudio.net/TypesAudioDistortion.html which sadly do not grock that they are comparing input to output, duh.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/computers-and-electrical-engineering/electrical-engineering/distortion DOES mention system input versus output, but cites no author or published source other than the Columbia Encyclopedia, below, I will edit it slightly to be non-system specific ( audio versus imaging ):

"... [ System ] Distortion ... [ is ] undesired change in [ information ] as it passes from the input to the output of some system or device ... [ and ] results in poor reproduction of [ the original information ] ...  ..." -- The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th edition, The Columbia University Press

I will keep searching academic and research materials that are not readily published or accessible on the web.

But, c'mon, folks, stop thinking that something in reality that we can observe without a camera -- someone's nose looking way-big when we put our eye right up to it -- is "Perspective distortion ( photography )" -- we don't need no camera to see big noses up close, that is NOT distortion, that's reality.

Thank you, carry on -- Photographic Fallacy Hunter --2600:8806:2400:7E00:2CA4:94D1:6BC:80F1 (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Old talk not in a section
This article previously claimed that perspective distortion was caused by lens focal length, and it had the title "Perspective distortion caused by lens focal length".

This is factually inaccurate, since perspective distortion of the sort described here ( big noses in portraits, and as shown in the images included in the article ) is a function solely of camera to subject distance. Anyone with a camera and lenses of at least two different focal lengths can do an experiment to demonstrate this.

Confusingly, later material in the article (the text describing the photos included in the article) correctly explained that the effect was caused by camera to subject distance, and that reframing identically with a wider angle lens required placing the camera closer to the subject, thus causing this perspective distortion.

I altered the introductory text to correct the factual inaccuracies. I slightly altered the later text describing the images to increase clarity a little. Then I moved the article so that it would not have a title that was factually incorrect. Then I went through the rest of Wikipedia and updated links so that they point to the new location. I've left a redirect at Perspective distortion caused by lens focal length for the usual reasons, and also because the myth that focal length affects perspective distortion is widely believed, and the article might well be searched for under these terms. Jeff Medkeff | Talk 16:11, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion prior to article move follows:

A close up portrait shot with a, say 24 or 28 mm, compared to a portrait of the same person using a 105 is in my opinon the best example of perspective distortion -- all assuming a 35 mm camera ;-). -- Egil 18:52 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

nice addition, Egil. could you explain about "pillow" distortion? I've never heard of it. And, yes, it is a 35mm camera. I'll try the portraits when I next get a chance (probably in late february!) That amateur photographer, Koyaanis Qatsi
 * It is usually called cushion, mea culpa. A perfect wide angle shall never produce curved lines. But even the best of extreme wide angle lenses always produce curved lines to a certain degree, esp. close to the image boundaries. So if you take a picture of a rectangle, it ends up looking like a cushion. A fish-eye is a lens where they have given up correcting this completely. See Aberration in optical systems.-- Egil 19:14 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)
 * Right, I knew about the fisheyes. For 35mm cameras, doesn't the designation "fisheye" lens start at 18mm?   I had a (one) photography class in June 2002 and then I bought a camera & started taking photos.  I'm trying to fact check.  Do you think that the bit about curved lines should be removed or rephrased?  I take it, it seems misleading.  Anyway, I hope I'm not harming the project adding this stuff.  Best, and thanks,  Koyaanis Qatsi 19:19 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)
 * No, no, no! On the contrary, this is extremely useful! In the Wiki world, the initial version of an article is never like the latest - things are developed! I think the distinction wrt. fisheye is the distortion, not the focal length. There are fisheyes > 18 mm and wide angles < 18 mm. But the shorter the focal length, the more difficult it is to get rid of the cushion 80.202.80.14
 * Interesting stuff. I'd love to see a wide-angle lens >18mm which doesn't cushion the corners.  Koyaanis Qatsi

I'm taking the pics back out of the table, as for people with a narrow browser window the table is too wide. By simply sticking them next to each other, we let the browser wrap them into a column -- which is not as satisfying as seeing them in a quad arrangement, but vertical scrolling is much more comfortable for the web reader than horizontal scrolling. --Brion 19:29 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

Please note that the link to "Perspective Distortion: Source," added to the bottom of this article points to a new article in which the Conclusion is at variance with the conclusion with this article. Suggest this page is too flawed for minor editing and be replaced with Perspective Distortion, Source. See link at bottom.Pat Kelso 22:57 CST Jan 30, 2004

The title isn't OK this article is about perspective distortion and not lens distorsion (barrel distortion for instance). Ericd 09:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Perspective distortion, p e r  -  s e, has nothing to do with lenses. Please see Perspetive distortion, Conclusion. Thank you.  Pat Kelso 18:46, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * I will fully disagree, there are several form of perspective distortion, each time perspective is distorded for any cause there is perspective distorsion. The expression clear enough in itself to say what is "THE REAL" perspective distotion. This article deals about the influence of focal length on perpective representation in photography, it's a a important topic in photography, and this kind of distorsion has to do with camera lens. I'm was'nt a great fan of the previous title for the reason exposed before. But I find the present title worse because they are form of distortion (barrel & pillow) caused by the defect of the lens.

 * BTW what is your new article about ? Seems to be about 3D to 2D projection isn'it ?

 * If talking photography distortion w/photos, it is not my article ... Pat Kelso 21:09, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * And please next time you want to change the title of and article use "Move this page" this will cause less confusion and keep the talk page relevant.

 * As wikipedia is a collaborative effort can you help me to give accurate titles to the articles as my English is somewhat limited I have to idea how to solve this issue.

 * Ericd 19:19, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry saw the 'move this page' suggestion too late. Will use in future if my poor brain can retain it that long. But have moved my part of Perspective distortion via cut and paste to Perspective projection distortion ... this to accomodate objection that 'persepctive' can refer to many other things.... Pat Kelso 19:47, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * Please in the future use the "Move this page" method.
 * -- Egil 20:07, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes sir. Pat Kelso 21:26, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

OK I move this one to "Perspective distortion caused by lens focal lenght" Ericd 19:56, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Could also call it "Perspective compression and extension", since this technique can be applied equally well for paintings (although not seen very often). Perspective distortion should be a pointer to the two articles. Ideally, both should be combined in one article. -- Egil

Or could the article be called "Perspective change"? -- Egil 20:35, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't know all this needs some serious brainstroming to give some structure to the question. I remember an interresting article when I was much younger and new to photography. Some paintings have true perpective according to optical laws while other have faked perspective. Aùmong the interresting case in paintings is "La última cena" from Leonardo da Vinci that as an accurate super-wide perspective did Leonardo get this by geometry reasoning or by a "camera obscura" view ?
 * Ericd 21:32, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

________________________

re "Some paintings have true perspective according to optical laws while other have faked perspective. Among the interesting case in paintings is "La última cena" from Leonardo da Vinci that as an accurate super-wide perspective did Leonardo get this by geometry reasoning or by a "camera obscura" view ?"

 * There is no such thing as "true perspective according to optical lays", except as noted in Perspective projection distortion. It has no application here.
 * "Leonardo da Vinci that has an accurate super-wide perspective." It may be an accurately drawn perspective projection - but which has innate distortion. "Camera obscura"??  Please!
 * The "fake" perspective used by Leonardo was used to ameliorate the natural distortion of perspective projection and which becomes more pronounced as the picture widens. Pat Kelso 09:34, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

The focal length of a lens has no dilatory effect on perspective, p e r  s e. The perspective is always correct for the focal lengths involved. The focal point of a lens is analogous to the station point of perspective projection - a point that may be moved without changing the correctness of a perspective projection. Will leave this posted for few days for comment before incorporating rationale into the article. Pat Kelso 01:53, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Need better examples
Wow, no talk in over 2.5 years. This article could use better photo examples, esp. including something forward of the main subject and some more clearly identifiable background objects whose sizes can be easily noticed. A set of only 2 or 3 in more normal layout should be fine. Dicklyon 18:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also need photo examples of the distortion appearing in many pictures shot with telephoto lenses and a couple of photo examples of the artistic use of perspective distortion that aren't copyrighted. Anoneditor 02:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Dependence on viewing distance
I'm not sure I like this new treatment. I'm quite familiar with the traditional 19th-century analysis of "correct perspective" based on the viewing distance compared to the focal length times enlargement factor. But it's been presented here without the enlargement factor, so it makes little sense. Even with enlargement factor, it made only theoretical sense. The alternative is to say that perspective is just the relative size of objects in the scene, and that it can be exaggerated by shooting very close, or distorted the other way by shooting from far away. You might still want to invoke a "normal" viewing distance, but of course it will depend on print size if you do. In practice, I don't think you'll find that the perception of perspective distortion will abate much at all by changing your viewing distance. Geometrically, it makes theoretical sense, but the perception of photos doesn't necessarily follow the simple-minded rules that would make it look that way. Is this treatment following some book? If so, need to cite it. If not, let revert it. Dicklyon 07:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Before I wrote this piece, I tried shortening the viewing distance for wide angle pictures with closer objects and telephoto shots of objects at a distance, and it seemed to me that the apparent distortion lessened as stated in the article. There were two problems, however, which might be mentioned: First, if you move back far enough for the telephoto shots, the picture gets awfully small.  A practical problem but not a theoretical one.  Second, on the wide angle shots, the problem was that with really wide angle lenses, you can't get close enough and still have your eyes focus and be able easily to view the perimeter of the picture.  Again, a practical but not theoretical problem.

 * Exactly. It works in theory, but not so well in practice.

 * Have you tried it? Though I read about this issue long ago (I was one of the users of Kodachrome 10) I'm not quoting a source on this; I resorted to the experimental method and, as a result, was satisfied that my memory was correct on the point.

 * I have. I guess I'm a youngster, since Kodachrome II was my thing.

 * As to the magnification factor, I completely agree that it should be included to have a rigorously correct article, but I felt that what we're doing here is imparting general knowledge. I can't image anyone trying to calculate the distance from which the picture should be viewed to ameliorate or eliminate the distortion in ordinary circumstances, especially if the point of the picture is to create the apparent distortion.  However, I certainly won't be offended if you want to include a more mathematical treatment of this issue.

 * Well, the viewing distance stuff doesn't really work as general knowledge without the theoretical background and the other relevant factor. I'd rather leave it out, which is more conventional in treating perspective.  That is, treat perspective as determining relative sizes of objects in images based on their relative distances, and "distortion" in a qualitative way as meaning when those relationships look odd.  Those relationships don't change with viewing distance, so that can be safely omitted, as it usually is these days.

 * Just as an aside question, why do you feel that the geometry isn't particularly relevant to the perception issue?Anoneditor 17:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I think that when people look at a photo they see it as a photo. Viewing it closer or further doesn't change the relative sizes of things, and we're used to allowing the absolute sizes of things in images to vary with viewing distance.  People are not perceiving a photo as if they're looking through it at the world, usually.  Just my impression. Dicklyon 22:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is less correct than before.
To say that perspective distortion is dependent solely on subject distance is less correct than to say it depends on focal length. Although relative distances of various parts of an image are relevant to perspective distortion, they do not change it. If you change distance to subject and change nothing else about an image, you will not change the perspective distortion (you will change the perspective, but not the distortion), while if you change focal length and change nothing else, you will change perspective distortion (although the effect might now always be obvious).

What perspective distortion is actually dependent on is solely angle of view. When the angle of view is greater than what your eyes would see from the same position you get extension distortion. When it is less than what your eyes would see, you get compression distortion. Changing distance to keep any object in the photo at the same apparent size as it is in another photo with a different angle of view will make the distortion more obvious, but the effect exists with or without the comparison shot. Shooting a photo with a "normal" length lens will make it pretty much impossible to create perspective distortion without changing angle of view somewhere in the post processing or print process.

If perspective distortion were caused solely by distance to subject, you would not need to experiment with two different focal length lenses or cropping images to see a difference in it. Rodrin (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree. Perspective just depends on camera position, but perspective distortion depends on the camera angle of view compared to the viewing angle of view.  So fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * OK. Article is partially fixed, but it really still needs more work. I will add another example later. Rodrin (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that someone made another edit, and they are on the right track to simplify the first paragraph under the Cause heading. However, I am still not satisfied with it. Now it's nice and simple, but it doesn't really explain why distortion is taking place. "Perspective distortion is caused when the apparent relative distances of objects from the viewer compared to their actual distances change (what it says now, but more specific), but their apparent relative distances from the viewer compared to their surrounding objects remain the same (a simpler and therefore somewhat clearer version of what it said before)." That's probably about as clear as mud. I think I need better wording. Any thoughts? Rodrin (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I think I came up with something better, so I put it in. I'm still open to suggestions if you think you have something clearer. Rodrin (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Your edits are not totally correct. The problem is that people seem to believe that the perspective distortions at short focal lengths and long focal lengths are caused by the same thing.  They are not.  Granted, wide angle distortions are caused by the angle of view of a lens, it's also important to note that the extreme distance between the center and sides of a frame is also frequently caused by rectilinear conversion.

 * However, telephoto "compression" is more about the eye's inability to resolve depth of objects from afar. This can be easily seen in any photo lens of moderate focal length (or even your own eyes).  An interesting experiment to try:  Place a camera on a tripod in an area where you can see far away unimpeded with several objects on the path.  Around half a mile, at least.  Flat land or a hill will both work.  Now, using a short focal length and a long focal length (doesn't matter if they're primes or zooms).  Center on an object and take a photograph at a short focal length and one at a long focal length.  Be sure to maintain centering on the same object.  If you crop the image at the short focal length, you should be able to match the framing of the photo at the long focal length.  Given enough resolution of the camera and lens, you'll be able to see the same compression on the short focal length as the wide focal length.  I will post pictures at a another time demonstrating this phenomena, but as it stands, the page is incorrect. Kakomu (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, the article is by no means perfect still (the caption under the animation near the top of the page is still not really good, for one thing). However, it is not essentially incorrect in the way that you seem to think. In general, perspective distortion at short focal lengths and long focal lengths is caused by the same basic thing, that is, making the viewpoint in a photo appear to be something different than it actually was. You brush on the topic that extremely wide angle lenses have their limits, but that is not really what this article is addressing.

 * It's not so much the eye's inability to resolve depth of objects far away, but rather the fact that the geometry of linear perspective cannot convey the same sense of depth for objects far away as it does for objects close up. In other words, linear perspective is inherently relative, which is the way that the article addresses this issue. The article does not ignore the point that your experiment demonstrates. In fact, it specifically mentions it in the section about compression distortion. Your demonstration does not make the page incorrect, but rather validates it. I will try to explain further below.Rodrin (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes
Distortion at a wide angle of view occurs with a short focal length, as I've enumerated in the intro paragraph. If you apply the the thin lens (1/X + 1/Y = 1/Z where X is object distance, Y is image distance and Z is focal length) to any focal length, you'll note that objects that are close to the lens will project images much less distance than objects that are far from the lens. For instance, if you were to solve for Y with the formula -1/(1/X - 1/Z) for any focal length, you'll note a curve at closer distances which levels off after a certain distance. A short focal length (such as 10mm) has an extreme curve, meaning that the image of an object .5 feet away will be projected much closer than the image of an object 1 foot away. As this demonstrates, the distance from the lens is one of the contributing factors to perspective distortion. If an object looks normal in a 50mm lens, the object will continue to look normal in a 20mm lens, if the camera and object remain in the same position. It's the repositioning of the camera to maintain the same framing of the object that produces the distortions.

Wide angle lenses (short focal lengths) allow you to see an entire object that is close to the lens, giving the foreshortened appearance. The short focal length is not the direct cause of the distortion, but allows the viewer to readily see the distortion. I want to note that cropping a photo to simulate a longer focal length will produce a more "normal" image. I also want to point out that focal length and angle of view are closely related. Wikipedia's page on angle of view is quoted as saying: "For lenses projecting rectilinear (non-spatially-distorted) images of distant objects, the effective focal length and the image format dimensions completely define the angle of view." Because this is a photography page, it's important to recognize this fact and start to involve the issue of focal length with angle of view. I would like someone to actually post some scientific information or rebut what I'm writing. As it stands there are absolutely NO citations and no consensus in the discussion.

Finally, compression of objects that are far is independent of focal length. The focal length will simply "magnify" what is seen afar and allows someone to see it more readily. As I mentioned above, compression of far objects can be seen on a photo taken with a normal lens, just at a lower resolution.Kakomu (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 * You are starting out with sound facts, but some of your conclusions are not correct. You demonstrate that linear perspective exists, and that linear perspective is relative. Basically, three dimensional objects look different at closer distances than they do at further distances. Really, people are generally aware of this, whether it's ever been pointed out to them exactly how it works or not. The distance from the lens is one of the contributing factors to perspective distortion the same way that wood being flammable is one of the contributing factors to a building burning down. It makes it possible; it doesn't make it happen. Your conclusion that, "If an object looks normal in a 50mm lens, the object will continue to look normal in a 20mm lens," is not correct. What I think that you actually mean is that an object will look the same, that is, have the same linear perspective geometry, through either lens. That is correct, but that is not the same thing as looking normal. In fact, the linear geometry being the same is the reason that the object will not look normal through a 20mm lens. When you switch to the 20mm lens, you change the apparent viewpoint. That is, you make the object appear to be further away than it actually is, but it retains the linear perspective geometry of its actual distance from the viewpoint. It's the disparity between the actual viewpoint and the apparent viewpoint that causes perspective distortion. The repositioning of the camera in no way produces distortions, although it can make them more obvious.

 * It's not that wide angle lenses allow you to see an entire object that is close to the lens that gives the foreshortened appearance; it's that wide angle lenses allow you to see an entire object within a much smaller viewing angle than it covers in real life at the same distance that gives the foreshortened appearance. If the viewing angle matched the capture angle, the object would appear normal, not foreshortened. The short focal length causes the wide angle of view, and the wide angle of view directly causes the distortion (technically, the capture angle of view being wider than the presentation angle of view). Having a really close object makes the distortion more obvious; it does not cause it. Cropping a wide angle photo to simulate a longer focal length will produce a more "normal" image because cropping the photo changes the angle of view to a more "normal" angle of view. Yes, focal length and angle of view are closely related, and this page links to Wikipedia's page on angle of view. Perhaps there could be more here on focal length's relationship to angle of view, but I think at some point you have to just link to the other page to explain that relationship fully; I'm just not entirely certain exactly where that point should be. I agree that citations within this article would certainly be an improvement.

 * The flatness of the appearance of objects that are far away is independent of focal length. However, this flatness does not become compression distortion until you make the objects appear to be closer than they actually are. Otherwise it's normal for the objects to appear relatively flat (beyond a certain point, pretty much completely flat). You make the objects appear closer than they actually are by capturing their images at a narrower angle of view than you present them at. One way of doing this is by capturing them at a long or telephoto focal length. Another way is by cropping a photo (usually accompanied by blowing it up or sometimes by viewing it from a closer distance).

 * Again, you explain well enough how linear perspective works, or how the appearance of objects changes with distance, and this is relevant because it makes perspective distortion possible, but it does not cause perspective distortion. Perspective distortion is caused by a disparity between the actual viewpoint and the apparent viewpoint of a captured image. Otherwise, the effects of linear perspective appear normal rather than as distortions. This disparity is in turn caused by a disparity between the angle of view of the capture and the angle of view of its presentation. Thanks to Zeeman's Paradox and the "normal viewing distance," the angle of view of the presentation can be considered, for the most part, near to a certain constant, making the angle of view of the capture the more crucial consideration.

 * Explaining perspective distortion by explaining only how linear perspective works is, again, like explaining why a building burned down by explaining only that wood is flammable. If you say that a building burned down and someone asks, "What happened?" and you reply only, "Wood is flammable," (even if you go on to explain how combustion works) then you have merely explained something that they were already aware of, even if they didn't know exactly how it worked. You have not told them what started the fire, whether it was an electrical short or a cigarette butt or whatever. For perspective distortion, whatever alters the angle of view is what 'starts the fire,' whether it is a wide angle lens, a telephoto lens, or a crop of a larger photo.

 * Another reference that might interest you is the first post here: http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7427 Doug came to the same realization that I just explained above, and expresses it with a formula.Rodrin (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Perspective Distortion, Source" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perspective_Distortion,_Source&redirect=no Perspective Distortion, Source] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Perspective distortion


text:
Talk:List of prime ministers of Greece

Explanation needed
Number 88 is missing from the list of prime ministers. Is the numbering off, or did one get skipped?

From Dimitrios Voulgaris (No. 33 on the list) to the present incumbent onwards, there is (sometimes, not always) a number BEFORE the column "Term of Office". Will someone please add an explanation as to what this number indicates or else remove it (if it is irrelevant).Barmispain (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know whether Xenophon Zolotas is actually still alive? If so he will be 100 this year. Adam 09:52, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What the hell is up with Constantine Caramanlis? I've always seen the spelling Karamanlis. A google search gives ten times more hits with Karamanlis than with Caramanlis, and many of the early hits for Caramanlis are either Wikipedia or Columbia Encyclopedia, which only contains a cross reference. john 21:25, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The traditional practice in Engish is to render kappa in Greek names as C - Sophocles, Corinth etc. I agree that this practice is breaking down as the fashion for orthographical correctness becomes more widespread. But since Wikpedia needs to be consistent, I felt that it was better to stick with the established practice. His uncle was always Constantine Caramanlis in English, and it looks a bit odd to spell two members of the same family in two different ways. Adam 00:59, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See a similar conversation about Talk:Kostas Karamanlis. The official site of the greek prime ministry spells it Karamanlis. -- Magioladitis 17:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Anglicizations of names, and so forth
It seems to me that we should stop anglicizing the forenames of all these prime ministers (and other Greek politicians). We don't anglicize the names of Hungarian politicians, and the usage of anglicized vs. non-anglicized names is probably similar there as for Greece (I've certainly seen Julius Andrássy more frequently than Gyula Andrássy). It seems to me that at a certain point, it becomes simply a matter of consistency. The non-anglicized names are becoming more common, and none of the names of Greek (or Hungarian) politicians is so familiar that we can't imagine seeing them non-anglicized (as is the case with many monarchs, for instance - I doubt "Felipe II" will ever catch on). As such, it seems to me that we should just use the non-anglicized forms.

Let me also add, in response to Adam's comment of quite some time ago about transliteration of Kappa, that while it is generally true that ancient Greek names are transliterated with the "C" standing in for Kappa (and probably always will be), this is not the case for modern Greek names. There are way more hits for "Karamanlis" than there are for "Caramanlis." john k 04:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template
Thanks Damac for the great changes! Now to fill it in... :) Argos'Dad 16:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Way Around
The prime minister is elected by the people - then, the parliment elects the president. After I saw this page I knew you'd want a reference so.....what?

No, the people elect delegates to parliament. The president then appoints a prime minister who can command the support of a majority in parliament. Informally, one could say that the prime minister is elected, since there's two main parties and everyone knows that the leader of the one that wins the election will be appointed PM. But that's not how it formally works. john k 17:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Coat of Arms
It seems to me that there is a difference between the Coat of Arms of the monarch and the Kingdom. Looking at coins from the period of the Monarchy I see the previous COA (lozenge, supporters and crown) not double crown with ermine and award below. With respect to the First Kingdom, I agree that the COA for the Kingdom during Otto's reign is not the same as during the Glucksburgs, but the double crown isn't right either. Also, I thought the lozenge with olive branches was the symbol of the Revolutionary government and Kapodistrian government. Thoughts? Argos'Dad 19:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The coat of arms during Otto's time is the one I've uploaded. It is based on the actual Great State Seal, in the National Historical Museum (Old Parliament) in Athens. Colours are a bit conjectural (the seal is, obviously, cast in metal, and uncoloured) but based on the - understandably - very similar Bavarian royal coat of arms. In coins, as far as I know, only the central shield with a crown on top, surrounded by a laurel wreath, was used . The lozenge pattern in the centre of the cross is a typically Bavarian emblem (check out the Wittelsbach dynasty). Kapodistrias used two symbols: the well-known phoenix, very similar to the one of the junta, as a national emblem, and a depiction of Athena standing, on his seal, inherited from the earlier Provisional Administration . The phoenix was also used as an emblem during the Second Republic, from 1932 till 1935, I think. As for the Glücksburg CoA, the full version ("Greater CoA") is the one used, albeit the current one is a bit fanciful. In reality, the mantle was red, and the Glücksburg CoA was rarely used in the middle for the national coat of arms. The middle version of the CoA, very often used, was without the mantle, only the shield, the Hercules, and the pedestal, similar to the one you created.
 * P.S. if anyone could do a nice png or svg image of the phoenix from the coins to use in making the missing coats of arms, it'd be great! P.S. 2. I don't know about the legal copyright status concerning the revolutionary seals. I'm quite certain that fair use as a logo applies, or are they considered PD because of their age and the fact that they are obsolete? I'd like to know so I can use them. Regards, Cplakidas 20:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Party colors (or colours if you prefer)
Cplakidas, your adding party colors is a very nice touch and something I have thought about doing for a while. It is good that the colors maintain some connection to the parties (Blue for ND, Green for PASOK), but I was unsure what to do with the early parties. Liberals have often been yellow in Western Europe and conservatives blue, but what to do with the English Party? The choices you made are inspired by historical connection to those countries, but they also repeat the blues and greens that appear later. So, what do you think about this template?

Obviously a lot of parties are missing: KKE (red of course), ERE, EK, Free Thinkers, the Military League (?)

Thoughts, anyone? Argos'Dad 03:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

 * In Athens just before the most recent election, if I remember correctly, the following party colours were in use:

ND (The right wing party) RED, PASOK (The Left wing party) GREEN, The Green Party (ecologists) ORANGE, KKE (The Communist Party) BLUE, KKE - ML (The "even more communist than the communists" party)PALE BLUE

It could only happen in Greece!

Mickmct (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The current colours for the Russian Party and Panhellenic Socialist Movement are too similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.232.64 (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Karamanlis.jpg
The image Image:Karamanlis.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

 * File:Dovas.jpg
 * File:Andreas Papandreou.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Metaxas
Why is Metaxas' potrait constantly removed? I ask that we monitor this behaviour closely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kupraios (talk • contribs) 23:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is no. 32?
No. 31 is Benizelos Rouphos, PM from 29 April until 25 October 1863 under King Otto of the House of Wittelsbach. No. 33 is Dimitrios Voulgaris, PM from 6 November 1863 until 17 March 1864, the first one under the Glücksburg Dynasty. - Was there another PM between 25 October and 6 November 1863? If so, shouldn't he be added? - If not, shouldn't no. 32 be assigned to current no. 33, and all subsequent PM's have numbers that are one less than their current number? WHB (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

 * There was no government between Rouphos and Benizelos, somehow the numbering slipped there, thanks for pointing this out. I am making some other changes too, to bring the dates (currently a mixture of Old Style and New Style, with much confusion) to the common standard of Old Style until 1923, when Greece adopted the Gregorian Calendar. Constantine  ✍  08:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, it appears that there are some issues here, a) there was another number skipped, b) there was a non-existent premiership of Rouphos in early 1865, and the dates are horribly jumbled. I am asking for the other editors to give me a little time to fix the article top to bottom. Constantine  ✍  08:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting this. I cannot help much here because I know nothing about the subject - I just noticed the numbering mismatch. Cheers - WHB (talk) 11:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Κωνσταντίνος Κόλλιας.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Panagiotis Kanellopoulos.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ioannis sarmas.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ioannis Sarmas.jpg

Uhhh... -170 days?
It is stated herein that Dimitrios Voulgaris was Prime Minister for... -170 days... from December 1872 to... July? Any help would be greatly appreciated as I am too far removed from being an expert on this topic to be confident in correcting this. Thanks! DrumstickEmpire (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

 * You are right... I don't know what's wrong either... D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of prime ministers of Greece


text:
Cytisus scoparius

Cytisus scoparius (syn. Sarothamnus scoparius), the common broom or Scotch broom, is a deciduous leguminous shrub native to western and central Europe. In Britain and Ireland, the standard name is broom; this name is also used for other members of the Genisteae tribe, such as French broom or Spanish broom; and the term common broom is sometimes used for clarification. In other English-speaking countries, the most common name is "Scotch broom" (or Scots broom); however, it is known as English broom in Australia.

Description

Plants of C. scoparius typically grow to 1–3 m tall, rarely to 4 m, with main stems up to 5 cm thick, rarely 10 cm. Stems are ridged and green. The shrubs have green shoots with small deciduous trifoliate leaves 5–15 mm long, and in spring and summer are covered in profuse golden yellow flowers 20–30 mm from top to bottom and 15–20 mm wide. Flowering occurs after 50–80 growing degree-days. The seed pods have long hairs only along their seams. In late summer, its legumes (seed pods) mature black, 2–3 cm long, 8 mm broad and 2–3 mm thick; they burst open, often with an audible crack, forcibly throwing seed from the parent plant. This species is adapted to Mediterranean and coastal climates, and its range is limited by cold winter temperatures. It also adapts to windy oceanic climates. The seeds, seedlings, and young shoots are sensitive to frost; adult plants are hardier, and branches affected by freezing temperatures regenerate quickly. C. scoparius contains toxic alkaloids that depress the heart and nervous system.

A legume, this shrub can fix nitrogen in the soil through a symbiotic relationship with Rhizobium bacteria.

Phytochemicals
One of the main alkaloids of this plant is cytisine. The characteristic constituents are biogenic amines (mostly tyramine in the young shoots), flavonoids (spiraeoside and scoparoside), isoflavones and their glycosides (genistin), as well as allelopathic quinolizidine alkaloids (mostly sparteine, lupanine, scoparin and hydroxy-derivatives), which defend the plant against insect infestation and herbivores (with the exception of the resistant aphid species Aphis cytisorum).

Classification
The two subspecies of Cytisus scoparius are:
 * Cytisus scoparius subsp. scoparius - throughout the species' range.
 * Cytisus scoparius subsp. maritimus (Rouy) Heywood - Western European maritime cliffs and associated environments; differs with prostrate growth; not over 0.4 m tall; downy young shoots.

Distribution and habitat
Cytisus scoparius is native to western and central Europe, being common in Great Britain and Republic of Ireland. It is found in sunny sites, usually on dry, sandy soils at low altitudes, tolerating very acidic soil conditions.

Outside of its native range, it is an ecologically destructive colonizing invasive species in grassland, shrub and woodland, and other habitats.

As an invasive species
Cytisus scoparius has been introduced into several other countries and continents, outside of its native range, and is commonly classified as a noxious invasive species in western North America, mainly in British Columbia (including on Vancouver Island), California, Oregon, Washington (west of the Cascades), the Sierra Nevada range, fragmented areas of North America's eastern seaboard, as well as Australia (where it is a declared weed), New Zealand, and in India. These shrubs are sometimes utilized for civic and public landscaping projects in the American west due to their hardiness, and will seasonally reseed themselves, growing in disturbed areas, and along utility and transportation rights-of-way. The prolific growth of the plants after timber harvest or wildfire events clearly inhibits reforestation efforts, the sprouts competing with native plant seedlings and trees. It is estimated that broom is responsible for US$47 million in lost timber production each year in Oregon state. In New Zealand, broom is estimated to cost the forestry industry NZ$90 million, and to cost farmers an additional NZ$10 million in losses.

Biological control for broom has been investigated since the mid-1980s, with a number of insect species being tested. Some of the tested invertebrates include the broom twig miner (Leucoptera spartifoliella), broom seed beetles (Bruchidius villosus), broom gall mites (Aceria genistae), sap-sucking broom psyllids (Arytainilla spartiophila), the Scotch broom seed weevil (Exapion fuscirostre) and recently, the broom leaf beetle (Gonioctena olivacea) and broom shoot moths (Agonopterix assimilella).

Eradication
The method used to remove broom is dependent on its prolific seed cycle. Care should be taken to avoid disturbing (aerating, loosening, etc.) the adjacent ground, the sprouting and seedling plants between late spring and mid-fall; late fall through winter (possibly to mid-spring) are preferred times to eradicate mature plants. There are several methods, cutting, pulling, burning, herbicide or introducing chickens and goats. Drought areas respond well to cutting while the seed pods are young and still green. In cooler, wetter areas pulling is the preferred method, and hand-operated broom pullers are available. Low temperature fires, such as a grass fire, will increase seed germination and new sprouts may form on the burned stumps of mature broom. A spring fire followed by drought conditions will reduce seedling survival. Often new plants will grow from roots or seed, requiring repeated treatments.

Cultivation
Cytisus scoparius is widely cultivated as an ornamental plant, with several cultivars selected for variation in flower colour, including "Moonlight" with deep yellow flowers, "Andreanus" and "Firefly" with dark orange-red flowers, and growth habit, including "Pendula" with pendulous branchlets.

Uses
Broom contains scoparin, which is a diuretic. The plant also is used as a cathartic and as a cardiac stimulant, which is credited to the presence of sparteine. A decoction or infusion of broom can be used to treat dropsy due to its diuretic action. An ointment can be made from the flowers to treat gout. Oxysparteine, produced from the action of acid on the sparteine, is useful as a cardiac stimulant and has the advantage over digoxin that it does not accumulate in the body.

Culture
In Welsh mythology, Blodeuwedd is the name of a woman made from the flowers of broom, meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria) and the oak by Math fab Mathonwy and Gwydion to be the wife of Lleu Llaw Gyffes. Her story is part of the Fourth Branch of the Mabinogi, the tale of Math son of Mathonwy.

Broom was considered a sign of plenty when it bore many flowers. However a traditional rhyme from Sussex warns: "Sweep the house with blossomed broom in May/sweep the head of the household away." Broom was also used in a decorated bundle of broom at weddings in place of rosemary when that was scarce, and its strong smell was said to be able to tame wild horses and dogs.

In Italy, the shrub was burnt with the intent of stopping witches.

Royal symbols
The name of the House of Plantagenet, rulers of England in the Middle Ages, may have been derived from common broom, which was then known as planta genista in Latin. The plant was used as a heraldic badge by Geoffrey V of Anjou and five Plantagenet kings of England as a royal emblem. The broomscod, or seed-pod, was the personal emblem of Charles VI of France.

title: Cytisus scoparius