text:
Ostanes

Ostanes (from Greek Ὀστάνης), also spelled Hostanes and Osthanes, is a legendary Persian magus and alchemist. It was the pen-name used by several pseudo-anonymous authors of Greek and Latin works from Hellenistic period onwards. Together with Pseudo-Zoroaster and Pseudo-Hystaspes, Ostanes belongs to the group of pseudepigraphical "Hellenistic Magians", that is, a long line of Greek and other Hellenistic writers who wrote under the name of famous "Magians". While Pseudo-Zoroaster was identified as the "inventor" of astrology, and Pseudo-Hystaspes was stereotyped as an apocalyptic prophet, Ostanes was imagined to be a master sorcerer.

Real Ostanes?
Unlike "Zoroaster" and "Hystaspes", which have well attested Iranian language counterparts, for "Ostanes" there is "no evidence of a figure of a similar name in Iranian tradition." In the Encyclopædia Iranica entry for Ostanes, Morton Smith cites Justi's Namensbuch for instances of the name which refer to real persons. Smith: "Which [of these references to] Ostanes (...), if any, gave rise to the legend of the magus is uncertain."

Smith goes on to reconstruct the Old Iranian name as *(H)uštāna. The Justi entries that Smith alludes to are: Diodorus 17.5.5 and Plutarch Artax. 1.1.5 (cit. Ktesias) for Ὀστάνης as the name of one of the sons of Darius Nothos, and a mention in Arrian (An. 4.22) of a certain Αὐστάνης of Paraetakene, north-east of Bactria, who was captured by Alexander's general Krateros and then taken to India. Arrian's Αὐστάνης is Haustanes in Curtius 8.5. Ktesias names 'Άρτόστης' as the son of Darius Nothus, and Justi suggests that Plutarch confused Artostes as Ostanes.

Pseudo-Ostanes
The origins of the figure of "Ostanes", or rather, who the Greeks imagined him to be, lies within the framework of "alien wisdom" that the Greeks (and later Romans) ascribed to famous foreigners, many of whom were famous to the Greeks even before being co-opted as authors of arcana. One of these names was that of (pseudo-)Zoroaster, whom the Greeks perceived to be the founder of the magi and of their magical arts. Another name was that of (pseudo-) Hystaspes, Zoroaster's patron. The third of les Mages hellénisés was Ostanes, imaginatively described by the 4th century BCE Hermodorus (apud Diogenes Laërtius Prooemium 2) as being a magus in the long line of magi descending from Zoroaster.

Once the magi had been associated with "magic"—Greek magikos—it was but a natural progression that the Greek's image of Zoroaster would metamorphose into a magician too. The 1st century CE Pliny the Elder names "Zoroaster" as the inventor of magic (Natural History XXX .2.3), but a "principle of the division of labor appears to have spared Zoroaster most of the responsibility for introducing the dark arts to the Greek and Roman worlds. That dubious honor went to another fabulous magus, Ostanes, to whom most of the pseudepigraphic magical literature was attributed." Thus, while "universal consensus"—so the skeptical Pliny—was that magic began with (pseudo-)Zoroaster (xxx.2.3), as far as Pliny says he could determine, "Ostanes" was the first extant writer of it (xxx.2.8).

This 'Ostanes', so Pliny states, was a Persian magus who had accompanied Xerxes in his invasion of Greece, and who had then introduced magicis, the "most fraudulent of the arts", to that country. But the figure of Ostanes was such that Pliny felt "it necessary to supplement his history with doppelgangers"; so, not only does Ostanes appear as a contemporary of the early 5th century BCE Xerxes, but he is also contemporary with—and companion of—the late 4th century BCE Alexander. Pliny goes on to note that Ostanes's introduction of the "monstrous craft" to the Greeks gave those people not only a "lust" (aviditatem) for magic, but a downright "madness" (rabiem) for it, and many of their philosophers, such as Pythagoras, Empedocles, Democritus, and Plato traveled abroad to study it, and then returned to teach it.(xxx.2.8-10).

Pliny also transmits Ostanes's definition of magic: "As Ostanes said, there are several different kinds of it; he professes to divine (divina promittit) from water, globes, air, stars, lamps, basins and axes, and by many other methods, and besides to converse with ghosts and those in the underworld" (xxx.2.8-10). By the end of the 1st century CE, "Ostanes" is cited as an authority on alchemy, necromancy, divination, and on the mystical properties of plants and stones. Both his legend and literary output attributed to him increased with time, and by the 4th century "he had become one of the great authorities in alchemy" and "much medieval alchemical material circulated under his name."

This "authority" continued in Arabic and Persian alchemical literature, such as an Arabic treatise titled Kitab al-Fusul al-ithnay ‘ashar fi 'ilm al-hajar al-mukarram (The Book of the Twelve Chapters on the Honourable Stone).

title: Ostanes


text:
1982 Northwest Territories division plebiscite

The Northwest Territories division plebiscite was a stand-alone, territory-wide plebiscite conducted on April 14, 1982. This was the first territory-wide plebiscite conducted in Northwest Territories history. The results of the plebiscite would eventually lead to the creation of Nunavut, and spawn three other plebiscites during the creation process of the new territory.

Background
The question was a culmination of nearly twenty-five years of debate at the federal and territorial level of government. A bill was tabled in the House of Commons that would have divided the territory in 1963, but it died on the order paper. In 1966 the Carrothers Commission released a report that stated division of the Northwest Territories was not in the best interests of the Territories for the short term.

In the 1967 election a council was elected that was generally opposed to the division. In the late 1970s and in the 1980s a number of proposals were made on how to divide up the territory, and the question was finally put to the voters.

Results
"Do you think the Northwest Territories should be divided?"

Aftermath
In the aftermath of the referendum, the Legislative assembly agreed to accept the results, and the Federal government agreed on the following conditions: continued support from the electorate; all parties would agree on a new boundary, all parties would agree on the division of powers between all levels of government, and the settlement of land claims.

This would happen seventeen years later when Nunavut was carved out of the Northwest Territories.

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


text:
WWF Jakked/Metal

WWF Jakked and WWF Metal are American professional wrestling television programs that were produced by the World Wrestling Federation (WWF, now known as WWE). Both programs aired in broadcast syndication weekly from August 28, 1999 until May 19, 2002 and replaced WWF Shotgun Saturday Night. Originally produced under the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) banner, they were replaced by the similarly formatted WWE Bottom Line and WWE Afterburn in syndication.

History
Jakked aired on Saturday nights while Metal aired in the afternoon. Both shows featured matches from the week's events, including exclusive undercard matches taped before Raw is War. As a result of the WWE Brand Extension, from April 2002 until the discontinuation of Jakked and Metal in May of that year (by which the shows were now named WWE Jakked and WWE Metal per the name change that month), both shows began to feature matches from the SmackDown brand; as such, it was taped before SmackDown tapings. In late May, WWE Velocity premiered and began to serve a similar purpose for the SmackDown brand, while Heat (originally taped before SmackDown!) remained part of the Raw brand.

Metal aired in the United Kingdom on Sky1 until also being replaced by WWE After Burn in May 2002.

Jakked and Metal were hosted by many commentators and interviewers. Frequent commentators and hosts included Michael Cole, Kevin Kelly, Tom Prichard, Jonathan Coachman, Chris Leary, Marc Lloyd, Terry Taylor and Al Snow.

title: WWF Jakked/Metal


text:
Best of The Doobies

Best of The Doobies is the first greatest hits album by the Doobie Brothers. The album has material from Toulouse Street through Takin' It to the Streets, and is also a diamond record. The album was released by Warner Bros. Records on October 29, 1976, and has been re-released numerous times.

The Doobie Brothers

 * Tom Johnston – lead (1–2, 4, 6, 10–11) and backing vocals, guitars, harmonica (2)
 * Patrick Simmons – lead (4–5, 7, 9) and backing vocals, guitars, banjo (4), ARP synthesizer (9)
 * Jeff "Skunk" Baxter – guitars, pedal steel guitar (9)
 * Michael McDonald – lead (3, 8) and backing vocals, keyboards, synthesizer (8)
 * Tiran Porter – backing vocals, bass guitar
 * John Hartman – drums, percussion
 * Michael Hossack – drums, percussion
 * Keith Knudsen – backing vocals, drums, percussion

Additional personnel

 * Bill Payne – piano (1, 6, 9–10), organ (7, 11)
 * Jesse Butler – organ (3)
 * Malcolm Cecil – ARP synthesizer programming (9)
 * Robert Margouleff – ARP synthesizer programming (9)
 * Ted Templeman – backing vocals (11), percussion
 * Bobby LaKind – congas (3)
 * Milt Holland – vibraphone (5)
 * Bobbye Hall – congas (10)
 * The Memphis Horns – horns (3)
 * Novi Novog – viola (5)
 * Sherlie Matthews – backing vocals (10)
 * Venetta Fields – backing vocals (10)
 * Jessie Smith – backing vocals (10)
 * Nick DeCaro – string arrangement (9)
 * Paul Riser – string and horn arrangements (10)

title: Best of The Doobies


text:
United States v. American Trucking Ass'ns

United States v. American Trucking Associations, 310 U.S. 534 (1940), was a landmark United States Supreme Court in which the court held the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 did not permit federal agencies to regulate employees whose duties did not affect safety and operation.

Background
The American Trucking Associations (ATA) filed suit to compel the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to regulate all employees of trucking industries, rather than simply those whose job affects safety. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) included an exemption to employees regulated by the ICC under the Motor Carrier Act of 1935. The ATA sought a ruling compelling the ICC to recognize all trucking employees as within its power to regulate, as such employees would then be exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA.

Opinion of the Court
The court decided that ICC's interpretation of the statute, which limited its power only to those employees who affect safety, was correct.


text:
Antonio Marziale Carracci

Antonio Marziale Carracci (1583 – 8 April 1618) was an Italian painter. He was the natural son of Agostino Carracci.

Life

Carracci was born in the parish of Sta Lucia in Venice, probably in 1583, the product of an affair with a courtesan called Isabella, occurring on his father's first visit to Venice. Giovanni Battista Agucchi, a friend and protégé of Cardinal Odoardo Farnese tells us in a 1609 letter, raised along with Sisto Badalocchio and a near contemporary to Domenichino and Lanfranco. The main Baroque artist biographers of his time, Baglione, Bellori and Malvasia, make some note of him.

He first apprenticed with his father. Malvasia recalls his father admired a ‘’Madonna and Child’’ that completed at the age of seventeen. Annibale’s 1590s portrait of a boy resembles those in Malvasia’s woodcut with 1678 ‘’’Felsina Pittrice’’’. He may also be the boy in the Brera portrait group, including Annibale’s father Mastro Antonio.

When his father died in 1602, Antonio moved to Rome to work under his uncle Annibale to whom he developed a deep affection. He likely worked on the frescoes of the Galleria Farnese, on the lunettes for the Palazzo Aldobrandini chapel, and probably in the Herrera Chapel. After his uncle’s passing he received commissions in Rome from Cardinal Tonti and Cardinal Peretti-Montalto, including the ‘’Stanza del Diluvio’’ in the Quirinal Palace, and major altarpieces like ‘’Madonna and Child with Saints’’ (in Berlin) and the Galleria Corsini's ‘’Nativity’’.

The self-assurance of the letters he wrote to Cardinal Farnese and his father’s old protector, Cardinal Spinola, after his uncle’s death suggest they were written by Agucchi, who in his slightly later (September 12, 1609) letter to Dulcini all about Antonio, speaks of a career that is already well begun. Malvasia misquotes this letter and copies it as  ‘[Antonio’s work] seems that of a beginner’ the MS actually says the opposite ‘il suo fare non pare da principiante’. It is no surprise to see that Antonio speaks of the impegni that he already has, to read that he has learned enough ‘tanto da tirarmi avanti da me stesso’, and that he sees himself as maintaining the Carracci school in Bologna, and turning the studio to service to the Farnese ‘in essa scuola, procurerò che s’avanzino in essa per dovere indirizzare l’opera l’oro al servizio di V.S. Ill.ma...’

Antonio inherited the studio against the claims of Annibale’s surviving brother Giovanni Antonio, who contested the inheritance by throwing doubt on his nephew’s paternity. Despite gaining commissions, those from the Cardinal Pietro Aldobrandini, the main patron after the Farnese, declined once the cardinal's uncle Clement VIII died in 1605. This also coincides with the onset of Annibale’s incapacitating illness. The ascent of the Borghese Pope, Paul V, continued the decline of the studio. By report, Annibale could not receive Cardinal Scipione Borghese, slipping out of a back door when he came to the studio; but Antonio was introduced to the pope's Prodatario, Cardinal Tonti, also an avid collector. Tonti employed Antonio to paint four chapels in his church; other public commissions included a chapel in Santa Maria in Monticelli, work in Sant' Girolamo dei Schiavoni, Santa Maria in Trastevere, and Sant' Sebastiano fuori le Mura, and in Palazzo Mattei. Antonio and Guido Reni collaborated in the decoration of the Cappella dell’ Annunciata in the Palazzo Quirinal, painting a frieze of the Stanza del Diluvio. He contributed, around 1616, to the Alexander frescoes done for Cardinal Peretti Montalto; other works were done for Marchese Giustiniani, Cardinal Orsino, the Ludovisi, Cavalier Sachetti, Dionigio Buonavia in Bologna; and of course he was under the protection of Cardinal Odoardo Farnese, who recognized him as his ‘pittor di casa’ and paid him a monthly stipend.

Antonio was well known for doing cabinet-size compositions often based on the great variety of graphic material in possession of the Carracci studio. His masterpiece, The Deluge was one of Cardinal Mazarin’s most prized pictures, and influential for Poussin’s early Battle paintings as well as his paintings of the Seasons for Louis XIV 40 years later. With his Reni-like refinement, articulation of narrative, space, gesture and expression, the Deluge was an important academic collaboration with Agucchi.

Antonio was greatly admired by contemporaries, such that made his early death a particularly tragic loss "nel morire che seguì nel 1618 mostrò tal contritione e sentimento che simil passaggi si vedono in pochi". Recently, his reputation has declined, and he has been described as a small-scale and awkward mimic of his elder's works. His friend Giulio Mancini said he not only inherited Annibale’s studio, but also "Herede dei suoi disegni et arte fù Antonio...". Antonio, being as Guido put it, the ‘ultima scintilla (del) valor Caraccesco’ had in fact more invested in the Carracci studio than anyone else.

The original of the much copied composition of the Martyrdom of St Denis (‘St Denis effrayant ses bourreaux’) is evidently by Antonio, and the companion subject to his St Paul baptizing St Denis.

It was not an idle encomium on Mancini’s part when he spoke that Antonio ‘mostrò gran segni di dover venir grande’. All the same, it was easy for his identity to be subsumed to that of elder Carracci. Because he shared the same initials as his father and uncle, and because the Carracci often collaborated, paintings by them were often confused. When Padre Resta gave the drawing of the Deluge, which he had had from Bellori, to Max Emmanuel of Bavaria, he was pleased to hear that the Elector treasured the gift and kept it on a table at his bedside; but ‘lo teneva per pittura d’Annibale’.

List of works (selection)

 * The Flood  (Louvre)
 * Latona, with her children Apollo and Diana, turning the Lycian peasants into frogs Whitfield Fine Art, London
 * Landscape with Bathers  Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
 * The Martyrdom of Saint Stephen  National Gallery, London
 * Christ healing a blind man (Modena)
 * Lute Player (Modena)

title: Antonio Marziale Carracci


text:
Talk:WWF Jakked/Metal

WWF Heat was NOT similar to WWF Jakked The description makes it sound like Heat was in similar fashion to Jakked, it wasn't, it was its own unique show, i.e. it had its own content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcramarc (talk • contribs) 11:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So did Jakked, in that they both featured lower card matches taped for the show before the main shows went on the air earlier in the week, the only major difference being that Jakked aired in syndication and so was considered even lower on the pecking order. (Metal was just the same matches as Jakked with different announcers and highlight packages for slightly "cleaner" content if that's what the station carrying the program wanted, especially if it aired in earlier time slots.) oknazevad (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:WWF Jakked/Metal


text:
LAV-25

The LAV-25 (Light Armored Vehicle) is a member of the LAV II family. It is an eight-wheeled amphibious armored reconnaissance vehicle built by General Dynamics Land Systems and used by the United States Marine Corps and the United States Army.

History
During the 1980s, the U.S. Marine Corps began looking for a light armored vehicle (LAV) to give their divisions greater mobility.

In April 1981, the United States Department of Defense opened submissions to the LAV program. Three contractors were downselected.

 * Alvis – A Scorpion 90 and a three Scorpion APCs.
 * Cadillac Gage – A V-150S (a stretched V-150 Cadillac Gage Commando) and a V-300.
 * General Motors of Canada (General Motors Diesel) – a license-built copy of the Mowag Piranha 8×8

The Marine Corps evaluated the three LAV submissions. In September 1982, the General Motors submission was selected. GM was awarded initial production contract for 969 LAVs. The Army type designated the 25 mm gun variant as the M1047. The Army sought 2,350 of the 12.7 mm (.50) caliber-armed light squad carrier variant, and at one point was expected to be the LAV's biggest buyer. Congress canceled funds for the LAV-25, causing the Army to drop out of the program. The Marine Corps managed to secure enough funding to buy 758 LAVs in six variants.

The LAV entered service with the Marines in 1983. The Army borrowed at least a dozen LAV-25s for use by the 82nd Airborne Division, 3 squadron-73rd Armor for a scout platoon during the Gulf War. These LAV-25s were returned to the Marine Corps after the conflict. The USMC ordered 758 vehicles of all variants. LAVs first saw combat during the invasion of Panama in 1989 and continued service in the Persian Gulf War, Iraq War, and the War in Afghanistan.

The table of organization and equipment for a USMC light-armored reconnaissance battalion includes 56 LAV-25s, 16 LAV-ATs, 12 LAV-Ls, 8 LAV-Ms, 4 LAV-Rs, 4 LAV-C2s, and an unknown number of LAV-MEWSS vehicles.

Replacement
The LAV platform is planned to remain in service with the Marine Corps until 2035. The Marines aimed to have prototypes for the LAV's replacement, dubbed the Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle (ARV), by 2023. The ARV was initially planned to be a networked family of wheeled vehicles capable of performing various mission sets, with 500 to be procured.

In April 2021, the Marines revealed they had shifted focus to new capabilities for performing reconnaissance rather than specific types of platforms, and that the LAV-25 replacement may not be a new armored vehicle. Nevertheless, proposals for Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicle prototypes were due in May 2021; requirements were for a vehicle with a tethered unmanned aircraft system (UAS) and an open architecture approach allowing for integration of capabilities including battle management systems and communications suites, weighing less than 18.5 tons and being small enough to fit four on a Ship-to-Shore Connector. Vendors that submitted proposals include General Dynamics Land Systems, Textron, and BAE Systems. The Marine Corps plans to make up to three awards for ARV prototypes for testing and evaluation, then choose up to two to continue into a competitive engineering and manufacturing development phase in 2024, after which a decision will be made as to whether production will be pursued.

Textron and GDLS were awarded Other Transaction Authority (OTA) contracts in July 2021 for prototypes to be built and evaluated over the next two years. BAE Systems will also participate in a separate technical study to see if a variant of its Amphibious Combat Vehicle can meet ARV requirements.

There are planned to be six ARV variants: command, control, communications and computers-unmanned aerial system (C4/UAS); organic precision fire-mounted; counter-UAS; 30 mm autocannon and ATGM; logistics; and recovery.

Design
Developed from the AVGP family built by General Dynamics Land Systems, the LAV-25 is powered by a 6V53T Detroit Diesel turbo-charged engine, they are four-wheel drive (rear wheels) transferable to Eight-wheel drive. These vehicles are also amphibious, meaning they have the ability to "swim" but are limited to non-surf bodies of water (no oceans). While engaged in amphibious operations, the maximum speed is approximately 12 km/h using equipped propellers. The current Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) modifications will hinder or eliminate amphibious operations.

Typical land speeds are approximately 100 km/h (62.5 mph) in either 4- or 8-wheel drive; however, fuel economy decreases in 8-wheel drive. The vehicles operate on diesel fuel. They are equipped with a 25 mm M242 Bushmaster autocannon, two 7.62 mm  M240 machine guns, and two four-barrel smoke grenade launchers located on the forward left and right sides of the turret. The crew is three; vehicle commander, gunner, and driver; and four passengers (scouts) with combat gear.

Armor
The LAV-25 is a lightly armored vehicle. The base model is protected by light gauge high hardness steel armor (MIL-A-46100), varying in nominal thickness from 4.71 mm to 9.71 mm. This level of high-hardness steel armor is intended only to offer protection against small arms rounds such as the common 7.62x39mm M1943 ball used by Kalashnikov rifles such as the AKM, to achieve the lowest possible weight and cost.

LAV-25
The standard LAV is fitted with a turret with 360° traverse, armed with an M242 25 mm chain gun with 420 rounds of 25 mm ammunition, both M791 APDS-T (Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot-Tracer) and M792 HEI-T (High Explosive Incendiary-Tracer), of which half is ready for use. 150 rounds are ready for use from one stowage bin, 60 from another stowage bin, the other 210 rounds are stowed elsewhere in the vehicle. A coaxial M240C machine gun is mounted alongside the M242, and a pintle-mounted M240B/G machine gun, with 1,320 rounds of 7.62 mm ammunition, is mounted on the turret roof. The Canadian Army uses an upgraded version of this chassis for its Coyote Armoured Reconnaissance Vehicle.

LAV-25A1
The vehicle has been through many changes through the late 1990s. The new modification or SLEP has changed the LAV-25 to the LAV-25A1 standard and has been completely fielded.

LAV-25A2
Funding has been approved for continued upgrades to the LAV family to bring them up to the LAV-A2 standard. Phase I improvements include increased external and internal ballistic armor upgrades, improved fire suppression equipment, and upgrading the vehicle's suspension to the Generation II standard. Phase II upgrades include replacing the turret hydraulics with an electric drive system and replacing the thermal sight with an improved model incorporating a laser range finder for aircraft.

To reflect the improved significant survivability and capability enhancements occurring today, the LAV is being renamed as the LAV-A2. The LAV-A2 project involved developing and installing an internal and external ballistic protection upgrade package, developed by Armatec Survivability, for the Light Armored Vehicles, an automatic fire suppression system for the interior of the vehicle and a Generation II suspension upgrade to support the added weight of the new armor. The suspension upgrade includes new struts/steering knuckles, torsion bars, shocks and mounts and driveshaft. The three-kit armor system provides the LAV with additional survivability against improvised explosive devices (IED) and direct-fire kinetic energy weapons.

The LAV-25A2 includes the Improved Thermal Sight System (ITSS) developed by Raytheon. The ITSS provides the gunner and commander with thermal images, an eye-safe laser range finder, a fire-control solution and far-target location target grid information.

The new armor will provide protection from 14.5 mm armor-piercing rounds, and include an anti-spall lining on the inside to further protect crew members. It will be similar to the protection found on the U.S. Army's LAV III "Stryker" variant.

Tests by the U.S. Army's Operational Test Command (OTC), Airborne and Special Operations Test Directorate at Fort Bragg demonstrated that the LAV-25A2 could be airdropped from transport aircraft, a capability of interest to Army airborne units. In October 2018, Alpha Company, 4th Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 82nd Airborne Division was activated and equipped with ex-USMC LAV-25A2s for test and evaluation; the unit was deactivated in September 2020 differing to wait for the creation of the U.S. Army's Mobile Protected Firepower units planned for 2025/2026.

LAV-25A3
In January 2019, General Dynamics was awarded a $37.2 million contract to upgrade the Marine Corps' LAV fleet. Designated the LAV A3, upgrades include improvements to the powerpack to improve reliability, cooling capacity, diagnostics, and fuel economy, a new drivetrain for improved towing capability, a steering dampener to improve road feel and usability, and a digitized drivers' instrument panel. The initial contract was for 60 hardware kits which are planned for installation by 2021.

Derivatives
Five variants of the LAV-25 were originally envisioned. Only six were initially production ready. Other than the LAV-25, these were:
 * LAV-AT (Anti-Tank)
 * LAV fitted with an Emerson 901A1 TOW-2 anti-tank guided missile launcher, the same turret that was fitted on the M901 ITV. It is also armed with a pintle-mounted M240E1 or M240B general-purpose machine gun. It carries a total of 16 TOW missiles and 1,000 rounds of 7.62 mm ammunition.
 * LAV-ATM (Modernization) replaces the Emerson turret with the modified target acquisition system turret. Improvements include always being in the up position to scan and track while moving and a more reliable digital design. The turret is also unmanned, can fire both wire-guided and radio frequency TOW missiles, has an improved thermal sight, far target location system, new commander/gunner video sight displays, and an electric elevation and azimuth drive system to rotate the system onto target.

 * LAV-M (Mortar)
 * LAV fitted with opening doors on the top, inside it is fitted with an 81 mm M252 mortar, with 360° traverse, and a pintle-mounted M240E1 machine gun. It carries 99 81 mm mortar shells, and 1,000 rounds of 7.62 mm ammunition.
 * In June 2021, the Marine Corps selected the UVision Hero-120 loitering munition to be integrated onto the LAV-M, as well as other platforms, under the Organic Precision Fire Mounted (OPF-M) effort to enable them to employ a mid-range, anti-armor weapon system. The multi-canister launcher (MCL) mounted on the LAV-M can hold eight munitions.

 * LAV-R (Recovery)
 * LAV fitted with a boom crane, and recovery winch, for use in recovery of vehicles, specifically other LAVs. It is armed with a pintle-mounted M240E1/G machine gun, and carries 1,000 rounds of 7.62 mm ammunition.

 * LAV-C2 (Command & Control)
 * LAV with a raised roof to accommodate several VHF, UHF and HF radios. It is armed with a pintle-mounted M240E1/G machine gun, and carries 1,000 rounds of 7.62 mm ammunition. Generally referred to as the C2 ("C-square" or "C-two").

 * LAV-LOG (Logistics)
 * LAV for use in a logistics role (e.g., cargo transport).

Development continued with two other variants:
 * LAV-AD 1999 firing DM-SD-00-02951.JPEG LAV-AD (Air Defense)
 * LAV fitted with an electric turret mounting a General Dynamics GAU-12 Equalizer 25 mm (0.984 in) 5-barreled Gatling cannon, and two missile pods each with 4 FIM-92 Stinger missiles for short range air defense duties. Capacity for 990 rounds of 25 mm ammunition, and 16 (including 8 reload rounds) FIM-92 Stinger missiles. A variant using the Mistral missile in place of Stingers was developed for the export market.

 * LAV-AG (Assault Gun) In 1987, General Motors tested an EX35 105 mm gun on a LAV chassis. In June 1990, the Marine Corps awarded Cadillac Gage Textron a contract to provide three LAVs, designated the LAV-105, with the EX35 gun. This project was canceled in 1991 due to a lack of funds. However, funding was restored by Congress under the stipulation that the Army and Marine Corps integrate the turret and gun of the LAV-105 with the Armored Gun System chassis. Amid concerns about the potential mismatch between the two components, Congress later nixed this requirement. The Marine Corps revived the LAV-105 in 1993. None were ultimately ordered, though the vehicle did perform well during testing.

Other variants:
 * LAV-MEWSS (Mobile Electronic Warfare Support System)
 * LAV modified for use in an electronic warfare role. Specific details of this variant are classified.

 * LAV-EFSS (Expeditionary Fire Support System)
 * Proposed replacement for LAV-M, LAV fitted with provisions to use Dragon Fire, a 120 mm recoil mortar system.

An unknown variant is used by at least one civilian law enforcement agency.

Operators
🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia 🇺🇸 United States
 * Saudi Arabian National Guard
 * United States Army used by 82nd Airborne Division
 * United States Marine Corps

title: LAV-25


text:
User:Arkuat/Taxonomy

Please browse the many articles that our Wikipedia has about the various taxa of living organisms!

The sorting order of these lists tries to follow the principle of most-familiar-first. Whenever a list of obscure taxa needs to be sorted, we try to follow the principle of listing the taxa in order of first published description. This last principle can be tricky too, and since we don't have access to all the relevant information about dates of first public description, many of the sublists in this outline are in semirandom order.

The names of phyla and divisions (equivalent taxonomical levels reflecting differences of nomenclature between zoologists and botanists) are in bold text.

Domain Eucarya
The eukaryote regna are sorted this way to reflect the idea that animals and fungi are closely related to the opisthokont group of protists, and the plants are related to another group of protists. Protists are the paraphyletic subtaxon of eukaryotes. So yes, plants are much more familiar than protists and were discovered earlier.

Deuterostomes

 * Chordata (Subphylum Vertebrata of this phylum is divided into eleven or twelve classes, and there are also some other subphyla of chordates.)
 * Mammalia
 * Aves (birds, but see below)
 * Discussion of birds and reptiles needs thorough rewriting.
 * Sauropsida (Reptiles are a paraphyletic group. See also ichthyosaur.)
 * Chelonia (turtles, tortoises, and terrapins)
 * Sauropterygia (plesiosaurs et al., extinct. Note: many other extinct groups not listed here.)
 * Lepidosauria
 * Squamata (lizards, snakes, and amphisbaenians)
 * Sphenodontia (tuataras)
 * Archosauria
 * Crurotarsi (crocodilians and others)
 * Ornithodira (dinosaurs (including birds), pterosaurs etc.)
 * Amphibia
 * Anura (frogs and toads)
 * Caudata AKA Urodela (salamanders and newts)
 * Gymnophiona AKA Apoda (caecilians)
 * Actinopterygii (ray-finned fishes, one kind of bony fish)
 * Teleostei, the typical vertebrates (20,000 species extant, and far and away the most vertebrate biomass)
 * Chondrostei, e. g. sturgeons etc.
 * Holostei, e. g. gars and bowfins
 * Dipnoi (lungfishes, one kind of lobe-finned fish)
 * Actinistia (coelacanths, the other kind of lobe-finned fish)
 * Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes with jaws)
 * Elasmobranchs (sharks, skates, rays, etc)
 * Holocephali (chimaeras)
 * Placodermi (extinct)
 * Acanthodii (extinct)
 * Hyperoartia (lampreys are tasty)
 * Myxini (hagfishes, oft accused of being a craniate but invertebrate class)
 * Tunicata - tunicates, an invertebrate subphylum (FKA urochordates: filter feeders)
 * Ascidiacea (AKA sea squirts, which are sessile)
 * Thaliacea (including the magnificent pelagic salps)
 * Larvacea (also pelagic like the salps, not sessile)
 * Cephalochordata - lancelets (AKA amphioxus), an invertebrate subphylum
 * Echinodermata (one kind of ambulacrarian)
 * Asteroidea (sea stars and sea daisies)
 * Echinoidea (sea urchins, sand dollars)
 * Holothuroidea (sea cucumbers (sessile), and the gorgeous pelagic Enypniastes)
 * Ophiuroidea (brittle stars, basket stars)
 * Crinoidea (sea lilies, feather stars)
 * Hemichordata (also ambulacrarian: acorn worms, pterobranchs, and possibly graptolites)
 * Whatever happened to Xenoturbella?
 * Chaetognatha (arrow worms, possibly protostome and ecdysozoan)

Ecdysozoans

 * Arthropoda
 * Subphylum Hexapoda
 * Insecta (as of late 2017, the Pterygota article has a discussion of infraclasses and superorders, but here the insect orders are listed more or less randomly)
 * Dicondylia (most insects: all but two of these are neopteran orders)
 * Hymenoptera (bees, wasps and ants)
 * Coleoptera (beetles)
 * Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies)
 * Odonata (dragonflies, a paleopteran order)
 * Ephemeroptera (mayflies, a paleopteran order)
 * Isoptera (termites)
 * Diptera (flies)
 * Mantodea (mantises)
 * Phasmatodea (stick insects)
 * Caelifera (grasshoppers)
 * Ensifera (crickets, etc.)
 * Hemiptera (cicadas, aphids, etc.)
 * Dermaptera (earwigs)
 * Blattodea (cockroaches)
 * Zygentoma (silverfish, the only wingless order of dicondyle insect)
 * Siphonaptera (fleas)
 * Hemiptera (true bugs)
 * Phthiraptera (lice)
 * Psocoptera (booklice)
 * Plecoptera (stoneflies)
 * Embioptera (webspinners)
 * Notoptera (rockcrawlers)
 * Zoraptera (angel insects)
 * Thysanoptera (thrips)
 * Raphidioptera (snakeflies)
 * Megaloptera (alderflies, dobsonflies, fishflies, etc.)
 * Neuroptera (lacewings, etc.)
 * Strepsiptera (twisted-wing parasites)
 * Trichoptera (caddisflies)
 * Mecoptera (scorpion-flies)
 * Archaeognatha (jumping bristletails: wingless non-dicondyle insects)
 * Entognatha (springtails, diplurans, and proturans: wingless hexapods, and technically not insects)
 * Subphylum Crustacea
 * Malacostraca (decapods, isopods, amphipods, etc.)
 * Branchiopoda (sea-monkeys, brine shrimp, etc)
 * Ostracoda
 * Remipedia
 * Cephalocarida
 * Maxillopoda
 * Thecostraca (barnacles etc.)
 * Copepoda
 * Mystacocarida
 * Branchiura
 * Tantulocarida
 * Subphylum Chelicerata
 * Arachnida (spiders, scorpions, harvestmen, ticks, mites, etc.)
 * Xiphosura (horseshoe crabs)
 * Pycnogonida (sea spiders, possibly not chelicerate)
 * Eurypterida (extinct like the trilobites)
 * Subphylum Myriapoda
 * Chilopoda (centipedes)
 * Diplopoda (millipedes)
 * Pauropoda
 * Symphyla
 * Subphylum Trilobita (extinct)
 * Tardigrada (water bears, grouped as panarthropoda)
 * Onychophora (velvet worms, also grouped as panarthropoda)
 * Nematoda (the nearly ubiquitous roundworms)
 * Adenophorea
 * Secernentea
 * Nematomorpha (horsehair worms)
 * Scalidophora (polyphyletic; see (extinct) Markuelia)
 * Priapulida (penis worms)
 * Kinorhyncha (mud dragons)
 * Loricifera

Lophotrochozoans

 * Trochozoa
 * Mollusca are divided into eight classes
 * Gastropoda (snails, slugs, abalones, limpets, cowries, conches, etc.)
 * Bivalvia (pelecypods)
 * Cephalopoda (octopuses, squids, nautiluses. etc.)
 * Polyplacophora (chitons)
 * Monoplacophora
 * Aplacophora
 * Scaphopoda (tusk shells)
 * Caudofoveata
 * Annelida
 * Polychaeta a beautiful and neglected (probably paraphyletic) group of marine worms
 * Clitellata
 * Hirudinea (leeches)
 * Oligochaeta (earthworms, etc)
 * Myzostomida
 * Echiura (spoon worms)
 * Sipuncula (peanut worms)
 * Nemertea (ribbon worms)
 * Lophophorata
 * Brachiopoda (lamp shells, including the famous Lingula)
 * Bryozoa (moss animals)
 * Phoronida (horseshoe worms)
 * Entoprocta (goblet worms)

Platyzoans

 * Platyhelminthes (flatworms)
 * Turbellaria
 * Monogenea
 * Cestoda
 * Trematoda
 * Rotifera (rotifers)
 * Seisonoidea
 * Bdelloidea, magnificently mysterious parthenogenetics.
 * Monogononta
 * Gastrotricha
 * Acanthocephala
 * Gnathostomulida (jaw worms)
 * Micrognathozoa
 * Cycliophora

Other bilaterian phyla

 * Acoelomorpha (formerly thought to be part of Platyhelminthes)
 * Orthonectida (formerly thought to be Mesozoa or Agnotozoa)
 * Rhombozoa (formerly thought to be Mesozoa or Agnotozoa)
 * Myxozoa

Non-bilaterian animal phyla

 * Ctenophora (comb jellies, closer to bilateria than cnidaria?)
 * Cnidaria (corals, jellyfish, etc)
 * Anthozoa - Corals and sea anemones
 * Cubozoa - Sea wasps or box jellyfish
 * Hydrozoa - Hydroids, hydra-like animals
 * Scyphozoa - Jellyfish
 * Porifera (sponges, see also choanoflagellate)
 * Calcarea
 * Silicarea
 * Placozoa

Regnum Fungi

 * subregnum Dikarya
 * Basidiomycota (mushrooms, some molds, etc.)
 * Ascomycota (yeasts, morels, truffles, Penicillium and other molds, the fungal part of most lichens, etc.)
 * see also: Deuteromycota
 * see also: lichen and basidiolichen
 * Glomeromycota (these fungi form arbuscular mycorrhizae)
 * Chytridiomycota (once thought to be protists, like the following three)
 * Blastocladiomycota
 * Microsporidia
 * Neocallimastigomycota
 * Subdivisions incertae sedis (formerly classified as zygomycota, an obsolete taxon including some molds, now thought to be paraphyletic)
 * Entomophthoromycotina
 * Kickxellomycotina
 * Mucoromycotina
 * Zoopagomycotina

Regnum Protista
(Soon to be many regna. See also: eukaryote.)

bikonts:

 * Chromalveolata (nominated for fifth regnum of eucaryota in 2005, but as of 2008 already thought to be paraphyletic again)
 * Heterokontophyta - stramenopiles, such as kelp, diatoms, chrysophyta, oomycota, labyrinthulomycetes, etc.
 * Haptophyta (whence the coccoliths of Cretaceous chalks)
 * Cryptophyta (cryptomonads)
 * Alveolates
 * Ciliophora such as Paramecium
 * Dinoflagellata
 * Apicomplexa - sporozoans such as the malaria-causing Plasmodium
 * Archaeplastida (some lumpers include all Regnum Plantae within this group, other lumpers put this group into Corticata with the chromalveolates)
 * Green algae: Chlorophyta, Charophyta
 * Rhodophyta (red algae)
 * Glaucophyta?
 * Excavates
 * Euglenozoa such as Euglena, Trypanosoma
 * Percolozoa including the acrasidae, one kind of slime mold
 * Metamonada such as Giardia, Trichomonas; these lack mitochondria.
 * Rhizaria - mostly amoeboids (but not Amoebozoa, see below), many with interesting shells.
 * Radiolaria
 * Foraminifera
 * Cercozoa, including phytomyxea
 * Apusozoa

and unikonts:

 * Choanozoa - These are opisthokonts like the most recent common ancestor of animals and fungi.
 * Amoebozoa includes some slime molds (viz. myxogastria and dictyosteliida), some heliozoans, Amoeba of course, and others.
 * Centrohelida - possibly bikont and rhizarian?
 * Many others; classification varies

Regnum Plantae

 * Seed plants (spermatophytes, all of which are also both tracheophytes and embryophytes).
 * Angiospermae AKA Anthophyta (Angiosperm phylogeny gives me a headache, but these are our most familiar land-plant friends: trees, shrubs, vines, forbs, grasses, and all.)
 * Class monocots produce all the rice and bread you eat, as well as orchids, palms, seagrasses, and culinary Allium. Includes ten orders, four of which are grouped as subclass commelinids, and several isolated families.
 * Subphylum/subdivision eudicots include the non-core eudicot orders Ranunculales, Sabiales, Proteales, Trochodendrales, Buxales, Gunnerales, and
 * Superclass core eudicots, which include Caryophyllales, Santalales, Saxifragales, Vitales, Berberidopsidales, Dilleniales, and both
 * Class (?) rosids (a subgroup of core eudicots which includes 16 to 20 orders comprising about 140 familes. Examples: Fabales, Rosales, Cucurbitales, Brassicales),
 * and Class (?) asterids (a subgroup of core eudicots which includes Ericales, Cornales, and both
 * euasterids I: Solanales, Lamiales, several other orders, and several families 'incertae sedis'
 * euasterids II: Asterales, several other orders, and several families 'incertae sedis')
 * Class magnoliids include Laurales, Magnoliales, Piperales, and Canellales.
 * non-magnoliid palaeodicots (various classes, paraphyletic), including water lilies, Amborella, Ceratophyllum, and others
 * Gymnosperms
 * Coniferae AKA Pinophyta (conifers, a kind of phanerogamous gymnosperms) have a more staid and spartan phylogeny than the angiosperms.
 * the following families are all in class Pinopsida, order Pinales
 * Pinaceae (pines, spruces; larches, doug-firs; firs, cedars, hemlocks)
 * Cupressaceae (cypresses, junipers, thujas, redwoods, sequoias, etc)
 * Taxaceae (yews)
 * Cephalotaxaceae (Torreya, Amentotaxus, Cephalotaxus)
 * Araucariaceae (Agathis, Araucaria, Wollemia)
 * Podocarpaceae (mainly southern hemisphere)
 * Sciadopityaceae (one species endemic to Japan)
 * Cycadophyta
 * Ginkgophyta
 * Gnetophyta (Gnetum, Welwitschia, Ephedra)
 * Pteridospermatophyta (extinct, seed ferns, phanerogams unlike other ferns)
 * Cryptogamous tracheophytes (ferns and their allies)
 * Pteridophyta ("true" ferns, horsetails, whisk ferns, Ophioglossum)
 * Lycopodiophyta (clubmosses)
 * Non-vascular embryophytes (that is, bryophytes or cryptogams which are not tracheophytes)
 * Bryophyta (mosses)
 * Marchantiophyta (liverworts)
 * Anthocerophyta (hornworts)
 * Plants that are protists (also cryptogams, but these are not embryophytes: see Archaeplastida).
 * Green algae AKA Chlorophyta, Charophyta
 * Rhodophyta (red algae)
 * Glaucophyta

Domain Bacteria

 * Taxonomic level of following groups is in flux: formerly considered phyla (or divisions), some of them are in the process of being promoted to kingdoms.
 * Cyanobacteria (the green bacteria -- so-called "blue-green algae" -- first photosynthesizers, sharing most recent common ancestor with eukaryotic chloroplasts)
 * Firmicutes
 * Actinobacteria
 * Spirochaetes
 * Chlamydiae
 * Proteobacteria (Five classes.)
 * Alphaproteobacteria, including rhizobia and rickettsia, and sharing most recent common ancestor with eukaryotic mitochondria
 * Betaproteobacteria, including some other nitrogen-fixing bacteria
 * Gammaproteobacteria, including Escherichia coli
 * Deltaproteobacteria
 * Epsilonproteobacteria
 * Aquificae
 * Bacteroidetes/Chlorobi
 * Verrucomicrobia (Lentisphaerae?)
 * Chloroflexi
 * Chrysiogenetes
 * Deferribacteraceae
 * Fibrobacteres/Acidobacteria
 * Fusobacteria
 * Gemmatimonadetes
 * Nitrospirae
 * Planctomycetes
 * Deinococcus-Thermus (Taq polymerase, an enzyme from this group, is used to do PCR)
 * Thermodesulfobacteria
 * Thermomicrobia
 * Thermotogae
 * Dictyoglomi
 * Omnibacteria

Domain Archaea
as with domain Bacteria, phyla/divisions are gradually morphing into kingdoms

 * Crenarchaeota
 * Euryarchaeota (methanogens etc)
 * Archaeoglobi
 * Halobacteria
 * Methanobacteria
 * Methanomicrobia
 * Methanococci
 * Methanopyri
 * Thermococci
 * Thermoplasmata
 * Korarchaeota
 * Nanoarchaeota
 * Thaumarchaeota?

Viruses (not alive, i. e. ametabolic, but evolving anyway)

 * I: dsDNA viruses
 * II: ssDNA viruses
 * III: dsRNA viruses
 * IV: (+)ssRNA viruses
 * V: (-)ssRNA viruses
 * VI: ssRNA-RT viruses
 * VII: dsDNA-RT viruses

title: User:Arkuat/Taxonomy


text:
File:Doobie Brothers - Best of The Doobies (1976 album cover).jpg

Fair use rationale for Best of the Doobies
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
 * 1) It is a low resolution copy of an album cover.
 * 2) The image is only a small portion of the commercial product.
 * 3) The use of the cover will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original album.
 * 4) It illustrates educational articles about the album from which the cover illustration was taken.
 * 5) The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of topics in the article. For an article about an album or artist, the cover artwork is very important and adds significantly to the article.
 * 6) It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.


text:
Black-eyed Susan

Black-eyed Susan may refer to:

Flowers

 * Rudbeckia hirta, a member of the sunflower tribe of the large family Asteraceae
 * A number of other members of the genus Rudbeckia
 * Hibiscus trionum in the family Malvaceae
 * The black-eyed susan vine, Thunbergia alata, in the family Acanthaceae
 * Some members of the Australian plant genus Tetratheca, particularly Tetratheca hirsuta, a member of the family Elaeocarpaceae

Theatre and film

 * Black-Eyed Susan; or, All in the Downs, an 1829 play by Douglas William Jerrold
 * Black-Eyed Susan (film), a 1913 film adaptation directed by Percy Nash
 * Black-Eyed Susan (actress) (aka Susan Carlson), avant-garde stage actor

Music

 * "Black-eyed Susan" or "All in the Downs", is a sea song by John Gay (1685–1732), more fully titled "Sweet William's Farewell to Black-Eyed Susan"
 * "Blackeyed Susan", a song by The Triffids from The Black Swan
 * The Blackeyed Susans, an Australian band, named after the Triffids song
 * Blackeyed Susan (band), a Philadelphia-area band formed by "Dizzy" Dean Davidson after he left Britny Fox in 1989
 * "Black-eyed Susan", a Morrissey song released as a B-Side to "Sunny" and later on My Early Burglary Years
 * "Black Eyed Susan", a Paul Westerberg song from his album 14 Songs
 * "Black-Eyed Susan" (song), a 1994 song by Prairie Oyster
 * "Black Eyed Susan", a song from the album Mockingbird Time by The Jayhawks
 * "Black Eyed Susans", a song by Brett Kissel from The Compass Project - West Album

Others

 * another name for Sussex pond pudding
 * Black-Eyed Susan Stakes

title: Black-eyed Susan


text:
Agenesis

In medicine, agenesis refers to the failure of an organ to develop during embryonic growth and development due to the absence of primordial tissue. Many forms of agenesis are referred to by individual names, depending on the organ affected:

 * Agenesis of the corpus callosum - failure of the Corpus callosum to develop
 * Renal agenesis - failure of one or both of the kidneys to develop
 * Amelia - failure of the arms or legs to develop
 * Penile agenesis - failure of penis to develop
 * Müllerian agenesis - failure of the uterus and part of the vagina to develop
 * Agenesis of the gallbladder - failure of the Gallbladder to develop. A person may not realize they have this condition unless they undergo surgery or medical imaging, since the gallbladder is neither externally visible nor essential.

Eye agenesis
Eye agenesis is a medical condition in which people are born with no eyes.

Dental & oral agenesis

 * Anodontia, absence of all primary or permanent teeth.
 * Aglossia, absence of the tongue.
 * Agnathia, absence of the jaw.
 * Wisdom tooth agenesis - most adult humans have three molars (on each upper/lower left/right side), with the third being referred to as the wisdom tooth. But many people have less than the four total. Agenesis of wisdom teeth is a normal condition that can differ widely by population, ranging from practically zero in Tasmanian Aborigines to nearly 100% in indigenous Mexicans. (See research paper with world map showing prevalence.)

Ear agenesis
Ear agenesis is a medical condition in which people are born without ears.

Because the middle and inner ears are necessary for hearing, people with complete agenesis of the ears are totally deaf. Minor agenesis that affects only the visible parts of the outer ear, which may be called microtia, typically produces cosmetic concerns and perhaps hearing impairment if the opening to the ear canal is blocked, but not deafness.

title: Agenesis


text:
Talk:Elderberry wine

Please expand. As it stands, the one-line "article" is little more than could be gleaned from the title phrase. jglc | t | c 18:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Elderberry wine


text: Wikipedia:Picture of the day/July 22, 2005


text: Wikipedia:POTD/July 22, 2005

title: Wikipedia:POTD/July 22, 2005


text:
On Your Feet or on Your Knees

On Your Feet or on Your Knees is the first live album by American rock band Blue Öyster Cult, released on February 27, 1975 by Columbia Records. The album features three songs from each of the band's first three studio albums, two covers ("I Ain't Got You", albeit with modified lyrics, and "Born to Be Wild"), and one ("Buck's Boogie") original instrumental that remains a staple of the band's live shows to this day. The 12 songs include performances at the Academy of Music in New York City, the Paramount Theatre in Portland, the Paramount Theatre in Seattle, the Show Palace in Phoenix, the Long Beach Arena, the P.N.E. Coliseum in Vancouver and the Capitol Theatre in New Jersey, although it is not clear which songs came from which venues and on what dates.

The cover lettering designed by Gerard Huerta, also used on the 2012 boxed set, was one of the first "Heavy Metal" logo designs. The cover art, photographed by John Berg, prominently features St Paul's Episcopal Chapel in South Salem, New York.

The album reached No. 22 on the Billboard 200, in so doing becoming the band's highest-charting album in the United States.

Personnel

 * Band members
 * Eric Bloom - lead vocals on tracks 1–2, 4–5, 9, 11–12, stun guitar, synthesizer
 * Donald "Buck Dharma" Roeser - lead guitar, lead vocals on "Then Came The Last Days of May" and "Before the Kiss (A Redcap)"
 * Allen Lanier - rhythm guitar, keyboards
 * Joe Bouchard - bass, lead vocals on "Hot Rails to Hell"
 * Albert Bouchard - drums, guitar, lead vocals on "Cities on Flame With Rock-And-Roll"

 * Production
 * Murray Krugman, Sandy Pearlman - producers
 * Tom Scott, Kurt Kuntzel, Aaron Baron, Tim Geelan, Pete Weiss, Jerry Smith - engineers
 * Jack Douglas - engineer, mixing
 * John Berg and Gerard Huerta - design
 * John Berg - cover photograph at St. Paul's Chapel, Vista, New York

title: On Your Feet or on Your Knees


text:
Toronto Seniors Services and Long-Term Care Division

Seniors Services and Long-Term Care is a division of the City of Toronto. It is the lead division in integrating services for seniors across the municipal government, and it operates the 10 City-owned long-term care homes in Toronto. It assumed responsibility for publicly-run home care facilities for the elderly from the former Toronto Community Services department.

Funding
As a division of the City of Toronto, its annual funding level is established by a vote of Toronto City Council. In 2020, Council approved a budget of $271.191 million gross and $47.953 million net, with a staff complement of 2,435.2 positions.

Facilities

 * Cummer Lodge
 * Bendale
 * Kipling
 * Carefree Lodge
 * True Davidson Acres
 * Bendale
 * Seven Oaks
 * Fudger House
 * Castleview Wychwood Towers
 * Westburn Manor


text:
User:Arkuat/Preprehistory

The short version of preprehistory
This is not really so short yet; as of 2008, I've just begun trying to condense it to a more manageable summary.

title: User:Arkuat/Preprehistory


text:
Talk:Polyphyly

Image:Polyphyletic.png
This is a nice image, but I don't think it actually describes a polyphyletic group. The common ancestor of amphibians and mammals was a land vertebrate, and although the illustration does not show this, the lower land vertebrates are usually meant to include it. As such, this is a paraphyletic group, comprising all its descendants except the mammals (and I would think the birds). Might a better illustration might be the warm-blooded animals, highlighting Mammalia and Aves separately? Josh

Well, are you sure that the warm-blooded animals are a polyphyletic group? Was the most recent common ancestor of birds and mammals warm-blooded or cold-blooded? I think this picture actually shows a paraphyletic group, doesn't it? Because the yellow curve includes the fork between Mammaila and Aves? I don't know, I'm no biologist. Keenan Pepper 19:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of that picture. It's generally understood that the ancestral amniotes were cold-blooded, and crocodylians are too. Also, although it technically falls under the definition we give for paraphyletic, that group would still be polyphyletic since it leaves out connecting forms - the difference is whether the tree is topologically connected. I'm not entirely sure how to word this. Josh

How about this text? A picture highlighting mammals and birds separately would go great with it. Keenan Pepper 23:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That sounds fair. The image would be easy to adapt, but it's on the commons and I don't know where the update should go. Josh

 * New image, based on the discussion here. There is also an svg source for the image on commons, so it should be very easy to correct. Zeimusu | Talk page 15:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Examples of Polyphyly
These examples aren't clear to me. The definition of polyphyly here requires not including the common ancestor, but these examples don't state whether the nearest common ancestor is a member of the group or not. Rather, these examples say that the descendants of the common ancestor are not all included. Isn't that just paraphyly? Octavo (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Yeah, it sure seems that way. Let me think about that. — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Meanwhile ...

Last example is misleading... seems to imply that primates are the descendants of birds and bats. This is not true - the MRCA was a non-flying reptile of some sort. 75.110.136.111 (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Seems to me it's saying birds and bats are descended from primates ... but then, the second example seems to say plants and bacteria are descended from animals. Seems a few "descendents of" have gone missing ... hang on ... fixing ... better now?
 * Of course Octavo's objection still stands. — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"However, the number of paraphyletic groups and polyphyletic groups is exponentially larger than that, on the order of N²" - Not an expert, so don't want to modify this page, but N² isn't exponentially larger -than N -Gargletheape (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Added citation needed on the birds and mammals stuff. Very controversial, with a lack of longstanding scientific consensus. Things like algae are clear good examples; birds and mammals are a maybe... depending on your point of view. I'll wait for citations first. If none show up, then this example can be removed. If citations do show up, then we can move to POV issues regarding conflicting cites, and if it is better to remove the controversial example, or note the controversy.2001:470:1F04:3DF:0:0:0:2 (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I see both the "lower land vertebrates" and Protista to be paraphyletic, but Protozoa is poly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.195.57.54 (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong definitions of polyphyly
Polyphyly is defined by characters: A polyphyletic group is a taxon defined by convergent characters (homoplasies), while a paraphyletic group is defined by primitive characters (plesiomorphies), and monophyletic groups by shared derived characters (apomorphies) (ref: Hennig, 1950). The definition and examples given here are instead *tree-based*, but in tree-based definitions there is only monophyly and non-monophyly, as there is no difference between paraphyly and polyphyly. This is why there is confusion above whether the cited examples are para- or polyphyletic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.242.24.193 (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There IS a difference between paraphyly and polyphyly in tree-based definitions, as these terms are currently used. Taking monophyly to be synonymous with holophyly (as it is in current use), then a paraphyly is a monophyly minus one or more (usually one) sub-monophylies. A polyphyly is any other kind of non-monophyly other than a paraphyly. In other words there is the classification of classifications:
 * monophyly
 * non-monophyly
 * paraphyly
 * polyphyly

Now it can well be argued that this rather distorts the derivation of the words: something which is 'not mono' should be 'poly', but we have to describe consensus usage, whether or not this is what we would wish it to be. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "A polyphyletic group is a taxon defined by convergent characters (homoplasies)" — I'm with 130.242.24.193 that far. When a group is alleged to be polyphyletic, isn't an argument for a convergence standardly produced? Is this not consensus usage? Peter Brown (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Why have three articles?
Please see Talk:Monophyly where I have asked why there should be separate articles on monophyly, paraphyly and polyphyly. Please leave comments there. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect definition
The definition currently given in the first sentence ("A polyphyletic ... group is one whose members' last common ancestor is not a member of the group") is obviously incorrect. Imagine that in the very first diagram the blue-purple area were extended to include the region around the word "Amniota". In other words a group was defined as "all amniotes up to but not including Sauropsida + all mammals and their ancestors + all Aves". This group would not be polyphyletic according to this definition, whereas it clearly is.

The problem is that a short but correct definition can, as far as I can see, only be negative: a polyphyletic group is one that is neither monophyletic nor paraphyletic. A longer but correct definition is "a polyphyletic group is one that excludes some of the descendants of the nearest common ancestor of the members of the group and also excludes at least one of the members of the sister groups of the excluded members" (based on ). However, this definition is incomprehensible without a lot of explanation.

I still believe that attempting to have separate articles on monophyly, paraphyly and polyphyly is a serious mistake; the three terms cannot be properly understood except in terms of each other. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Peter I disagree, I think almost everything in wikipedia requires the context of other linked articles to be properly understood. Lumping them together is silly because the vast majority of people who end up here will come in through a link from something that is mono-, para-, or polyphylic. They may or may not be interested in the others, but the others are not the likely point of interest. Nobody is going to "properly" understand anything. They are hopefully going to get from an encyclopedia a basic understanding, no more. 2001:470:1F04:3DF:0:0:0:2 (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * However, there are some topics which are more connected than others. The only consistent definition of "polyphyly" in its modern sense is that it isn't either a monophyly or a paraphyly. So anyone who really wants to understand this term has to read the other two articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To say that a group is polyphyletic if some defining characteristics evolved convergently is pretty close to being accurate. One who takes that as the meaning of "polyphyletic" will not go far wrong even if he or she has no idea what monophyly or paraphyly is.  Understanding all three -phylies is not necessary for most purposes. Peter Brown (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, we've had this discussion before, Peter. Yes, this is the original Hennig definition and can be understood more-or-less independently of the other two. However, almost all modern usages of the three terms are different; they relate purely to the geometry of computer-derived cladograms and cannot easily be understood in isolation. I accept that I'm in the minority here and three articles will remain for the present – although I still think I'm right! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Like standard dictionaries, Wikipedia is primarily for the general reader, not for anyone familiar with computer-generated cladograms. These dictionaries, The Free Dictionary for example, all define "polyphyly" in the Hennigian sense, and I would argue that Wikipedia should follow their example. Agreed, there is another sense, one known only to specialists, and perhaps it should be mentioned in the Polyphyly article. Peter Brown (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it is only relevant to specialists. When editors add information to plant articles (these are what I mainly follow, so know best), based on recent research, saying that such-and-such a group has been shown to be polyphyletic or paraphyletic and so has been divided into other taxa, that research is virtually always based on molecular phylogenetics, and so relies on purely geometric definitions of the "phylies". For example, if you look at the use of "polyphyly" in Liliaceae (an article which is currently being expanded), it refers primarily to cladograms produced by molecular phylogenetic analyses. Some of the taxa into which the old Liliaceae have been split, such as the APG's broad Asparagaceae, have few if any common morphological characteristics. (Stevens says "This is a highly unsatisfactory family. Nothing characterises it, and while some of the subfamilies have several distinctive apomorphies and are also easy to recognise, others are difficult to recognise.") The modern APG classification in this area of the tree of life relies on the geometry of molecular cladograms.
 * General dictionaries aren't usually a good guide to current biological thinking. The Kew Plant Glossary of 2010 defines polyphyletic as "of mixed evolutionary origin, sharing more than one common ancestor" which is clearly an attempt at a purely geometric definition, with no mention of characters. However, although I see what this definition is trying to say, it doesn't seem to me that it is accurate: any group has more than one common ancestor. I believe the modern use of "polyphyly", which is now the dominant one, is extremely difficult to define except negatively. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with polyphyly?
Wikipedia currently provides two explanations of the near-universal rejection of polyphyletic groups. In both cases, the contrast is with monophyletic groups. In the article Polyphyly, it is noted that:

 * Because polyphyletic groups can frequently be defined as a sum of clades, some consider them less fundamental than monophyletic (single, whole) clades.

Also, Phylogenetic nomenclature cites Hennig:

"[Polyphyletic groups] are distinguished from the monophyletic ones essentially by the fact that they have no independent history and thus possess neither reality or individuality."

- Hennig

As to the first reason, the fact that polyphyly is "less fundamental" than monophyly is an inadequate reason for the widespread rejection of polyphyletic groups in most areas of biology. In this sense, monophyly is less fundamental than ancestry (monophyly is defined in terms of ancestry), but there is no parallel rejection of monophyly. As to the second reason, I am not aware of a widespread conviction among biologists that anything must have "an independent history", whatever that is. Finally, any force these arguments have against polyphyly tells also against paraphyly. Many biologists are quite willing to accept well-supported paraphyletic groups but few would countenance polyphyletic groups as formal taxa.

I have my own ideas as to why polyphyletic groups are so totally unacceptable while paraphyletic groups are often thought useful. To expound them, however, would be OR. Is there any discussion in the literature as to why polyphyletic groups are such a bad idea? Peter Brown (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As we've found before, finding modern sources which discuss these concepts isn't easy! You have to go back to the purposes of classification and then ask whether polyphyletic groups meet them. My problem in finding sources for this is that many of them are highly polemical and primarily interested in attacking each other; they generally don't discuss areas of agreement at all. has a nice discussion which I think is relevant, although not specifically put in terms of polyphyly. It's to do with predictability. Linnaeus' Diandria (plants with 2 stamens) is a polyphyletic group. Knowing that a plant belongs to the Diandra doesn't allow you to predict anything much else about the plant: grasses, speedwells and slipper orchids are in this group. Having 2 stamens is simply a convergence. On the other hand, if you know that a plant is in Araceae sensu Stace (which is paraphyletic because it excludes Lemnaceae) it allows you to make many predictions; e.g. that the inflorescence will consist of a spathe and spadix. His Araceae possess these characters through shared inheritance, not through convergence. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks! Just what was needed. Peter Brown (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I really like the way you've worded the addition. There's much more along these lines by Mayr, but he's too polemical, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there are fourth category besides monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly?
What if a taxon had some apomorphies (novel traits) that persisted for a very long time in some lineages, rapidly disappeared in others, and persisted for a moderate amount of time in yet others. For example, labyrinthodonts. They inherited a suite of 5 traits from their tetrapodomorph fish ancestors, along with a 6th (relating to the skull table) from a basal tetrapod. These traits persisted for tens of millions of years in those lineages that remained bigger than a breadbox. In those lineages where size dropped to below the size of a breadbox, the halflife of the traits was inversely proportional to the size of the animals. The result is like a starburst pattern, with a single starting point (the first tetrapod) but many ending points. I don't think it even counts as an evolutionary grade. Ripidista (by the old definition) had a similar problem. Zyxwv99 (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found it. It's polyparaphyletic. Zyxwv99 (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Definition, again
I've read the discussion in (and understand the difference between polyphyly and paraphyly) but I still think the current [polyphyletic grouping is] based on characteristics that do not imply that they share a common ancestor that is not also the common ancestor of many other taxa is completely unparsable. While I understand 's concern that the simpler "("A polyphyletic ... group is one whose members' last common ancestor is not a member of the group")" is not 100% correct, I think we ought to do better and be less technical in the lead sentence, and perhaps explain fine points later in the lead or body. After all, that sort of wording is accurate in most real-life cases, and the examples where the last common ancestor is part of the polyphyletic group are (IMO) mostly theoretical.

For my part, I propose something like A group is said to be polyphyletic if its members belong to disjoint branches of the phylogenetic tree. No such user (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

it's very difficult to give a verbal definition of "polyphyly" that is unambiguously correct, if you want to allow multiply paraphyletic groups (i.e. monophyletic groups minus two or more monophylies) to be considered distinct from polyphylies. I do agree that the existing text is hard to understand, but I think any change needs to be discussed here first. The absence of the last common ancestor is also not so useful now, because modern programs that generate phylogenetic trees treat all the inputs as leaves, so the interior nodes don't actually represent ancestors, but rather give an indication of the branching order. We've spent a lot of time discussing this and related topics in the past, so please suggest changes here first. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 * I did, above. Merged talk page sections for clarity. Although, on second reading, "disjoint branches" is not unambiguously accurate either. It seems that there's no sharp distinction between "polyphyly" and "paraphily"? But then, I'd prefer a readable definition that is merely "good enough" to the one which is unreadable and unambiguously correct. Fine points can be discussed later. No such user (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 * [polyphyletic grouping is] based on characteristics that do not imply that they share a common ancestor that is not also the common ancestor of many other taxa may or may not be unparsable – it seems ok to me – but it is correct on a character-based approach (the original Hennigian approach). I don't think that an encyclopedia should give incorrect definitions, whether or not refined later.
 * Actually, on reflection, I don't think it does correctly distinguish a polyphyletic group from some kinds of paraphyletic group. Sigh... See below. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If defined in character terms, polyphyly and paraphyly can be given a sharp distinction: the former reflects a group based on independent evolution of a character, the latter a group based on persistence of an ancestral character. I agree that if defined in terms of the geometry of the group in a cladogram, they can shade together if "multiply paraphyletic" is allowed. I've long thought that having separate articles on Monophyly, Paraphyly and Polyphyly is a mistake: the terms are to a large extent defined relative to each other, and there's common material that shold be in all three articles (e.g. the move from Hennig's character-based approach centred on phylograms to the more modern geometry-based approach centred on cladograms). Peter coxhead (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion
I think the definition in The Kew Plant Glossary has the merit of being simpler and clearly sourced: "polyphyletic, (of a taxon) of mixed evolutionary origin, sharing more than one common ancestor". (A paraphyly does have only one common ancestor, because geometrically it starts from a monophyly and has one or more sub-monophylies removed, so the common ancestor of the starting monophyly is the common ancestor of the paraphyly.) Made into a sentence, the opening definition could be
 * "A polyphyletic group or assemblage is a set of organisms, or other evolving elements, that is of mixed evolutionary origin, sharing more than one common ancestor."

Or if using the title of the article is preferred, then
 * "A polyphyly is a group or assemblage of organisms, or other evolving elements, that is of mixed evolutionary origin, sharing more than one common ancestor."

Peter coxhead (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Peter. Much easier to understand, and it does not delve into gory details. Let's incorporate it in the article. No such user (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * well, I've added it to the article, and it is well sourced, but there is an interpretation issue with "sharing more than one common ancestor". The blue group has one common ancestor at its base and the red group another one at its base, and these are different. But this would equally be true if the green group is removed altogether.
 * A correct geometry-based definition might be something like this, I think. A monophyletic group has a lowest common ancestor that is the ancestor of every taxon in the group and of no other taxa. A non-monophyletic group has a lowest common ancestor that is also the ancestor of taxa not in the group. Non-monophyletic groups that are made up from a monophyletic group with N monophyletic subgroups removed are N-paraphyletic. This corresponds to the definition at Paraphyly. Non-monophyletic groups that cannot be made up in this way are polyphyletic. However, the difference between an Nly-paraphyletic group and a polyphyly when N>1 is problematic, in my view. If you describe the group "lorises+tarsier" as made up from the monophyletic primates minus the monophyletic lemurs and the monophyletic simians, then "lorises+tarsiers" is doubly paraphyletic, not polyphyletic. But this is WP:OR without a reference. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've found references that make a clear distinction between paraphyly and polyphyly, but it's very hard to explain in words. Consider the red leaf nodes in the two cladograms below.

According to Platnick's 1977 explanation of Farris's 1974 definitions, in the first cladogram, B+C+D form a paraphyly, whereas in the second cladogram, B+C+E form a polyphyly. Platnick explains Farris's algorithm that can be used to make the decision. Farris's formal definition is a "group is said to be polyphyletic if its group membership character appears non-uniquely derived". In the first cladogram, whatever unites B+C+D appears derived from their common ancestor without any reversals. In the second cladogram, whatever unites B+C+E does not, because if it did, then it should also unite D into the group. But to really understand the definition, I think you have to apply the algorithm, which is worked out in detail in Platnick (1977). Note that there's nothing about the common ancestor having to be in the group or not. Nor are any explicit characters considered – the "group membership character" is simply the condition of belonging or not belonging to the group in question. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I should add that Farris's "appears" has the implicit qualification "assuming parsimony", which is what his algorithm uses. The parsimonious interpretation of the second cladogram is that a change occurred in the line leading to the ancestor of A+B+C which was reversed in the line leading to A, and a change occurred separately in the line leading to E – three changes in total; polyphyly because the two changes producing group membership were independent. A less parsimonious interpretation is that a change occurred in the line leading to the ancestor of the whole cladogram and was reversed three times (in the lines leading to A, to D, and to F+G) – four changes in total; paraphyly because the change creating group membership occurred once.
 * I conclude that although sources make distinctions between paraphyly and polyphyly, their definitions are neither consistent, completely satisfactory or easy to explain. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Additional sources
The following source was once in the article but is no longer cited as of the current version: — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Polyphyly


text: File:Blue bell logo.jpg

title: File:Blue bell logo.jpg


text:
User:Arkuat/Prehistory and history

The context of human prehistory and history is known to terrestrial geology as the Quaternary period. It comprises two epochs: the Pleistocene, which ended about 11 or 12 thousand years ago, and the Holocene which is still unfolding. The Pleistocene lasted over 150 times as long as the Holocene has so far.

The beginning of the Quaternary (that is, the Gelasian, see below) is about the same time as the beginning of the Stone Age, so the Stone Age as a whole is approximately contemporaneous with the Quaternary. The Quaternary is defined by geologists on the basis of rock and soil formation, and the Stone Age is defined by archaeologists and anthropologists on the basis of technological artifacts. (Back in the day when the Gelasian was accounted part of the Pliocene epoch, we'd say that the Stone Age began in the late Pliocene.)

The end of the Pleistocene is also approximately contemporaneous with the end of the Paleolithic, or Old Stone Age. This places the Neolithic (or New Stone Age) and both intermediary (before Neolithic) and succeeding (after Neolithic) technological periods entirely within the Holocene.

See Preprehistory for further context.

Pleistocene epoch ("Ice Age", Old Stone Age)
The Pleistocene epoch comprises almost all (more than 99%) of the Quaternary. The Pleistocene is more or less contemporaneous with the Paleolithic (Old Stone Age), and is also what is usually meant when the term ice age is used informally. The Pleistocene ended about eleven or twelve thousand years ago; the Stone Age (in any given region) ended whenever people began using metal tools, which is a process thought to have begun in the Ancient Near East, but began at different times in different places.

Holocene epoch
The Holocene epoch comprises the last eleven or twelve millennia and is, perhaps, merely an interglacial pause in the Pleistocene pattern. The transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene is marked by the end of the Younger Dryas (a late stage of the last glacial period) in the 10th millennium BCE. Geologically, the Holocene is the time since the retreat of the glaciers; anthropologically, it corresponds to the time since the Neolithic revolution began.

Note that the so-called Stone Age, taken as a whole, comprises not only the entirety of the Pleistocene but also most of the Holocene.

Neolithic, or New Stone Age
The Neolithic is the Holocene Stone Age, and is principally characterized by the development of pastoral, horticultural, and agricultural techniques. In the Near East, it ended when the Bronze Age began, but in many other parts of the world, there was a direct transition from neolithic to iron-age technologies during the last thousand years or so.

See also: Epipaleolithic, Mesolithic, Chalcolithic.

Bronze Age
The Bronze Age began around 5000 years ago in the Near East. It began later or was bypassed entirely in other regions. Generally, the Bronze Age comprises the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE. In any given region, it ended when the Iron Age began.

Iron Age
The Iron Age began roughly 3000 years ago. In the Near East, it began around the 12th or 11th century BCE, and began later in other regions. It is often roughly identified with the 1st millennium BCE. We no longer consider ourselves in the Iron Age, but there is no consensus about when the Iron Age ended.

Contemporary
For the history of the last thousand years or so, see: history of the world, history by period, history of religions.

List of millennia of the Holocene Epoch

 * 10th millennium BCE
 * End of the last glacial period (Younger Dryas)
 * Bering Strait floods with seawater, closing the Bering Land Bridge
 * 9th millennium BCE
 * Numerous domestications of various plants and animals
 * Town of Jericho established
 * 8th millennium BCE
 * Permaculture or forest gardening in the highlands of New Guinea
 * Coastal flooding and incursions of the sea upon the land for about 5000 years, centered on this millennium
 * 7th millennium BCE
 * Agriculture spreads to East Asia, South Asia, and Europe
 * 6th millennium BCE
 * Black Sea flooded with saltwater at 5600 BCE?
 * 5th millennium BCE
 * Ubaid period in Sumer
 * 4th millennium BCE
 * Uruk period in Sumer
 * Sredny Stog and Yamnaya cultures (Proto-Indo-European speakers?) possibly domesticate the horse
 * sudden drastic climate change at 3200 BCE?
 * 3rd millennium BCE (early Bronze Age)
 * Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia)
 * Early Dynastic Period and Old Kingdom in Egypt
 * Indus Valley Civilisation
 * 2nd millennium BCE (high Bronze Age, introduction of the chariot)
 * Shang Dynasty in China
 * Middle Kingdom of Egypt and early New Kingdom
 * Old and Middle Assyrian Empires
 * Hittites
 * Old Babylonia (Kassites etc.)
 * early Vedic period
 * early Olmecs
 * 1st millennium BCE (Iron Age)
 * Late New Kingdom, Neo-Assyrian Empire, Israel and Judah; Zhou Dynasty; Greek Dark Ages and Archaic Greece; late Vedic period
 * Achaemenid Empire of Persia, Qin Dynasty and Western Han, Maurya Empire, classical and Hellenistic Greece, Ancient Carthage, Roman Republic
 * 1st millennium
 * Roman Empire; Chola Empire and Gupta Empire; Eastern Han and Tang Dynasty; classic period of Maya civilization and Teotihuacan; Tiwanaku and Wari in the Andes; early Islamic Golden Age
 * 2nd millennium
 * later Islamic Golden Age, Yuan and Ming dynasties, Aztec civilization, Tawantinsuyu
 * circa 15th century
 * Renaissance
 * Age of exploration (to early 17th century)
 * 16th century and 17th century
 * Spanish colonization of the Americas
 * European colonization of the Americas
 * Atlantic slave trade
 * Arab slave trade
 * Triangular trade
 * Commercial revolution
 * Scientific revolution
 * Protestant reformation
 * 18th century
 * American revolution
 * French revolution
 * 19th century
 * Industrial revolution
 * Colonialism
 * Imperialism
 * 20th century
 * 3rd millennium

Deficiencies of the three-age system
The problem with technology-based chronological terms such as Bronze Age, Iron Age, (those used by the three-age system), is that the phenomena involved have locations as well as periods. Thus the Anatolian Iron Age starts around fifteen or fourteen thousand years ago but the Chinese Iron Age starts a few centuries later. (The particulars are disputed, and this is only an example. The point would be the same if the use of iron originated in China and spread to the west, or were independently discovered later in the west.)

title: User:Arkuat/Prehistory and history


text:
Toronto Economic Development and Culture Division

The City of Toronto Economic Development and Culture Division is a division of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division, a part of the City of Toronto. The division was created in April 2005. The division is responsible for creating economic opportunities, promoting cultural diversity, and working to create cultural and economic resources within the city. The general manager is currently Mike Williams.

Units
The division operates through five business units, Arts and Culture Services, Business Growth Services, Film and Entertainment Industries, Museum and Heritage Services, and Program Support.

Arts and Culture Services
Arts & Culture Services is responsible for helping the developing of art and culture in the city. It provides financial support to art institutes and individual artists, manages the development of public art installations, running cultural events, and running art programs. In 2018, the division allocated CA$32.3million in art grants and is responsible for 220 public art installations. The division hosts events like Doors Open Toronto, Nuit Blanche, and Canada Day celebrations.

Business Growth Services
Business Growth Services is the unit the helps Toronto business economically with a focus on job creation and investment. The unit also helps funds Toronto's 83 business improvement areas. The unit helps business ranging from micro enterprises to medium and large businesses that operated in the city's key industry sectors, retail, and services within the city's business improvement areas. The unit identifies 9 key export driven sectors to support:

 * Life sciences
 * Food processing
 * Environmental technology
 * Aerospace
 * Financial services
 * Fashion
 * Design
 * Information technology and smart city technology
 * Education

Film and Entertainment Industries
The Film & Entertainment Industries unit is responsible for supporting Toronto's Toronto's Film Industry. It does this through running music and film events and festivals as well as assisting in the production of music and films in the city. The unit also assists the cities tourism and entertainment industries. In 2018, the unit help support 621 events in Toronto and 246 days of programming at Nathan Phillips Square.

Museums and Heritage Services
Museums and Heritage Services is responsible for managing 10 history museums and over 40 historical sites, which have over 100 buildings combined, within the City of Toronto. The unit manages the following history museums:

 * Colborne Lodge
 * Fort York
 * Gibson House Museum
 * Market Gallery at St. Lawrence Market South
 * Mackenzie House
 * Montgomery's Inn
 * Scarborough Museum
 * Spadina House
 * Todmorden Mills
 * Zion Schoolhouse

Program Support
Program Support is the unit responsible for providing support for the program and services provided by the Economic Development and Culture Division. It manages marketing and promotion of the division, develops policies and strategies, and provides administrative support.


text:
User talk:GeeSharpMinor

Welcome!
Hello GeeSharpMinor, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * Read the tutorial and learn how to edit a page.
 * Experiment in the sandbox.
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset.
 * Try to edit from a neutral point of view.
 * Use talk pages to communicate with other editors.
 * Be bold in updating pages.
 * Eventually, read the Manual of Style and learn about the Five Pillars of Wikipedia.
 * And most importantly, have fun!

If you need any help, see the help pages and glossary, add a question to the help desk, or ask me on my talk page.

I hope you will enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Good luck! — Bcat

title: User talk:GeeSharpMinor


text: User talk:69.105.52.241

title: User talk:69.105.52.241


text:
Talk:The Hits/The B-Sides

Untitled
I'm removing the Triple Album category from this article. That category should be reserved for original release albums, not compilations. --patton1138 18:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Hits/The B-Sides


text:
Battle of Chrysopolis

The Battle of Chrysopolis was fought on 18 September 324 at Chrysopolis (modern Üsküdar), near Chalcedon (modern Kadıköy), between the two Roman emperors Constantine I and Licinius. The battle was the final encounter between the two emperors. After his navy's defeat in the Battle of the Hellespont, Licinius withdrew his forces from the city of Byzantium across the Bosphorus to Chalcedon in Bithynia. Constantine followed, and won the subsequent battle. This left Constantine as the sole emperor, ending the period of the Tetrarchy.

Background
The navy of Licinius had suffered a catastrophic defeat at the Battle of the Hellespont. His admiral, Abantus, had been outfought by Constantine's son, the caesar Crispus, despite the latter's distinctly smaller fleet. Following this naval victory, Constantine crossed over to Asia Minor. An army, under the command of Licinius' newly appointed co-emperor Martinian, was guarding the coast at Lampsacus on the Hellespont. Constantine had a flotilla of light transports built on the Bosphorus, allowing him to avoid that army entirely when crossing into Asia Minor.

Following the destruction of his naval forces, Licinius evacuated the garrison of Byzantium, which subsequently joined his main army in Chalcedon on the Asiatic shore of the Bosphorus. From there he also summoned Martinian's forces and a band of Visigothic auxiliaries, under their leader Aliquaca (or Alica), to reinforce his principal army, as it had been depleted by its earlier defeat at the Battle of Adrianople. It is not clear whether Martinian's forces reached Licinius before September 18, when Licinius was brought to battle by Constantine.

Battle
Constantine's army landed on the Asiatic shore of the Bosphorus at a place called the Sacred Promontory and marched southward towards Chalcedon. Licinius moved his army a few miles north towards Chrysopolis. Constantine's army reached the environs of Chrysopolis before the forces of Licinius. Following a retreat to his tent to seek divine guidance, Constantine decided to take the initiative.

The religious aspect of the conflict was reflected in Licinius drawing up his battle lines with images of the pagan gods of Rome prominently displayed, whilst Constantine's army fought under his talismanic Christian standard, the labarum. Licinius had developed a superstitious dread of the labarum and forbade his troops from attacking it, or even looking directly at it.

Constantine seemingly eschewed any subtlety of manoeuvre, he launched a single massive frontal assault on Licinius' troops and routed them. He won a decisive victory in what was a very large-scale battle. According to the fifth-century historian Zosimus, “There was great slaughter at Chrysopolis.” Licinius was reported to have lost 25,000 to 30,000 men, with thousands more breaking and running in flight. Licinius managed to escape and gathered around 30,000 of his surviving troops at the city of Nicomedia.

Aftermath
Recognising that his surviving forces in Nicomedia could not stand against Constantine's victorious army, Licinius was persuaded to throw himself on the mercy of his enemy. Constantia, Constantine's half-sister and Licinius' wife, acted as intermediary. Initially, yielding to the pleas of his sister, Constantine spared the life of his brother-in-law, but some months later he ordered his execution, thereby breaking his solemn oath. This occurred because Licinius was suspected of treasonable actions, and the army command pressed for his execution. A year later, Constantine's nephew, the younger Licinius, also fell victim to the emperor's anger or suspicions. He was executed in 326 and had his name expunged from official inscriptions.

In defeating his last foe, Licinius, Constantine became the sole emperor of the Roman Empire; the first such since the elevation of Maximian to the status of Augustus by Diocletian in April 286. After his conquest of the eastern portion of the Roman Empire, Constantine made the momentous decision to give the east its own capital, and the empire as a whole its second. He chose the city of Byzantium—renamed Constantinopolis—as the site of this new foundation.

title: Battle of Chrysopolis


text:
David Beck

David Beck (or Beek; May 25, 1621 – December 20, 1656), was a Dutch Golden Age portrait painter.

Biography
Beck was born in Delft, and was named after his uncle, a well-known poet from Arnhem. He was the son of a schoolmaster in Delft, where he learned painting from Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt, a prominent portrait painter in the Netherlands. Late in 1640 he moved to London to join Anthony van Dyck's studio as a pupil and assistant, but had little time to learn from Van Dyck himself as the latter fell ill and died in 1641. Beck possessed the freedom of hand and readiness, or rather rapidity of execution, for which Van Dyck was so remarkable, in so much that when Charles I observed the expeditious manner of Beck's painting, he exclaimed, "Faith! Beck, I believe you could paint riding post" and asked him to teach his sons drawing.

He taught drawing to Charles II of England and his brothers James II of England, and Henry Stuart, Duke of Gloucester. After the outbreak of the English Civil War that eventually led to the execution of his patron Charles I, Beck left England to travel around the courts of Europe. In 1647, he was appointed portrait painter and valet de chambre to Queen Christina of Sweden in Stockholm, and he executed portraits of most of the sovereigns of Europe to adorn her gallery.

Christina sent him on tour to the European courts, apparently also for political purposes. While sick in Germany he was thought dead and prepared for burial, but he revived and was gradually restored to life. He joined Christina's court again in Rome in 1655, followed her to France in 1656. He asked leave from her company to visit his friends and family in the Netherlands, which according to Houbraken was against her wishes. His death at The Hague that same year was suspected of being due to poisoning.

title: David Beck