$ and the four sections $\Sigma_i$ and $\Pi_i$, $i=1,2$, in the normalizing coordinates.[]{data-label="boundary_hemicycle"}](hemicycle_boundary){width="7cm"}

The proof is very similar to that of Theorem \[thm:boundary\_graphic\]. The graphic occurs in the family for $B<\frac12$, which corresponds to $\frac12<a<1$, but we prefer to use the following equivalent unfolding inside quadratic systems (only parameters’ names are changed so that they play similar role as in Theorem \[thm:boundary\_graphic\]) $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\dot x&=-y+Bx^2 +\mu_2y^2 + \mu_5 x\\
\dot y&=x+xy+\mu_3y^2+\mu_4y.
\end{array}\right.
\label{infunfold_bis}$$ The point $P_4$ (resp. $P_3$) is replaced by $P_1$ (resp. $P_2$). The quantity $\sigma_i$ is now given by $\sigma_i=\frac{2a-1}{a}$. The main difference with Theorem \[thm:boundary\_graphic\] is that the transition from $\Pi_2$ to $\Pi_1$ is replaced by the composition $T_r^{-1} \circ D_r^{-1} \circ T\circ D_\ell\circ T_\ell$. The transitions $T_\ell$ and $T_r$ are along the equator of the Poincaré sphere and hence preserve the connection (no translation terms). The saddle points $P_\ell$ and $P_r$ have inverse hyperbolicity ratios: $\tau_\ell= 1/\tau_r= \frac{1-B}{B}<1$. Hence, it is better to consider a displacement map $$V: \Sigma_2\rightarrow \Pi_r, \qquad V=T\circ D_\ell\circ T_\ell \circ D_2  - D_r\circ T_r\circ D_1\circ S.\label{displ_hemicycle}$$ The computation of $S$ is the same as before.

[**Computation of $T_\ell$ and $T_r$.**]{} $T_r$ and $T_\ell$
$ and the four sections $ \Sigma_i$ and $ \Pi_i$, $ i=1,2 $, in the normalizing coordinates.[]{data - label="boundary_hemicycle"}](hemicycle_boundary){width="7 cm " } 

 The proof is very similar to that of Theorem   \[thm: boundary\_graphic\ ]. The graphic occurs in the syndicate for $ B<\frac12 $, which correspond to $ \frac12 < a<1 $, but we prefer to use the following equivalent unfolding inside quadratic system (only parameters ’ name are change so that they play similar role as in Theorem   \[thm: boundary\_graphic\ ]) $ $ \left\{\begin{array}{ll } 
 \dot x&=-y+Bx^2 + \mu_2y^2 + \mu_5 x\\ 
 \dot y&=x+xy+\mu_3y^2+\mu_4y. 
 \end{array}\right. 
 \label{infunfold_bis}$$ The point $ P_4 $ (resp. $ P_3 $) is substitute by $ P_1 $ (resp. $ P_2 $). The quantity $ \sigma_i$ is now give by $ \sigma_i=\frac{2a-1}{a}$. The main difference with Theorem   \[thm: boundary\_graphic\ ] is that the passage from $ \Pi_2 $ to $ \Pi_1 $ is replaced by the composition $ T_r^{-1 } \circ D_r^{-1 } \circ T\circ D_\ell\circ T_\ell$. The passage $ T_\ell$ and $ T_r$ are along the equator of the Poincaré sphere and hence preserve the joining (no translation terms). The saddle points $ P_\ell$ and $ P_r$ experience inverse hyperbolicity ratios: $ \tau_\ell= 1/\tau_r= \frac{1 - B}{B}<1$. Hence, it is better to consider a displacement map $ $ five: \Sigma_2\rightarrow \Pi_r, \qquad V = T\circ D_\ell\circ T_\ell \circ D_2   - D_r\circ T_r\circ D_1\circ S.\label{displ_hemicycle}$$ The computation of $ S$ is the same as before. 

 [ * * Computation of $ T_\ell$ and $ T_r$. * * ] { } $ T_r$ and $ T_\ell$
$ anf the four sections $\Sigmx_i$ and $\Pi_i$, $i=1,2$, in the nocmalizihg coordknates.[]{data-label="boundary_hemicbcle"}](yemictcle_boundary){width="7cm"}

The proof is very sinilac to that of Theorem \[thm:boundarg\_nraphnc\]. The graphic ogcurs in tha family for $B<\xrxc12$, which corresponds to $\frac12<a<1$, but we [refer yo use the folloring qquibalent unfolding inside quadratic aystems (only parametrrs’ names are changed so tjat hhey play similar gole as in Jgeowwm \[thm:boundarh\_graphic\]) $$\ltfc\{\begin{array}{ml}
\dot x&=-y+Bx^2 +\mu_2y^2 + \mu_5 x\\
\dot y&=x+xy+\mu_3y^2+\ou_4y.
\enb{array}\right.
\oavel{ltfunfold_bis}$$ The ioint $P_4$ (resp. $I_3$) is re[laced ny $P_1$ (resp. $P_2$). Thc quaititt $\sigma_i$ is now given by $\sigma_i=\frac{2a-1}{a}$. Tre main dhfyerence with Theorem \[tym:vounddry\_gsaphkx\] ir tgav tge trajsivion from $\Pj_2$ to $\Pi_1$ is eeplaced by the comkosynoon $T_r^{-1} \circ S_r^{-1} \cirs E\circ D_\ell\circ T_\ell$. The transitions $T_\eln$ ahd $T_r$ are along the equqtor of the Poincaré skhere and rence preserve the connection (no translation termv). The radboe pokbtd $P_\ell$ and $P_r$ have inverse hyperbolicity ratija: $\uau_\vll= 1/\tau_r= \frac{1-B}{B}<1$. Hcnce, it is better yo cpgsider a dispuacemeuf jap $$V: \Sigma_2\rightargow \Pi_r, \qquae V=T\circ Q_\ell\virc T_\ell \circ D_2  - D_r\circ T_e\circ D_1\circ F.\oabel{displ_hemicyclz}$$ The computction pf $S$ os the same as before.

[**Cooputztion of $T_\epl$ and $T_r$.**]{} $G_r$ and $T_\ell$
$ and the four sections $\Sigma_i$ and in normalizing coordinates.[]{data-label="boundary_hemicycle"}](hemicycle_boundary){width="7cm"} proof is very \[thm:boundary\_graphic\]. graphic occurs in family for $B<\frac12$, corresponds to $\frac12<a<1$, but we prefer use the following equivalent unfolding inside quadratic systems (only parameters’ names are changed that they play similar role as in Theorem \[thm:boundary\_graphic\]) $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \dot x&=-y+Bx^2 +\mu_2y^2 \mu_5 \dot \end{array}\right. The point $P_4$ (resp. $P_3$) is replaced by $P_1$ (resp. $P_2$). The quantity $\sigma_i$ is now by $\sigma_i=\frac{2a-1}{a}$. The main difference with Theorem \[thm:boundary\_graphic\] that the transition from to $\Pi_1$ is replaced by composition \circ D_r^{-1} T\circ T_\ell$. transitions $T_\ell$ and are along the equator of the Poincaré sphere and hence preserve the connection (no translation terms). The points $P_\ell$ have inverse ratios: 1/\tau_r= Hence, it is consider a displacement map $$V: \Sigma_2\rightarrow D_\ell\circ T_\ell \circ D_2 - D_r\circ T_r\circ D_1\circ The computation $S$ is the same as before. of $T_\ell$ and $T_r$.**]{} $T_r$ and $T_\ell$
$ and the four sections $\Sigma_i$ aNd $\Pi_i$, $i=1,2$, in thE normAliZinG cOordInatEs.[]{data-label="bouNDary_Hemicycle"}](hemicycle_bounDary){wIdTH="7cm"}

THE pRoof iS very siMIlAR To tHaT oF ThEoREm \[Thm:boUndAry\_grapHic\]. The grapHic OcCurs in the famILy For $B<\frac12$, whIch Corresponds tO $\frAc12<a<1$, but We PreFEr to uSe tHe folLowing EQuivalEnt unfoldInG Inside QUadratiC SYsTems (Only parameters’ namES aRE changed so that They plAy SImILAr rOle As in TheoreM \[tHm:bouNDary\_graPHiC\]) $$\LEFt\{\bEGin{array}{ll}
\dot X&=-y+Bx^2 +\mu_2y^2 + \mu_5 x\\
\dOT y&=x+Xy+\mu_3y^2+\mU_4y.
\End{ARray}\riGht.
\laBeL{InfUnfold_bis}$$ ThE poiNt $P_4$ (resp. $P_3$) iS replaCEd by $P_1$ (reSP. $P_2$). The quAntity $\SigMa_i$ Is noW GiVeN by $\SiGMa_i=\FRaC{2a-1}{a}$. tHe mAin diffeReNcE with theoREM \[THm:boUndAry\_gRaphiC\] is that the traNsiTion FRom $\pi_2$ to $\PI_1$ is rePlacEd By the ComposItion $t_r^{-1} \Circ D_r^{-1} \circ T\circ d_\ell\Circ T_\ell$. THe tRaNsiTiOns $T_\eLL$ and $T_r$ Are AloNg the eqUator of THe POiNCARé Sphere and hence presErVE ThE connectIon (no tRAnSlATion termS). THe sAddlE POints $p_\ell$ ANd $p_r$ have inVerse hYPeRbOlicity RaTios: $\taU_\eLl= 1/\tAu_r= \Frac{1-B}{b}<1$. hencE, it is bEtter to cOnsidER a displacement MAp $$V: \Sigma_2\rightARrOW \pi_R, \QquaD V=T\Circ D_\ell\cirC T_\elL \Circ d_2  - D_r\cIRc t_r\cIRc D_1\ciRc S.\laBeL{DiSPl_hemicycle}$$ The compuTaTion of $s$ is thE same as before.

[**computatioN OF $t_\ell$ and $T_R$.**]{} $T_r$ aND $T_\ELl$
$ and the four sections $\ Sigma_i$ a nd $\ Pi_ i$,  $ i=1, 2$,in the normali z ingcoordinates.[]{data-la bel=" bo u ndar y _h emicy cle"}]( h em i c ycl e_ bo und ar y ){ width ="7 cm"}

T he proof i s v er y similar to th at of Theo rem  \[thm:bound ary \_grap hi c\] .  Thegra phicoccurs in the  family f or $B<\fr a c12$, w h i ch  cor responds to $\fra c 12 < a<1$, but we p referto us e the  fo llowing eq ui valen t  unfold i ng i n sid e  quadratic sy stems (only par ameter s’  na m es are  chan ge d  so  that theyplay  similarrole a s  in The o rem \[t hm:bou nda ry\ _gra p hi c\ ])$$ \ lef t \{ \be g in{ array}{l l} 
\ dot x &=-y + B x ^ 2 +\ mu_ 2y^2  + \m u_5 x\\
\doty&= x+xy + \mu _3y^2 +\mu_ 4y.\e nd{ar ray}\r ight. 
\ label{infunfold _bis }$$ The p oin t$P_ 4$  (res p . $P_3 $)isreplace d by $P _ 1$(r e s p .$P_2$). The quanti ty $ \s igma_i$is now gi ve n  by $\si gm a_i =\fr a c {2a-1 }{a} $ .The main  diffe r en ce  with T he orem \ [t hm: bou ndary \ _gra phic\]  is that  thet ransition from $\Pi_2$ to $\ P i_ 1 $  i s  rep lac ed by the c ompo s itio n $T _ r^ {-1 }  \cir c D_r ^{ - 1} \circ T\circ D_\ell \c irc T_ \ell$ . The transit ions $T_\e l l $  and $T_ r$ a r ea long the equat or of  the Poinc a ré spher e and  hence p reserve t h e  connect ion  (n o t ran s l at ion terms). T h e  sad dl e point s $ P_\ell$  an d $ P_r $ h av e inverse  hyperbo li ci ty  r ati os: $ \ tau_\ell =1/\ ta u_r = \fr a c{1-B} {B}<1 $. H en ce ,  it  is bet t er t o co ns id er a  di sp lacem entm ap$$V: \S igma_2\ri ght a rrow  \ Pi _r, \qq uad V=T\circD_ \ell\circT_ \el l \cir c D_2  - D _r\circ T_r\circ D_1\ci r c S.\la bel {disp l_he micycle}$ $ T he com put a tion o f $S$is th esam e as be f o re .
[* *Computati o n  of  $T_\ el l$ a nd $T_r $.**]{} $T_r$ and$ T_\ ell$
$ and_the four_sections $\Sigma_i$ and $\Pi_i$,_$i=1,2$, in_the_normalizing coordinates.[]{data-label="boundary_hemicycle"}](hemicycle_boundary){width="7cm"}

The_proof_is very similar_to that of_Theorem \[thm:boundary\_graphic\]. The graphic occurs_in the family_for_$B<\frac12$, which corresponds to $\frac12<a<1$, but we prefer to use the following equivalent unfolding_inside_quadratic systems_(only_parameters’_names are changed so that_they play similar role as_in Theorem \[thm:boundary\_graphic\])_$$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\dot x&=-y+Bx^2 +\mu_2y^2 + \mu_5 x\\
\dot y&=x+xy+\mu_3y^2+\mu_4y.
\end{array}\right.
\label{infunfold_bis}$$ The_point_$P_4$ (resp. $P_3$)_is replaced by $P_1$ (resp. $P_2$). The quantity $\sigma_i$_is now given by $\sigma_i=\frac{2a-1}{a}$. The_main difference with_Theorem \[thm:boundary\_graphic\]_is_that the transition from_$\Pi_2$ to $\Pi_1$ is replaced by_the composition $T_r^{-1} \circ D_r^{-1} \circ_T\circ D_\ell\circ T_\ell$. The transitions $T_\ell$ and_$T_r$ are along the equator of_the Poincaré sphere and hence_preserve the_connection (no translation terms). The_saddle points $P_\ell$_and $P_r$_have inverse hyperbolicity_ratios: $\tau_\ell= 1/\tau_r= \frac{1-B}{B}<1$. Hence, it_is better to_consider a displacement map $$V: \Sigma_2\rightarrow_\Pi_r,_\qquad V=T\circ D_\ell\circ_T_\ell_\circ_D_2 _- D_r\circ T_r\circ_D_1\circ_S.\label{displ_hemicycle}$$ The_computation_of $S$ is the same as_before.

[**Computation_of $T_\ell$ and $T_r$.**]{} $T_r$ and $T_\ell$