In biology, coevolution occurs when two or more species reciprocally affect each other's evolution through the process of natural selection. The term sometimes is used for two traits in the same species affecting each other's evolution, as well as gene-culture coevolution.

Charles Darwin mentioned evolutionary interactions between flowering plants and insects in On the Origin of Species (1859). Although he did not use the word coevolution, he suggested how plants and insects could evolve through reciprocal evolutionary changes. Naturalists in the late 1800s studied other examples of how interactions among species could result in reciprocal evolutionary change. Beginning in the 1940s, plant pathologists developed breeding programs that were examples of human-induced coevolution. Development of new crop plant varieties that were resistant to some diseases favored rapid evolution in pathogen populations to overcome those plant defenses. That, in turn, required the development of yet new resistant crop plant varieties, producing an ongoing cycle of reciprocal evolution in crop plants and diseases that continues to this day.

Coevolution as a major topic for study in nature expanded rapidly from the 1960s, when Daniel H. Janzen showed coevolution between acacias and ants (see below) and Paul R. Ehrlich and Peter H. Raven suggested how coevolution between plants and butterflies may have contributed to the diversification of species in both groups. The theoretical underpinnings of coevolution are now well-developed (e.g., the geographic mosaic theory of coevolution), and demonstrate that coevolution can play an important role in driving major evolutionary transitions such as the evolution of sexual reproduction or shifts in ploidy. More recently, it has also been demonstrated that coevolution can influence the structure and function of ecological communities, the evolution of groups of mutualists such as plants and their pollinators, and the dynamics of infectious disease.

Each party in a coevolutionary relationship exerts selective pressures on the other, thereby affecting each other's evolution. Coevolution includes many forms of mutualism, host-parasite, and predator-prey relationships between species, as well as competition within or between species. In many cases, the selective pressures drive an evolutionary arms race between the species involved. Pairwise or specific coevolution, between exactly two species, is not the only possibility; in multi-species coevolution, which is sometimes called guild or diffuse coevolution, several to many species may evolve a trait or a group of traits in reciprocity with a set of traits in another species, as has happened between the flowering plants and pollinating insects such as bees, flies, and beetles. There are a suite of specific hypotheses on the mechanisms by which groups of species coevolve with each other.

Coevolution is primarily a biological concept, but researchers have applied it by analogy to fields such as computer science, sociology, and astronomy.

Mutualism

Coevolution is the evolution of two or more species which reciprocally affect each other, sometimes creating a mutualistic relationship between the species. Such relationships can be of many different types.

Flowering plants

Flowers appeared and diversified relatively suddenly in the fossil record, creating what Charles Darwin described as the "abominable mystery" of how they had evolved so quickly; he considered whether coevolution could be the explanation. He first mentioned coevolution as a possibility in On the Origin of Species, and developed the concept further in Fertilisation of Orchids (1862).

Insects and insect-pollinated flowers

Modern insect-pollinated (entomophilous) flowers are conspicuously coadapted with insects to ensure pollination and in return to reward the pollinators with nectar and pollen. The two groups have coevolved for over 100 million years, creating a complex network of interactions. Either they evolved together, or at some later stages they came together, likely with pre-adaptations, and became mutually adapted.

Several highly successful insect groups—especially the Hymenoptera (wasps, bees and ants) and Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) as well as many types of Diptera (flies) and Coleoptera (beetles)—evolved in conjunction with flowering plants during the Cretaceous (145 to 66 million years ago). The earliest bees, important pollinators today, appeared in the early Cretaceous. A group of wasps sister to the bees evolved at the same time as flowering plants, as did the Lepidoptera. Further, all the major clades of bees first appeared between the middle and late Cretaceous, simultaneously with the adaptive radiation of the eudicots (three quarters of all angiosperms), and at the time when the angiosperms became the world's dominant plants on land.

At least three aspects of flowers appear to have coevolved between flowering plants and insects, because they involve communication between these organisms. Firstly, flowers communicate with their pollinators by scent; insects use this scent to determine how far away a flower is, to approach it, and to identify where to land and finally to feed. Secondly, flowers attract insects with patterns of stripes leading to the rewards of nectar and pollen, and colours such as blue and ultraviolet, to which their eyes are sensitive; in contrast, bird-pollinated flowers tend to be red or orange. Thirdly, flowers such as some orchids mimic females of particular insects, deceiving males into pseudocopulation.

The yucca, Yucca whipplei, is pollinated exclusively by Tegeticula maculata, a yucca moth that depends on the yucca for survival. The moth eats the seeds of the plant, while gathering pollen. The pollen has evolved to become very sticky, and remains on the mouth parts when the moth moves to the next flower. The yucca provides a place for the moth to lay its eggs, deep within the flower away from potential predators.

Birds and bird-pollinated flowers

Hummingbirds and ornithophilous (bird-pollinated) flowers have evolved a mutualistic relationship. The flowers have nectar suited to the birds' diet, their color suits the birds' vision and their shape fits that of the birds' bills. The blooming times of the flowers have also been found to coincide with hummingbirds' breeding seasons. The floral characteristics of ornithophilous plants vary greatly among each other compared to closely related insect-pollinated species. These flowers also tend to be more ornate, complex, and showy than their insect pollinated counterparts. It is generally agreed that plants formed coevolutionary relationships with insects first, and ornithophilous species diverged at a later time. There is not much scientific support for instances of the reverse of this divergence: from ornithophily to insect pollination. The diversity in floral phenotype in ornithophilous species, and the relative consistency observed in bee-pollinated species can be attributed to the direction of the shift in pollinator preference.

Flowers have converged to take advantage of similar birds. Flowers compete for pollinators, and adaptations reduce unfavourable effects of this competition. The fact that birds can fly during inclement weather makes them more efficient pollinators where bees and other insects would be inactive. Ornithophily may have arisen for this reason in isolated environments with poor insect colonization or areas with plants which flower in the winter. Bird-pollinated flowers usually have higher volumes of nectar and higher sugar production than those pollinated by insects. This meets the birds' high energy requirements, the most important determinants of flower choice. In Mimulus, an increase in red pigment in petals and flower nectar volume noticeably reduces the proportion of pollination by bees as opposed to hummingbirds; while greater flower surface area increases bee pollination. Therefore, red pigments in the flowers of Mimulus cardinalis may function primarily to discourage bee visitation. In Penstemon, flower traits that discourage bee pollination may be more influential on the flowers' evolutionary change than 'pro-bird' adaptations, but adaptation 'towards' birds and 'away' from bees can happen simultaneously. However, some flowers such as Heliconia angusta appear not to be as specifically ornithophilous as had been supposed: the species is occasionally (151 visits in 120 hours of observation) visited by Trigona stingless bees. These bees are largely pollen robbers in this case, but may also serve as pollinators.

Following their respective breeding seasons, several species of hummingbirds occur at the same locations in North America, and several hummingbird flowers bloom simultaneously in these habitats. These flowers have converged to a common morphology and color because these are effective at attracting the birds. Different lengths and curvatures of the corolla tubes can affect the efficiency of extraction in hummingbird species in relation to differences in bill morphology. Tubular flowers force a bird to orient its bill in a particular way when probing the flower, especially when the bill and corolla are both curved. This allows the plant to place pollen on a certain part of the bird's body, permitting a variety of morphological co-adaptations.

Ornithophilous flowers need to be conspicuous to birds. Birds have their greatest spectral sensitivity and finest hue discrimination at the red end of the visual spectrum, so red is particularly conspicuous to them. Hummingbirds may also be able to see ultraviolet "colors". The prevalence of ultraviolet patterns and nectar guides in nectar-poor entomophilous (insect-pollinated) flowers warns the bird to avoid these flowers. Each of the two subfamilies of hummingbirds, the Phaethornithinae (hermits) and the Trochilinae, has evolved in conjunction with a particular set of flowers. Most Phaethornithinae species are associated with large monocotyledonous herbs, while the Trochilinae prefer dicotyledonous plant species.

Fig reproduction and fig wasps

The genus Ficus is composed of 800 species of vines, shrubs, and trees, including the cultivated fig, defined by their syconia, the fruit-like vessels that either hold female flowers or pollen on the inside. Each fig species has its own fig wasp which (in most cases) pollinates the fig, so a tight mutual dependence has evolved and persisted throughout the genus.

Acacia ants and acacias

The acacia ant (Pseudomyrmex ferruginea) is an obligate plant ant that protects at least five species of "Acacia" (Vachellia) from preying insects and from other plants competing for sunlight, and the tree provides nourishment and shelter for the ant and its larvae. Such mutualism is not automatic: other ant species exploit trees without reciprocating, following different evolutionary strategies. These cheater ants impose important host costs via damage to tree reproductive organs, though their net effect on host fitness is not necessarily negative and, thus, becomes difficult to forecast.

Hosts and parasites

Parasites and sexually reproducing hosts
Host–parasite coevolution is the coevolution of a host and a parasite. A general characteristic of many viruses, as obligate parasites, is that they coevolved alongside their respective hosts. Correlated mutations between the two species enter them into an evolution arms race. Whichever organism, host or parasite, that cannot keep up with the other will be eliminated from their habitat, as the species with the higher average population fitness survives. This race is known as the Red Queen hypothesis. The Red Queen hypothesis predicts that sexual reproduction allows a host to stay just ahead of its parasite, similar to the Red Queen's race in Through the Looking-Glass: "it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place". The host reproduces sexually, producing some offspring with immunity over its parasite, which then evolves in response.

The parasite–host relationship probably drove the prevalence of sexual reproduction over the more efficient asexual reproduction. It seems that when a parasite infects a host, sexual reproduction affords a better chance of developing resistance (through variation in the next generation), giving sexual reproduction variability for fitness not seen in the asexual reproduction, which produces another generation of the organism susceptible to infection by the same parasite. Coevolution between host and parasite may accordingly be responsible for much of the genetic diversity seen in normal populations, including blood-plasma polymorphism, protein polymorphism, and histocompatibility systems.

Brood parasites

Brood parasitism demonstrates close coevolution of host and parasite, for example in some cuckoos. These birds do not make their own nests, but lay their eggs in nests of other species, ejecting or killing the eggs and young of the host and thus having a strong negative impact on the host's reproductive fitness. Their eggs are camouflaged as eggs of their hosts, implying that hosts can distinguish their own eggs from those of intruders and are in an evolutionary arms race with the cuckoo between camouflage and recognition. Cuckoos are counter-adapted to host defences with features such as thickened eggshells, shorter incubation (so their young hatch first), and flat backs adapted to lift eggs out of the nest.

Antagonistic coevolution

Antagonistic coevolution is seen in the harvester ant species Pogonomyrmex barbatus and Pogonomyrmex rugosus, in a relationship both parasitic and mutualistic. The queens are unable to produce worker ants by mating with their own species. Only by crossbreeding can they produce workers. The winged females act as parasites for the males of the other species as their sperm will only produce sterile hybrids. But because the colonies are fully dependent on these hybrids to survive, it is also mutualistic. While there is no genetic exchange between the species, they are unable to evolve in a direction where they become too genetically different as this would make crossbreeding impossible.

Predators and prey

Predators and prey interact and coevolve: the predator to catch the prey more effectively, the prey to escape. The coevolution of the two mutually imposes selective pressures. These often lead to an evolutionary arms race between prey and predator, resulting in anti-predator adaptations.

The same applies to herbivores, animals that eat plants, and the plants that they eat.  Paul R. Ehrlich and Peter H. Raven in 1964 proposed the theory of escape and radiate coevolution to describe the evolutionary diversification of plants and butterflies. In the Rocky Mountains, red squirrels and crossbills (seed-eating birds) compete for seeds of the lodgepole pine. The squirrels get at pine seeds by gnawing through the cone scales, whereas the crossbills get at the seeds by extracting them with their unusual crossed mandibles. In areas where there are squirrels, the lodgepole's cones are heavier, and have fewer seeds and thinner scales, making it more difficult for squirrels to get at the seeds. Conversely, where there are crossbills but no squirrels, the cones are lighter in construction, but have thicker scales, making it more difficult for crossbills to get at the seeds. The lodgepole's cones are in an evolutionary arms race with the two kinds of herbivore.

Competition

Both intraspecific competition, with features such as sexual conflict and sexual selection, and interspecific competition, such as between predators, may be able to drive coevolution.

Intraspecific competition can result in sexual antagonistic coevolution, an evolutionary relationship analogous to an arms race, where the evolutionary fitness of the sexes is counteracted to achieve maximum reproductive success. For example, some insects reproduce using traumatic insemination, which is disadvantageous to the female's health. During mating, males try to maximise their fitness by inseminating as many females as possible, but the more times a female's abdomen is punctured, the less likely she is to survive, reducing her fitness.

Multispecies

The types of coevolution listed so far have been described as if they operated pairwise (also called specific coevolution), in which traits of one species have evolved in direct response to traits of a second species, and vice versa. This is not always the case. Another evolutionary mode arises where evolution is reciprocal, but is among a group of species rather than exactly two. This is variously called guild or diffuse coevolution. For instance, a trait in several species of flowering plant, such as offering its nectar at the end of a long tube, can coevolve with a trait in one or several species of pollinating insects, such as a long proboscis. More generally, flowering plants are pollinated by insects from different families including bees, flies, and beetles, all of which form a broad guild of pollinators which respond to the nectar or pollen produced by flowers.

Geographic mosaic theory

Mosaic coevolution is a theory in which geographic location and community ecology shape differing coevolution between strongly interacting species in multiple populations. These populations may be separated by space and/or time. Depending on the ecological conditions, the interspecific interactions may be mutualistic or antagonistic. In mutualisms, both partners benefit from the interaction, whereas one partner generally experiences decreased fitness in antagonistic interactions. Arms races consist of two species adapting ways to "one up" the other. Several factors affect these relationships, including hot spots, cold spots, and trait mixing. Reciprocal selection occurs when a change in one partner puts pressure on the other partner to change in response. Hot spots are areas of strong reciprocal selection, while cold spots are areas with no reciprocal selection or where only one partner is present. The three constituents of geographic structure that contribute to this particular type of coevolution are: natural selection in the form of a geographic mosaic, hot spots often surrounded by cold spots, and trait remixing by means of genetic drift and gene flow. Mosaic, along with general coevolution, most commonly occurs at the population level and is driven by both the biotic and the abiotic environment. These environmental factors can constrain coevolution and affect how far it can escalate.

Outside biology

Coevolution is primarily a biological concept, but has been applied to other fields by analogy.

In algorithms

Coevolutionary algorithms are used for generating artificial life as well as for optimization, game learning and machine learning. Daniel Hillis added "co-evolving parasites" to prevent an optimization procedure from becoming stuck at local maxima. Karl Sims coevolved virtual creatures.

In architecture

The concept of coevolution was introduced in architecture by the Danish architect-urbanist Henrik Valeur as an antithesis to "star-architecture". As the curator of the Danish Pavilion at the 2006 Venice Biennale of Architecture, he created an exhibition-project on coevolution in urban development in China; it won the Golden Lion for Best National Pavilion.

At the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University, a coevolutionary approach to architecture has been defined as a design practice that engages students, volunteers and members of the local community in practical, experimental work aimed at "establishing dynamic processes of learning between users and designers."

In cosmology and astronomy
In his book The Self-organizing Universe, Erich Jantsch attributed the entire evolution of the cosmos to coevolution.

In astronomy, an emerging theory proposes that black holes and galaxies develop in an interdependent way analogous to biological coevolution.

In management and organization studies
Since year 2000, a growing number of management and organization studies discuss coevolution and coevolutionary processes. Even so, Abatecola el al. (2020) reveals a prevailing scarcity in explaining what processes substantially characterize coevolution in these fields, meaning that specific analyses about where this perspective on socio-economic change is, and where it could move toward in the future, are still missing.

In sociology
In Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and A Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future (1994) Richard Norgaard proposes a coevolutionary cosmology to explain how social and environmental systems influence and reshape each other. In Coevolutionary Economics: The Economy, Society and the Environment (1994) John Gowdy suggests that: "The economy, society, and the environment are linked together in a coevolutionary relationship".

In technology

Computer software and hardware can be considered as two separate components but tied intrinsically by coevolution. Similarly, operating systems and computer applications, web browsers, and web applications. All these systems depend upon each other and advance through a kind of evolutionary process. Changes in hardware, an operating system or web browser may introduce new features that are then incorporated into the corresponding applications running alongside. The idea is closely related to the concept of "joint optimization" in sociotechnical systems analysis and design, where a system is understood to consist of both a "technical system" encompassing the tools and hardware used for production and maintenance, and a "social system" of relationships and procedures through which the technology is tied into the goals of the system and all the other human and organizational relationships within and outside the system. Such systems work best when the technical and social systems are deliberately developed together.

See also
Bak–Sneppen model
Coextinction
Ecological fitting
Escape and radiate coevolution
Genomics of domestication

Notes

References

External links
Coevolution, video of lecture by Stephen C. Stearns (Open Yale Courses)

Ecological processes
Environmental terminology
Evolution of the biosphere
Evolutionary biology
Habitat

Coevolution


The non-linear junction detector, or an NLJD, is a device that illuminates a small region of space with high-frequency RF energy.  Any "non linear junction" in the vicinity—for example, and particularly, the p–n junction—will receive this energy, and because of the asymmetric response of the junction to an electric field, it will mangle it, re-emitting some of it on multiples of the illumination frequency (see harmonic).  The detector has a sensitive receiver tuned to these harmonics, as well as appropriate processing and displays to make their presence known to the user of the device.
Because the basis of almost all semiconductor electronics is the p-n junction, an NLJD is correspondingly capable of detecting almost any unshielded electronic device containing semiconductors, whether the electronics are actively powered or not.

In its basic form, an NLJD can also detect things that are not themselves electronic in nature, so the use of the device requires a modicum of skill and experience. For example, a rusty nail inside a wall can give a false positive. For this reason, most modern NLJDs examine the ratio between the second and the third harmonic of the illumination frequency. When a true (electronic) p-n junction is encountered, the second harmonic will generally be stronger than the third.

History

The NLJD was invented by Charles Bovill during WWII. It was initially used to discover corrosion below painted surfaces on airplanes. In 1972, shortly after Bovill had become technical director at Allen International Ltd. (Westminster, London, UK), the device was renamed 'Broom' and was introduced as a device for finding inactive covert listening devices (bugs). The Broom was later marketed by Audiotel in Corby (UK) as the Scanlock Broom, and was succeeded by the Scanlock Broom ECM and later the Scanlock Super Broom.

Similar devices are available from manufacturers in the US (e.g. Orion) and Russia.

Countermeasures
As a countermeasure against an NLJD, professional covert listening devices (bugs) of the Central Intelligence Agency were equipped from 1968 onwards with a so-called isolator. An isolator is a 3-port circulator of which the return port is terminated with a resistor. Any energy injected into the bug by an NLJD will be absorbed by the resistor, resulting in no (or very little) reflected energy. An example of such a bug is the CIA's SRT-107.

A means to hinder isolating a non linear junction is to add inexpensive diodes to places where the NLJD is expected to sweep. This masks the true listening device against a field of false alerts when the many diodes are detected. Such a technique was used in the 1980s construction of the U.S. embassy in Moscow. Thousands of diodes were mixed into the building's structural concrete making detection and removal of the true listening devices nearly impossible.

See also
 Covert listening device

References

External links
 Non-Linear Junction Detector Review and Tutorial
 GBPPR Non-Linear Junction Detector Homebrew non-linear junction detector project.

Detectors

Nonlinear junction detector


Sydney Fast Ferries operated high-speed ferry services on Port Jackson between Circular Quay and Manly from April 2010 until March 2015.

History
Since January 1965, the Port Jackson & Manly Steamship Company and its successors had operated high speed hydrofoil and later JetCat services between Circular Quay and Manly.

In December 2008, the New South Wales State Government, decided the Sydney Ferries service would cease and called for tenders to operate the service on a commercial basis.

Bass & Flinders Cruises trading as Manly Fast Ferry commenced operating the service on 10 February 2009 on an interim basis until March 2010.

In April 2010, Sydney Fast Ferries commenced a five-year franchise to operate the service. However, Manly Fast Ferries continued to operate services between Circular Quay Wharf 6 and Manly East Pier via Fort Denison, Taronga Zoo and Watsons Bay.

In July 2014, expressions of interest were sought for the next franchise with Bass & Flinders Cruises, SeaLink Travel Group, Sydney Fast Ferries and Transit Systems responding. In December 2014, the franchise was awarded to Bass & Flinders Cruises, with Sydney Fast Ferries ceasing operations on 31 March 2015. Sydney Fast Ferries lodged a complaint in March 2015 that the selection process was not handled correctly by Transport for New South Wales.

They continued to operate cruises under the name Sydney Adventure Cruises. However, since January 2016 their website has redirected to the Captain Cook Cruises, Australia website.

References

Ferry companies of New South Wales
Ferry transport in Sydney
Australian companies established in 2010
Transport companies established in 2010
Australian companies disestablished in 2015
Transport companies disestablished in 2015

Sydney Fast Ferries


Brodie was a ski resort in New Ashford, Massachusetts, in the Taconic Mountains in the far northwestern part of the state. It opened in 1964 and thrived for a time by using then-cutting-edge innovations like top-to-bottom snowmaking and lighted night skiing. Founder Jim Kelly gave the resort an Irish theme: its nickname was "Kelly's Irish Alps"; the slopes had names like "Shamrock," "Killarney," and "JFK"; and the base lodge housed an Irish-themed bar that did a rousing business in drinks and live music. But like many small independent ski areas, Brodie lost business over time to larger, higher-capitalized, corporate-owned resorts.

In 1999 the Kellys sold it to the owners of nearby Jiminy Peak, who closed Brodie in 2002 and sold it to a Texas-based condominium developer.  The area continued to operate snow tubing, in conjunction with Jiminy Peak, through the 2006–07 season.

With a vertical drop of 1,250 feet and four chairlifts, Brodie is the largest closed ski area in the Berkshires.

Wind power
Part of the mountain is now the site of a Wind power project: the Berkshire Wind Power Project is owned by the Berkshire Wind Power Cooperative Corporation, a non-profit, public power corporation.  On November 19, 2010, the last component of the new 10-turbine wind farm was lifted into place, and after the turbines were commissioned and connected to the grid, it began commercial operation on May 28, 2011.  The project generates 15MW of power. Members of the cooperative include Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company and the 14 municipal utilities serving these Massachusetts communities:
Ashburnham
Boylston
 Groton
 Holden
 Hull
 Ipswich
 Marblehead
 Paxton
 Peabody
 Shrewsbury
 Sterling
 Templeton
 Wakefield
 West Boylston

External links
 Brodie, MA – New England Lost Ski Areas Project
  Brodie Mountain History – NewEnglandSkiHistory.com
 Berkshire Wind Coop

Defunct ski areas and resorts in Massachusetts
Sports in Berkshire County, Massachusetts
Taconic Mountains
Buildings and structures in Berkshire County, Massachusetts

Brodie (ski area)


Angela Lynch-Lupton (died 2007) served as Mayor of Galway for two terms in 1989 and 1998.  She was the eighty-fourth bearer of the name to serve in that office since Peirce Lynch, elected as the first Mayor, in August 1485.

Lynch served two terms as a Fine Gael councillor for the city's west ward. She also ran for the European Parliament in 1989 but won only 3.25% of the vote. She retired in 2004 due to health reasons, and died in 2007.

Sources
 Henry, William (2002). Role of Honour: The Mayors of Galway City 1485-2001. Galway: Galway City Council.

Year of birth missing
2007 deaths
Fine Gael politicians
Mayors of Galway
Politicians from County Galway
Women mayors of places in Ireland

Angela Lynch-Lupton


The National Resources Division (NR) is the domestic division of the United States Central Intelligence Agency. Its main function is to conduct voluntary debriefings of U.S. citizens who travel overseas for work or to visit relatives, and to recruit foreign students, diplomats and business people to become CIA assets when they return to their countries.

History
The division was formed in 1991 by the merger of the CIA's Foreign Resources Division and the National Collection Division.

The Foreign Resources Division was created in 1963 as the Domestic Operations Division and given the responsibility for clandestine operational activities of the Clandestine Services conducted within the United States against foreign targets. Its eventual function was to locate foreign nationals of special interest who resided in the United States and recruit them to serve as CIA assets when they returned home (or to some other foreign location).

The National Collection Division collected intelligence from U.S. residents who had traveled abroad, including scientists, technologists, economists, and energy experts returning from foreign locations.

References

External links
CIA homepage

Central Intelligence Agency domestic surveillance operations
1991 establishments in the United States
Government agencies established in 1991

National Resources Division


Generalfeldmarschall (; from Old High German marahscalc, "marshal, stable master, groom"; ; often abbreviated to Feldmarschall) was a rank in the armies of several German states and the Holy Roman Empire (Reichsgeneralfeldmarschall); in the Habsburg monarchy, the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary, the rank Feldmarschall was used. The rank was the equivalent to Großadmiral () in the Kaiserliche Marine and Kriegsmarine, a five-star rank, comparable to OF-10 in today's NATO naval forces.

Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary

The rank existed in the Austrian Empire as Kaiserlicher Feldmarschall ("imperial field marshal") and in Austria-Hungary as Kaiserlicher und königlicher Feldmarschall - Császári és királyi tábornagy ("imperial and royal field marshal"). Both were based on prior usage during the Holy Roman Empire. The Emperor-King held the rank ex officio, other officers were promoted as required. Between 1914 and 1918, ten men attained this rank, of whom four were members of the reigning Habsburg-Lorraine dynasty.

Germany and Prussia

Kingdom of Prussia and German Empire

In the Prussian Army, the Imperial German Army and later in the Wehrmacht, the rank of Generalfeldmarschall had several privileges, such as elevation to nobility, equal protocol rank with Cabinet ministers, the right of reporting directly to the monarch, and a constant escort.

In 1854, the rank of colonel general () was created in order to promote William, Prince of Prussia (the later William I, German Emperor) to senior rank without breaking the rule that only wartime field commanders could receive the rank of field marshal for a victory in a decisive battle or the capture of a fortification or major town. The equivalent of colonel-general in the German Navy was the rank of Generaladmiral ("general admiral" or "admiral-general").

In 1870, Prince Friedrich Karl of Prussia and Crown Prince Friedrich Wilhelm—who had commanded armies during the Franco-Prussian War—became the first Prussian princes appointed to the rank of Generalfeldmarschall.

The exalted nature of the rank was underscored during World War I, when only five German officers (excluding honorary promotions to members of royal families and foreign officers) were designated Generalfeldmarschall: Paul von Hindenburg, August von Mackensen, Karl von Bülow, Hermann von Eichhorn, and Remus von Woyrsch. Only a single naval officer, Henning von Holtzendorff, was designated Grand Admiral. Not even such well-known German commanders as Erich Ludendorff, Erich von Falkenhayn, or Reinhard Scheer received marshal's batons or Grand Admiral rank.

Nazi Germany

Before the Second World War, Adolf Hitler reintroduced the rank into the  with the promotion of the Reich Minister of War, Generaloberst Werner von Blomberg (20 April 1936), and the Aviation Minister, Hermann Göring (4 February 1938), to the rank of Generalfeldmarschall. In the Wehrmacht of Nazi Germany during the Second World War, the rank of Generalfeldmarschall remained the highest military rank until July 1940, when Hermann Göring was promoted to the newly created higher rank of Reichsmarschall. The equivalent of a Generalfeldmarschall in the navy was Großadmiral ("grand admiral").

Unlike Kaiser Wilhelm II, Hitler distributed the rank more widely, promoting 25 Heer and Luftwaffe officers in total and two Kriegsmarine Grand Admirals. (Another promotion, that of Austrian General Eduard von Böhm-Ermolli, was honorary.) Four weeks after the Heer and Luftwaffe had won the Battle of France, Hitler promoted nine Army generals and three of the air force to the rank of field marshal on 19 July 1940: Walther von Brauchitsch, Wilhelm Keitel, Gerd von Rundstedt, Fedor von Bock, Wilhelm von Leeb, Wilhelm List, Günther von Kluge, Erwin von Witzleben and Walter von Reichenau (Heer); and Albert Kesselring, Erhard Milch and Hugo Sperrle (Luftwaffe). The holders of this rank had the right to a "direct presentation to the Führer".

In 1942, three other men were promoted—Wüstenfuchs ('Desert Fox') Erwin Rommel (22 June) for the siege of Tobruk, Erich von Manstein (30 June) for the Siege of Sevastopol, and Georg von Küchler (30 June) for his success as Oberbefehlshaber der Heeresgruppe Nord ("commander-in-chief of Army Group North").

Hitler promoted Friedrich Paulus, commander of the 6th Army at Stalingrad, to the rank of Generalfeldmarschall via field radio on 30 January 1943, a day before his army's inevitable surrender, in order to encourage him to continue to fight until death or commit suicide. In the promotion, Hitler noted that no German or, before that, Prussian field marshal had ever been captured alive. Generalfeldmarschall Paulus surrendered the following day anyway, claiming, Ich habe nicht die Absicht, mich für diesen bayerischen Gefreiten zu erschießen. ("I have no intention of shooting myself for this Bavarian corporal.") A disappointed Hitler commented, "That's the last field marshal I make in this war!" Nevertheless, he appointed seven more, three on the very day following Paulus' surrender: Ernst Busch, Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist and Maximilian von Weichs (all members of the Heer). Later that same month, Hitler promoted Luftwaffe General Wolfram von Richthofen to the rank for his service in the Crimean campaign and the later part of the Battle of Stalingrad.

From 1944 to 1945, three more men would reach this rank. In early 1944, Walter Model, one of Hitler's most loyal generals, was promoted to the rank; he was also the last German field marshal to receive a ceremonial marshal's baton. Ferdinand Schörner, another loyal officer, was promoted on 5 April 1945 when he was made Commander-in-Chief of the German Army. 20 days after that, and just five days before his own suicide, Adolf Hitler made Luftwaffe General Robert Ritter von Greim a field marshal and Commander in chief of the German Air Force after Göring had fallen out of Hitler's favour, making Greim the last German field marshal in history.

Financially, the rank of Generalfeldmarschall in Nazi Germany was very rewarding as, apart from a yearly salary, Hitler introduced tax free fringe benefits for generals in the range of
(€– in ) per month in 1940. He also bestowed generous presents on his highest officers, with Leeb receiving  (€ in ) for his 65th birthday from Hitler.

Promotion to the rank did not guarantee Hitler's ongoing favour, however. As the tide of the war turned, Hitler took out his frustrations on his top commanders, relieving most of the Generalfeldmarschalls of duty before the war's conclusion. Bock, Brauchitsch, Leeb, and List were all relieved of their posts in 1942 for perceived failures during Operation Barbarossa and took no further active part in the war. Kleist, Manstein and Sperrle were similarly retired in 1944 and Rundstedt and Weichs in March 1945. Grand Admiral Erich Raeder was retired in January 1943 following a fierce argument with Hitler over the future of the German surface fleet. Model, one of Hitler's most successful commanders, had nevertheless lost the Fuhrer's confidence by war's end and committed suicide to avoid capture and likely trial as a war criminal. Milch was relieved after conspiring unsuccessfully to have Göring removed from command of the Luftwaffe, and even Göring himself was stripped of his offices and expelled from the Nazi Party in Hitler's last days. Schörner ignominiously abandoned his command to save himself in the war's last days. Kluge, Witzleben and Rommel were either executed or forced to commit suicide for their real or imagined roles in the 20 July plot against Hitler. By war's end, only Keitel, Kesselring, Greim and Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz were still in positions of military responsibility.

East Germany
The National People's Army of the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR) (German Democratic Republic, i.e. East Germany) created the rank of Marshal of the German Democratic Republic on 25 March 1982. A general could be appointed to this rank by the State Council (Staatsrat; the head-of-state council of the GDR) during wartime or for exceptional military achievement; no one ever held the rank, however.

Modern Germany
The ranks of Generalfeldmarschall, Generaloberst, Großadmiral and Generaladmiral no longer exist in the new German (until 1990 West German) Armed Forces, the Bundeswehr, which were created in 1956. Currently, the highest military grades in the Bundeswehr are general and admiral.

The Commander-in-Chief of the Bundeswehr is, in peacetime, according to Article 65a of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (constitution), the civilian Federal Minister of Defence, who holds supreme command authority over all soldiers. In wartime, during the State of Defence, that supreme command authority is transferred to the Federal Chancellor. The Inspector General of the Bundeswehr is the military chief of defence and heads the Armed Forces Command Staff ().

Other states to have used the title

Electorate (1356–1806) and Kingdom of Saxony (1806–1918)

The rank of Field Marshal was first used in the northern German State of Saxony within the Holy Roman Empire in 1631. It was then used nine further times in that century and seven times in the 18th century. It was used twice in the 19th century by the Kingdom of Saxony after it became part of the German Empire in 1871.

Ethiopia
The rank of Field Marshal General was first used in Ethiopia in 2022. On 8 January 2022, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed presided over the Ethiopian National Defense Force promotion ceremony, that saw the rank be introduced to Birhanu Jula, Chief of General Staff.

See also
Comparative officer ranks of World War I
Comparative officer ranks of World War II

Notes

Military ranks of Germany

Five-star officers of Nazi Germany

Generalfeldmarschall


Edwin Zwakman (born 18 October 1969, The Hague) is a visual artist from the Netherlands whose works explore the interaction between reality and photography. He does this with staged photography, either in his studio or in public space. Works in the studio include a long-running series of pictures showing scale models of Dutch landscapes and interiors. And this landscape is itself a construct. By reconstructing it from memory, the artist reflects on the mentality of its makers and the way their world is represented in images. Works in public space concern themselves with iconic images from sites and events, often using fictitious United Nation operations to illustrate the workings of images in the media.

Edwin Zwakman studied in Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Frankfurt and exhibited in the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, the European Museum for Photography, Paris, the Museum of Modern Art Kyoto, Taipei/Venice Biennials, as well as in London, Luzern, Vienna, Moscow, São Paulo, Budapest, Porto, San Sebastian, Jerusalem, Brussels, San Francisco and New York among others. He has had solo exhibitions in the Van Abbe Museum, Eindhoven, the Huis Marseille Museum for Photography, Amsterdam, and Ludwig Forum, Germany. He currently has a fellowship at the University of Derby, UK, where he also teaches photography.

References

 Saskia Asser, Els Barents, Marianne Brouwer, Harald Kunde, Fake but Accurate. Munich (Schirmer/Mosel) 2008

Monographs
Dennis Adams, Edwin Zwakman, New York City (Spencer Brownstone Gallery) 1997

Jan Debbaut, Kate Bush, Jaap Guldemond, Façades. Rotterdam (Stedelijk Van Abbemuseum/NAi Publishers) 1999

Liesbeth Melis, Jessica Powis, Marianne Brouwer, Tom van Gestel, Het Gat. Een kunstwerk van Edwin Zwakman. Amsterdam (SKOR) 2005

External links
A selection of information on exhibitions available online:
Marseille, museum for Photography
Facades in Van Abbe Museum
A selection of artist's work available online:
Galerie Akinci
Gimpel Fils
Spencer Brownstone gallery
A selection of ongoing projects:
Het Gat
Residency with Theatre in Motion, Beijing
For a comprehensive list of solo and group exhibitions:
www.artfacts.net

1969 births
Living people
Photographers from The Hague

Edwin Zwakman


It's Not the Time of My Life () is a 2016 Hungarian drama film directed by Szabolcs Hajdu. It is set in an apartment where two families interact and both couples go through a midlife crisis. The film is based on the director's own play.

It premiered on 7 July 2016 at the 51st Karlovy Vary International Film Festival, where it won the Crystal Globe for best film and Hajdu received the Best Actor Award. It was released in Hungary on 1 October 2016.

Cast
 Erika Tankó as Ernella
 Domokos Szabó as Albert
 Lujza Hajdu as Laura
 Orsolya Török-Illyés as Eszter
 Szabolcs Hajdu as Farkas
 Imre Gelányi as Sanyi

Reception
Alissa Simon of Variety called the film "a fresh and funny chamber piece about midlife marital crises" and wrote: "In addition to the highly relatable situations shot in a style of heightened naturalism and the Robert Altman-like overlapping dialogue, the drama gains further conviction from setting the action in the actual apartment lived in by the director and his wife, who, along with their real-life son, play the host family." The Hollywood Reporter'''s Boyd van Hoeij wrote: "There's a certain amount of irony in the fact that Hungarian director Szabolcs Hajdu's independently produced It's Not the Time of My Life (Ernellaek Farkaseknal''), made without any state aid, turns out to be one of his most conventional features, though it's also one of his most directly moving."

References

External links

2016 films
Crystal Globe winners
Hungarian drama films
2010s Hungarian-language films
2016 drama films
Films directed by Szabolcs Hajdu

It's Not the Time of My Life


The Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California is a federally recognized tribe of Mono Native Americans. Cold Springs Rancheria is the tribe's reservation, which is located in Fresno County, California.  As of the 2010 Census the population was 184.

Culture
The Cold Springs tribe is composed of Western Mono Indians, whose traditional homeland is in the southern Sierra Nevada foothills of California. The Mono language is part of the Uto-Aztecan language family. Acorns are a traditional staple food with great symbolic importance. Their oral history is included in Mono traditional narratives.

Government
They ratified their current tribal constitution on April 11, 1970 and last amended it in 2001. Their Tribal Council is democratically elected and includes a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Secretary-Treasurer and three Council Members. Additionally all tribal members 18 years old or older form a voting General Council.

Enrollment
Tribal enrollment to the Cold Springs Rancheria is limited to those members listed on the 1960 Plan for Distribution of Assets of the Cold Springs Rancheria roles and their lineal descendants that have a blood quantum of at least one-quarter degree of Californian Indian blood. Approximately 159 to 193 people lived on the Cold Springs Rancheria, and there are 265 to 275 enrolled members of the tribe.

Reservation
The Cold Springs Rancheria occupies  in Sycamore Valley, located  east of Fresno, California. The lands are close to Tollhouse, California, where the tribe is headquartered.

Mono tribes
Other federally recognized Mono tribes are the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, the Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation.

Education
The ranchería is served by the Sierra Unified School District.

Notes

References
 Pritzker, Barry M. A Native American Encyclopedia: History, Culture, and Peoples. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

External links
 Constitution and Bylaws of the Cold Springs Rancheria

Mono
Native American tribes in California
Federally recognized tribes in the United States


The Grand Mesa National Forest is a U.S. National Forest in Mesa, Delta and Garfield Counties in Western Colorado.  It borders the White River National Forest to the north and the Gunnison National Forest to the east.  The forest covers most of Grand Mesa and the south part of Battlement Mesa. It has a total area of 346,555 acres (541.49 sq mi, or 1,402.46 km2). It is managed by the United States Forest Service together with Gunnison National Forest and Uncompahgre National Forest from offices in Delta, Colorado. There are local ranger district offices located in Grand Junction.

Animals that inhabit this forest are elk, mule deer, Canadian lynx, black bears, pine marten, cougars, and bighorn sheep. Birdwatchers get a seasonal opportunity to view species of bird such bald eagles, boreal owls, golden eagles, Mexican spotted owls, common ravens, wild turkeys and peregrine falcons.

Originally called Battlement Mesa Forest Reserve, created by Benjamin Harrison on December 24, 1892, it was the third forest reserve created in United States. It is the largest flat top mountain in the world.

See also
 List of U.S. National Forests
 Grand Mesa Scenic and Historic Byway, a Forest Service Byway

References

External links

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (USDA Forest Service)

Protected areas of Delta County, Colorado
Protected areas of Garfield County, Colorado
Protected areas of Mesa County, Colorado
National Forests of Colorado
Protected areas established in 1892
1892 establishments in Colorado

Grand Mesa National Forest


A cord blood bank is a facility which stores umbilical cord blood for future use.  Both private and public cord blood banks have developed in response to the potential for cord blood in treating diseases of the blood and immune systems. Public cord blood banks accept donations to be used for anyone in need, and as such function like public blood banks. Traditionally, public cord blood banking has been more widely accepted by the medical community. Private cord blood banks store cord blood solely for potential use by the donor or donor's family. Private banks typically charge around $2,000 for the collection and around $200 a year for storage.

The policy of the American Academy of Pediatrics states that "private storage of cord blood as 'biological insurance' is unwise" unless there is a family member with a current or potential need to undergo a stem cell transplantation. The American Academy of Pediatrics also notes that the odds of using one's own cord blood is 1 in 200,000 while the National Academy of Medicine says that only 14 such procedures have ever been performed. Private storage of one's own cord blood is unlawful in Italy and France, and it is also discouraged in some other European countries. The American Medical Association states "Private banking should be considered in the unusual circumstance when there exists a family predisposition to a condition in which umbilical cord stem cells are therapeutically indicated. However, because of its cost, limited likelihood of use, and inaccessibility to others, private banking should not be recommended to low-risk families." The American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also encourage public cord banking and discourage private cord blood banking. Nearly all cord blood transfusions come from public banks, rather than private banks, partly because most treatable conditions can't use one's own cord blood.

Cord blood contains hematopoietic stem cells (which can differentiate only into blood cells), and should not be confused with embryonic stem cells or pluripotent stem cells, which can differentiate into any cell in the body. Cord blood stem cells are blood cell progenitors which can form red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets. This is why cord blood cells are currently used to treat blood and immune system related genetic diseases, cancers, and blood disorders. Cord blood is also a source of mesenchymal stem cells, which can further be differentiated to form connective tissues, bones and cartilage.  On the possibility that cord blood stem cells could be used for other purposes, the World Marrow Donor Association and European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies states "The possibility of using one's own cord blood stem cells for regenerative medicine is currently purely hypothetical....It is therefore highly hypothetical that cord blood cells kept for autologous use will be of any value in the future" and "the legitimacy of commercial cord blood banks for autologous use should be questioned as they sell a service which has presently no real use regarding therapeutic options."

Regulation
In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration regulates cord blood under the category of "Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue Based-Products." The Code of Federal Regulations under which the FDA regulates public and private cord blood banks is Title 21 Section 1271.  Several states also require accreditation, including New York, New Jersey, and California. Any company not accredited within those states are not legally permitted to collect cord blood from those states, even if the company is based out of state. Potential clients can check the New York accreditation status from the New York Umbilical Cord Blood Banks Licensed to Collect in New York. Both public and private cord blood banks are also eligible for voluntary accreditation with either the Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (AABB) or the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT). Potential clients can check the current accreditation status of laboratories from the AABB list of accredited cord blood laboratories or the FACT search engine of accredited cord blood banks (on their home page).  Other countries also have regulations pertaining to cord blood.

Collection and cryopreservation
Cord blood collection happens after the umbilical cord has been cut and is extracted from the fetal end of the cord, diverting up to 75 +/- 23 mL from the neonate.  It is usually done within ten minutes of giving birth. Additional stem cells may be collected from the placenta. After the health care provider draws the cord blood from the placental end of the umbilical cord, the placenta is couriered to the stem cell laboratory, where it is processed for additional stem cells. An adequate cord blood collection requires at least 75mL in order to ensure that there will be enough cells to be used for a transplantation. Before the cord blood is stored for later use, it undergoes viral testing, including tests for HIV and Hepatitis B and C, and tissue typing to determine Human Leukocyte Antigen type. It will also be examined for nucleated cell count, cell viability, blood group antigen ABO & Rh blood group system, molecule cluster (CD34), and bacterial and fungal growth.

After the collection, the cord blood unit is shipped to the lab and processed, and then cryopreserved. There are many ways to process a cord blood unit, and there are differing opinions on what the best way is.  Some processing methods separate out the red blood cells and remove them, while others keep the red blood cells.  However the unit is processed, a cryopreservant is added to the cord blood to allow the cells to survive the cryogenic process. After the unit is slowly cooled to −90 °C, it can then be added to a liquid nitrogen tank which will keep the cord blood unit frozen at −196 °C. The slow freezing process is important to keep the cells alive during the freezing process. There is no consensus yet on optimal procedures for these cord blood cells, although many cryopreservation strategies suggest using dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), slow or controlled rate cooling, and rapid thawing.

Cord blood stem cells (though usually from donors) are currently used in the treatment of several life-threatening conditions, mainly blood and immune system related genetic diseases, cancers, and blood disorders. The first clinically documented use of cord blood stem cells was in the successful treatment of a six-year-old boy afflicted by Fanconi anemia in 1988.  Since then, cord blood has become increasingly recognized as a source of stem cells that can be used in stem cell therapy. Recent studies have shown that cord blood has unique advantages over traditional bone marrow transplantation, particularly in children, and can be life-saving in rare cases where a suitable bone-marrow donor cannot be found. Cord blood stem cells can also be used for siblings and other members of your family who have a matching tissue type. Siblings have a 25% chance of compatibility, and the cord blood may even be a match for parents (50%) and grandparents.

Public banks
Public cord blood banks function like public blood banks, in that they accept donations from anyone, discard donations that fail to meet various quality control standards, and use national registries to find recipients for their samples. Since patients who need cord blood frequently need more cells than a single collection would have provided, public banks frequently combined multiple samples together when preparing the treatment for a single patient. Unlike bone marrow transplantation, cord blood transplantation doesn't require an exact genetic match, which makes it easier to provide patients samples from unrelated donors. The percentage of public bank donations discarded as medical waste is often cited to be between 60 and 80%. Some of this is due to contamination that occasionally occurs during collection or complications arising from shipping, though this is mostly due to the fact that most cord blood collections fail to collect enough usable cells. Because matches are almost always likely to be better in a public than a private bank, and cord blood from public banks doesn't suffer from the problems it commonly suffers from at private banks (such as potential lower quality control and lower medical usefulness of using a patient's own potentially diseased cord blood), public cord blood banking has been more widely accepted by the medical community. One important obstacle facing public banks is the high cost required to maintain them, which has prevented more than a handful from opening. Because public banks do not charge storage fees, medical centers do not always have the funds required to establish and maintain them.

A recent large study by the journal Pediatrics concluded that almost all cord blood transplants come from public banks:

In the Pediatrics study, transplant specialists who collectively have performed thousands of stem cell transplants for childhood leukemia and other illnesses report that only 50 involved privately banked blood. (Support for public cord-blood banking is widespread in the medical community.) Forty-one cases involved blood used to treat a family member, often a sibling; in 36 of those cases the need for a transplant was known before the cord blood was collected. Only nine cases involved giving cord blood back to the donor, a practice known as autologous transplantation and the chief selling point for private cord-blood banking.

Private banks
Private banking is typically costly to parents and not covered by insurance. The ability to use the cord blood may also depend on the long-term commercial viability of the enterprise. Accordingly, whether cord blood banking is a worthwhile expenditure for the expectant parent depends in part upon whether the expenditure is offset by the likelihood of ultimately using the cord blood and by the benefits of such use. It is important to ensure the credentials of any potential private bank. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration regulates cord blood under the category of "Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue Based-Products". Since the FDA considers cord blood stored at public banks to be "drugs", but doesn't consider cord blood stored at private banks for use by the donor to be drugs, private banks are held to a less stringent regulatory standard. The leading cord blood banks in the U.S. include Americord, Cord Blood Registry, Viacord.

Cord blood transplants require less stringent matching between the tissue types of the donor and patient, known as their human leukocyte antigen (HLA) types.  Bone marrow transplants require a complete match on six key antigens, which are measures of graft-versus-host reaction, known as a 6/6 match.  Cord blood transplants achieve the same medical success with only a 4/6 match. HLA type is inherited from both parents, so siblings are particularly likely to be a match, and people from the same ethnic heritage are more likely to match.  Minority ethnic groups have difficulty finding a perfectly matched transplant donor. Studies have found that allogeneic transplants have a better outcome when the donor and patient are related. The odds that two siblings will have the 6/6 match required for a bone marrow transplant are 25%. The odds that two siblings will have the 4/6 match required for a cord blood transplant are 39%.

The policy of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) supports public cord blood banking (similar to the collection and banking of other blood products, i.e. altruistic, anyone can use it), as well as stating that it should only be considered under certain circumstances. The policy of the American Academy of Pediatrics states that "private storage of cord blood as 'biological insurance' is unwise" unless there is a family member with a current or potential need to undergo a stem cell transplantation. Private storage of one's own cord blood is unlawful in Italy and France, and it is also discouraged in some other European countries.

The American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation states that public donation of cord blood is encouraged where possible, the probability of using one's own cord blood is very small, and therefore storage of cord blood for personal use is not recommended, and family member banking (collecting and storing cord blood for a family member) is recommended when there is a sibling with a disease that may be treated successfully with an allogeneic transplant.

Ownership of cord blood
Umbilical cord blood in humans contains the cells and DNA of the baby. However, consent of the mother alone is usually obtained for collection, and the consent of the father is rarely considered.

As of 2007, contracts of the largest cord blood banks do not explicitly state that the cord blood belongs to the donors and child with all the rights and privileges one would reasonably expect from ownership.  The ambiguity leaves open future uses not approved by the donors and child. At the majority of private cord blood banking facilities, the mother owns all rights to the cord blood that was banked, until the minor in which the cord blood was taken turns eighteen. At that time the minor has all rights to his or her own banked cord blood.

Concerns have been raised that the current interest in cord blood could cause a perception that cord blood is "unused" by the birth process, thus decreasing the amount of blood which is infused into the child as part of the birth process.  The pulsation of the cord pushes blood into the child, and it has been recommended that the cord cease pulsation prior to clamping.  With the demand for cord blood increasing, there is a possibility that the cord could be clamped prematurely to preserve even more "extra" cord blood. The American Academy of Pediatricians notes: "if cord clamping is done too soon after birth, the infant may be deprived of a placental blood transfusion, resulting in lower blood volume and increased risk for anemia."

Safety and effectiveness
Using one's own cord blood cells might not be wise or effective, especially in cases of childhood cancers and leukemia. Children who develop an immunological disorder often are unable to use their own cord blood for transplant because the blood also contains the same genetic defect.

Additional issues include the possible contamination of the cord blood unit with the same cancer diagnosed later in life; for example, abnormal cells have been detected in filters containing newborn blood of children who were not diagnosed with acute leukemia until the age of 2 to 6 years. The high relapse rates after autologous or syngeneic transplant and the benefit of a graft-vs.-leukemia effect of an allogeneic transplant suggest that autologous cord blood would not be the ideal source of stem cells for patients with leukemia needing a transplant.

Confusion with embryonic stem cells
The public in the United States has a general awareness of embryonic stem cells because of the stem cell controversy. However, cord blood stem cells (hematopoietic stem cells) are not embryonic stem cells (pluripotent stem cells).

See also
 Cryo-Cell International
 Stem cell

References

External links
 National Marrow Donor Program

Blood banks
Sibling
Stem cells
Tissue transplants
Transplant organizations

Cord blood bank


The two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict envisions an independent State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel, west of the Jordan River. The boundary between the two states is still subject to dispute and negotiation, with Palestinian and Arab leadership demanding full Israeli withdrawal from territories it occupied in 1967, which is rejected by Israel. The territory of the former Mandate Palestine (including West Jerusalem), which did not form part of the Palestinian State, would continue to be part of Israel.

In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which was not implemented. In 1974, a UN resolution on the "Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine" called  for "two States, Israel and Palestine … side by side within secure and recognized borders" together with "a just resolution of the refugee question in conformity with UN resolution 194". The borders of the state of Palestine would be "based on the pre-1967 borders". The latest resolution, in November 2013, was passed 165 to 6, with 6 abstentions; with Israel and the United States voting against.

The Palestinian leadership has embraced the concept since the 1982 Arab Summit in Fez, and in 2017 Hamas accepted the idea of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. Israel views moves by Palestinian leaders to obtain international recognition of a State of Palestine as being unilateral action by the Palestinians and inconsistent with a negotiated two-state solution. It was reported in 2009 that although polls had consistently shown Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favor of a negotiated two-state settlement, there was "growing disillusionment" with a two-state solution. In 2014, 60% of Palestinians said the final goal of their national movement should be "to work toward reclaiming all of historic Palestine from the river to the sea". A poll published in 2021 by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research revealed that only 39% of Palestinians support the two-state solution. Another report published in 2021 by the RAND Corporation found that 60% of Israelis across the political spectrum opposed a two-state solution.

There have been many diplomatic efforts to realize a two-state solution, starting from the 1991 Madrid Conference. There followed the 1993 Oslo Accords and the failed 2000 Camp David Summit followed by the Taba negotiations in early 2001. In 2002, the Arab League proposed the Arab Peace Initiative. The latest initiative, which also failed, was the 2013–14 peace talks. A 2021 survey of experts found that 52 percent believe that the two-state solution is no longer achievable. 77 percent believe that if not achieved, the result would be a "one-state reality akin to apartheid". According to a 2021 PCPSR poll, support for a two-state solution among Palestinians and Israeli Jews, as of 2021, has declined to 43 percent and 42 percent, respectively. According to Middle East experts David Pollock and Catherine Cleveland, as of 2021, the majority of Palestinians say they want to reclaim all of historic Palestine, including pre-1967 Israel. A one-state solution with equal rights for Arabs and Jews is ranked second.

History of the two-state solution

The first proposal for the creation of Jewish and Arab states in the British Mandate of Palestine was made in the Peel Commission report of 1937, with the Mandate continuing to cover only a small area containing Jerusalem. The plan allotted the poorest lands of Palestine, including the Negev Desert, and areas that are known today as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the Arabs; while most of the coastline and some of Palestine's most fertile agricultural land in the Galilee were allotted to the Jews. Consequently, the recommended partition proposal was rejected by the Arab community of Palestine, and was accepted by most of the Jewish leadership.

Partition was again proposed by the 1947 UN Partition Plan for the division of Palestine. It proposed a three-way division, again with Jerusalem held separately, under international control. The partition plan was accepted by Jewish Agency for Palestine and most Zionist factions who viewed it as a stepping stone to territorial expansion at an opportune time. The Arab Higher Committee, the Arab League and other Arab leaders and governments rejected it on the basis that Arabs formed a two-thirds majority and owned a majority of the lands. They also indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division, arguing that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN Charter. They announced their intention to take all necessary measures to prevent the implementation of the resolution. Subsequently a civil war broke out in Palestine and the plan was not implemented.

The 1948 Arab–Israeli War for control of the disputed land broke out on the end of the British Mandate, which came to an end with the 1949 Armistice Agreements. The war resulted in the fleeing or expulsion of 711,000 Palestinians, which the Palestinians call Nakba, from the territories which became the state of Israel. Rather than establishing a Palestinian state on land that Israel did not control, the Arab nations chose instead to support the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and the Palestinian refugees remained stateless.

UN resolution 242 and the recognition of Palestinian rights
After the 1967 Arab–Israeli war, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed resolution 242 calling for Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied during the war, in exchange for "termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and "acknowledgement of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area". The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which had been formed in 1964, strongly criticized the resolution, saying that it reduced the question of Palestine to a refugee problem.

In September 1974, 56 Member States proposed that "the question of Palestine" be included as an item in the General Assembly's agenda. In a resolution adopted on 22 November 1974, the General Assembly affirmed Palestinian rights, which included the "right to self-determination without external interference", "the right to national independence and sovereignty", and the "right to return to their homes and property". These rights have been affirmed every year since.

PLO acceptance of a two-state solution
The first indication that the PLO would be willing to accept a two-state solution, on at least an interim basis, was articulated by Said Hammami in the mid-1970s.

Security Council resolutions dating back to June 1976 supporting the two-state solution based on the pre-1967 lines were vetoed by the United States, which supports a two-state solution but argued that the borders must be negotiated directly by the parties. The idea has had overwhelming support in the UN General Assembly since the mid-1970s.

The Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988, which referenced the UN Partition Plan of 1947 and "UN resolutions since 1947" in general, was interpreted as an indirect recognition of the State of Israel, and support for a two-state solution. The Partition Plan was invoked to provide legitimacy to Palestinian statehood. Subsequent clarifications were taken to amount to the first explicit Palestinian recognition of Israel.

The 2017 Hamas charter presented the Palestinian state being based on the 1967 borders. The text says "Hamas considers the establishment of a Palestinian state, sovereign and complete, on the basis of the June 4, 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital and the provision for all the refugees to return to their homeland." This is in contrast to Hamas' 1988 charter, which previously called for a Palestinian state on all of Mandatory Palestine. Nevertheless, even in the 2017 charter, Hamas didn't recognize Israel.

Diplomatic efforts

In 1975, the General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. In 1976, the Committee presented two sets of recommendations, one concerned with the Palestinians' right of return to their homes and property, and the other with their rights to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty. The Security Council discussed the recommendations but failed to reach a decision due to the negative vote of the United States.

After the First Intifada began in 1987, considerable diplomatic work went into negotiating a two-state solution between the parties, beginning with the Madrid Conference in 1991. The most significant of these negotiations was the Oslo Accords, which officially divided Palestinian land into three administrative divisions and created the framework for how much of Israel's political borders with the Palestinian territories function today. The Accords culminated in the Camp David 2000 Summit, and follow-up negotiations at Taba in January 2001, but no final agreement was ever reached. The violent outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000 had demonstrated the Palestinian public's disillusionment with the Oslo Accords and convinced many Israelis that the negotiations were in vain.

Possible two-state solutions have been discussed by Saudi and US leaders. In 2002, Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (who would go on to be King from 2005 to 2015) proposed the Arab Peace Initiative, which garnered the unanimous support of the Arab League while Israeli leaders continually refuse to discuss the initiative. President Bush announced his support for a Palestinian state, opening the way for United Nations Security Council Resolution 1397, supporting a two-state solution.

At the Annapolis Conference in November 2007, three major parties—The PLO, Israel, and the US—agreed on a two-state solution as the outline for negotiations. However, the summit failed to achieve an agreement.

Following the conflict that erupted between the two main Palestinian parties, Fatah and Hamas, Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip, splintering the Palestinian Authority into two polities, each claiming to be the true representatives of the Palestinian people. Fatah controlled the Palestinian National Authority in the West Bank and Hamas Governed in Gaza.

The latest initiatives were the 2013–14 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks under the guidance of John Kerry, the United States Secretary of State. These talks also failed to reach an agreement.

Viability
By 2010, when direct talks were scheduled to be restarted, continued growth of settlements on the West Bank and continued strong support of settlements by the Israeli government had greatly reduced the land and resources that would be available to a Palestinian state creating doubt among Palestinians and left-wing Israelis that a two-state solution continued to be viable. In January 2012 the European Union Heads of Mission report on East Jerusalem found that Israel's continuing settlement activities and the fragile situation of the Palestinian population in East Jerusalem, as well in area C, was making a two-state solution less likely. The Israeli Foreign Ministry rejected this EU report, claiming it was "based on a partial, biased and one sided depiction of realities on the ground." In May 2012, the EU council stressed its "deep concern about developments on the ground which threaten to make a two-state solution impossible'.

On 29 November 2012, the UN General Assembly voted by 138 to 9, with 46 abstentions to recognize Palestine as a "non-member observer state". On the following day, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu announced the building of 3,000 new homes on land to the east of East Jerusalem, in an area referred to as "E-1". The move was immediately criticized by several countries, including the United States, with Israeli ambassadors being personally called for meetings with government representatives in the UK, France and Germany, among others. Israel's decision to build the homes was described by the Obama administration as "counterproductive", while Australia said that the building plans "threaten the viability of a two-state solution". This is because they claim the proposed E-1 settlement would physically split the lands under the control of the Palestinian National Authority in two, as the extent of the PNA's authority does not extend all the way to the River Jordan and the Dead Sea. Israel's Labor party has voiced support for the two-state solution, with Isaac Herzog stating it would be "in Israel's interests".

in March 2015, Netanyahu declared that a Palestinian state would not be established during his administration, while he also stated that he disapproved the one-state solution for the ongoing conflict between two people.

After controversial Jerusalem recognition by Trump administration in favor of Israel in December 2017, Palestinian officials said the policy change "destroys the peace process" and the decision indirectly meant the United States was "abdicating its role as a peace mediator" that could no longer act as a mediator in the peace process because the United States had become a party to the dispute instead of neutral intercessor for negotiations.

A 2021 survey of experts found that 52 percent of respondents believed the two-state solution is no longer possible. If a two-state solution is not achieved, 77 percent predict "a one-state reality akin to apartheid" and 17 percent "one-state reality with increasing inequality, but not akin to apartheid"; just 1 percent think a binational state with equal rights for all inhabitants is likely.

Settlements in the West Bank
The UN resolutions affirm the illegality of settlements in West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Proposals have been offered for over 50  post-evacuation compensation of settlers for abandoned property, as occurred following Israel's withdrawal of settlements from Gaza in 2005 and from the Sinai Peninsula in 1982. Some settlers in those previous withdrawals were forcibly removed by the IDF.

In December 2016, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 was formally passed as the condemnation against Israeli settlement in West Bank.

Public opinion in Israel and Palestine

Many Palestinians and Israelis, as well as the Arab League, have stated that they would accept a two-state solution based on 1949 Armistice Agreements, more commonly referred to as the "1967 borders". In a 2002 poll conducted by PIPA, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported at that time a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders so long as each group could be reassured that the other side would be cooperative in making the necessary concessions for such a settlement. A 2013 Gallup poll found 70% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 48% of Palestinians in Gaza Strip, together with 52% of Israelis supporting "an independent Palestinian state together with the state of Israel".

Support for a two-state solution varies according to the way the question is phrased. Some Israeli journalists suggest that the Palestinians are unprepared to accept a Jewish State on any terms. According to one poll, "fewer than 2 in 10 Arabs, both Palestinian and all others, believe in Israel's right to exist as a nation with a Jewish majority." Another poll, however, cited by the US State Department, suggests that "78 percent of Palestinians and 74 percent of Israelis believe a peace agreement that leads to both states living side by side as good neighbors" is "essential or desirable".

As of 2021, most Palestinians are against the two-state solution. In 2021, a poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research revealed that 39% of Palestinians accept a two-state solution, while 59% said they rejected it. Support is even lower among younger Palestinians; U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted: "Increasingly, the Palestinians who talk about a two-state solution are my age." A survey taken before the outbreak of fighting in 2014 by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) found that 60 percent of Palestinians say the goal of their national movement should be "to work toward reclaiming all of historic Palestine from the river to the sea" compared to just 27 percent who endorse the idea that they should work "to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and achieve a two-state solution." WINEP says that "this is a new finding compared to similar (but not identical) questions asked in the past, when support for a two-state solution typically ranged between 40–55 percent". By 2020, 40% in Gaza and 26% in the West Bank believe that a negotiated two-state solution should solve the conflict.

The two-state solution enjoys majority support in Israeli polls although there has been some erosion to its prospects over time. A 2014 Haaretz poll asking "Consider that in the framework of an agreement, most settlers are annexed to Israel, Jerusalem will be divided, refugees won't return to Israel and there will be a strict security arrangement, would you support this agreement?", only 35% of Israelis said yes.

Some researchers argue that the two-state solution has already been implemented because Jordan, which makes up 78% of the former Mandatory Palestine, was originally created as a state for the Arabs.

Other solutions

Another option is the binational solution, which could either be a twin regime federalist arrangement or a unitary state, and the Allon Plan, also known as the "no-state solution".

Three-state solution
The three-state solution has been proposed as another alternative. The New York Times reported that Egypt and Jordan were concerned about having to retake responsibility for Gaza and the West Bank. In effect, the result would be Gaza returning to Egyptian rule, and the West Bank to Jordan.

Proposal of dual citizenship
A number of proposals for the granting of Palestinian citizenship or residential permits to Jewish settlers in return for the removal of Israeli military installations from the West Bank have been fielded by such individuals as Arafat, Ibrahim Sarsur and Ahmed Qurei.

Israeli Minister Moshe Ya'alon said in April 2010 that "just as Arabs live in Israel, so, too, should Jews be able to live in Palestine." ... "If we are talking about coexistence and peace, why the [Palestinian] insistence that the territory they receive be ethnically cleansed of Jews?"

The idea has been expressed by both advocates of the two-state solution and supporters of the settlers and conservative or fundamentalist currents in Israeli Judaism that, while objecting to any withdrawal, claim stronger links to the land than to the state of Israel.

See also
 List of Middle East peace proposals
 One-state solution
 Palestinianism
 Greater Palestine
 State of Judea
 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
 Zionism

References

Further reading
 Aharon Cohen, Israel and the Arab World (Funk and Wagnalls, New York, 1970).

External links
 The Future of the TwoState Solution, Giora Eiland, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, February 2009
 Two-state solution-discredited – without workable alternative, Beate Zilversmidt, The Other Israel, May 2006
 "Two-State Chimera, No-State Solution". Why there won't ever be two 'states'. Cameron Hunt, Counter Currents, May 2007
 "Banging Square Pegs into Round Holes," Dore Gold, ed. David Pollack, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, December 2008
 "The Middle East conflict and the two-state solution," RearVision, ABC Radio National, September 23, 2009
 Taking the two-state solution seriously, Opinion by Alain Dieckhoff, March 2009, European Union Institute for Security Studies
 A Demilitarized Palestinian State, On the meaning of that & summary of security arrangement out of previous Israeli-Palestinian accords, Reut Institution (a Think Tank)

Israeli–Palestinian peace process

Two-state solution


Alexandre Koyré (, ; born Alexandr Vladimirovich (or Volfovich) Koyra (); 29 August 1892 – 28 April 1964), also anglicized as Alexander Koyre, was a French philosopher of Russian origin who wrote on the history and philosophy of science.

Life
Koyré was born in the city of Taganrog, Russia on 29 August 1892 into a Jewish family. His original name was Alexandr Vladimirovich (or Volfovich) Koyra (). In Imperial Russia he studied in Tiflis, Rostov-on-Don and Odessa, before pursuing his studies abroad.

At Göttingen, Germany (1908–1911) he studied under Edmund Husserl and David Hilbert. Husserl did not approve of Koyré's dissertation, whereupon Koyré left for Paris, to study at the Collège de France and the Sorbonne during the period 1912–1913 under Bergson, Brunschvicg, Lalande, Delbos and Picavet. Following Husserl's Cartesian Meditations, a series of lectures given in Paris in February 1929 (and one of the more important of Husserl's later works), Koyré met again with Husserl repeatedly.

In 1914 he joined the French Foreign Legion as soon as the war broke out. In 1916 he volunteered for a Russian regiment fighting on the Russian front, following a cooperation agreement between the French and Russian governments.

In 1922 Koyré completed his two State doctorate (then called Doctorat ès lettres) theses. The same year he started teaching in Paris at the École pratique des hautes études (EPHE), and became a colleague of Alexandre Kojève, who eventually replaced him as lecturer on Hegel. In 1931, he helped found the philosophical journal Recherches philosophiques. In 1932 the EPHE created a Department of History of Religious Thought in Modern Europe for him to chair. He retained this position until his death.

During the years 1932–34, 1936–38, and 1940–41, Koyré taught in Fuad University (later Cairo University) where, along with André Lalande and others, he introduced the study of modern philosophy to Egyptian academia. His most important student in Cairo was Abdel Rahman Badawi (1917–2002) who is considered the first systematic modern Arab philosopher. Koyré later joined the Egyptian National Committee of the Free French.

During World War II, Koyré lived in New York City, and taught at the New School for Social Research, including a course on Plato's Theaetetus, together with Leo Strauss and Kurt Riezler, in the fall of 1944.  After World War II, he was a frequent visitor to the United States, spending half a year at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton each year from 1955 to 1962 and also teaching as a visiting professor at Harvard, Yale, the University of Chicago, the University of Wisconsin, and Johns Hopkins.  His lectures at Johns Hopkins would form the nucleus of one of his best known publications, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe (1957).

He died in Paris on 28 April 1964.

Work

Though best known as a philosopher of science, Koyré started out as a historian of religion. Much of his originality for the period rests on his ability to ground his studies of modern science on the history of religion and metaphysics.

Koyré focused on Galileo, Plato and Isaac Newton. His most famous work is From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe, a series of lectures given at Johns Hopkins University in 1959 on the rise of early modern science and the change of scientists' perception of the world during the period from Nicholas of Cusa and Giordano Bruno through Newton. Though the book has been widely heralded, it was a summation of Koyré's perspective rather than an original new work.

Koyré was suspicious of scientists' claims to prove natural or fundamental truths through experiments. He argued these experiments were based on complicated premises, and that they tended to prove the outlook behind these premises, rather than any real truth. He repeatedly critiqued Galileo's experiments, claiming that some of them could not have taken place, and disputed the results Galileo claimed and which modern historians of science had hitherto accepted.

According to Koyré, it was not the experimental or empirical nature of Galileo's and Newton's discoveries that carried the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, but a shift in perspective, a change in theoretical outlook toward the world. Koyré strongly criticised what he called the "positivist" notion that science should only discover given phenomena, the relations between them and certain laws that would help to describe or predict them. To Koyré science was, at its heart, theory: an aspiration to know the truth of the world, of uncovering the essential structures from which phenomena, and the basic laws that relate them, spring.

Koyré was also interested in the correlations between scientific discoveries and religious or philosophical world views. Like Edmund Husserl in his later studies, Koyré claimed that modern science had succeeded in overcoming the split, inherent in traditional Aristotelian science, between Earth and Space, since these were now both seen as governed by the same laws. On the other hand, another split had now been created, between the phenomenal world inhabited by man and the purely abstract, mathematical world of science. Koyré aimed to show how this "first world", the world of human dwelling (personal and historical), apparently irrelevant to modern naturalistic research, was by no means irrelevant for the very constitution and development of this research. Koyré consistently sought to show how scientific truth is always discovered in correlation with specific historical, even purely personal, circumstances.

Koyré's work can be seen as a systematic analysis of the constitutive achievements that resulted in scientific knowledge, but with particular emphasis on the historical, and specifically human, circumstances that generate the scientists' phenomenal world and serve as foundation for all scientific constitutions of meaning.

Koyré influenced major European and American philosophers of science, most significantly Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Michel Foucault and Paul Feyerabend.

Criticism

In the course of his studies of Galileo, Koyré famously claimed that the experiments with weights falling and rolling on inclined planes that Galileo described in his writings probably had not been carried out in practice, but were instead thought experiments intended to illustrate his deductions.  Koyré argued that the precision of the results reported by Galileo was not possible with the technology available to him and quoted the contemporary judgement of Marin Mersenne, who had questioned the feasibility of reproducing Galileo's results.  Furthermore, according to Koyré, Galileo's science was largely a product of his Platonist philosophy and did not really derive from experimental observations.

Koyré's conclusions were first challenged in 1961 by Thomas B. Settle, who as a graduate student at Cornell University succeeded in reproducing Galileo's experiments with inclined planes using the methods and technologies described in Galileo's writing.  Later, Stillman Drake and others worked through Galileo's notes and demonstrated that Galileo was a careful experimentalist whose observations did play a pivotal role in the development of his scientific system that he later claimed in his published work. Koyré has been further criticised for his claim about Galileo's Platonism, which he saw as a synonym with mathematics and mathematization of nature. As the Italian scholar Lodovico Geymonat has proved, in fact, Platonism as a tradition does not helpfully illuminate the development of Galileo's mathematical studies which are mostly concerned with applied mathematics, engineering and mechanics fields that neither Plato nor Platonist authors were much interested in.

Writings (selection)
 La Philosophie de Jacob Boehme, Paris, J. Vrin, 1929.
 Études galiléennes, Paris: Hermann, 1939
 From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1957
 La Révolution astronomique: Copernic, Kepler, Borelli, Paris: Hermann, 1961
 The Astronomical Revolution Methuen, London, 1973
 Introduction à la lecture de Platon, Paris: Gallimard, 1994
 Metaphysics & Measurement: Essays in Scientific Revolution  Harvard University Press, 1968
 A Documentary History of the Problem of Fall from Kepler to Newton, pp. 329–395, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 45, 1955
 Newtonian Studies, Chapman & Hall, 1965

Honours
 General Secretary and Vice President, Institut International de Philosophie
 Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
 Sarton Medal, History of Science Society
 CNRS Silver Medal, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

References
 Jean-François Stoffel, Bibliographie d'Alexandre Koyré, Firenze : L.S. Olschki, 2000.
 Marlon Salomon. "Alexandre Koyré, historiador do pensamento". Goiânia: Almeida & Clément, Brazil, 2010.

External links

 Alexandre Koyré's Online Archives Project (papers, manuscripts, notes, etc.) established by Center Alexandre- KOYRE/CRHST in partnership with CN2SV/CNRS)
 Mailing list about Alexandre Koyré's archives : A mailing list about A. Koyré archives
 Center Alexandre-KOYRE/CRHST, history of science and technologies center (Paris, France) supported by CNRS, EHESS, Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie and Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle.
 The Alexandre Koyre Prize at the International Academy of the History of Science.

Notes

1892 births
1964 deaths
Writers from Taganrog
People from Don Host Oblast
Russian Jews
Historians of science
French Jews
Jewish philosophers
Scientific revolution
Philosophers of science
University of Paris alumni
Soldiers of the French Foreign Legion
20th-century French historians
20th-century French philosophers
20th-century Russian writers
French male writers
Newton scholars
Phenomenologists
Epistemologists

Alexandre Koyré


Men on Call is a 1931 American pre-Code drama film directed by John G. Blystone and written by James Kevin McGuinness and Basil Woon. The picture stars Edmund Lowe, Mae Clarke, William Harrigan, Sharon Lynn, Warren Hymer and Ruth Warren. The film was released on January 18, 1931, by Fox Film Corporation.

Plot
Railroad engineer Chuck Long (Edmund Lowe) happily tells his friends that he is marrying dancer Helen Gordon (Mae Clarke) the next day, then goes to the theater where Helen works. He arrives while Helen's fellow performers are throwing a party for her, but their merriment is interrupted when a reporter arrives and reveals that Helen, whose real name is Helen Harding, was named as a co-respondent in a scandalous divorce trial six months earlier. Chuck assumes the worst and rushes from the theater without letting Helen explain. She follows him, but by the time she arrives at the railroad yard, Chuck has taken another engine out and left. Thoughts of Helen distract Chuck from his job and he wrecks the train. After he is released from the hospital, Chuck wanders from one job to the next until six months later, he has become a hobo. Cap, a kindhearted Coast Guard captain, meets Chuck in a park, and after Chuck explains that he was reared as a sailor, Cap convinces him to join the Coast Guard to help him forget his bitterness. Over the next three years, Chuck and Cap become fast friends, and Chuck settles into his new life. Chuck periodically receives letters from Helen but destroys them without reading them. One day, Chuck and Cap are crossing the bay when they find a woman in the water. They rescue her from drowning, and Chuck discovers to his horror that she is Helen, although he does not reveal this to Cap. Cap takes her to his cottage, where he looks after her as she regains her strength. A week passes as Helen tries to talk to Chuck, who keeps brushing her off. Crushed by Chuck's continual rejection, Helen decides to leave, but agrees to stay when Cap, who is falling in love with her, pleads with her to attend a special annual Coast Guard dance. Angered by Helen's decision, Chuck threatens to reveal her past to Cap if she does not leave. At the dance, Cap proposes to Helen, but their conversation is interrupted by Chuck, who tells Cap that Helen is the girl who 'cracked him up.' Demanding that Chuck finally hear her out, Helen explains that she was entirely guiltless in the divorce trial, but changed her name to escape the constant prying of tabloid reporters. She further explains that it is not easy for women to get by honestly in life because of men's demands, and that she had thrown herself in the water rather than accept a proposition that 'would have made life easy.' She bitterly tells Chuck that from then on, she will fulfill the label he has put on her. After she runs away, Cap punches Chuck for being a heel. Soon after, Cap, Chuck and the men answer an alarm summoning them to a burning freighter. Cap is trapped in the hold when he tries to rescue the freighter's captain, and Chuck courageously rescues them both. In the hospital, Cap and Chuck convalesce and patch up their friendship. When Helen, disguised in a borrowed nurse's uniform, sneaks into their room, Chuck pretends not to recognize her and continues telling Cap that he realizes what a sap he was and will never let Helen go again. Helen accepts Chuck's proposal, and as the reunited couple kiss, Cap cheerfully states that he will be Chuck's best man at the wedding.

Cast
Edmund Lowe as Chuck Long
Mae Clarke as Helen Gordon / Helen Harding
William Harrigan as Cap
Sharon Lynn as Mary Burton
Warren Hymer as Joe Burke
Ruth Warren as Mrs. Burke

References

External links

1931 films
American drama films
1931 drama films
Fox Film films
Films about the United States Coast Guard
Films directed by John G. Blystone
American black-and-white films
1930s English-language films
1930s American films
English-language drama films

Men on Call