The cooperative pulling paradigm is an experimental design in which two or more animals pull rewards toward themselves via an apparatus that they cannot successfully operate alone. Researchers (ethologists, comparative psychologists, and evolutionary psychologists) use cooperative pulling experiments to try to understand how cooperation works and how and when it may have evolved.

The type of apparatus used in cooperative pulling experiments can vary. Researcher Meredith Crawford, who invented the experimental paradigm in 1937, used a mechanism consisting of two ropes attached to a rolling platform that was too heavy to be pulled by a single chimpanzee. The standard apparatus is one in which a single string or rope is threaded through loops on a movable platform. If only one participant pulls the string, it comes loose and the platform can no longer be retrieved. Only by pulling together in coordination can the participants be successful; success by chance is highly unlikely. Some researchers have designed apparatus that involve handles instead of ropes.

Although many animals retrieve rewards in their cooperative pulling tasks, the conclusions regarding cooperation are mixed and complex. Chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, capuchins, tamarins, wolves, elephants, ravens, and kea appear to understand the requirements of the task. For example, in a delay condition, the first animal has access to the apparatus before the other. If the animal waits for its partner before pulling, this suggests an understanding of cooperation. Chimpanzees, elephants, wolves, dogs, ravens, and kea wait; grey parrots, rooks, and otters fail to wait. Chimpanzees actively solicit help when needed. They appear to recall previous outcomes to recruit the most effective partner. In a group setting, chimpanzees punish initial competitive behavior (taking food without pulling, displacing animals) such that eventually successful cooperation becomes the norm.

As for the evolution of cooperation, evidence from cooperative pulling experiments provides support for the theory that cooperation evolved multiple times independently. The fact that basic characteristics of cooperation are present in some mammals and some birds points to a case of convergent evolution. Within social animals, cooperation is suspected to be a cognitive adaptation.

Background
Many species of animals cooperate in the wild. Collaborative hunting has been observed in the air (e.g., among Aplomado falcons), on land (e.g., among lions), in the water (e.g., among killer whales), and under the ground (e.g., among driver ants). Further examples of cooperation include parents and others working together to raise young (e.g., among African elephants), and groups defending their territory, which has been studied in primates and other social species such as bottlenose dolphins, spotted hyenas, and common ravens.

Researchers from various disciplines have been interested in cooperation in animals. Ethologists study animal behavior in general. Comparative psychologists are interested in the origins, differences, and commonalities in psychological capacities across animal species. Evolutionary psychologists investigate the origin of human behavior and cognition, and cooperation is of great interest to them, as human societies are built on collaborative activities.

For animals to be considered cooperating, partners must take account of each other's behavior to pursue their common goal. There are various levels of cooperation. These increase in temporal and spatial complexity from performing similar actions, to synchrony (similar actions performed in unison), then coordination (similar actions performed at the same time and place), and finally collaboration (complementary actions performed at the same time and place). Researchers use controlled experiments to analyze the strategies applied by cooperating animals, and to investigate the underlying mechanisms that lead species to develop cooperative behavior.

Method
The cooperative pulling paradigm is an experimental design in which two or more individuals, typically but not necessarily animals, can pull rewards towards themselves via an apparatus they can not successfully operate alone. The cooperative pulling paradigm is the most popular paradigm for testing cooperation in animals.

Apparatus

The type of apparatus used in cooperative pulling experiments can vary. Researcher Meredith Crawford, who invented the experimental paradigm in 1937 while at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center, used an apparatus consisting of two ropes attached to a box that was too heavy to be pulled by a single chimpanzee. The standard apparatus is used in the loose-string task, designed by Hirata in 2003, in which a single string or rope is threaded through loops on a movable platform. If only one participant pulls the string, it comes loose and the platform can no longer be retrieved. Only by pulling together in coordination can the participants be successful; success by chance is highly unlikely. Some researchers have designed apparatus that involve handles instead of ropes. De Waal and Brosnan have argued that complex electronically-mediated devices are not conducive to arrive at findings regarding cooperation. This is in contrast to mechanical pulling devices, in which the animals can see and feel their pull having immediate effect. String-pulling tasks have advantages in terms of ecological validity for animals that pull branches with food towards themselves. Tasks in which participants have different roles in collaboration, such as for example, one pulls a handle and the other one needs to insert a stick, are considered outside the cooperative pulling paradigm.

Subjects
So far, fewer than twenty species have participated in cooperative pulling experiments: chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, capuchin monkeys, tamarins, macaques, humans, hyenas, wolves, dogs, elephants, otters, dolphins, rooks, ravens, parrots, and kea. Researchers have picked species that cooperate in the wild (e.g., capuchins), live in social structures (e.g., wolves), or have known cognitive abilities (e.g., orangutans). Most of the participating animals have been in human care at an animal research center; some lived semi-free at a sanctuary in their natural habitat. One study involved free animals (Barbary macaques) in the wild.

Conditions
To arrive at conclusions regarding cooperation, researchers have designed experiments with various conditions.

Delay
The first animal has access to the apparatus before the other one. If the animal does not wait for its partner this suggests a lack of understanding of the requirements for successful cooperation.

Recruitment
The subject recruits the partner (for example by opening a door) when the task requires cooperation.

Partner choice
The first animal gets to choose which animal from a pair it wants as a partner. In some cases individual animals from within a group can decide to join an animal already at the apparatus.

Apparatus choice
Instead of just one apparatus in the test area there are two identical ones. Animals can decide to work on the same one (which can lead to success) or on different ones (which will lead to failure). A further design involves two different apparatus. The first animal can decide whether to use an apparatus that can be operated alone or one that requires and has a partner waiting. A 'no rope' version involves an apparatus where everything is the same except for the rope on the partner's side being coiled up and not accessible to the partner.

Reward
Rewards can be food split equally over two bowls in front of each animal, or in one bowl only. The type of food can vary from many small pieces to a single big lump (e.g., slices of an apple vs. a whole apple). In combination with the apparatus choice, the reward for the joint-task apparatus is often twice as big as the reward for the solo apparatus. Another variation is a modified apparatus where one partner gets food before the other, requiring the first one to keep pulling despite already having received the reward.

Visibility
Typically the animals can see each other, all rewards, and all parts of the apparatus. To assess the role of visual communication, sometimes an opaque divider is placed such that the animals can no longer see each other, but can still see both rewards.

Training
Animals are often first trained with an apparatus that can be operated by one individual. For example, the two ends of a string are on top of each other and a single animal can pull both ends. A technique called shaping can be used by gradually extending the distance between the string ends, or by gradually extending the length of delay between the arrival of the first and second animal at the apparatus.

Findings

Overview
Although many animals retrieve rewards in their cooperative pulling tasks, the conclusions regarding cooperation are mixed and complex. Some researchers have attributed successful cooperation to random simultaneous action, or to the simple reactive behavior of pulling the rope when it moves. Many trials with capuchins, hyenas, parrots and rooks led to failure because one partner pulled without the other present, suggesting a lack of understanding of cooperation. A few researchers have offered the possible explanation that animals may understand cooperation to some extent but simply can not suppress the desire to have food they see.

But there is evidence that some species do have an understanding of cooperation and perform intentional coordination to achieve a goal.
Specifically, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, tamarins, capuchins, elephants, wolves, ravens, and kea appear to understand how cooperation works. Chimpanzees not only wait for a partner, but will actively solicit help when needed. They appear to recall previous outcomes to recruit the most effective partner. In a group setting, chimpanzees punish initial competitive behavior (taking food without pulling, displacing animals) such that eventually, after many trials, successful cooperation becomes the norm. Bonobos, which are social animals with higher tolerance levels, can outperform chimpanzees on some cooperative tasks. Elephants will wait for 45 seconds for a partner to arrive before they start a cooperative pulling task; wolves do the same for 10 seconds. Dogs raised as pets are also able to wait for a partner, albeit only for a few seconds; pack dogs on the other hand rarely succeed in cooperative pulling in any condition. Among birds, ravens are able to learn to wait after many trials, while kea have set the record in waiting for a partner, 65 seconds. Mere knowledge of the presence of a partner is not enough for success: when a barrier with a small hole was placed between two capuchins, obstructing the view of the partner's actions, the success rate dropped. Of those species tested in the delay condition, parrots, rooks, and otters failed.

In 2008, Seed, Clayton and Emery said the study of the proximate mechanisms underpinning cooperation in animals was in its infancy, due in part to the poor performances of animals such as chimpanzees in early tests that did not take factors such as inter-individual tolerance into account. In 2006, Melis, Hare, and Tomasello had shown that the performance of chimpanzees in cooperative tasks was strongly influenced by levels of inter-individual tolerance. Several studies since have highlighted the fact that tolerance has a direct impact on cooperation success, as the more tolerant an animal is around food the better it performs. Subordinate animals seem simply not willing to risk being attacked by intolerant dominant animals, even if it means they will not obtain food either.  In general, cooperation will not emerge if individuals can not share the spoils obtained through their joint effort. Temperament, whether an animal is bold or shy, has also been found to predict success.

As for the evolution of cooperation, evidence from cooperative pulling experiments appears to support the theory that cooperation evolved multiple times independently. The fact that basic characteristics of cooperation are present in some mammals and some birds points to a case of convergent evolution. Within social animals, cooperation is suspected to be a cognitive adaptation. The ability of humans to cooperate is likely to have been inherited from an ancestor shared with at least chimpanzees and bonobos. The superior scale and range of human cooperation comes mainly from the ability to use language to exchange social information.

Primates

Chimpanzees

Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) are smart, social animals. In the wild they cooperate to hunt, dominate rival groups, and defend their territory. They have participated in many cooperative pulling experiments. The first ever cooperative pulling experiment involved captive chimpanzees. In the 1930s Crawford was a student and researcher at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. In 1937 he published a study of two young chimpanzees named Bula and Bimba pulling ropes attached to a box. The box was too heavy to be pulled in by just one ape. On top of the box was food. The two participants synchronized their pulling and were able to get the food reward in four to five short pulls. In a second part of the study, Crawford fed Bula so much prior to the test that she was no longer interested in the food reward. By poking her and pushing her hand towards the rope, Bimba tried to enlist her help in the task, with success. In a follow-up experiment with seven pairs of chimpanzees Crawford found none of the apes spontaneously cooperated. Only after extensive training were they able to work together to obtain food. They also failed to transfer this new skill to a slightly different task, in which the ropes were hanging from the ceiling.

Similar mixed results, not matching the cooperative abilities observed in chimpanzees in the wild, were obtained in later studies by other researchers using a variety of experimental set-ups, including the loose-string task pioneered by Hirata. Povinelli and O'Neill, for example, found that trained chimpanzees were unable to teach naive chimpanzees to cooperate on a Crawford-like box-pulling task. The naive animals did not imitate the experts. Chalmeau and Gallo found only two chimpanzees consistently cooperating in their handle-pulling task, and this involved one ape holding his own handle and waiting for the other to pull his. They concluded that social factors and not limited cognitive abilities were the reason for lack of widespread success, as they observed dominant chimpanzees controlling the apparatus and preventing others from interacting.

Melis, Hare, and Tomasello set up an experiment to control for such social factors. In a loose-string cooperative task without training they compared the ability of pairs of captive chimpanzees who in a non-cooperative setting were willing to share food with each other to pairs who were less inclined to do so. The results showed that food sharing was a good predictor for success in the cooperative pulling task. Melis, Hare, and Tomasello concluded that mixed results in the past could at least partially be explained by a failure to control for such social constraints. In a follow-up study with semi–free-ranging chimpanzees, again using the loose-string task, the researchers introduced the delay task, in which subjects were tested in their ability to wait for the partner. After mastering this task, they participated in a new task designed to measure their ability to recruit the partner. They found that the apes only recruited a partner (by unlocking a door) if the task required cooperation. When given the choice between partners, the apes chose the more effective one, based on their experience with each of them previously.

Suchak, Eppley, Campbell, Feldman, Quarles, and de Waal argued that even when experiments take social relationships into account, the results still do not match the cooperation capabilities observed in the wild. They set out to increase the ecological validity of their experiments by placing a handle-pulling apparatus in an open-group setting, allowing the captive chimpanzees themselves to choose to interact with it or not, and with whom. They also refrained from any training, offered as little human intervention as possible, and extended the duration to much longer than any test had ever done, to 47 days of 1 hour tests. The chimpanzees first discovered that cooperation could lead to success, but as more individuals became aware of this new way to obtain food, competition increased, taking the form of dominant apes displacing others, monopolizing the apparatus, and freeloading: taking the food others worked for. This competition led to fewer successful cooperative acts. The group did manage to restore and increase levels of cooperative behavior by various enforcement techniques: dominant individuals were unable to recruit partners and abandoned the apparatus, displacement was met with aggressive protest, and freeloaders were punished by third-party arbiters. When the researchers repeated this experiment with a brand new group of chimpanzees who not yet had established a social hierarchy, they again found that cooperation overcame competition in the long run. In a later study with a mix of novices and experts, Suchak, Watzek, Quarles, and de Waal found that novices learned rapidly in the presence of experts, although likely with limited understanding of the task.

Greenberg, Hamann, Warneken, and Tomasello used a modified apparatus that required two captive chimpanzees to pull, but delivered food to one ape first. They found that in many trials the apes who already had received a reward from joint effort kept pulling to help their partner obtain their food.
These partners did not need to gesture to solicit help, suggesting there was an understanding of what was wanted and needed.

Bonobos

Bonobos (Pan paniscus) are social animals that live in less hierarchical structures than chimpanzees. Hare, Melis, Woods, Hastings, and Wrangham set out to compare cooperation in chimpanzees and bonobos. They first ran a cofeeding experiment for each species. Pairs of bonobos were given two food dishes. In some trials both dishes had sliced fruit; in some one dish was empty and the other had sliced fruit; and in some one dish was empty and the other contained just two slices of fruit. The same set-up was then used for pairs of chimpanzees. When both dishes had food, there was no difference in behavior between bonobos and chimpanzees. But when only one dish contained food, bonobos were more than twice as likely to share food than chimpanzees. Bonobos were more tolerant of each other than chimpanzees. The researchers then ran a loose-string cooperation task with both dishes filled with sharable food. The results showed similar success rates for bonobos and chimpanzees, 69% of chimpanzee pairs and 50% of bonobo pairs spontaneously solving the task at least once within the six-trial test session.

In a third experiment, a year later, the same cooperation task was administered but now with different food distributions. The bonobos outperformed the chimpanzees in the condition where one dish only had food and the food was clumped making it easier to monopolize the food reward. Bonobos cooperated more often in this condition. On average a single chimpanzee partner monopolized food rewards more often than a single bonobo did. In the condition where both dishes were filled with food, chimpanzees and bonobos performed similarly, as they had done the year before. The researchers concluded that the differences in performance between species were not due to differences in age, relationships, or experience. It was the bonobos' higher social tolerance level that enabled them to outperform their relatives.

Orangutans

Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) are tool-using apes that are mostly solitary. Chalmeau, Lardeux, Brandibas, and Gallo tested the cooperative capabilities of a pair of orangutans, using a device with handles. Only through simultaneous pulling could the pair retrieve a food reward. Without any training the orangutans succeeded in the first session. Over the course of 30 sessions, the apes succeeded more quickly, having learned to coordinate. Across trials the researchers found an increase in a sequence of actions that suggested understanding of cooperation: first looking at the partner; then if the partner holds or pulls the handle, starting to pull.

The researchers also concluded that the orangutans learned a partner had to be present for success. For example, they observed that time spent alone at the apparatus decreased as the trials progressed. In some instances one orangutan pushed the other towards the free handle, soliciting cooperation. The researchers observed an asymmetry: one ape did all the monitoring and coordinating, the other one seemed to simply pull if the first one was present. Rewards did not have to be shared equally for success to appear, as one orangutan took 92% of all food. This ape anticipated the falling of food and stuck his hand out first, before recruiting help from his partner. Chalmeau, Lardeux, Brandibas, and Gallo concluded the apes appeared to understand the requirements of the cooperative task.

Capuchins

Capuchins (Sapajus apella) are large-brained monkeys that sometimes hunt cooperatively in the wild and
show, for nonhuman primates, unusually high levels of social tolerance around food. Early experiments to prove their ability to cooperate were unsuccessful. These tests involved capuchins having to pull handles or press levers in complex devices that the animals did not understand. They did not pull the handle more often when a partner was pulling; both novices and experienced participants kept pulling even in situations where success was impossible. Visalberghi, Quarantotti, and Tranchida concluded that there was no evidence of an appreciation of the role played by the partner.

The first test with evidence of cooperation in capuchins happened when de Waal and Brosnan adopted Crawford's pulling paradigm. Two captive monkeys were situated in adjacent sections of a test chamber, with a mesh partition between them. In front of them was an apparatus consisting of a counter-weighted tray with two pull bars and two food cups. Each monkey had access to only one bar and one food cup, but could see both, and only one cup was filled with food. The tray was too heavy for one monkey to pull it in, with weights established over trials lasting three years. Only when they worked together and both pulled could they move the tray, enabling one of them to grab the food. Trained monkeys were much more successful if they both obtained rewards after pulling than if only one of them received rewards. The pull rate dropped significantly when monkeys were alone at the apparatus, suggesting an understanding of the need for a partner. In later tests, researchers replaced the mesh partition with an opaque barrier with a small hole, so that the monkeys could see the other one was there but not their actions. This dramatically reduced success in cooperation.

De Waal and Berger used the cooperative pulling paradigm to investigate animal economics. They compared the behavior when both transparent bowls were loaded with food to when just one was loaded, and with a solo task where the partner was only an observer and unable to help. They found that captive capuchin monkeys were willing to pull even if their bowl was empty and it was uncertain if their partner would share food. In 90% of cases the owner of the food did indeed share the food. Food was shared more often if the partner actually worked for it than just being an observer.

Brosnan, Freeman, and de Waal tested captive capuchin monkeys on a bar-pulling apparatus with unequal rewards. Contrary to their expectations, rewards did not have to be distributed equally to achieve success. What mattered was the behavior in an unequal situation: pairs that tended to alternate which monkey received the higher-value food were more than twice as successful in obtaining rewards than pairs in which one monkey dominated the higher-value food.

Tamarins

Cottontop tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) are small monkeys who take care of their young cooperatively in the wild. Cronin, Kurian, and Snowdon tested eight captive cottontop tamarins in a series of cooperative pulling experiments. Two monkeys were put on opposite sides of a transparent apparatus containing food. Only if both monkeys pulled a handle on their side of the apparatus towards themselves at the same time would food drop down for them to obtain.
The tamarins were first trained, through shaping techniques, to use the handles successfully by themselves. In the joint pulling test pairs were successful in 96% of trials.

The researchers then ran a second study in which a tamarin was tested alone. The results showed that tamarins pulled the handles at a lower rate when alone with the apparatus than when in the presence of a partner. Cronin, Kurian, and Snowdon concluded from this that cottontop tamarins have a good understanding of cooperation. They suggest that cottontop tamarins have developed cooperative behavior as a cognitive adaptation.

Macaques

Molesti and Majolo tested a group of wild Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus) in Morocco to see if they would cooperate, and if so, what determined their partner choice. Macaques live in complex social environments and are relatively tolerant socially. After solo training, the researchers presented a loose-string apparatus for the cooperative task, which the animals were free to use.
Most animals that passed solo training were successful in spontaneously cooperating to obtain food (22 out of 26). More than half the pairs that chose to cooperate were juvenile-adult pairs. More than two monkeys pulling was never observed; stealing food from a partner was rare. After a first successful cooperation, they were more likely to pull when a partner was directly available, but this was not always the case. Molesti and Majolo did not rule out that pulling while no one held or pulled the other end of the rope was simply a signal to actively recruit a potential partner.
The researchers randomly introduced control trials in which the solo apparatus was set up as well. The macaques preferred to get the food alone when a partner was not needed during the control.

The extent to which a monkey tolerated another was a good predictor for initiating cooperation.
An individual was also found to be more successful with partners with whom they had a strong social bond.
Pairs sharing a similar temperament were more likely to initiate cooperation.
The quality of the relationship seemed to play an important role in the maintenance of cooperation over time.

Humans
Rekers, Haun, and Tomasello tested the cooperation abilities and preferences of humans (Homo sapiens) and compared them to chimpanzees.
The researchers provided 24 three-year-old children with some basic training in pulling food rewards towards themselves; in pairs using a loose-string setup, and solo training in which the two ends of a rope were tied together. They then tested the children in an apparatus choice set-up. On one side was the loose end of a rope that threaded through the apparatus to the other child. On the other side were two ends of a rope that when pulled would pull a platform towards both the child and their partner. Both the joint-operator platform and the solo-operated platform were holding two food dishes, all containing the same amounts of food. That is, from a partner's perspective, on one side the child had to pull to get food; on the other the partner could get food without any effort. The children chose the joint-operated board in 78% of trials.

The researchers then changed the design to ascertain if this choice preference was due to wishing to avoid freeloading and it may be that the children did not like their partner getting food without making any effort. In the modified set-up the partners never received any reward, not from the joint-operated apparatus and not from the solo-operated apparatus. Children again chose the joint-operated platform significantly more often, in 81% of trials. As in the first study, there was no significant difference in the time taken to obtain the food reward between using one side or the other. These results suggest that to obtain food, children prefer to work together with a partner as opposed to working alone. The chimpanzees in their study appeared to choose between the two platforms randomly, indicating no preference to work collaboratively. However, Bullinger, Melis, and Tomasello showed that chimpanzees actually exhibit a preference for working alone, unless cooperation is associated with higher pay-offs.

Other mammals

Hyenas

Captive spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta), social carnivores that hunt in groups, have cooperated to obtain food rewards by pulling ropes in an experimental setting. Mimicking the natural choice hunting hyenas face when deciding which of many prey to jointly attack, researchers Drea and Carter set up two devices instead of one, as previously used in all cooperative pulling tasks with other species. With four ropes to pull from, the animals had to pick the two belonging to the same device to be successful. If two vertically suspended ropes were simultaneously tugged, a spring-controlled trap door of an elevated platform was opened and previously hidden food dropped to the floor.
Another innovation was the introduction of more than two animals. One of the many factors the researchers controlled for was the Clever Hans effect (an effect in which humans unwittingly provide cues to animals), which they did by removing all humans from the test and by recording experiments on video.

After extensive solo trials, all hyenas were successful in cooperating, displaying remarkable efficiency even on their first try. On average, hyenas pulled on ropes more often when their companion was nearby and available to fulfil its partnership role. With only a few solo trials, the success rate of the cooperation task was very low for pairs. In groups of four hyenas, all trials were successful, regardless of the number of reward platforms. Thereafter, group exposure to a cooperation task had enhancing effects on pairwise performance. Social factors such as group size and hierarchy played a role. For instance, groups with a dominant member were far less successful than groups without, and lower-ranking animals were faster and consistently successful. When pairing experienced cooperators with animals new to the cooperation task, the researchers found that experienced animals monitored the novices and modified their behavior to achieve success. Despite initial accommodation, the pattern of rank-related social influences on partner performance also appeared in these tests with novices.

Dogs

Ostojić and Clayton administered the loose-string cooperation task to domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Pet dogs first were given a solo task in which the string ends were close enough for one dog to pull at both. Then they were given a transfer test to assess if they could generalize their newly learned rule to novel situations. Finally, the joint task was administered. Dog pairs always came from the same household. In half of the joint tasks one of the pair of dogs was shortly delayed by an obstacle course. All dogs that learned to master the solo task solved the joint task within 60 trials. In the delayed condition, the not-delayed dog waited before pulling most of the time, but only for a few seconds. The researchers also tested dog–human pairs, again in delayed and not-delayed conditions. Dogs were equally successful when working with humans in the non-delayed condition, but far less successful when they had to wait for the human, who on average arrived with a 13-seconds longer delay than the delayed dog in the dog–dog trials. Ostojić and Clayton concluded that inhibiting the necessary action was not easy for dogs. They ruled out that dogs simply went for any moving string, as in the dog–human trials the humans did not pull hard enough to make the other end move. They attributed success to the dogs' ability to read the social cue of their partner's behavior, but could not rule out that visual feedback of seeing rewards incrementally move closer also played a role.

These results with pet dogs stand in stark contrast to the results with pack dogs, which in a study by Marshall-Pescini, Schwarz, Kostelnik, Virányi, and Range rarely succeeded in obtaining food. The researchers theorized that pet dogs are trained not to engage in conflicts over resources, promoting a level of tolerance, which may facilitate cooperation. The pack dogs were used to competition over resources and thus were likely to have conflict avoidance strategies, which constrain cooperation.

Wolves

Marshall-Pescini, Schwarz, Kostelnik, Virányi, and Range set out to test two competing hypotheses regarding cooperation in wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs. On the one hand, it could be theorized that dogs have been selected, during domestication, for tame temperaments and an inclination to cooperate and therefore should outperform wolves on a cooperative pulling task. On the other hand, it could be argued that dogs have evolved to become less able to work jointly with other dogs because of their reliance on humans. Wolves rely on each other for hunting, raising young and defending their territory; dogs rarely rely on other dogs. The researchers set up a cooperative pulling task for captive wolves and pack dogs. Without any training on this task, five of the seven wolf pairs were successful at least once, but only one dog pair out of eight managed to obtain food, and only once. After solo training, again the wolves far outperformed the dogs on the joint task. The researchers concluded that the difference does not stem from a difference in understanding of the task (their cognitive capabilities are largely the same), nor from a difference in social aspects (for both species, aggressive behavior by dominant animals was rare, as was submissive behavior by lower ranked ones). More likely is that dogs avoid potential conflict over a resource more than wolves do, something which has been observed in other studies as well.

The wolves, but not the dogs, were then tested in pairs in a set-up with two identical apparatus 10 meters (39 ft) apart, requiring them to coordinate in time and space. In 74% of the trials they succeeded. The stronger the bond between the partners and the smaller the distance in rank, the better they performed. In a subsequent delay condition, with the second wolf released 10 seconds after the first, most wolves did well, one being successful in 94% of trials.

Elephants

Elephants have a complex social structure and large brains that enable them to solve many problems. Their size and strength do not make them easy candidates for experiments. Researchers Plotnik, Lair, Suphachoksahakun, and de Waal adapted the apparatus and task to elephant requirements. They trained captive Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) to use a rope to pull a sliding platform with food on it towards themselves. Once the elephants managed this solo task, the researchers introduced a loose-string apparatus by threading the rope around the platform. At first, two elephants were released simultaneously to walk side by side in two lanes to the two loose ends of the rope. Using their trunks the animals coordinated their actions and retrieved the food.

At this stage they could simply be applying a 'see the rope, pull the rope' strategy. To see whether they understood the requirements of the task the researchers introduced a delay for one elephant, initially of 5 seconds and ultimately of 45 seconds. At first the lead elephant failed to retrieve the food but was soon seen to wait for a partner.  Across 60 trials the first elephant waited for the second one before pulling in most cases. In a further control the researchers prevented the second elephant from being able to access its end of the rope. In almost all of these cases the first elephant did not pull the rope, and four of the six returned when they saw the other rope end was not going to be accessible to their partner. The researchers concluded that this suggested the elephants understood they needed their partner to be present and to have access to the rope to succeed. One elephant never pulled the rope but simply put her foot on the rope and let the partner do all the pulling. Another one waited for his partner's release at the starting line rather than waiting at the rope. Plotnik, Lair, Suphachoksahakun, and de Waal conceded that it is difficult to distinguish learning from understanding. They did prove that elephants show a propensity towards deliberate cooperation. The speed with which they learned the critical ingredients of successful cooperation puts them on par with chimpanzees and bonobos.

Otters

Schmelz, Duguid, Bohn, and Völter presented two species of captive otters, giant otters (Pteronura brasiliensis) and Asian small-clawed otters (Aonyx cinerea), with the loose-string task. Both species raise young cooperatively and live in small groups. Because giant otters forage together but small-clawed otters do not, the researchers expected the giant otters to do better in the cooperative pulling experiment. After solo training, they tested both species in a group setting, to maintain ecological validity. The results showed that most pairs of otters were successful in pulling food rewards to themselves. Contrary to expectation, there was no difference between the species in success rate. In a subsequent experiment the researchers first lured the group away from the apparatus into the opposite corner of the enclosure. Then they put food on the apparatus and observed what happened when the first otter arrived at the nearest end of the rope, as there was no partner yet at the other end. Very few trials led to success in this condition as otters pulled the rope as soon as they could. The researchers concluded from this that the otters did not understand the necessary elements of successful cooperation, or, alternatively, they understood but were unable to inhibit the desire to reach for the food. When the same task was repeated with a longer rope, success rate did go up, but the otters appeared unable to learn from this and be successful in the next task with the rope length restored to the original length. Schmelz, Duguid, Bohn, and Völter suggested that an understanding of cooperation may not be required for successful cooperation in the wild. Cooperative hunting may be possible through situational coordination and mutualism, without any complex social cognitive abilities.

Dolphins

Two groups of researchers (first Kuczaj, Winship, and Eskelinen, and then Eskelinen, Winship, and Jones) adapted the cooperative pulling paradigm for captive bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). As apparatus they used a container which could only be opened at one end if two dolphins each pulled a rope on either end. That is, the dolphins would have to face each other and pull in opposite directions. They first attached the container to a stationary dock so a single dolphin could learn to open it and get the food reward. Then they ran trials in which the container was free floating in a large test area with six dolphins. In Kuczaj, Winship, and Eskelinen's study, only two dolphins interacted with the container. In eight of the twelve trials they pulled simultaneously and obtained food. Once, they also managed to open the container through asynchronous pulling, and once a single male dolphin managed to open it by himself. Kuczaj, Winship, and Eskelinen admitted that this behavior may appear to be cooperation but could possibly be competition. They conceded it is possible that the dolphins did not understand the role of the other dolphin, but instead simply tolerated it pulling on the other side. King, Allen, Connor, and Jaakkola later argued that this design makes for a competitive 'tug-of-war', not cooperation, and any conclusions regarding cooperation should therefore be invalid.

Birds

Rooks

Rooks (Corvus frugilegus) are large-brained members of the bird family Corvidae. They live in big groups and have a high level of social tolerance. Researchers Seed, Clayton, and Emery set up a loose-string experiment with eight captive rooks. They were first trained in a solo task, with the string ends placed at 1 cm, 3 cm and ultimately 6 cm apart (0.4, 1.2, and 2.4 inch respectively). A pair's willingness to share food was then tested, and was found to differ somewhat between pairs, although food was rarely monopolized by a dominant bird. In the cooperative task, all pairs were able to solve the cooperation problem and retrieve food; two pairs managed this in their first session. Food sharing was a good predictor for successful cooperation.

In a subsequent delay test, where one partner had access to the apparatus first, all rooks pulled the string without waiting for their partner to enter the test area in the majority of trials. In a second variant, birds were given a choice between a platform they could operate successfully alone and one that required a pulling partner. When tested alone, four of the six rooks showed no significant preference for either platform. Seed, Clayton, and Emery concluded that although successful at the cooperation task, it seemed unlikely that the rooks had an understanding of when cooperation was necessary.

Researchers Scheid and Noë subsequently found that successful cooperation in rooks depended to a large extent on their temperament. In their loose-string experiment with 13 captive rooks they distinguished between bold and shy animals. The results were mixed, ranging from some pairs cooperating successfully every time to some pairs never cooperating. In 81% of cases a rook should have waited for a partner, but it did not and started pulling. Scheid and Noë concluded their experiment provided no evidence for or against rooks having an understanding of the task. They attributed any cooperation success to common external cues and not coordination of actions. But all subjects did better when they were paired with a bolder partner. The researchers suggested that in evolution, cooperation can emerge because bolder individuals encourage a risk-averse one to engage.

Ravens

Massen, Ritter, and Bugnyar investigated the cooperative capabilities of captive common ravens (Corvus corax), a species that frequently cooperates in the wild. They found that without training ravens cooperated in the loose-string task. The animals did not seem to pay attention to the behavior of their partners while cooperating, and, like rooks, did not seem to understand the need for a partner to be successful. Tolerance of their partner was a critical factor for success. In one condition the researchers let ravens choose a partner from a group to cooperate with. Overall success was higher in this condition, and again, individuals that tolerated each other more had more success. The ravens also paid attention to reward distribution: they stopped cooperating when being cheated upon.

Asakawa-Haas, Schiestl, Bugnyar, and Massen subsequently ran an open-choice experiment with eleven captive ravens in a group setting, using nine ravens from one group and two newcomers. They found that the ravens' decision which partner to cooperate with was based on tolerance of proximity and not on whether they were part of the group or not. The ravens in this experiment learned to wait for their partner and inhibit pulling the string too soon.

Grey parrots

Researchers Péron, Rat-Fischer, Lalot, Nagle and Bovet had captive grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) try to cooperate in a loose-string experimental set-up. The grey parrots were able to act simultaneously but, like the rooks, largely failed to wait for a partner in the delay task. They did not make any attempts to recruit a helping partner. The parrots did take the presence of a partner into account, since they all pulled more when a partner was present, but this could be explained by instrumental learning rather than a real understanding of the task. The researchers also gave the parrots a choice between two apparatus, one from the solo task and one from the loose-string task, now stacked with double the food per bird. Two of the three parrots chose the solo apparatus when alone, and two of the three parrots preferred the joint-task apparatus when tested with a partner. When paired up, social preferences and tolerance affected the likelihood a pair cooperated.

Kea

Kea (Nestor notabilis), parrots native to New Zealand, are a distant relative of the grey parrot. They live in complex social groups and do well on cognitive tests. Heaney, Gray, and Taylor gave four captive kea a series of cooperative loose-string tasks. After solo training and shaping with string ends increasingly further apart, two birds were released simultaneously in a joint loose-string task. Both pairs did very well, one pair failing only 5 in 60 trials. Shaping was then used in a delay task, with the partner released after one second, then two, and gradually up to 25 seconds later than the first bird.
The birds managed to wait for a partner between 74% and 91% of test trials, including success at 65 seconds delay, longer than any other animal of any species had been tested for.
To assess if this success could be explained by the learning of a combination of cues, such as seeing a partner while feeling tension on the string, or by a proper understanding of cooperation, the researchers randomly gave the kea a set-up they could solve alone or one in which they needed to cooperate with a delayed partner.
Three of the four kea were successful at a significant rate: they chose to wait when they had to and immediately pulled when the task could be done alone. However, when the researchers modified the set-up and coiled up the string end of the delayed partner, no bird was successful at discriminating between a duo platform with both ends of string available to both kea and a duo platform with the partner's string coiled out of reach.
The researchers were not able to determine the reason for this result. They speculated it could be that kea do have an understanding of when they need a partner but do not have a clear idea of the role their partner plays in relation to the string, or they may lack of a full causal understanding of how the string works. Finally, the researchers attempted to ascertain if kea have a preference for working alone or together. No preference was found in three of the four kea, but one kea preferred the duo platform significantly more. Heaney, Gray, and Taylor concluded that these results put kea on a par with elephants and chimpanzees in terms of cooperative pulling.

These conclusions are in sharp contrast to those of Schwing, Jocteur, Wein, Noë, and Massen, who tested ten captive kea in a loose-string task on an apparatus that provided limited visibility to follow the trajectory of the string. After training with a human partner (no solo training was done), only 19% of trials led to the birds obtaining food in the joint task. The researchers found that the closer the birds were affiliated, the more successful they were in the cooperation task. The kea did not seem to understand either the mechanics of the loose-string apparatus or the need of a partner, as in training with humans they still pulled the string even when the human was too far away or facing the wrong way. The way rewards were distributed had a small effect on the likelihood of cooperation attempts. The difference in social rank or dominance did not seem to matter.

Footnotes

References

Notes

Bibliography

External links
 First ever cooperative pulling experiment (video) Crawford (1937)
 Elephants in cooperative pulling experiment (video) Plotnik et al. (2011)
 Wolves and dogs in cooperative pulling experiment (video) Marshall-Pescini et al. (2017)
 Chimpanzees in cooperative pulling experiment (video) Suchak et al. (2014)
 Dolphins in pulling experiment (video) Kuczaj et al. (2015)
 TED Talk Moral behavior in animals (video) Frans de Waal

Design of experiments
Ethology
Animal cognition

Cooperative pulling paradigm


Dumplin' er en amerikansk komediefilm fra 2018, instrueret af Anne Fletcher og skrevet af Kristin Hahn. Den er baseret på ungdomsromanen af med samme navn af Julie Murphy. I filmen spiller Danielle Macdonald hovedpersonen Willowdean "Dumplin'" Dickson, Jennifer Aniston som hendes mor, Rosie Dickson, og Odeya Rush som Dumplin' bedste ven, Ellen Dryver.

Plot
Willowdean "Will" Dickson vokser op i en lille by i Texas, hovedsagligt opdraget af sin tante Lucy. Hendes mor Rosie - der til meget ærgrelse kalder hende Dumplin' - er en tidligere skønhedsdronning, der er for optaget af forskellige skønhedskonkurrencer til at tilbringe tid sammen med sin datter og er planlæggeren af byens årlige Miss Teen Bluebonnet-konkurrence. Lucy introducerer Will for Ellen Dryver, der bliver Wills bedste ven, og samt for Dolly Partons musik. Seks måneder før Will og Ellen starter på deres sidste år i high school, dør Lucy. Rosie har svært ved at snakke med Will, som ofte føler sig dømt på grund sin vægt og er flov over sin mors skønhedsverden.

På første skoledag suspenderes Will efter at have forsvaret en anden overvægtig pige, Millie Mitchellchuck, fra en mobber. Will beskylder Rosie for at være skuffet over hendes udseende og er ked af det, da Rosie insinuerer, at Lucy burde have taget bedre hånd om Wills helbred. Efter at have fundet Lucys ansøgning til Miss Teen Bluebonnet Pageant, da hun var 16, melder Will sig ind i konkurrencen som "højhælet ren protest". Ellen melder sig også til sammen med den begejstrede Millie og deres klassekammerat Hannah Perez, en særegen feminist. Rosie ser Wills ansøgning som en hån med konkurrencen og advarer hende om, at skønhedskonkurencer er hårdere, end hun tror. Will bliver jaloux, når Ellen begynder at glæde sig til konkurrencen og snakke med de andre deltagere, og de skændes efter Will vil have Ellen til at droppe konkurrencen.

Bo, der arbejder med Will på den lokale spisestue, inviterer hende ud for at se en meteorregn. De kysser, men Will panikker, da Bo uskyldigt rører hende på ryggen og hun forlader daten brat. Hun føler sig udenfor, da Rosie vejleder Bekah Colter, konkurrencens favorit, der planlægger at følges med Bo til Sadie Hawkins-ballet. Efter at have fundet en flyer fra en bar, som Lucy hyppigt har besøgt, tager Will tager en aften Millie og Hannah med til barens Dolly Parton-dragshow, hvor Will møder Lee Wayne, en drag queen, der var en nær ven af Lucy. Under auditionen til skønhedskonkurrencen, går Wills tryllenummer dårligt. Bo indrømmer sine følelser for Will, efter at have afvist at følges med Bekah til ballet, men Will er hurtig til at stille spørgsmålstegn ved hans tiltrækning; såret beskylder han hende for at bekymre sig for meget om, hvad andre synes om hende.

Will kæmper med sin usikkerhed og er endelig i stand til at besøge det barndomslegerum hun delte med Ellen og Lucy. Efter at have genfundet en særlig broche blandt Lucys ejendele, bliver Will inspireret til at tage konkurrencen alvorligt, og hun, Millie og Hannah får undervisning af Lee og hans venner. Ved den indledende konkurrence bliver Rosie imponeret over Wills tale om loyalitet, som får Will og Ellen til at blive gode venner igen. Hjemme forsoner Rosie og Will sig over minderne om Lucy, og Rosie fortryder, at hun bad Will donere Lucys ting, efter at have givet "for meget af hende væk".

Ved konkurrencen konfronteres Millie med sin mor for at lyve om at deltage i konkurrencen, men Millie står fast. Will inkorporerer en Dolly Parton-hyldest i hendes tryllenummer, til glæde for publikum og hendes mor; Millies præstation er også en succes. Mens Rosie er overvældet af stolthed, er hun tvunget til at diskvalificere Will for ikke-godkendte ændringer af hendes kostume og sang, ude af stand til at gøre en undtagelse for sin datter. Da Ellens kæreste ikke kan eskortere hende til galletøjspræsentationen, foreslår Rosie, at Will gør det, så de kan gennemføre konkurrencen sammen. Bekah vinder konkurrencen som forventet, mens Millie bliver nummer to. Imens finder Will Bo for at gøre skaden god igen og de forsones sig med et kys. Filmen slutter med at Will og hendes venner tager Rosie og Millies mor til baren, som tante Lucy bragte så meget glæde.

Cast
 Danielle Macdonald som Willowdean "Dumplin'" Dickson
 Jennifer Aniston som Rosie Dickson
 Odeya Rush som Ellen "Elle" Dryver
 Maddie Baillio som Millie Mitchellchuck
 Bex Taylor-Klaus som Hannah Perez
 Luke Benward som Bo Larson
 Georgie Flores som Callie Reyes
 Dove Cameron som Bekah Colter
 Harold Perrineau som Lee Wayne / Rhea Ranged
 Kathy Najimy som Mrs. Mitchellchuck
 Ginger Minj som Candee Disch
 Hilliary Begley som Lucy Dickson
 Sam Pancake som Dale
 Dan Finnerty som Eugene Reed
 Molly McNearney som Delia Shepherd
 Tian Richards som Marcus
 Ryan Dinning som Patrick
 Andrew Fletcher som Tim

Dumplin's forfatter Julie Murphy laver en cameo som kunde ved i baren.

Produktion
Den 15. marts 2017 blev Jennifer Aniston annonceret som del af rollelisten i Dumplin', i rollen som Rosie Dickson, Dumplin's mor.  Den 13. juni 2017 sluttede Danielle Macdonald sig til Aniston i hovedrollen.  Den 15. august 2017 blev Odeya Rush castet i filmen for at spille Ellen "El" Dryver, Willowdeans bedste ven, der skaber vanskeligheder, da hun forsøger at deltage i skønhedskonkurrencen sammen med Will.  Den 21. august 2017 sluttede Dove Cameron, Luke Benward, Bex Taylor-Klaus, Maddie Baillio, Georgie Flores og Ginger Minj sig til rollelisten i Dumplin'''.

Hovedindspilningen af filmen begyndte den 21. august 2017 i Covington, Georgia og sluttede i oktober.

 Udgivelse
I september 2018 erhvervede Netflix sig distributionsrettigheder til filmen.  Den blev udgivet den 7. december 2018.

 Modtagelse
På bedømmelsesaggregatoren Rotten Tomatoes har Dumplin  en godkendelsesvurdering på 86% baseret på 63 anmeldelser, med en gennemsnitlig vurdering på 6,5/10. Webstedets kritiske konsensus lyder: "Båret af et solidt soundtrack og et fantastisk cast tilbyder Dumplin''' sødt opløftende drama, der tilføjer præcis nye nok ingredienser til en pålideligt trøstende opskrift."  På Metacritic har filmen en vægtet gennemsnitlig score på 53 ud af 100, baseret på 16 kritikere, hvilket angiver "blandede eller gennemsnitlige anmeldelser".

Accolades

Soundtrack
Soundtracket, der blev udgivet den 30. november 2018, indeholder sange, der enten er skrevet eller indspillet af countrystjernen Dolly Parton. Parton optræder i hver sang på albummet og skrev seks af de 12 numre udelukkende til filmen, hvor de resterende seks er genindspilninger af nogle af Partons tidligere hits, herunder en strygerversion af "Jolene". Sammen med Parton på soundtracket er at finde Elle King, Miranda Lambert, Mavis Staples, Alison Krauss, Rhonda Vincent, Sia, Macy Gray, Willa Amai og filmens stjerner Aniston og Macdonald.

Referencer

Eksterne henvisninger

Komediefilm fra USA
Engelsksprogede film
Amerikanske film fra 2018

Dumplin' (film)


Birgitte Anker (født 16. oktober 1963 i København) er en dansk embedsmand. Siden 1. oktober 2020 har hun været rigsstatistiker, dvs. øverste chef for Danmarks Statistik. Tidligere har hun bl.a. været direktør for Socialstyrelsen.

Karriere

Birgitte Anker er uddannet cand.polit. fra 1991. Hun har bl.a. været ansat i Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening og i centraladministrationen, senest som afdelingschef i Finansministeriet, Økonomi- og Indenrigsministeriet og Økonomi- og Erhvervsministeriet. I 2015 blev hun udnævnt til direktør for Socialstyrelsen. I august 2020 blev hun udnævnt til rigsstatistiker med virkning fra 1. oktober. I denne stilling afløste hun Jørgen Elmeskov, der i maj samme år havde meddelt, at han ønskede at stoppe på posten, når hans kontrakt udløb i september 2020.

Privatliv

Birgitte Anker er gift med Lars Haagen Pedersen, afdelingschef i Finansministeriet.

Kilder

Eksterne henvisninger

 Danmarks Statistiks pressemeddelelse om Birgitte Anker

Økonomer fra Danmark
Statistikere fra Danmark

Birgitte Anker


Persone
Andrea Bontempi (1326-1390) – cardinale e arcivescovo cattolico italiano
Fabrizio Bontempi (1966) – ex ciclista su strada e dirigente sportivo italiano
Gaudenzio Bontempi (1612-1672) – teologo e cappuccino italiano
Giorgio Bontempi (1926) – giornalista e regista italiano
Giovanni Andrea Angelini Bontempi (1624-1705) – compositore italiano
Guido Bontempi (1960) – ciclista italiano
Pier Carlo Bontempi (1954) – architetto italiano
Piergiorgio Bontempi (1968) – ex pilota motociclistico italiano
Rinaldo Bontempi (1944-2007) – politico italiano
Sebastiano Bontempi (1972) – fotografo e regista di videoclip italiano.
Teresina Bontempi (1883-1968) – giornalista e scrittrice svizzera

Altro
 Bontempi – azienda italiana produttrice di strumenti musicali

Bontempi


Mộ Dung Lân () (?-398) là một tướng lĩnh và một thân vương của nước Hậu Yên trong lịch sử Trung Quốc. Ông là một trong những người con trai của hoàng đế khai quốc Mộ Dung Thùy và là em trai của hoàng đế Mộ Dung Bảo. Ông được lịch sử biết đến với cả tài năng và sự phản bội của mình do ông đã phản lại cả cha cùng hai huynh đệ là Mộ Dung Lệnh (慕容令) và Mộ Dung Bảo trong các sự kiện riêng biệt. Cuối cùng, ông bị thúc phụ Mộ Dung Đức giết chết, Mộ Dung Đức cũng là người đã lập nên nước Nam Yên.

Trước khi thành lập Hậu Yên
Mộ Dung Lân xuất hiện lần đầu trong sử sách là vào năm 369, khi đó Mộ Dung Thùy đang là một thân vương của Tiền Yên, ông ta đã buộc phải chạy trốn đến Tiền Tần sau khi gặp phải sự nghi ngờ của Khả Túc Hồn Thái hậu và nhiếp chính vương Mộ Dung Bình. Trước đó, kế hoạch của Mộ Dung Thùy là chạy trốn đến cố đô Long Thành (龍城, nay thuộc Cẩm Châu, Liêu Ninh) và chiếm giữ nơi này, rồi sau đó tìm kiếm sự hòa giải với Khả Túc Hồn Thái hậu, song trên đường đi, Mộ Dung Lân (người không được cha sủng ái) đã quay trở lại kinh đô Nghiệp Thành (鄴城, nay thuộc Hàm Đan, Hà Bắc) và tiết lộ kế hoạch của cha, điều này đã khiến Mộ Dung Thùy phải thay đổi kế hoạch và chạy đến Tiền Tần.

Mặc dù đã phản lại cha của mình song Mộ Dung Lân lại không được Khả Túc Hồn Thái hậu coi trọng, ông đã bị đày ra khỏi Long Thành trong thân phận một người lính dưới quyền chỉ huy của một người anh em họ là Bột Hải vương Mộ Dung Lượng (慕容亮), hoặc có thể đã bị đày đến Sa Thành (沙城) xa xôi, được mô tả là cách 300 km về phía đông bắc của Long Thành. Năm 370, sau khi Mộ Dung Lệnh bị thừa tướng Vương Mãnh gài bẫy trở về Tiền Yên, ông ta đã bị đưa đi lưu đày ở Sa Thành, và tại đó Mộ Dung Lệnh đã khởi đầu một cuộc nổi loạn cùng với những người cùng cảnh ngộ bị lưu đày, họ đã lập kế sách chiếm Long Thành song Mộ Dung Lân đã tiết lộ kế hoạch này cho Mộ Dung Lượng và người này đã chuẩn bị quân sẵn sàng ứng phó. Thuộc hạ của Mộ Dung Lệnh là Thiệp Khuê (渉圭) sau đó đã làm phản và giết chết Mộ Dung Lệnh.

Sau khi Tiền Tần chinh phục Tiền Yên vào năm 370, Mộ Dung Thùy đã tháp tùng hoàng đế Phù Kiên của Tiền Tần tiến vào Nghiệp Thành, Mộ Dung Thùy đã đưa mẹ của Mộ Dung Lân đến với cái chết, song lại chưa có đủ can đảm để giết Mộ Dung Lân và chỉ trục xuất ông ra khỏi gia đình và bắt đi sống ở nơi khác. Tuy nhiên, đến cuối năm 383 và 384, khi Mộ Dung Thùy nổi dậy chống lại Tiền Tần sau khi Phù Kiên đại bại trong trận Phì Thủy trước Đông Tấn, Mộ Dung Lân đã đưa ra được nhiều kế sách hữu dụng cho cha, Mộ Dung Thùy vì thế đã thay đổi quan điểm về Mộ Dung Lân, yêu quý ông như những người con trai khác.

Dưới thời Mộ Dung Thùy trị vì
Sau khi Mộ Dung Thùy chính thức tuyên bố độc lập và lập nên nước Hậu Yên vào năm 384, Mộ Dung Lân trở thành một trong các tướng trong các chiến dịch chống lại tàn quân của Tiền Tần cũng như các quân phiệt bán độc lập, và các nước khác. Ông đã thể hiện một cách ấn tượng trong các chiến dịch này. Năm 386, Mộ Dung Thùy lập ông làm Triệu vương. Năm 386-387 và 390-391, ông chỉ huy binh lính cùng với vua Thác Bạt Khuê của nước Bắc Ngụy đi đánh tộc trưởng Hung Nô là Lưu Hiển (劉顯) và sau đó là các cuộc nổi loạn khác đe dọa đến sự an toàn của Thác Bạt Khuê. Đến năm 391, do nhận thấy được khả năng của Thác Bạt Khuê nên ông đã đề nghị Mộ Dung Thùy buộc Thác Bạt Khuê phải đến sống tại kinh thành Trung Sơn (中山, nay thuộc Bảo Định, Hà Bắc) của Hậu Uyên và ủy thác việc cai trị Bắc Ngụy cho một người anh em song Mộ Dung Thùy đã từ chối.

Sau khi Hậu Yên bắt giữ em trai Thác Bạt Khuê là Thác Bạt Cô (拓拔觚) để đòi Bắc Nguỵ phải đưa ngựa đến, Thác Bạt Khuê đã từ bỏ lòng trung thành với Hậu Yên, ông ta bắt đầu quấy rối vùng biên giới với Hậu Yên. Năm 395, Mộ Dung Thùy đã cử thái tử Mộ Dung Bảo dẫn quân đi thảo phạt Bắc Ngụy, trong đó Mộ Dung Lân và Liêu Tây vương Mộ Dung Nông là các tướng phụ trợ cho Thái tử. Tuy nhiên, trong chiến dịch, quân Hậu Yên và Bắc Ngụy đã lâm vào thế bí khi muốn qua Hoàng Hà gần kinh đô Thịnh Lạc (盛樂, nay thuộc Hohhot, Nội Mông) của Bắc Ngụy, Thác Bạt Khuê đã lan truyền tin đồn thất thiệt rằng Mộ Dung Thùy đã qua đời, và thuộc hạ Mộ Dư Tung (慕輿嵩) của Mộ Dung Lân đã cố gắng tiến hành chính biến để lật đổ Mộ Dung Bảo và đưa Mộ Dung Lân lên làm hoàng đế, tuy nhiên việc đã bị lộ và Mộ Dư Tung bị giết chết. Điều này đã dẫn đến xích mích giữa hai anh em và quân Hậu Yên vì thế đã rút lui. Mộ Dung Bảo lệnh cho Mộ Dung Lân dẫn quân ở phía sau để chống lại một cuộc tấn công của Bắc Ngụy nếu có, song Mộ Dung Lân lại xem nhẹ Thác Bạt Khuê và do vậy không trông trừng quân Bắc Ngụy cẩn thận, Thác Bạt Khuê vì thế đã chặn được đại quân của Mộ Dung Bảo trong trận Tham Hợp Pha và tiêu diệt gần hết binh lính Hậu Yên, Thác Bạt Khuê sau thắng lợi còn nuôi tham vọng chinh phục Hậu Yên. Năm 396, Mộ Dung Thùy đã đích thân dẫn quân đi đánh Bắc Ngụy và giành được thành công bước đầu, song khi quân Hậu Yên qua Tham Hợp pha, họ đã than khóc và điều này đã khiến Mộ Dung Thùy xấu hổ và giận dữ rồi lâm bệnh, quân Hậu Yên vì thế phải rút lui. Mộ Dung Thùy qua đời ngay sau đó và Mộ Dung Bảo lên kế vị.

Dưới thời Mộ Dung Bảo trị vì
Bất chấp việc đã nghi kị lẫn nhau trước thất bại tại Tham Hợp pha, Mộ Dung Bảo và Mộ Dung Lân về sau đã hòa giải, Mộ Dung Lân ban đầu là một trong các tướng mà Mộ Dung Bảo tin cậy nhất. Sau khi Thác Bạt Khuê đánh bại Mộ Dung Nông và chiếm Tĩnh Châu (并州, nay là trung bộ và bắc bộ Sơn Tây), ông ta đã tiến về Trung Sơn, Mộ Dung Bảo giao cho Mộ Dung Lân nhiệm vụ trấn thủ kinh thành. Mộ Dung Lân chủ trương thủ thành và không giao chiến với quân Bắc Ngụy khiến cho Mộ Dung Nông và Mộ Dung Long rất thất vọng.

Tuy nhiên, mùa xuân năm 397, khi Trung Sơn vẫn nằm trong vòng vây của Bắc Ngụy, Mộ Dung Lân đã tiến hành chính biến bên trong thành nhằm lật đổ Mộ Dung Bảo. Sau khi nỗ lực này thất bại, ông ta chạy trốn khỏi Trung Sơn và đến đóng quân ở Thái Hành Sơn. Lo sợ trước việc Mộ Dung Lân có thể đoạt lấy quân cứu viện do Thanh Hà vương Mộ Dung Hội chỉ huy nên Mộ Dung Bảo đã bỏ Trung Sơn. Người dân Trung Sơn ban đầu ủng hộ Khai Phong công Mộ Dung Tường (慕容詳) lên làm lãnh đạo để tiếp tục kháng Bắc Ngụy. Vào mùa hè năm 397, Mộ Dung Tường xưng đế, song ông ta lại khiến cho nhân dân giận dữ vì do sợ hãi quân Bắc Ngụy (đã không còn bao vây Trung Sơn song vẫn kiểm soát các vùng lân cận), ông đã từ chối cho cư dân ra ngoài thành để tìm lương thực và đã dẫn đến nạn đói nghiêm trọng, ông ta cũng cai trị một cách độc ác. Mộ Dung Lân đã thực hiện một cuộc tấn công bất ngờ vào Trung Sơn, các cổng thành đều mở để ông tiến vào, ông sau đó bắt rồi giết chết Mộ Dung Tường. Mộ Dung Lân sau đó xưng đế, đổi niên hiệu thành Duyên Bình, và cho phép thần dân đi tìm lương thực, song ông lại để mất cơ hội tiến đánh Bắc Ngụy khi người dân đã đủ lương thực. Cuối cùng, khi nguồn lương thực bị cạn dần, quân Bắc Ngụy đã đánh bại ông và chiếm lấy Trung Sơn. Ông chạy đến Nghiệp Thành, tức nơi thúc phụ Mộ Dung Đức trấn thủ.

Mộ Dung Lân khuyên Mộ Dung Đức rằng Nghiệp Thành là một thành quá lớn để có thể phòng thủ, và rằng thúc phụ nên tính đến việc bỏ thành này để lấy Hoạt Đài (滑台, nay thuộc An Dương, Hà Nam) ở phía nam Hoàng Hà. Mộ Dung Đức chấp thuận và bỏ Nghiệp Thành rồi đến cư trú tại Hoạt Đài. Sau đó, Mộ Dung Lân trao tước đế cho Mộ Dung Đức, song người này lại muốn nắm quyền với tước hiệu Yên vương, do vậy lập nước Nam Yên. Ông ta phong Mộ Dung Lân là một trọng tướng song về sau Mộ Dung Lân lại lên kế hoạch nổi loạn và bị Mộ Dung Đức xử tử.

Xem thêm
 Mộ Dung Thùy
 Mộ Dung Đức

Tham khảo

 Tấn thư, các quyển 123, 124, 127.
 Tư trị thông giám, các quyển 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110.

Mất năm 398
Vua Hậu Yên
Nhân vật quân sự Ngũ Hồ thập lục quốc
Năm sinh không rõ

Mộ Dung Lân


Cajigal là một khu tự quản thuộc bang Sucre, Venezuela. Thủ phủ của khu tự quản Cajigal đóng tại Yaguaraparo. Khự tự quản Cajigal có diện tích 365 km2, dân số theo điều tra dân số ngày 21 tháng 10 năm 2001 là 18942 người.

Tham khảo

Bang Sucre
Khu tự quản Venezuela

Cajigal (khu tự quản)


Kaliwatan sa alibangbang ang Atychia infanda. Una ning gihulagway ni Edward Meyrick ni adtong 1920. Ang Atychia infanda sakop sa kahenera nga Atychia, ug kabanay nga Brachodidae. Walay nalista nga matang nga sama niini.

Ang mga gi basihan niini

Insekto
Atychia

Atychia infanda


Fangen kan henvise til

 Fangen (film fra 1965), en dansk film
 Fangen (film fra 2003), en dansk kortfilm

Fangen


The National Prize for Education Sciences () was created in 1979 and is awarded every two years, in accordance with Law 19169 of 1992. It is part of the National Prize of Chile granted by the Ministry of Education.

The jury electing the winner is formed by the Minister of Education, the Rector of the University of Chile, the last awardee, and two professors appointed by the Council of Rectors among the universities that deliver the Bachelor of Science in Education. The floating members of the jury are announced in the month of July of the year of the contest.

The prize consists of a diploma, a cash prize of about 17 million pesos () and a lifetime pension of 20  (approximately US$1,600).

Winners
 1979, Roberto Munizaga Aguirre
 1981,
 1983, Luis Gómez Catalán
 1985, José Valentín Herrera González
 1987, Marino Pizarro Pizarro
 1989, Eliodoro Cereceda Arancibia
 1991, Viola Soto Guzmán
 1993, Ernesto Livacic
 1995,
 1997, Gabriel Castillo Inzulza
 1999, Patricio Cariola Barroilhet
 2001, Hernán Vera Lamperein
 2003, Mabel Condemarín
 2005, Héctor Gutiérrez Muñoz
 2007, Ernesto Schiefelbein Fuenzalida
 2009,
 2011,
 2013,
 2015,
 2017, Abraham Magendzo Kolstrein

References

External links

1979 establishments in Chile
Awards established in 1979
Chilean awards
Education in Chile

National Prize for Education Sciences (Chile)


Kaliwatan sa insekto ang Myrmecolax leleupi. Una ning gihulagway ni Pasteels ni adtong 1956. Ang Myrmecolax leleupi sakop sa kahenera nga Myrmecolax, ug kabanay nga Myrmecolacidae.

Kini nga matang hayop na sabwag sa:
 Ghana
 Demokratikanhong Republika sa Konggo

Walay nalista nga matang nga sama niini.

Ang mga gi basihan niini

Insekto
Insekto sa Ghana
Insekto sa Demokratikanhong Republika sa Konggo
Myrmecolax

Myrmecolax leleupi


Avrig (rumænsk udtale: [aˈvriɡ]; , Transsylvansk saksisk: Freck/Fraek, ) er en by i distriktet Sibiu  i Transsylvanien, i det centrale Rumænien. Den har  indbyggere og de første dokumenter, der attesterer dens eksistens, stammer fra 1346. Den blev officielt en by i 1989 som et resultat af Rumæniens landdistriktsreform.

Geografi
Byen administrerer fire landsbyer: Bradu (Gierelsau; Fenyőfalva), Glâmboaca (Hühnerbach; Glimboka), Mârșa og Săcădate (Sekadaten; Oltszakadát).

Den ligger på venstre bred af floden Olt (ved udmundingen af floden Avrig), tæt på Făgăraș-bjergene, ca. 26 km fra Sibiu på vejen mod Brașov. Det er det vigtigste udgangspunkt for trekkingruterne i den vestlige del af bjergene, og også på adgangspunktet ved et stort antal hytter i bjergene: Cabana Poiana Neamțului, Cabana Bârcaciu, Cabana Ghiocelul.

Kilder og henvisninger

Byer i distriktet Sibiu

Avrig


Una chiesa rurale era una istituzione tipica del Medioevo, finanziata o da un vescovo o da un feudatario che serviva a diffondere il culto cristiano nelle campagne. Chiese rurali con diritti parrocchiali sorsero un po' in tutte le campagne europee intorno dal X al XII secolo, e raggiunsero pienamente il loro scopo facendo dell'Europa medievale un continente cristianizzato.

Un difetto di questa rapida diffusione fu tuttavia il persistere di antiche superstizioni e di una spiritualità superficiale dominata dal bigottismo.

Chiese

Chiesa rurale


Kaliwatan sa alasiwsiw ang Caryanda sanguineoannulata. Una ning gihulagway ni Brunner von Wattenwyl ni adtong 1893. Ang Caryanda sanguineoannulata sakop sa kahenera nga Caryanda, ug kabanay nga Acrididae. Walay nalista nga matang nga sama niini.

Ang mga gi basihan niini

Insekto
Caryanda

Caryanda sanguineoannulata


An Pyrinia abditaria in uska species han Lepidoptera nga ginhulagway ni Warren hadton 1905. An Pyrinia abditaria in nahilalakip ha genus nga Pyrinia, ngan familia nga Geometridae. Waray hini subspecies nga nakalista.

Mga kasarigan

Pyrinia

Pyrinia abditaria


Slavko Vinčić slovenski je nogometni sudija.

Karijera
U Prvoj ligi Slovenije debitirao je u maju 2007. Od 2010. na FIFA-inoj je listi međunarodnih sudija. Na Evropskom prvenstvu 2012. bio je dodatni pomoćnik u timu Damira Skomine.

Dosad je kombinirano sudio u više od 30 utakmica u Ligi prvaka i Evropskoj ligi, uključujući četvrtfinale Lige prvaka 2020/21. između Porta i Chelseaja te polufinale Evropske lige iste sezone između Arsenala i Villarreala. Također je sudio finale Evropske lige 2022. između Eintrachta iz Frankfurta i Rangersa iz Glasgowa.

Sudio je i na Evropskom prvenstvu 2020, gdje je vodio dvije utakmice u grupnoj fazi (Španija – Švedska te Švicarska – Turska) i jednu četvrtfinalnu (Italija – Belgija).

FIFA je 19. maja 2022. objavila spisak sudija za Svjetsko prvenstvo u Kataru, na kojem se našao i Vinčić.

Izvan terena
Dana 30. maja 2020. greškom je uhapšen u okviru policijske istrage o prostituciji i krijumčarenju droge u Bosni i Hercegovini, ali je ubrzo oslobođen bilo kakvih sumnji.

Reference

Vanjski linkovi
 Profil na worldfootball.net
 Profil na eu-football.info

Rođeni 1979.
Biografije, Maribor
Slovenske nogometne sudije
Živi ljudi

Slavko Vinčić


Prusačka tvrđava, ili stari grad Prusac (Biograd, Akhisar) je srednjevjekovno utvrđenje u mjestu Prusac, oko 5 km južno od Donjeg Vakufa, Bosna i Hercegovina.

Lokacija
Smještena je na udaljenosti od oko 2 km. od glavnog puta Donji Vakuf-Bugojno. Sagrađena na stijeni koja se izdiže oko 50 metara iznad Prusačke rijeke, čije su obale u tom predjelu skoro okomite. Tako je  dobro zaštićeno prirodnom konfiguracijom terena sa svih strana, izuzimajući južnu koja se stepenasto spušta.

Historija
Arheološkim iskopavanjima poduzetim 80-ih godina XX stoljeća na vrhu brijega, tj. unutar zidova tvrđave, naišlo se na prahistorijski materijal iz eneolita,  bronzanog i željeznog doba. Ovdje se nalazilo gradinsko naselje, koje je kasnijim gradnjama u srednjovjekovnom i osmanskom periodu razoreno. Prusac  se nalazio u srednjovjekovnoj župi Uskoplje. Iz tog vremena nema o Pruscu pisanih podataka.

Iz srednjovjekovnog perioda prvi puta se ime Prusca spominje  u pismu bosanskog namjesnika sandžaka Skender-paše Mihajloglua (Mihajlovića) Dubrovčanima, napisano "Na Pruscu gradu 29. julija". Godina nije napisana, a historičari datiraju ovo pismo oko 1478-80.godine.

Definitivno je Prusac osvojio sin Skender-paše, Mustaj-beg 1502. Godine. Još od XVI stoljeća, u Pruscu su povremeno logorovali bosanski namjesnici i kliški sandžaci, čuvajući granice i pripremajući provale u susjedne mletačke i austrijske teritorije.

U vrijeme kad je Evlija Čelebija prvi puta putovao kroz Bosnu, 1660. godine, bosanski beglerbeg je bio Melek Ahmed-paša, Čelebijin zaštitnik, koga on stalno spominje kao dobrotvora i stratega. Tako ga spominje i u vezi sa Pruscem kojeg je beglerbeg obnovio i popravio vlastitim novcem. U to doba u gradu je bio dizdar sa 300 vojnika, u oboru 80 kuća. Za vrijeme Kandijskog rata Prusac je bio strateška brana u klancu kojim su mletačke čete (kako Čelebija navodi-uskoci) mogle prodrijeti dublje u Bosnu. Čelebija piše da je varoš imala 8 mahala sa 800 stotina kuća građenih od tvrdog materijala, prizemnih i na kat, 8 džamija, tri tekije, hamam i 80 dućana.

Grad je napušten 1838.godine.

Opis dobra
Grad se sastoji od tri cjeline:  tvrđave-citadele, tj. akropole na vrhu grada, obora ispod nje i Donjeg grada. Ove cjeline su sukcesivno građene. Površina starog grada je oko 22 000 m2.

Tvrđava-citadela
Tvrđava i obor ispod nje sagrađeni su u XV stoljeću. Ima oblik četverougla čija je sjeverna strana izlomljena i završava se u vidu trougla (40 m). Kako je sa tri strane bila izložena napadima, opkoljena je zidovima debljine od 1 – 2,4 metra. Zidovi su bili opremljeni puškarnicama i otvorima za topove.

Na južnom kraju, sa unutrašnje strane, je prigrađena nepravilna četverougaona kula. Njeni zidovi su sačuvani u visini do 10 metara i dužine do 19 metara. U zidovima su otvori za topove. Na kraju sjeverozapadnog zida tvrđave je manja kula stražara, a do nje okrugli bunar žive vode.  Stražara je smještena na najvišem dijelu terena. Osnova joj je nepravilna. Ulaznog zida više nema. Na suprotnom zidu je veliki otvor za topove.

Obor ispod tvrđave
Tvrđava je sa vanjske pristupačne strane, bila opkoljena jarkom, preko kojeg je bio postavljen most za ulaz u obor. Obor zauzima površinu cca 3000 m2,  dugu 50,  široku 60 m. Obor uz tvrđavu je sa istočne i sjeveroistočne strane bio opasan zidom, debljine oko 1 m, visine 2–3 m. Imao je kulu oktogonalne osnove, sa puškarnicama i tri četverougaone kule.

U oboru su ostaci džamije Bajazidije, sagrađene uz temelje srednjovjekovne crkve. Skender-paša podigao je 1488. godine džamiju (Bajazidiju) na prusačkom gradu i posvetio je tadašnjem vladaru Bajazidu II (1481-1512). Džamiju je temeljito popravio Kjafija 1601. godine. Natpis u prijevodu glasi: "Po naređenju sultana Bajezida podigao je džamiju pokojni Iskender-paša godine 1488, a obnovio kadija Hasan iz Akhisara godine 1601. Ovaj značajni dokument, natpis umjetnički izrađen u kamenu, čuva se u turbetu poznatog naučnika Hasana Kafije u Pruscu. U drugoj polovini XVII stoljeća, znači šezdesetak godina nakon njene obnove, Evlija Čelebija piše (1660) da na gradu nema careve džamije.

Ispod istočnog  zida obora nalazio se drugi jarak koji ga je opasavao po cijeloj dužini. Jarak je bio širok 6-10 m, a dubok oko 3 m. Od XIX stoljeća nadalje, jarak je erodiran. U njemu je  u XVIII stoljeću sagrađena  sahat-kula. Osnovica kule je kvardat sa stranicom 3,9 m, a visina oko 10 m. Možda je ovu kulu sagradio neki prusački dizdar. Zvono potječe iz 1633. godine. Stroj sata je napravio, prema priči mještana, neki majstor iz Gornjeg Vakufa-Uskoplja.

Donji grad
Na istočnoj padini ispod tvrđave i obora formiran je još jedan obor -  Donji grad. Zauzima prostor oko 90 x 180 m. Tu je bilo prigradsko naselje unutar bedema. U jugozapadnom dijelu Donjeg grada nalazila se glavna kapija. Gradu se prilazilo kaldrmom kojom je bila popločana glavna prusačka arterija. Kaldrma je bila široka 3 m, danas je prekrivena asfaltnim putem. Kod gradske kapije je bila raskrsnica koju su još polovinom XX stoljeća stariji mještani zvali "londža". U doba prije 1878.godine još je stajala glavna gradska kapija sa drvenim hrastovim vratnicama, pokovanim željeznim pločama. Sve su to Austrijanci skinuli i upotrijebili u druge svrhe. Pred gradskom džamijom je još oko 1950. godine ležao jedan dio dovratnika kapije. Danas ga nema.
Donji grad, građen je u kasnom XV stoljeću. Na nekim dijelovima zida se vide kasnije prepravke. Zna se da su na cijelom gradu vršene popravke u vrijeme bosanskog beglerbega Melek Ahmed-paše u drugoj polovini XVII stoljeća.

Stari grad Prusac je nacionalni spomenik Bosne i Hercegovine. U blizini je i Ajvatovica, najveće dovište muslimana u Evropi i jedno od najstarijih u Bosni.

Literatura
 Brunislav Marijanović, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu, (Arheologija), nova serija, sveska  48/49, Sarajevo, 2001, 92-99 -Prusac (Biograd) - prapovijesno višeslojno nalazište.
 Hamdija Kreševljaković, Hamdija Kapidžić,  Naše starine II, Zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture R BiH, Sarajevo, 1954, 9-21 -Stari hercegovački gradovi.

Reference

Vanjski linkovi
 http://www.tzsbk.com/donji-vakuf.html  turistička zajednica Donji Vakuf

Nacionalni spomenici u Donjem Vakufu
Tvrđave u Bosni i Hercegovini
Tvrđave u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni

Prusačka tvrđava


O Beretta Stampede é um revólver single-action fabricado pela Beretta que é um clone exato do Colt Single Action Army "Peacemaker".

Veja também
 Beretta Laramie
 Colt Peacemaker

Ligações externas
Site oficial da Beretta EUA, página Stampede
Dados de teste Balisticos Pelo Inch para o Stampede Beretta

Stampede
Revólveres da Itália
Revólveres

Beretta Stampede


An Lathroeus in uska genus han Coleoptera. An Lathroeus in nahilalakip ha familia nga Cerambycidae.

An kladograma hini sumala ha Catalogue of Life:

Mga kasarigan

Lathroeus

Lathroeus


An Pholidobolus montium in uska species han Reptilia nga ginhulagway ni Peters hadton 1863. An Pholidobolus montium in nahilalakip ha genus nga Pholidobolus, ngan familia nga Gymnophthalmidae. Waray hini subspecies nga nakalista.

Mga kasarigan

Pholidobolus

Pholidobolus montium


Tutte e nessuna (Girl Shy) è un film muto del 1924 diretto da Fred C. Newmeyer e Sam Taylor.

Trama
Un ragazzo ha una grande paura delle ragazze al punto da balbettare a dismisura in loro presenza. Ha scritto un libro su come conquistare le donne e, andando dall'editore, conosce una ragazza di cui si innamora ricambiato. L'editore non pubblica il libro e il ragazzo, non volendo che si interessi un fallito, dice alla ragazza che l'ha usata solo per studiarla, non perché l'amava davvero e questa piange e decide di sposare un altro uomo. Però col libro del ragazzo alcune donne si sono fatte grandi risate e allora l'editore manda una lettera al ragazzo con scritto che pubblicherà il libro come comico. Il ragazzo dapprima non accetta, ma poi pensa alla ragazza e allora si ricrede. Quando scopre che ella sta per sposare un uomo già sposato, usa tutti i mezzi di trasporto terrestre per arrivare al matrimonio e impedirlo. Riesce per miracolo a portare via la ragazza prima del matrimonio e i due decidono di sposarsi.

Distribuzione
Il copyright del film, richiesto dalla Harold Lloyd Corp., fu registrato il 12 marzo 1924 con il numero LU19987.

Il film, distribuito dalla Pathé Exchange, uscì nelle sale cinematografiche USA il 20 aprile dopo essere stato presentato a New York il 28 marzo 1924.

Curiosità
La scena della corsa del protagonista per fermare il matrimonio è interamente ripresa nel videoclip di Diamond in the grind, brano dei Cherry Ghost del 2010.

Note

Voci correlate
Filmografia di Harold Lloyd

Altri progetti

Collegamenti esterni

Film commedia

Tutte e nessuna


La pinacoteca civica, aperta nell'anno 1994, è ospitata nella sala del Consiglio comunale di Monterubbiano e nei locali adiacenti, al piano primo del Palazzo comunale.

Le opere
Le opere contenute nella sala consiliare del comune sono state restaurate sotto la direzione della Sovrintendenza per i beni artistici e storici delle Marche. La maggior parte dei dipinti su tela presenti sono di autori ignoti. Le opere a carattere religioso sono state rinvenute all'interno di chiese ora sconsacrate, mentre le altre appartenevano a famiglie nobili che le hanno donate al comune tramite testamento.

La sala consiliare del comune che ospita il museo risale al XIX secolo, è una delle quattro stanze storiche rimaste all'interno del palazzo. Le opere che troviamo all'interno risalgono ad un periodo compreso fra il XVII ed il XIX secolo, escluse le due copie della Madonna del magnificat del Botticelli (1445-1510) e della Madonna della candeletta del Crivelli (1430-1495), realizzate dalla pittrice Marzia De Marzi in Alesiani (1889-1990) nella prima metà del XX secolo e donate, tramite testamento, al comune di Monterubbiano nel 1997. Le opere esposte appartengono quindi alle diverse epoche:

Opere del XVI secolo
Dipinto su tavola rappresentante San Pietro con le chiavi della chiesa, unico dipinto su tavola, cm 70x60, pittore sistino, fine XVI secolo;
Deposizione di Gesù Cristo, olio su tela, cm 92x58, pittore manierista, seconda metà del XVI secolo;
La comunione di San Gerolamo, olio su tela, fine Cinquecento-Seicento, periodo barocco;

Opere del XVII secolo
Madonna in gloria e angeli musicanti, olio su tela, cm 82x54, scuola di Guido Reni, metà XVII secolo;
Ritratto di Sisto V, olio su tela, cm 80x70, pittore marchigiano, XVII secolo;
Madonna di Loreto, olio su tela, cm 130x65, pittore marchigiano, inizio XVII secolo;
Fuga in Egitto, olio su tela, cm 61x100, pittore emiliano, XVII secolo;
Sibilla, olio su tela, cm 60x74, Ludovico Lana, XVII secolo;
Sibilla eritrea, olio su tela, cm 75x62, Ludovico Lana, XVII secolo;
La pace abbraccia la giustizia, olio su tela, cm 100x134, pittore dell'Italia centrale, XVII secolo.

Opere del XVIII secolo
Crocifissione con San Pietro, olio su tela, XVIII secolo;
Veduta con porto di mare, olio su tela, cm 100x135, Pittore vedutista italiano, XVIII secolo;
Immacolata con Gesù bambino e angeli, olio su tela, XVIII secolo;
Agrippina maggiore sbarca a Brindisi recando le ceneri del marito germanico, olio su tela, cm 92x132, scuola italiana, XVIII secolo;

Altre opere

Da segnalare è sicuramente l'opera Sacra famiglia, olio su tela, cm 87x67, attribuito al pittore di scuola forlivese Francesco Menzocchi e realizzato tra il 1543 ed il 1545.

All'interno della sala consiliare è inoltre esposto un Cofanetto per votazioni in legno decorato da Pietro Alemanno e dagli allievi della sua scuola fine XV secolo, raffigurante nella parte più interessante, quella anteriore, santo Stefano e san Vincenzo, entrambi protettori del paese, con al centro lo stemma di Monterubbiano. Sopra ci sono scene di caccia di animali. Il cofanetto apparteneva al comune di Monterubbiano ed era utilizzato per contenere e trasportare documenti importanti da un comune all'altro. In origine vi era anche un lucchetto, ma non è stato ritrovato.

All'interno della sala consiliare vi sono inoltre esposti abiti originali del 1700: una coppia apparteneva ai priori; sono vesti lunghe ed ampie, di damasco nero, con decori in velluto floreali e con un copricapo dall'ampia calotta che ricade a ciambella sulla falda rigida; le altre due coppie sono invece costumi di paggi. In ultimo è possibile ammirare i due gonfaloni originali del Settecento in ottimo stato di conservazione recanti lo stemma del paese ben visibile nei suoi particolari.

Voci correlate
Monterubbiano
Museo civico archeologico (Monterubbiano)
Polo culturale San Francesco
Provincia di Fermo

Collegamenti esterni

Musei della provincia di Fermo
Monterubbiano
Monterubbiano
Monterubbiano

Pinacoteca civica (Monterubbiano)


This is a list of the number-one songs of 2018 in Bolivia. The airplay charts are published by Monitor Latino, based on airplay across radio stations in Bolivia using the Radio Tracking Data, LLC in real time. Charts are compiled from Monday to Sunday.

Chart history

References

Bolivia 2018
Number-one songs
Bolivia

List of number-one songs of 2018 (Bolivia)


Gornja Glogovnica je naseljeno mjesto u sastavu grada Križevaca, Koprivničko-križevačka županija, Republika Hrvatska.

Historija

Do teritorijalne reorganizacije u Hrvatskoj nalazila se u sastavu stare općine Križevci.

Stanovništvo

Na popisu stanovništva 2011. godine, Gornja Glogovnica je imala 115 stanovnika.

Napomena: Naselja Donja Glogovnica i Gornja Glogovnica iskazuju se od 1953. Do 1948. iskazivano je naselje pod imenom Glogovnica. Za to bivše naselje sadrži podatke od 1857. do 1948.

Popis 1991.

Na popisu stanovništva 1991. godine, naseljeno mjesto Gornja Glogovnica je imalo 163 stanovnika, sljedećeg nacionalnog sastava:

Popis 1910.

Napomena: Iskazano zajedno sa naseljem Donja Glogovnica.

Literatura

  Savezni zavod za statistiku i evidenciju FNRJ i SFRJ, popis stanovništva 1948, 1953, 1961, 1971, 1981. i 1991. godine.
 Knjiga: "Narodnosni i vjerski sastav stanovništva Hrvatske, 1880-1991: po naseljima, autor: Jakov Gelo, izdavač: Državni zavod za statistiku Republike Hrvatske, 1998., , ;

Reference

Vanjski linkovi

Naselja u Hrvatskoj
Naselja u Koprivničko-križevačkoj županiji

Gornja Glogovnica