text:
ATC code R01

R01AA Sympathomimetics, plain

 * R01AA02 Cyclopentamine
 * R01AA03 Ephedrine
 * R01AA04 Phenylephrine
 * R01AA05 Oxymetazoline
 * R01AA06 Tetryzoline
 * R01AA07 Xylometazoline
 * R01AA08 Naphazoline
 * R01AA09 Tramazoline
 * R01AA10 Metizoline
 * R01AA11 Tuaminoheptane
 * R01AA12 Fenoxazoline
 * R01AA13 Tymazoline
 * R01AA14 Epinephrine
 * R01AA15 Indanazoline

R01AB Sympathomimetics, combinations excluding corticosteroids

 * R01AB01 Phenylephrine
 * R01AB02 Naphazoline
 * R01AB03 Tetryzoline
 * R01AB05 Ephedrine
 * R01AB06 Xylometazoline
 * R01AB07 Oxymetazoline
 * R01AB08 Tuaminoheptane

R01AC Antiallergic agents, excluding corticosteroids

 * R01AC01 Cromoglicic acid
 * R01AC02 Levocabastine
 * R01AC03 Azelastine
 * R01AC04 Antazoline
 * R01AC05 Spaglumic acid
 * R01AC06 Thonzylamine
 * R01AC07 Nedocromil
 * R01AC08 Olopatadine
 * R01AC51 Cromoglicic acid, combinations

R01AD Corticosteroids

 * R01AD01 Beclometasone
 * R01AD02 Prednisolone
 * R01AD03 Dexamethasone
 * R01AD04 Flunisolide
 * R01AD05 Budesonide
 * R01AD06 Betamethasone
 * R01AD07 Tixocortol
 * R01AD08 Fluticasone
 * R01AD09 Mometasone
 * R01AD11 Triamcinolone
 * R01AD12 Fluticasone furoate
 * R01AD13 Ciclesonide
 * R01AD52 Prednisolone, combinations
 * R01AD53 Dexamethasone, combinations
 * R01AD57 Tixocortol, combinations
 * R01AD58 Fluticasone, combinations
 * R01AD59 Mometasone, combinations
 * R01AD60 Hydrocortisone, combinations

R01AX Other nasal preparations

 * R01AX01 Calcium hexamine thiocyanate
 * R01AX02 Retinol
 * R01AX03 Ipratropium bromide
 * R01AX05 Ritiometan
 * R01AX06 Mupirocin
 * R01AX07 Hexamidine
 * R01AX08 Framycetin
 * R01AX09 Hyaluronic acid
 * R01AX10 Various
 * R01AX30 Combinations

R01BA Sympathomimetics

 * R01BA01 Phenylpropanolamine
 * R01BA02 Pseudoephedrine
 * R01BA03 Phenylephrine
 * R01BA51 Phenylpropanolamine, combinations
 * R01BA52 Pseudoephedrine, combinations
 * R01BA53 Phenylephrine, combinations

title: ATC code R01


text:
Talk:James O'Barr

Untitled
Isn't this article kind of redundant? It just reuses the info from the article on The Crow. -- LGagnon 05:19, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, it needs elaboration and should therefore be marked as a stub. O'Barr is mentioned in three other entries, including "Important persons who were born or lived in Detroit," on which which I was working.  I was just linking them up.

T Garth 06:43, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't the Switchblade Symphony comic done by J O'Barr? In an interview, Tina says it was done by "the guy who does the crow comics."

~ KR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.7.2 (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Sundown info seems out of date, but I wasn't able to find a good, solid source to update it with. If anyone has one, it would be worth making an edit. 46.208.140.57 (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on James O'Barr. 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/20071210001105/http://www.wizarduniverse.com/conventions/texas/006266510.cfm to http://www.wizarduniverse.com/conventions/texas/006266510.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111114095911/http://guitarinternational.com/2011/10/04/interview-with-the-crow-author-artist-musician-james-obarr-let-the-picture-tell-the-story/ to http://guitarinternational.com/2011/10/04/interview-with-the-crow-author-artist-musician-james-obarr-let-the-picture-tell-the-story/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317102829/http://www.motionworkscomics.com/frontpage/live-broadcast-sundown-premiere.html to http://www.motionworkscomics.com/frontpage/live-broadcast-sundown-premiere.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:James O'Barr


text:
Immunix

Immunix is a discontinued commercial operating system that provided host-based application security solutions. The last release of Immunix's Linux distribution was version 7.3 on November 27, 2003. Immunix, Inc. was the creator of AppArmor, an application security system.

On May 10, 2005, Novell acquired Immunix, Inc., a long-time partner with Novell. AppArmor was one of Novell's primary interests, and as a result, it was adopted by the company and renamed Novell AppArmor powered by Immunix. In September 2007, Novell laid off the AppArmor team.

title: Immunix


text:
Trusted Solaris

Trusted Solaris is a discontinued security-evaluated operating system based on Solaris by Sun Microsystems, featuring a mandatory access control model.

Features

 * Accounting
 * Role-Based Access Control
 * Auditing
 * Device allocation
 * Mandatory access control (MAC) labeling

Certification
Trusted Solaris 8 is Common Criteria certified at Evaluation Assurance Level EAL4+ against the CAPP, RBACPP, and LSPP protection profiles. It is the basis for the DoDIIS Trusted Workstation program.

Solaris Trusted Extensions
Features that were previously only available in Trusted Solaris, such as fine-grained privileges, are now part of the standard Solaris release. In the Solaris 10 11/06 update a new component called Solaris Trusted Extensions was introduced, making it no longer necessary to have a different release with a modified kernel for labeled security environments. Solaris Trusted Extensions is an OpenSolaris project.

Solaris Trusted Extensions, when enabled, enforces a mandatory access control policy on all aspects of the operating system, including device access, file, networking, print and window management services. This is achieved by adding sensitivity labels to objects, thereby establishing explicit relationships between these objects. Only appropriate (and explicit) authorization allows applications and users read and/or write access to the objects.

The component also provides labeled security features in a desktop environment. Apart from extending support for the Common Desktop Environment from the Trusted Solaris 8 release, it delivered the first labeled environment based on GNOME. Solaris Trusted Extensions facilitates the access of data at multiple classification levels through a single desktop environment.

Solaris Trusted Extensions also implements labeled device access and labeled network communication, through the Commercial Internet Protocol Security Option (CIPSO) standard. CIPSO is used to pass security information within and between labeled zones. Solaris Trusted Extensions complies with the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS).

title: Trusted Solaris


text:
Revolting People

Revolting People is a BBC Radio 4 situation comedy set in colonial Baltimore, Maryland, just before and during the American Revolutionary War. The series is written by the Briton Andy Hamilton and the American Jay Tarses, with Tarses playing a sour shopkeeper named Samuel Oliphant and Hamilton playing a cheerfully corrupt, one-legged, one-eyed, one-armed, one-eared one-nostrilled British soldier, Sergeant Roy McGurk, billeted on him.

Samuel's children are Mary, who is in love with McGurk's prim commanding officer Captain Brimshaw while at the same time operating as a notorious anti-British pamphleteer under the pseudonym Spartacus; Cora, in an unconsummated marriage with the pompous pro-British Loyalist official Ezekiel but nevertheless a mother; and the dimwitted Joshua, whose favourite recreation is wrestling bears.

Series 1 and 2 were released on CD in 2007–8. Repeats on the series now play on BBC Radio 4 Extra (formerly BBC Radio 7).

Cast

 * Andy Hamilton – Sergeant Roy McGurk
 * Jay Tarses – Samuel Oliphant
 * Sophie Thompson / Jan Ravens / Julia Hills – Mary Oliphant
 * James Fleet – Captain Brimshaw
 * Hugh Dennis – Ezekiel Spriggs
 * Felicity Montagu / Penelope Nice – Cora Spriggs (née Oliphant)
 * Tony Maudsley – Joshua
 * Susie Blake – Mrs. Arbuthnot (Series 1)/Elizabeth Oliphant (Series 2)

Additional roles played by Philip Pope, Michael Fenton Stevens, Rebecca Front and the cast. Series 1 had guest appearances by William Hootkins as Samuel's brother Dan, and Timothy West as General Venables. Produced by Paul Mayhew-Archer

Series 1 (2000)
Originally ran in 2000. Revolved around the imposition of martial law in Baltimore and the springing up of a torrid, though also chaste, love affair between Oliphant's daughter Mary and an officer of the local British garrison, Captain Brimshaw. The show starts on 5 March 1770, the day of the Boston Massacre.
 * 1) 18 January – Storm Clouds
 * 2) 25 January – More Storm Clouds
 * 3) 1 February – Even More Storm Clouds
 * 4) 8 February – Tons of Storm Clouds
 * 5) 15 February – A Helluva Lot of Storm Clouds
 * 6) 22 February – An Incredible Amount of Storm Clouds

This series was released on CD on 3 September 2007.

Series 2 (2001)
Originally ran in 2001. Less continuous than series 1 but developed the same theme with the added introduction of Oliphant's long-departed wife reappearing as a lesbian (to McGurk's lecherous satisfaction).
 * 1) 24 April – Trying Times
 * 2) 1 May – Even More Trying Times
 * 3) 8 May – Some More Trying Times
 * 4) 15 May – And Yet Even More Trying Times
 * 5) 22 May – A Bunch More Trying Times
 * 6) 29 May – Still in Trying Times

This series was released on CD on 7 January 2008.

Series 3 (2004)
The third series originally ran in 2004 and consisted of stand-alone episodes parodying various classic films with a final episode that turned the series on its head.
 * 1) 27 May – Young Love
 * 2) 3 June – A Kiss is Just a Kiss (parodying Casablanca)
 * 3) 10 June – The God-Given Talent
 * 4) 17 June – Over the Rainbow (parodying The Wizard of Oz)
 * 5) 24 June – Them Thar Hills (parodying gold rush westerns)
 * 6) 1 July – Secrets And Lies

Series 4 (2006)
First broadcast in 2006, and repeated from 31 March 2007. The events of the final episode of the previous series are explained as having been a dream.

 * 1) 2 May – Ezekiel is Kidnapped – Samuel's pompous son-in-law, Ezekiel, is kidnapped by a rebel militia
 * 2) 9 May – McGurk Runs the Shop – Samuel goes in search of his cousin
 * 3) 16 May – George Washington  – Samuel realises he's in the middle of a war when half his shop is burnt down by rebelling colonists and the other half by the British
 * 4) 23 May – Pirates – Samuel, McGurk and the others flee to England
 * 5) 30 May – Reunion – Samuel, McGurk and the others arrive in London
 * 6) 6 June – The King – Samuel, McGurk and the others finally meet King George III

title: Revolting People


text:
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle

The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) (formerly known as the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV)) was an amphibious assault vehicle developed by General Dynamics during the 1990s and 2000s for use by the U.S. Marine Corps. It would have been launched at sea, from an amphibious assault ship beyond the horizon, able to transport a full marine rifle squad to shore. It would maneuver cross country with an agility and mobility equal to or greater than the M1 Abrams.

The EFV was designed to replace the aging AAV-7A1 Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV), which entered service in 1972, and was the Marine Corps' number one priority ground weapon system acquisition. It was to have had three times the speed in water and about twice the armor of the AAV, as well as superior firepower. The vehicle was to be deployed in 2015; however, on 6 January 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recommended the EFV program be canceled. The program, which was projected to cost $15 billion, had already cost $3 billion.

The Marines asked for the EFV to be canceled in favor of the Assault Amphibian Vehicle Service Life Extension Program and the Marine Personnel Carrier, which itself became phase one of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle.

History
In the 1980s, the US Marine Corps developed an "over the horizon" strategy for ocean-based assaults. The intention was to protect naval ships from enemy mines and shore defenses. It included the MV-22 Osprey, the Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC), and the EFV.

Development for the AAAV began in August 1974 with Landing Vehicle Assault (LVA) prototypes that continued in the early 1980s at the command at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. The AAAV's predecessor, the LVTP-7, had its life expectancy extended in 1983–84 by use of a service life extension program, which modified and upgraded many of the key systems, creating the LVTP7A1 and re-designated it the AAVP7A1. At the time these vehicles were released, the USMC had anticipated and communicated delivery of the AAAV by 1993. As a result of delays, the AAVP7A1 received another service life extension-type upgrade in the mid 1990s while the USMC still awaited final development and delivery of the AAAV, 14 years behind original projected time frames.

In 1988, defense officials authorized the concept exploration and definition phase. In 1995, the program entered into the definition and risk reduction phase, where it won two Department of Defense awards for successful cost and technology management. In June 1996, a contract was awarded to General Dynamics Land Systems to begin full-scale engineering development of their design. Based on the early success of the program, the Marine Corps awarded a cost-plus contract to General Dynamics in July 2001 for the systems development and demonstration phase of the program, expected to be completed by October 2003. The AAAV was renamed "EFV" in September 2003. The Government Accountability Office later stated that the development phase of three years was insufficient, causing delays and prototype failures, particularly in reliability. After the 2006 operational assessment was plagued by reliability issues and maintenance burdens, the Corps began a redesign of the EFV, requiring a new contract for an additional US$143.5 million in February 2007. That June, a reset of the development phase delayed completion by an additional four years. Instead of initiating production as planned, the corps asked for seven new prototypes, to address the current deficiencies, which had caused an average of one failure for every four and a half hours of operation.

On 7 April 2009, Defense Secretary Gates said that the EFV program would "continue as-is", pending an amphibious review in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. The vehicle was called "exquisite", which Gates usually reserved for programs he intended to cancel. He later questioned the EFV as the proper ship-to-shore platform on 3 May 2010, the day before the initial prototype was rolled out at a ceremony at Marine Corps Base Quantico.

The USMC had reduced the number to be purchased from 1,013 to 573 AAAVs by 2015 due to escalation in unit cost estimated at $22.3 million in 2007. The EFV might be a baseline vehicle for the US Army's BCT Ground Combat Vehicle Program, however it is more likely that the army will start a new program.

Low rate initial production (LRIP) was projected to begin in January 2012. Projected total program development cost of the type until first quarter of 2010 was estimated at 15.9 billion dollars.

Controversy
Robert O. Work, while Undersecretary of the Navy sketched out a future for amphibious warfare in which either the Marines will land unopposed or it will take a major effort using all the long range weapons of the United States armed forces to clear out ship-killing missiles, so that amphibious ships can safely approach the hostile beach and neither scenario sees much use for the EFV. New families of guided anti-ship weapons have extended target ranges of well past 75 mi making the EFV's capabilities less of a game-changer than originally hoped.

In a joint report, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the National Taxpayers Union called the EFV program wasteful spending and asked for its cancellation along with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the V-22 Osprey aircraft. The co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform have also supported the cancellation of the EFV. During a Pentagon briefing, on 6 January 2011, revealing budget efficiencies and reinvestment possibilities, Secretary of Defense Gates announced his intention to cancel the EFV program. In a statement released after Gates' press conference, Commandant of the Marine Corps General Amos said that he supported the cancellation of the EFV: "Today the Secretary of Defense announced the termination of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program. I support his decision. After a thorough review of the program within the context of a broader Marine Corps force structure review, I personally recommended to both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy that the EFV be cancelled and that the Marine Corps pursue a more affordable amphibious tracked fighting vehicle. Despite the critical amphibious and war-fighting capability the EFV represents, the program is not affordable given likely Marine Corps procurement budgets.  The procurement and operations/maintenance costs of this vehicle are onerous.  After examining multiple options to preserve the EFV, I concluded that none of the options meets what we consider reasonable affordability criteria. As a result, I decided to pursue a more affordable vehicle."

Loren B. Thompson, of the Lexington Institute, said that Amos had been ordered to give this statement, which did not reflect his actual feelings on the issue.

In an interview on 5 January 2011 with Bloomberg Businessweek, Duncan D. Hunter, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, anticipated the cancellation announcement by Gates. However, Hunter predicted that his committee would reject the cancellation.

According to Lieutenant General George J. Flynn of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, the USMC was to use funding from the cancelled EFV for other tactical ground vehicles over the next five years. The EFV program was cut from a 2012 proposed budget by the White House.

General Dynamics offered a cut down version of the EFV without the hydroplaning or weapons. Ray Mabus has said that new defensive systems will allow navy ships to close to within 12 mi off hostile shores so a 25 kn amphibious tracked vehicle is no longer needed.

Deputy Commandant George Flynn has said that the analysis of alternatives to replace the EFV will be accelerated to complete in six to nine months. In the 2012 appropriations bill, Congress ordered that the EFV be one of the alternatives considered in the study.

Design

The EFV, designed by General Dynamics Land Systems, was an amphibious armored tracked vehicle with an aluminum hull. The engine is a custom MTU Friedrichshafen diesel (MT883) with two modes of operation; a high power mode for planing over the sea, and a low power mode for land travel. It has a crew of three and can transport 17 marines and their equipment. The EFV would have been the first heavy tactical vehicle with a space frame structure.

The hull had a hydraulically actuated bow flap to aid planing with a maximum waterborne speed of 46 km/h. Shrouded Honeywell waterjet propulsors are integrated into each side of the hull, which create over 2,800 hp of thrust. It was also outfitted with hydraulically actuated chines to cover the tracks while in seafaring mode.

The vehicle uses an Ethernet network connected by the Tactical Switch Router, based on the COTS DuraMAR Mobile IP router for its internal and external communications.

Armament
The electrically powered two-man MK46 turret on the personnel variant accommodated the commander on the right and gunner on the left, a fire control system, and the main and coaxial weapons.

The standard version was to have had a Mk44 Bushmaster II 30 mm cannon, which fired up to 250 rounds per minute with single, burst, and fully automatic capabilities up to 2000 m in all weather conditions. A general purpose M240 7.62 mm machine gun with 600 rounds of ready-to-use ammunition was to be mounted coaxially with the main gun.

Countermeasures

The EFV was fitted with composite armor, mine-blast protection, and a nuclear, biological and chemical defense system. Although aluminum hulls have been used for decades in military ground vehicles and watercraft, they have caused some concern due to protection issues.

In June 2007 members of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces sent a letter to the Commandant of the Marine Corps urging that the EFV be redesigned to give troops better protection against roadside bombs. The Marines suggested that underbelly armor appliqué could be applied after the EFVs come ashore and before they encounter IEDs. The limited protection the EFV offers is an improvement on that offered by the AAV so the replacement is an advantage, given the current doctrine of using landing craft for land patrols.

However, tests in January and February 2010 at Aberdeen Test Center demonstrated that the EFV offers blast protection equal to a category-2 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, including two simulated improvised explosive devices under its belly and tracks. Tests also show that it has superior protection from direct and indirect fire. The flat hull, which has endured persistent criticism for not being the more blast-resistant V-shape, was necessary for the EFV to plane across the surface of the water and reach its high speed, while dealing with sea states of Category 4.

On 13 October 2010 the navy awarded M Cubed Technologies a contract to develop new armor for the EFV to offer better protection and lighter weight.

Mobility
Given the increasing ranges of shore launched anti-ship missiles, the EFV's 25 nmi range for amphibious landing may no longer provide the anticipated protection predicted for an over the horizon launch. The U.S. Navy began reconsidering the over the horizon approach, and is considering 10 – appropriate for amphibious launches. This shift in doctrine has made the EFV's high water speeds unnecessary. The EFV's need for high water speed has resulted in an engine that is 1,200 hp more powerful than the M1 Abrams, even though the EFV weighs far less.

Personnel variant
The EFVP1 with a three-man crew would have conducted the signature mission of the United States Marine Corps, expeditionary maneuver warfare from seabases by initiating amphibious operations from 20 to 25 mi over-the-horizon and transporting 17 combat-equipped Marines to inland objectives. The fully armored, tracked combat vehicle would have provided firepower to disembarked or mechanized infantry with its own fully stabilized MK46 weapon station with the 30 mm cannon and 7.62mm machine-gun.

Command variant

The EFVC1 was to have provided the same survival and mobility capabilities found in the EFVP1. The EFVC1 would have been employed as a tactical command post for maneuver unit commanders at the battalion and regimental level. The EFVC1 would have provided the supported commander and selected staff with the ability to communicate, via on-board communications, with senior, adjacent, and subordinate maneuver units. The EFVC1 was to be armed with only a 7.62mm machine gun.

title: Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle


text:
Randy's Donuts

Randy's Donuts is a bakery and a landmark building in Inglewood, California which is near Los Angeles International Airport. It is built in a style that dates to a period in the early 20th century that saw a proliferation of programmatic architecture throughout Southern California. This style had its heyday from the mid-1920s to the mid-1930s. By the 1950s however, the trend of designing structures in the shape of the product sold there had changed to focus on signs rather than architecture itself. Randy's is represented by a giant doughnut on the roof of an otherwise ordinary drive-in that is a dedicated doughnut bakery. The building was designed by Henry J. Goodwin.

Colossal donut signs atop Randy's stores vary in size. Most locations use a 32 ft diameter version that sits atop the building and faces an intersection. In Roadside Giant by Brian and Sarah Butko, the Weintraubs climbed on top of the doughnut with a tape measure and confirmed the measurements for the authors. The Bellflower location, however, features a smaller version of the doughnut on top of a pole in front of the building. This may be 23 feet in diameter, as is widely reported.

The 24-hour drive-in is at 805 West Manchester Boulevard and it intersects with La Cienega Boulevard. It is near the Manchester Boulevard off-ramp of the San Diego Freeway (I-405).

History
In the late 1940s, doughnut machine salesman Russell Wendell founded a chain of drive-in doughnut shops named Big Donut. The first location opened in 1951 in Westmont. The second location which is now a Randy's Donuts, was opened in 1952. Designed by architect Henry Goodwin and structural engineer Richard Bradshaw, the rooftop doughnut is constructed out of rolled steel bars covered with gunite.

In 1976, after shifting focus to his Pup 'N' Taco chain (bought by Taco Bell in 1984), Wendell sold the Big Donut Inglewood location to Robert Eskow who renamed the location "Randy's Donuts" after his son. In 1978, Eskow sold the shop to Ron and Larry Weintraub, who decided to retain the name for the business.

In 2015, Randy's Donuts was purchased by lawyer and entrepreneur Mark Kelegian. Since that time, the brand has added franchise locations in Southern California, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Las Vegas, and the Philippines.

Randy's Donuts opened a location at Los Angeles International Airport in 2023.

title: Randy's Donuts


text: Talk:List of cities proper by population


text:
Ricochet firing

Ricochet firing is the firing of artillery at a low angle and non-maximal power so as to cause the shells to skip across the ground.

Background
In traditional artillery tactics, either a cannon, a howitzer or occasionally a mortar would fire a shot that would just clear the outer parapet of a fortification, and then would bounce or ricochet inside the fortification's bounds. One of the primary purposes of ricochet fire was to dismount artillery and guns positioned on an enemy's fortifications. Additionally, ricochet fire could also be used to cause chaos behind an enemy army's fortifications, as the ricocheting cannonball would devastate logistical structures not fortified to withstand cannon fire.

The first European use of ricochet fire (tir à ricochet) has been accredited to the Marquis de Vauban during the siege of Philippsburg in 1688. He perfected it at the siege of Ath in 1697.

title: Ricochet firing


text:
London Clay

The London Clay Formation is a marine geological formation of Ypresian (early Eocene Epoch, c. 54-50 million years ago) age which crops out in the southeast of England. The London Clay is well known for its fossil content. The fossils from the lower Eocene rocks indicate a moderately warm climate, the tropical or subtropical flora. Though sea levels changed during the deposition of the clay, the habitat was generally a lush forest – perhaps like in Indonesia or East Africa today – bordering a warm, shallow ocean.

The London Clay is a stiff bluish clay which becomes brown when weathered and oxidized. Nodular lumps of pyrite are frequently found in the clay layers. Pyrite was produced by microbial activity (sulfate reducing bacteria) during clay sedimentation. Once clay is exposed to atmospheric oxygen, framboidal pyrite with a great specific surface is rapidly oxidized. Pyrite oxidation produces insoluble brown iron oxyhydroxide (FeOOH) and sulfuric acid leading to the formation of relatively soluble gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O, calcium sulfate dihydrate). This latter is more soluble and mobile than iron oxides and can further recrystallize to form larger crystals sometimes called selenite (coming from the moon, but not related to selenium, although the etymology is the same), or "waterstones".

Large septarian concretions, produced by microbial activity (oxidation of organic matter) in the ancient seafloor during clay early diagenesis, are also common. These have been used in the past for making cement. They were once dug for this purpose at Sheppey, near Sittingbourne, and at Harwich, and also dredged, off the Hampshire coast. The clay is still used commercially for making bricks, tiles, and coarse pottery in places such as Michelmersh in Hampshire.

Distribution and geology
The London Clay is well developed in the London Basin, where it thins westwards from around 150 m in Essex and north Kent to around 4.6 m in Wiltshire. It is not frequently exposed as it is to a great extent covered by more recent Neogene sediments and Pleistocene gravel deposits. One location of particular interest is Oxshott Heath, where the overlying sand and the London Clay layers are exposed as a sand escarpment, rising approximately 25 m. This supported a thriving brick industry in the area until the 1960s. The London Clay is also well developed in the Hampshire Basin, where an exposure 91 m thick occurs at Whitecliff Bay on the Isle of Wight and around 101 m is spread along 6 km of foreshore at Bognor Regis, West Sussex.

The clay was deposited in a sea up to 200 m deep at the eastern end. Up to five cycles of deposition (representing transgression followed by shallowing of the sea) have been found, most markedly at the shallower, western end. Each cycle begins with coarser material (sometimes including rounded flint pebbles), followed by clay which becomes increasingly sandy. The final cycle ends with the Claygate Beds.

Claygate Beds
The youngest part of the London Clay, known as the Claygate Beds or Claygate Member forms a transition between the clay and the sandier Bagshot Beds above. This is shown separately on many geological maps, and often caps hills. It is up to 15 m thick at Claygate, Surrey. It is now believed to be diachronous, with the formation at Claygate for example being the same age as the end of the fourth cycle of deposition further east.

Engineering
The presence of a thick layer of London Clay underneath London itself, providing a soft yet stable environment for tunnelling, was instrumental in the early development of the London Underground, although this is also the reason why London had no true skyscraper buildings, at least to the same degree as many other cities throughout the world. Erecting tall buildings in London required very deep, large and costly piled foundations. This has changed in recent decades due to the development of 'plunge piles'. London's skyscrapers float on rafts embedded in the clay.

London Clay is highly susceptible to volumetric changes depending upon its moisture content. During exceptionally dry periods or where the moisture is extracted by tree root activity, the clay can become desiccated and shrink in volume, and conversely swell again when the moisture content is restored. This can lead to many problems near the ground surface, including structural movement and fracturing of buildings, fractured sewers and service pipes/ducts and uneven and damaged road surfaces and pavings. Such damage is recognised to be covered by the interpretation of subsidence in buildings insurance policies, and the periods of dry weather in 1976/77 and 1988/92, in particular, led to a host of insurance claims. As a result, many insurance companies have now increased the cost of premiums for buildings located in the most susceptible areas where damage occurred, where the clay is close to the surface.

London Clay is also used to line exhausted quarries. This is because old quarry holes are generally refilled with waste material and by lining it with London Clay (which is virtually impermeable) it prevents waste and hazardous substances from entering the groundwater.

Tunnels in London Clay
London Clay is an ideal medium for boring tunnels, which is one reason why the London Underground railway network expanded very quickly north of the River Thames. However, south of the Thames, the stratum at tube level is composed of water-bearing sand and gravel (not good for tunnelling) with London Clay below, which partly explains why there are very few tube tunnels south of the Thames. London Clay has a stand-up time long enough to enable support to be installed without urgency. It is also almost waterproof, resulting in virtually no seepage of groundwater into the tunnel. It is over-consolidated, which means that it was once subject to an overburden pressure higher than it is subjected to today, and expands upon excavation, thus gradually loading the support, i.e. it is not necessary to stress the support against the ground.

Uses
Due to its impermeability especially when exposed by ploughing, London Clay does not make good agricultural soil. In Middlesex, ploughing London Clay land so deep that it brings up clay has historically been called "ploughing up poison".

It was also disliked for building houses on, though inevitably most of Greater London is built on it. Jane Ellen Panton in her Suburban Residences and How To Circumvent Them (1896), remarks: "I do not believe clay is or even can be fit for anyone to reside upon ... though roses flourished magnificently children didn't, and coughs and colds [lasted through autumn and winter, this at Shortlands".

Many London buildings have ultimately been constructed with London Clay. When compressed and burnt, London Clay can be fashioned into brick known as London stock, identifiable by its yellowish brown hue.

Fossil flora and fauna
Plant fossils, especially seeds and fruits, are found in abundance and have been collected from the London Clay for almost 300 years. Some 350 named species of plant have been found, making the London Clay flora one of the world's most diverse for fossil seeds and fruits. The flora includes plant types found today in tropical forests of Asia and demonstrates the much warmer climate of the Eocene epoch, with plants such as Nypa (Nipah palms) and other palms being frequently encountered.

Notable coastal exposures from which fossils can be collected are on the Isle of Sheppey in Kent and Walton-on-the-Naze, Essex, in the London Basin, and Bognor Regis in the Hampshire Basin.

title: London Clay


text:
DPW

DPW may refer to:
 * Deadlock Pro-Wrestling, an American professional wrestling federation
 * Democratic Party of Wisconsin
 * Department of Public Works, alternately Public Works Department
 * Disney Publishing Worldwide

 * See also
 * Davis Polk & Wardwell, a law firm (commonly known as Davis Polk)
 * DP World, formerly Dubai Ports World, originally Dubai Ports International

title: DPW


text:
DEP

DEP or Dep may refer to:

Arts, entertainment, and media

 * Dep (magazine), a publication of Vietnam News Agency
 * DeP (musician), American singer
 * DEP International, a defunct British record label founded by the band UB40
 * Dillinger Escape Plan, an American mathcore band

Organizations

 * Delayed Entry Program, a United States Armed Forces recruit program
 * Democracy Party (Turkey), pro-Kurdish political party in Turkey
 * Department of Environmental Protection (disambiguation), a common government agency

Places

 * Dep (city), Ancient Egyptian city that merged into Buto
 * Dep (river), a river in Amur Oblast, Russia
 * Dep, Iran
 * Deptford railway station, London, England, National Rail station code

Science and technology

 * Data Execution Prevention, a security feature in computer operating systems
 * Dielectrophoresis, the force exerted on a dielectric particle subjected to a non-uniform electric field
 * Diethyl phthalate, an organic compound
 * Diethylphosphite, an organophosphorus compound

Other uses

 * Dépanneur, Quebec English term for a convenience store
 * Dependency (disambiguation), including dependent and depend

title: DEP


text:
Talk:House of Burgesses

Untitled
What is the proper definition of Burgesses? Is it the leader of a Borough? Keeperoftheseal 16:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * According to Burgess, a Freeman (Colonial), IE. a Freeholder. 68.39.174.238 20:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I added an explantion where the term burgess originated. (in the top) - narwhalhistory

I corrected misinformation concerning the Raleigh Tavern. Even under Anthony Hay, the Raleigh retained its name. It was never named 'Anthony Hay's Tavern.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.195.100 (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why was important information taken out?
I added historical information on medieval terminology of the ORIGINAL TERM, and its taken out.

It was marked as vandalism? are you kidding?

Can I have an explanation, why you think this is vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Narwhalhistory (talk • contribs) 06:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Error
It states that changes in 1620 lead to the creation of the House. Yet, two paragraphs later it states that the House first met in 1619. This is also stated before the reference to 1620. I've corrected the error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.46.143 (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, so sorry to say, but I don`t think it had much to do with the Poles at all! And no, that`s not a racist remark, obviously, whoever wrote this was a strong Polish supperter who feels they didn`t have many rights. As a person whos done their research myself, I can tell you that you`ve got it all wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.104.123 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

pronunciation
Can someone add info on how to pronounce "Burgesses", is it the same as Burgess? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.95.89 (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done by LeCid 18:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeCid57000 (talk • contribs)

Land
The phrase "land-owning males" is used. It is not clear if non-whites were allowed to vote. The initial anti-Polish sentiment suggests that they were not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite the intro
The term is first bolded and defined in the fourth paragraph. Seriously? Not to mention that it's even mentioned in the third, without a word as to what it is. —烏Γ (kaw at me), 10:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Would?
The 4th para in the lead says:
 * Similar to the British Parliament, the House of Burgesses would consist of delegates elected by the colonists, and would meet once annually at Jamestown

This implies that it didn't happen. Similarly the 5th para:
 * ''... to this new legislative body that would come from eleven boroughs adjacent to the James River, along with eleven additional burgesses.

Yet the 6th para says: The assembly had 22 members, implying that it did happen, as does the rest of the article. Can somebody clarify the situation, and alter the text accordingly, please? Pdfpdf (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Move to "Virginia House of Burgesses"
You claim there have been "other legislatures" called the House of Burgesses. Care to name one? I don't see any mentioned on Wikipedia. Rklear (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

 * That was fast! See Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives:  "The office evolved from the office of Speaker of the lower house of the legislature in the Province of Carolina, called the House of Burgesses."  The members of the Lower House of Maryland's colonial legislature were called Burgesses.  The official style of the house appears to have been "the Lower House", but it was commonly referred to, both colloquially and officially, as the House of Burgesses.  I'm sure a search of the Web would reveal others.

Jdcrutch (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

 * JDcrutch - I understand the logic behind the move - to avoid confusion and increase specificity. However, the normal convention is to have the article name in the most simple common name (see WP:Commonname). I grant you that there were other houses of burgesses, but the one in Virginia was the first (named simply as the "House of Burgesses") and best known.  I see no great risk of confusion here, as Wikipedia has no other articles about other houses of burgesses.  My thought is that the right editorial move is to move this back to House of Burgesses and perhaps add a section noting that similar legislatures in other states were created and used the name.-- Kubigula (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

 * What sticks out about the "Maryland House of Burgesses" is how transient the name was. According to the Maryland House of Delegates site, the transition from "Lower House" to "House of Delegates" took less than half a century. During that time, "House of Burgesses" was one of several colloquial usages, pretty much in the same class as calling the Virginia General Assembly the "Virginia Legislature". Rklear (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I appreciate the civility of this discussion. I don't have terribly strong feelings about the subject, but it seems to me that calling the article on Virginia's House of Burgesses simply "House of Burgesses" is rather like calling the article on the Parliament of England simply "Parliament". It was the first legislature of that name, and remains the best known (even though strictly speaking it no longer exists, having been supplanted, first by the Parliament of Great Britain, and then by the Parliament of the United Kingdom); but other parliaments are entitled to equal dignity, and calling the English Parliament, "Parliament", with no qualifier, seems to put the others in the position of imitators or inferior replicas.  Within England, it's certainly proper to refer to the present legislature and its predecessors simply as "Parliament", but outside the UK it would be parochial at best.

 * I'm a Virginian myself, and within Virginia, or in discussions of Virginia, I'm all for calling the colonial legislature "the House of Burgesses"; but in an international forum like Wikipedia it strikes me as similarly parochial, if not a bit arrogant (the way a certain class of Virginians used to speak of "the University", as if it were the only one).

 * Virginia didn't invent Burgesses: Members of Parliament representing boroughs already had that title in England. (And because I just stumbled across it, I'll observe that the English Petition of Right (1627) refers to the English Parliament as "the Archbishopps Bishopps Earles Barons Knights Burgesses and other the Freemen of the Comonaltie of this Realme". See | Petition of Right, 1627, 3 Car. 1, c. 1.

 * The House of Burgesses of Virginia got that name, I imagine, because it was the natural and obvious style for an English colonial legislative body, elected by the common citizenry; which is presumably why the same style was used in other colonies. There really should be a generic article entitled "House of Burgesses", giving a history of the term "Burgess" and the evolution of that form of legislature; or else the general term should link to the article on colonial government, section on Colonial Assemblies.

 * The only uncertainty I had, really, with respect to renaming the article, was whether to call it "House of Burgesses of Virginia", or "Virginia House of Burgesses". The latter is certainly more common today, and more in line with American usage; but the House itself, in official publications, appears to have preferred the former. ("Virginia House of Burgesses" also strikes my ear as equivalent to "England Parliament" or "Germany Bundestag", but I recognize that's an idiosyncratic objection, and I wouldn't make changes to Wikipedia on that basis.)

 * As for the transience Rklear mentions, Virginia's House of Burgesses didn't bear that name much more than 150 years. Is that so much more permanent than a century for Maryland? Virginia's replacement of the title "Burgess" (which refers to a certain personal status) with "Delegate" (which signifies the agent or deputy of the people) was well in keeping with the Spirit of '76, and we should perhaps be chary of venerating too much a title which our forbears for good reason discarded.  ("Burgess" was a misnomer from the start, anyway, being an adaptation of the Old French burgeis (Modern French bourgeois), a townsman.  Virginia in 1619 had barely one town, and in general the Burgesses represented plantations and other rural districts, which, although sometimes ambitiously styled "city", were not towns at all.)

 * I think it's the best manners to specify which House of Burgesses.

Jdcrutch (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

 * It's interesting that you chose the parliament article for guidance, as I also considered that as an example for how to proceed. To me, the main difference was that we have a generic article about parliamentary bodies, as well as many articles about specific parliaments - none of which are present here.  I think you may be right that the best editorial solution would be to have a generic article about houses of Burgesses.  You seem to have done a decent amount of research on the subject already, do you think it's enough to start a reasonable stub?-- Kubigula (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point I recommend listing this discussion at Requested moves. The article was in place at House of Burgesses for 10 years, and a permanent move will have repercussions beyond the article itself. In particular, adding a more generic "House of Burgesses" article, or even giving that title to a disambiguation page, is going to affect numerous articles containing that particular link. Any change should be open to wider comment first. Rklear (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Agreed - good call.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I haven't checked to see whether or not Rklear has made the change he proposes here, but I will point out that when I changed the name of the article I created a redirection link from the old title, then carefully tracked down all links to the old title, and manually changed them as well. If he has reverted the title and listed the article under "Requested moves", as he proposes, I hope he has also reverted all those links.  As I said earlier, I don't feel strongly about this issue, so I'm not going to request the change, seek comments, or further advocate a change that somebody else opposes.  I stand by what I wrote earlier, but if that's not persuasive to others, I feel no need to press the issue.

Jdcrutch (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I moved the page back, pending further discussion (as noted above), since the phrasing was poor (with double "of"s) and therefore in want of strong evidence that such is the "natural disambiguation". If anything other than simply "House of Burgesses", I reason it should be titled "Virginia House of Burgesses", which I will admit having seen it written as, but not "House of Burgesses of Virginia". That said, it will likely require a consensus to move it there because the redirect was changed as a result of the earlier move, and thus will need an override to move it there.Morgan Riley (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Reversion seems rather unnecessary, nearly a year after the change, and in the absence of further objections. I stand by my arguments above, but don't have time or energy at the moment to go through another process to move the article.  "House of Burgesses of Virginia" is how that body referred to itself, double "of" or no double "of". J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Disbanded?
The info-box in the article says that the House of Burgesses "disbanded" in 1776. I had always understood that the House of Delegates was the continuation of the House of Burgesses, not a successor. Would it not be more accurate to say that the House of Burgesses was reorganized in 1776? I daresay the journal of the House of Burgesses will give us the answer. Anybody got time and access to look it up?

J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I think disbanded is the right word - see this source. I love the final flourish in the journal!-- Mojo Hand (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks for that interesting reference, but that seems to leave things even more unclear. Contrary to the commentator's introduction, the last meeting of the House of Burgesses neither dissolved the house nor even adjourned!  One would expect a body that was disbanding to adjourn sine die, but the House of Burgesses didn't do that.  I'd be interested in seeing what the first session of the House of Delegates had to say about its continuity, vel non, with the House of Burgesses.  Of course, there was a revolution going on, and it wouldn't surprise me if contemporaries viewed the House of Delegates as a wholly new body, a clean break from the former, royal government.  I suppose it's only in these latter days that some seek continuity between the two.  Certainly today's House of Delegates regards itself as the same legislative body as that founded in 1619. (Its coat of arms, rather prosaically, reads, "Est. 1619".) When did the House of Delegates first meet as such?  Was it before or after the final meeting of the House of Burgesses? How different was the membership?  I can imagine all kinds of possibilities, but alas don't have time to do the research.  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

 * For a start, see Virginia Conventions and Constitution of Virginia, the section about the constitution of 1776 in particular. Since the House of Delegates was established under the 1776 Constitution, I think it might be a stretch to say it is the same legislative body as the House of Burgesses. The delegates to the 1776 convention were elected in April. Presumably many of the former Burgesses were elected. The constitution was finished in June. The articles don't give all the specifics (when was the first election to the House of Delegates; were the existing laws accepted by the first session; were some laws adopted and others rejected; how many of the members of the first House of Delegates were the same as the last House of Burgesses - that would not be determinative of anything but it would be interesting). It is too late tonight for me to look into it further but I may look into it later. Donner60 (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

 * There was certainly a legal, if not an institutional, continuity between the pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary legislatures. The Virginian Convention in 1776 declared,

 * That the common law of England, and all statutes, or acts of parliament made in aid of the common law, prior to the fourth year, of James the first [i.e., 1607], which are of a general nature not local to that kingdom, together with the several acts of the colony then in force [i.e., in 1776], so far as the same may consist with the several ordinances, declarations, and resolutions of the general convention, shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of the commonwealth.

 * The two houses never met in competing sessions, but the latter succeeded to the former (with the General Convention in between), apparently as a matter of course. I don't know what the respective qualifications for electors and members were before and after the revolution, but I imagine they weren't far different. It would be interesting to know if any business pending in the House of Burgesses in October 1775 was taken up by the House of Delegates in 1776 (or disposed of by the Convention).  Somebody with time to look through the minutes of the General Convention might find that the colonial legislature was affirmatively abolished or expressly continued in reorganized form, and that would settle the question decisively.  Failing that, it seems to me that the House of Delegates' own claim to have been established in 1619 ought to be credited, and that Wikipedia ought therefore to say that the House of Burgesses was reorganized in 1776, rather than disbanded.

J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I found the Journal for the first meeting of the House of Delegates in 1776. That document does seem to suggest the House of Delegates was a new and different enterprise.  However, I suspect JD is correct that much depends on the context.  The Virginia legislature in 1776 wanted to show independence, while the modern legislature wants to tout its long history.  I think the best solution is to simply remove the "Disbanded" paremeter from the infobox and change the next line to show that the House of Burgesses was succeeded by the Virginia House of Delegates in 1776.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

 * That is a good idea. I think it may be the most accurate language considering what has been found and discussed above. Donner60 (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree. Thanks, Mojo Hand!  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

 * And thank you two for a friendly and collegial discussion, from which I actually learned something. If only all of Wikipedia could work this way.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the context of this is also about “continuity of government” going from House of Burgesses to Conventions (still the burgesses) to the first House of Delegates (still the burgesses). The same individuals through out each of these "changes." They did meet to "dissolve" (per some sources) but in this case voluntary dissolution, vice being forced to dissolve or being dismissed by the governor (which they rejected and met in conventions). They did meet to "not adjourn" (meaning to "not meet again' or continue as a colonial legislature) and declared "FINIS" (the end), but then meet as a convention in the same chamber, same day, same body to then later compose the new Constitution of Virginia and become the House of Delegates. So I can see why the Virginia House of Delegates sees themselves as an extension of the same body (since it was the same people one day they are burgesses, then same people declare themselves delegates with no elections in between to change the composition), just as members of the colonial Continental Congress became the United States Continental Congress after the "Declaration of Independence" (same individuals the next day). First time I was in Iceland someone told me about how their Althing was the oldest, continuous parliamentary body in the world (first as independents, then as a colony under Norway, then under Denmark, then again as an independent nation) I could probably find ways to poke holds in their "continuous" existence, some name changes/composition/authority, etc., but not going to try to challenge their claim anymore than Virginia's House of Delegates, or English (British) Parliament for its continuity (Kingdom, then Republic, back to Kingdom, "legitimacy" of some parliaments, some dissolved or inactive for many years, etc.) Thorkall (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The House of Burgesses did not "adjourn sine die" but in the last entry in the House of Burgesses journal (May 1776) did record "nor adjourn, as a House of Burgesses. FINIS." They chose to not adjourn or meet again and the journal finished in a flourish with large bold capital letters "FINIS" (the end). See link showing journal entry: http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/The_General_Assembly_Adjourns_1776

The last entry is lacking in detail, and can be confusing unless you try to determine how to fill in the blanks, and of course those are subject to individual interpretations: Unlike today where every word (or most) are recorded, that was not the case in past legislative bodies (e.g., we have little or at times nothing official on debates in the Continental Congress or later Constitutional Convention, instead we must heavily rely on personal notes or correspondence letters of those present to fill in the gaps). Edmund Pendelton's comments help to expand on what did occur and as the President of the Committee of Safety, and president of the past convention, he would of been the most "senior" of the several individuals, therefore can we assume other more senior and influential individuals showed up for the last meeting of the House of Burgesses)
 * "Several individuals" showed up, but since it does not discuss a quorum, can we assume there was one, versus other entries which talk about a lack of one?
 * They did officially meet, but did not "proceed to business" since it was already determined beforehand there was none to discuss (business, or discussions, would be handled in the convention later that same day)?
 * They did not adjourn in order to not legitimize continuance of the colonial body meeting in the King's name?
 * Edmund Pendleton, a member of the House of Burgesses (and President of the Committee of Safety) who was present at the final meeting, wrote in a letter to Richard Henry Lee on the following day, “We met in assembly yesterday, and determined not to adjourn, but let that body die.” Later the same morning, the members of the fifth and final Virginia Revolutionary Convention met in the chamber of the House of Burgesses in Williamsburg and elected Pendleton its president).

Other comments referenced an election in April 1776 so those elected then were members of the last House of Burgesses that met one last time in May and then formed the Fifth Convention and (under the new Constitution) elected Patrick Henry governor in July. The House of Delegates met for its first session in October 1776 (so unless there was another election, which I have not been able to find reference to one, then the burgesses elected in April were the same individuals who made up the first House of Delegates). Thorkall (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

 * I appreciate Thorkall's recent revisions to the article, and hope there will be more. His or her latest remarks here on the Talk page raise some questions for me.  First and most important, what is the source for her or his contention that the last House of Burgesses, the Virginia Conventions, and the first House of Delegates all consisted of precisely the same persons?  I have no hard evidence to the contrary, but it would surprise me a good deal.  Pendleton's letter to Lee suggests at least some difference in personnel between the House of Burgesses and the Convention, as I'm pretty sure Lee belonged to the latter, but he apparently was not a member of the former (or, at any rate, he did not attend the final session), or Pendleton would have had no occasion to write him about it.

 * I would be greatly surprised if the Convention had not been separately elected by the "people" of Virginia (i.e., the free, white, male residents of the colony over the age of twenty-one and otherwise entitled to vote). A convention is the highest representative body in a republic, and ordinarily exercises much broader powers than one house of a bicameral legislature—frequently including executive and judicial powers.  It would be rather shocking if the Burgesses had simply declared themselves the Convention, and assumed the power to alter the government of the country.  Of course, a lot of undemocratic and illiberal things get done in the name of the people during time of revolution and war, so it could have happened; but it would astonish me.

 * It would also surprise me a good bit to find that the Convention had simply declared itself to be the new House of Delegates. What's the point of prescribing a method for electing a legislature in the new constitution, if the Convention was just going to declare its members elected?  Moreover, at least theoretically, a Burgess and a Delegate are not at all the same thing:  the former title expresses a personal status, like gentleman or esquire, whereas the latter expresses an assigned role and borrowed authority.  The former is a kind of master; the latter, a kind of servant.  I don't know whether or not these theoretical distinctions were on the minds of the leaders of Virginia's Revolution, but I rather expect that they were.

 * The usual method for closing a session of an assembly that does not intend to reconvene is to adjourn sine die. The Burgesses appear (from Pendleton's letter) to have had some reason not to do that, but I don't know what it might have been.  The house did not proceed to business, according to the journal, so there's no way of knowing whether or not a quorum was present.  An assembly without a quorum does have the power to adjourn, so the House might have adjourned, even if it had no quorum.  It may be—I speculate, having no information either way—that there remained some Burgesses not in favor of independence, who might have opposed a motion to adjourn sine die. There must have been some reason why the House did not adjourn or formally dissolve itself, but I don't know enough even to guess intelligently about it.  (By the way, the Encyclopedia Virginia article formerly cited for the proposition that the House had "formally dissolved" now says, "In May 1776 the House of Burgesses ceased to meet . . . .")

 * In any event, I wouldn't read too much into the "FINIS" at the end of the journal. There's no way of knowing when it was written, or by whom, or with what intent.  There is certainly no indication that it was put there by order of the House itself.  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

As to the HoBs final journal entry:
 * Monday, the 6th of May. 16 Geo. III. 1776. Several Members met, but did neither proceed to Business, nor adjourn, as a House of Burgesses. FINIS. It was written by the assistant clerk of the House of Burgesses, Jacob Bruce, and certainly “finis” could be his invention, but was it to capture the spirit of that final meeting (“nor adjourn, as House of Burgesses”) but does that imply they would instead adjourn as a convention later than morning? So they are "ending" a meeting of a royal body (and no need to adjourn or even continue to recognize its existence) and instead will reconvening as a independent convention?  So guess you can pick, they ended, ceased, disbanded, dissolved, etc. (but the Journal does not give us a definitive term to use).  Plus there is always the final flourish in the entry, sort of like we are out of here, or at least until after the coffee break and the next 'meeting' starts (Convention).  Found one more thing:
 * "but thinking that the people could not be legally represented under the ancient constitution, which had been subverted by the king, lords, and commons, they unanimously dissolved themselves accordingly." (A source citing the Virginia Gazette, but details on date, etc., not provided so trying to see if that can be traced down and rest of news article in context.)

Still researching on elections plus distinction in HoB versus members of conventions. Lots on the conventions appointing individuals to this or that committee, elected officials, etc., but not how they either got elected to convention (by being a burgess already or by some other mechanism). Conventions had the duties of the HoB and executive duties in the absence of the royal governor; legislation, committees, expenses, raising militias, etc. We do know burgesses are around but displaced from their chamber (at least initially). Are they same as members of convention (my contention) or some how different? Is one a subset of the other? Not sure I see sufficient rationale for there to be two separate slate of candidates, one for HoB and one for a convention, or did ballots eventually substitute burgess for "member" to the Convention (can't seem to find a unique label for what they called these "conventioneers"). Thorkall (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the update. It is certainly most likely that the person who reported the last session of the House also wrote "FINIS" at the same time, but without knowing who had custody of the journal after 12 October 1775, and without (obviously) any review and approval of the final journal entry by the House, we can't be certain that it wasn't written by some other hand on some other day.  That's why I say we shouldn't read too much into it:  it's not good evidence of anything, except that somebody, sometime thought it appropriate to close the journal that way.  I'm not arguing that it wasn't put there by Jacob Bruce immediately after the last session:  only that we can't know for sure, so we shouldn't infer anything from it.  I look forward to Thorkall's findings regarding the question of elections.  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Some sources say the HoB was dissolved by the Governor in 1774, others say they were prorogued (under British parliamentary rules being prorogued was having the monarch (or their rep) end that session (and could also be a means of killing pending legislation or an unruly legislature) but not the body itself, while dissolving them would end the body and their existence until new elections). Since they followed parliamentary rules throughout the colonies elections were only as necessary for the legislature as opposed to a fixed schedule and could be up to 7 years between elections according to some sources (although there were special elections to fill vacancies due to deaths, resignation, retirement, etc.) The HoB were called back in 1775 (after separately meeting in conventions) so I suspect they were only prorogued by the Governor, but have not found info on elections to determine which was the case (and if he did dissolve them they rejected their dismissal and instead of going home for new elections (which would buy the Governor time) went down the street to meet and declare the First Convention). Regardless of which is the case the HoB did meet and rejected North's resolution which pretty much ended any further "royal" legislative functions by the HoB. Thorkall (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"Meeting Places" Section
The section headed "Meeting Places" adds little or nothing that isn't better expressed elsewhere in the article. I have tuned it up a little, but it should really be rewritten entirely by somebody with better information than I have. For example, it says nothing about the state house at Jamestown, which is mentioned earlier in the article. The section should give a description of that building, and say when that building was constructed, who designed it (if that is known), when the House of Burgesses first met there, and whatever else may be known about it. (Recent archaeological investigations may provide considerable information.) Alternatively, if nobody will rewrite it, the section should be deleted as redundant. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added some matter from the article on the Wren Building concerning the House's meeting places in Williamsburg, but the section still needs rewriting and expansion. <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> | Talk 18:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Revisions to Legacy Section
I have made numerous small revisions to the "Legacy" section. <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> | Talk 14:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "House of Burgesses" for "Assembly": the Colonial Assembly was the House of Burgesses plus the Council.  Only the House of Burgesses became the House of Delegates.
 * "Commonwealth of Virginia" for "Commonwealth (State) of Virginia": the full style of Virginia is "Commonwealth of Virginia", not "Commonwealth (State) of Virginia".  A commonwealth is a state, and there's no need to explain that.
 * "Capitol building" for "Capitol" (Colonial Williamsburg): the building is no longer a capitol, whatever Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., may name it.  The Capitol is in Richmond.
 * "January 2007" for "2006": corrected date according to press release cited.
 * "then-vice president" for "Vice President": with apologies to Binabik80, Mr. Cheney is no longer Vice President of the United States.
 * deleted numerous superfluous instances of "Virginia" in names of institutions, since Virginia is the only State under discussion.

Polish Craftsmen's Strike
For reasons discussed at length on the History of Virginia Talk page, I have replaced the lengthy account of Polish craftsmen and their strike with a brief account based on reliable sources. <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> | Talk 15:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and edits - for my part, edits look *Excellent* - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Today added a link to the article 1619 Jamestown Polish craftsmen strike, but I have removed the link. That article is largely fictional, based on the apparently-fraudulent "Memoirs of a Mercantilist" whose existence is deeply in doubt, or on sources dependent on that supposed document. Once that article has been rewritten to reflect the actual facts available to us from reliable sources, I will be happy for the link to be restored here. <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> | Talk 18:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for your comments - yes - I understand and agree with you - any help you can provide to improve the 1619 Jamestown Polish craftsmen strike article would be appreciated of course - you may have a more seasoned notion, compared to many editors, of those parts of the article that may be ok and those parts that could be better - I may try to help as well at my next opportunity - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Red links
The list of members of the first session of the House of Burgesses contains a great many red links. Does somebody plan on writing articles for all those people? If so, please say so here, and give us an estimate as to when they'll be done. If not, why not remove the red links? <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> | Talk 19:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

 * The redlinks are a little ugly to look at, but I seems to me that they comply with WP:RED. Having the links encourages people to write new articles.  Unless there is an argument that the links do not comply with the guideline, I think the template ought to be removed.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Red links are incredibly useful, IMHO, and are no more distracting than blue links. MPS (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:House of Burgesses


text:
Osedax

Osedax is a genus of deep-sea siboglinid polychaetes, commonly called boneworms, zombie worms, or bone-eating worms. Osedax is Latin for "bone-eater". The name alludes to how the worms bore into the bones of whale carcasses to reach enclosed lipids, on which they rely for sustenance. They utilize specialized root tissues for bone-boring. It is possible that multiple species of Osedax reside in the same bone. Osedax worms are also known to feed on the collagen itself by making holes in the whale's skeletal structure. These holes can also serve as a form of protection from nearby predators.

Scientists from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute using the submarine ROV Tiburon first discovered the genus in Monterey Bay, California, in February 2002. The worms were found living on the bones of a decaying gray whale in the Monterey Canyon, at a depth of 2893 m.

Anatomy and physiology
Osedax are colorful tubeworms that have no mouth, anus, or gut. The body is divided into different regions: trunk, ovisac, and root. They range in length between 2.5 to 7 cm (1 to 3 inches), although this varies between species (cite). Sexual dimorphism is observed in Osedax with females >20,000 times larger than males.

Digestive system
Osedax rely on symbiotic species of bacteria that aid in the digestion of whale proteins and lipids and release nutrients that the worms can absorb. Osedax have colorful feathery plumes that also act as gills and unusual root-like structures that absorb nutrients. The Osedax secrete acid (rather than rely on teeth) to bore into bone to access the nutrients. High concentrations of carbonic anhydrase are found in the roots of Osedax. This serves as evidence of a common bioerosion mechanism in which secreted acid is produced by anaerobic respiration. This process works with a demineralization mechanism in which oxygen is carried from seawater to the roots and HCO$3 −$ is secreted into the seawater.

The epidermis also plays key roles in bone deterioration and nutrient uptake. This process of bone deterioration occurs through a symbiotic relationship with an endosymbiotic bacteria. The cells in the epidermis of the Osedax root region are responsible for the secretion of digestive enzymes. The epidermis also has an expanded microvillus border which increases the surface area.

Through the use of X-ray CT technology, scans showed that borings made by Osedax mucofloris were hemi-ellipsoidal in shape. Boring depths varied depending on which bone was colonized by the O. mucofloris. Deeper borings were found in radius bone compared to the ulna and vertebrae.

Osedax roots are covered by a mucus sheath that helps protect the worm's trunk. Some studies support the theory that this sheath plays a role in dissolving the bone. This sheath could also play an important role in reducing the damage to Osedax skin by absorbing harmful acid. Another potential function of the mucus sheath is that it could inhibit the breakdown of the worm's bone matrix. This is significant because the bone matrix is integral in maintaining the worm's position while in direct contact with a bone.

Sexual dimorphism
Osedax males are notably smaller than their female counterparts. Between 50 and 100 microscopic dwarf males live inside the tube surrounding a single female and never develop past the larval stage and produce sperm. Male dwarfism prevents competition with female Osedax worms for food and space. Conditions that favour dwarfism in male Osedax are:

 * 1) Eliminates competition between male and female Osedax as resources are limited,
 * 2) Sessile lifestyle: attach to and rely on females for food,
 * 3) Decreases difficulty in finding a mate.

Interestingly, Osedax priapus lack the frequently observed sexual size dimorphism, and males have similar size to females. This results in competition for space and food. These male worms are able to produce more sperm. However, sexual size dimorphism is still observed in O. priapus where most males are one-third the volume of females.

Discoveries
Female Osedax worms have been observed spawning both in the wild and in laboratory aquaria. Osedax rubiplumus can spawn hundreds of oocytes at a time. They are already fertilized when they are released from the female worm. The worms' endosymbionts, species of bacteria in the order Oceanospirillales, were not observed in the spawned oocytes, which suggests that they are acquired after the worms settle on the bones. In the adult, the bacteria are localised in the root-like structures that grow into the whale bone. This worm appears to be highly fecund and reproduces continuously. This may help explain why Osedax is such a diverse genus, despite the rarity of whale falls in the ocean.

Male Osedax are microscopic dwarfs that live as "harems" inside the lumen of the gelatinous tube that surrounds each female. An individual female can house hundreds of these males in her tube.

Following its discovery in 2002 by researchers at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, the genus was announced in Science in 2004.

In late 2005, an experiment by Swedish marine biologists resulted in the discovery of a species of the worm in the North Sea off the west coast of Sweden. In the experiment, a minke whale carcass that had been washed ashore had been sunk to a depth of 120 m and monitored for several months. Biologists were surprised to find that, unlike the previous discoveries, the new species, colloquially known as "bone-eating snot flower" after its scientific name (Osedax mucofloris), lived in relatively shallow waters.

In November 2009, researchers reported finding as many as 15 species of boneworms living in Monterey Bay on the California coast.

Sex determination
Annelid sex is typically determined by genetic factors, however models of environmental sex determination have been proposed for Osedax, in which larvae that settle on bones mature into females, while larvae that settle on female Osedax do not fully develop and mature into males. O. japonicus in particular has showcased an environmental form of sex determination.

Life cycle

 * Mature female Osedax worms spawn eggs into the mucus attached to their tubes, where the embryos develop for 3 days.
 * Larvae then begin to swim in the water column. This is called the trochophore stage. The larvae settle on whale bones and begin crawling.
 * During the trocophore stage, male Osedax settle on the tubes of the females, where they are metamorphosed into dwarf males, which can be inside or outside the female tube.
 * 1 day after settling on bones, larvae use two pairs of chaetae to attach to the substrate. Juvenile worms begin to secrete mucus and develop two ventral palps on the dorsal side of the prostomium.
 * 2 days after settling, the palps elongate and the heart starts to beat. The roots attach to the bones begin to digest.
 * 4 days after settling, the trunk and ventral palps elongate, where symbiotic bacteria are detected in the root.
 * 7 days after settlement, pinnules extend from the ventral palps.
 * 10 days post settlement, the juvenile worms have 4 palps with pinnules, an oviduct, and a distinct root system.

Symbiosis
Symbionts are the primary providers of nutrition for Osedax. However, these symbionts also possess genes, secretion systems, and toxins that disrupt the Osedax membrane and facilitate recurrent infections of adult Osedax through the root tips. There is ongoing debate in the literature over whether the symbiosis in Osedax roots is commensal or mutualistic. The symbiotic relationship between Osedax and its accompanying bacteria may be transferred either via vertical or horizontal transmission.

Osedax species use collagen, which is the primary organic component in bone. Collagen is degraded using a family of endopeptidases called matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), which facilitates nutrient absorption by the Osedax. The roots of the Osedax express high amounts of V-ATPase and carbonic anhydrase enzymes, which allows the Osedax to dissolve and absorb collagen and lipids. Once dissolved, the nutrients are either used by the Osedax, or transported to the symbionts for further catabolism.

As the endosymbionts lack secreted M9 peptidase, they rely on the Osedax worm to source extracellular collagen. The symbionts in the Oceanospirillales order have then been observed to further process the collagen using collagenolytic enzymes.

Sequencing of the Osedax worm genome has suggested an evolved dependency on its endosymbionts. This is revealed by genomic streamlining, where increased functional groups were observed despite the loss of some gene families. Six incomplete pathways were discovered in the Osedax worm genome which were supplemented by the endosymbionts. In particular, the Osedax worm lacks specific gene families involved in bone lipid and carbohydrate metabolism. This function is complemented by the Oceanospirillales symbionts, which utilize the glyoxylate cycle to catabolize nutrients from whale bones and convert fatty acids into carbohydrates. The Osedax are then able to take up and store the end products as glycogen. Bacteriocytes are present in the Osedax lower trunk subepidermal connective tissue, and there are additional genes in the bacteriocytes that encode amino acids and glucose and aid in digestion and absorption of proteins into the roots.

Endosymbionts
The Oceanospirillales symbionts are found in the specialized roots of all Osedax species,  and play a major role in accelerating the degradation process of bones, as well as facilitating nutrient uptake for the Osedax. Oceanospirillales are known for their ability to degrade complex organic compounds.

Campylobacterales are abundant along the trunk of the Osedax according to a 2023 study. Different genera in this order are found in Osedax at different points during the whale’s degradation:

 * 1) Members of the Arcobacter genus are the primary early colonizers (<24 months).
 * 2) Sulfurospirillum genus members colonize at ~50 months, during the transitional stages of organic carbon breakdown.
 * 3) The Sulfurimonas genus dominates at >140 months, and are key players in its symbiosis with the Osedax host.

The Sulfurimonas genus in particular protects the Osedax worms from potentially harmful by-products produced at >140 months of the whale fall degradation. The Sulfurimonas bacteria house the type II and IV sulfide:quinone oxidoreductase genes that encode enzymes to oxidize and assimilate sulfide. These reactions prevent the host from absorbing toxic by-products across the epithelial barrier.

Niche
The role of Osedax in the degradation of marine vertebrate remains controversial. Some scientists think that Osedax is a specialist on whalebones while others think that it is more of a generalist. This controversy is due to a biogeographic paradox: despite the rarity and ephemeral nature of whale falls, Osedax has a broad biogeographic range and is surprisingly diverse. One hypothesis advanced to explain this paradox is that Osedax are able to colonize a variety of vertebrate remains besides whalebones. This hypothesis is supported by an experiment involving cow bones suspended above the sea floor. A variety of Osedax species successfully colonized these bones. Osedax have also been observed colonizing terrestrial mammal bones mixed in with galley waste from a surface vessel. Other scientists have countered this hypothesis by pointing out how the cow bone experiment does not match any natural habitat and also the low probability of terrestrial mammal bones arriving at the ocean floor in significant quantities. They also point out other cases of food falls in which the remains disappeared too swiftly for Osedax colonization and the lack of any observed colonization in similar cases. The true role of Osedax in the degradation of marine vertebrate remains is important to marine vertebrate taphonomy. Burrows closely similar to those made by Osedax species have been found in the bones of ancient marine birds and plesiosaurs, suggesting that the genus may once have had a wider range of foods. In a study of the boring morphological diversity of Osedax, it was shown that the species difference of bone-boring is highly variable; within the same species, the boring morphology is only consistent in a particular bone, but not consistent in different bones. It was also suggested that multiple species of Osedax can co-exist in the same bone and in an incomplete spatial niche differentiation.

The function of Osedax and their borings welcome other species such as Stephonyx amphipods, Paralomis crabs, and Rubyspira gastropods. As Osedax worms break down bone and lipid layers, fauna take advantage and colonize these bone matrices. Overall, the borings made by Osedax have shown to enhance biodiversity and the worms should, therefore, be considered ecosystem engineers. The downside of the deterioration caused by Osedax is that it speeds up the process of erosion, therefore only allowing this new fauna their new habitats for a temporary period.

Evolution
The oldest trace fossils on bones characteristic of Osedax are from a plesiosaur humerus from the Cambridge Greensand, England, likely reworked from late Albian (c.2 100 million years old) sediments and a rib and costal plate from a sea turtle found in Cenomanian (100–93 million years ago) aged sediments of the Chalk Group, England. Osedax likely persisted on the bones of sea turtles after the extinction of most large marine reptiles at the end of the Cretaceous. Osedax have the generalist ability to feed on different vertebrates (fishes, marine birds, whale bones).

In terms of evolutionary history research, the Osedax could have had negative impact in preserving fossil record because its appearance at the shelf-depth combined with its ability to efficiently break down marine vertebrates skeletons.

Species
Selected species:
 * Osedax antarcticus Glover, Wiklund & Dahlgren, 2013
 * Osedax braziliensis Fujiwara, Jimi, Sumida, Kawato, Kitazato
 * Osedax bryani Rouse, Goffredi, Johnson & Vrijenhoek
 * Osedax crouchi Amon, Wiklund, Dahlgren, Copley, Smith, Jamieson & Glover, 2014
 * Osedax deceptionensis Taboada, Cristobo, Avila, Wiklund & Glover, 2013
 * Osedax docricketts Rouse, Goffredi, Johnson & Vrijenhoek
 * Osedax frankpressi Rouse, Goffredi & Vrijenhoek, 2004
 * Osedax jabba Rouse, Goffredi, Johnson & Vrijenhoek
 * Osedax japonicus Fujikura, Fujiwara & Kawato, 2006
 * Osedax knutei Rouse, Goffredi, Johnson & Vrijenhoek
 * Osedax lehmani Rouse, Goffredi, Johnson & Vrijenhoek
 * Osedax lonnyi Rouse, Goffredi, Johnson & Vrijenhoek
 * Osedax mucofloris Glover, Kallstrom, Smith & Dahlgren, 2005
 * Osedax nordenskjoeldi Amon, Wiklund, Dahlgren, Copley, Smith, Jamieson & Glover, 2014
 * Osedax priapus Rouse et al., 2014
 * Osedax packardorum Rouse, Goffredi, Johnson & Vrijenhoek
 * Osedax randyi Rouse, Goffredi, Johnson & Vrijenhoek
 * Osedax rogersi Amon, Wiklund, Dahlgren, Copley, Smith, Jamieson & Glover, 2014
 * Osedax roseus Rouse, Worsaae, Johnson, Jones & Vrijenhoek, 2008
 * Osedax rubiplumus Rouse, Goffredi & Vrijenhoek, 2004
 * Osedax ryderi Rouse, Goffredi, Johnson & Vrijenhoek
 * Osedax sigridae Rouse, Goffredi, Johnson & Vrijenhoek
 * Osedax talkovici Rouse, Goffredi, Johnson & Vrijenhoek
 * Osedax tiburon Rouse, Goffredi, Johnson & Vrijenhoek
 * Osedax ventana Rouse, Goffredi, Johnson & Vrijenhoek
 * Osedax westernflyer Rouse, Goffredi, Johnson & Vrijenhoek

title: Osedax


text:
Swarm (disambiguation)

A swarm is a group of animals that aggregate and travel in the same direction.

Swarm or swarming may also refer to:

Biology

 * Swarming motility, a type of bacterial motility
 * Swarming (honey bee), the natural means of reproduction of honey bee colonies
 * Swarm behaviour, examples and mathematical models

Technology and computing

 * Swarm (app), a mobile app by Foursquare
 * Roccat Swarm, a software by Roccat
 * Swarm intelligence, artificial intelligence technique
 * Swarm robotics, approach to the coordination of multirobot systems
 * Swarm (ESA mission), a European Space Agency satellite mission to measure Earth's magnetic field
 * Swarm (simulation), multi-agent simulation package
 * SWARM, a remote weapon system
 * Swarming (military), an approach of using "pulses" of converging combat agents onto a target
 * Docker (software), software to provide clustering functionality for Docker containers
 * Swarm Technologies Inc. Building a LEO satellite constellation for Internet-Of-Things (IOT) device communications.

Character

 * Swarm (comics), Marvel Comics supervillain
 * Swarm (Transformers), Transformer character
 * Swarm, the name of an Air-element character in Skylanders: Giants

Literature

 * "Swarm" (novelette), a 1982 science fiction novelette written by Bruce Sterling
 * The Swarm (Schätzing novel), a 2004 science fiction novel by Frank Schätzing
 * The Swarm (Card and Johnston novel), a 2016 science fiction novel by Orson Scott Card and Aaron Johnston

Film and television

 * The Swarm (1978 film), a 1978 disaster film about a killer bee invasion
 * Destination: Infestation, a 2007 TV film released on DVD as Swarm or Deadly Swarm
 * The Swarm (2020 film), French horror film about locusts
 * Swarm (TV series), a 2023 Amazon Prime Video horror-thriller series
 * The Swarm (TV series), a 2023 European Alliance co-produced TV series

Game

 * Swarm (1998 video game), for IBM PC compatibles
 * Swarm (2011 video game), for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3

Music

 * "Swarm", a song by Badmarsh & Shri from the album Signs

Other

 * Earthquake swarm, a series of earthquakes in one area
 * Georgia Swarm, a box lacrosse team in the National Lacrosse League
 * Swarm (spirit organization), a spirit organization for the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets
 * Swarm Development Group, an American non-profit organization
 * Swarm Peak, a rock peak in the Ford Ranges, Marie Byrd Land, Antarctica
 * Swarm!, an album by Torture Killer

title: Swarm (disambiguation)