浅谈热河文化的发展与传承——多情热河水 七彩热河人

承德原名热河,以水得名,最早以蒙古语命名为"哈伦告鲁",或"哈伦郭勒",汉语意译为"热河"。热河在一般地图上找不到它有踪迹,它是中国最短的河流。热河水清澈甘甜,滋润万物;热河水爱洒热土,品质人生;热河水自天地生成,千百年来涓涓不息,养育着一代代热河儿女,传承着不朽的热河精神。     

透视郎德的工分制

或许绝大多数到过郎德的游客并不知道一个已经成为历史,或者对年轻人来说根本不熟悉的农村分配方式——工分制。然而,它一直是郎德开展村寨旅游的内在支撑制度,而今它又成为引起关注甚至争论的焦点:它是一种"大锅饭"制度的回归?还是一种植根于文化传统的公平发展模式?在郎德追踪调研了4年的李丽就这一问题谈了她的看法。     

植根在山林：一条拒修的路

一群为保住山林而拒绝修路的村民，一个取名“土风”的乡村文化传承计划，在寻根的过程中找到了同一归宿。[编者按]     

草原动物你是谁

正非洲大草原的狮王听说,遥远的东方国家中国也有草原,奔跑在那里的动物味道也不错。它心痒痒了,想去东方瞧瞧那些草原动物都是谁。可是母狮们劝它:长途奔波不易,还是先跟东方的草原动物来个远程视频吧!遇见蓑羽鹤第一个出现在镜头前的是蓑羽鹤。狮王一见到它就大叫:"你明明是一只住在湖边的鹤,干吗冒充草原动物?"蓑羽鹤镇定自若:"一提起是我们鹤类,大家都只想到湖泊,今天我就给你上上课——草原也我们的重要栖息地呢!全世界有15种鹤,其中9种在中国都有过记录。夏季,西北高原上的草原为我们提供食物和活动空间,也是我们的重要繁殖地。"狮王挥挥爪,没兴趣。     

组织初中学生撰写生物科学实验报告的尝试

从去年上半年开始,我们在初中二年级学生中开展了撰写生物科学实验观察报告的活动.事实证明:开展这项活动对激发学生的学习兴趣、培养学生的能力很有帮助,是培养学生能力的一种有效途径. 开始,我们只是在课外活动小组中开展了这项活动.但是,一个同学的观察过程给了我们新的启发.她在饲养小蝌蚪的过程中想到:既然蝌蚪和鱼的形态构造相似,那么蝌蚪的尾巴是否也象鱼一样地起到尾鳍的作用呢?于是她就做了一个剪掉蝌蚪尾巴的试验.当她把剪掉了尾巴的蝌蚪放到水里后,许多小蝌蚪都来咬它,最后把它咬死了…….她看得入神了.她想:剪去尾巴的小蝌蚪多可怜啊!为什么它的同伙都咬它呢?啊!可能是小蝌蚪被剪去尾巴之后所散发的物质或气味起的作用吧?于是,     

记录我们的传统

泽仁平措是一个特别的拍摄者．作为一个生活在藏区的本土摄影家,他有足够的时间思考身边所发生的一切,同时也有足够的自信记录和展现身边的变化。因此他和许多外来的摄影家不一样,他是出于内心的需求来描述这个世界的,他将镜头从湖光山色转向文化传承,没有任何居高临下的倨做．没有任何忧天怜人的悲悯,没有一丝的猎奇和故弄玄虚,而是实实在在的生活本身从镜头中缓缓流淌出来,像一道道小溪汇成江河．带着清澈透明的光亮．带着草木自然的芬芳。让我们看到了一个真实的西藏,一个民族真实的心态和对自然的描述,为生态摄影注入了极具人文价值的文化内涵。[编者按]     

相机的发现

乌林鸮"上厕所" 蹲守观察乌林鸮之前,我们在它巢下方圆二三十米的范围内寻找,却没有发现食团和粪便,巢树下很干净,这让我们好生疑惑.观察中我们发现雌性乌林鸮有一次突然飞走而后很快返回,周围很安静,我们也没有惊动它的任何动作,这是为什么呢?后续的观察这种现象依然偶尔发生,结合巢下没有吐出食团和粪便的现象,我们估计它可能是"上厕所"去了.森林中有很多善于爬树的食肉目鼬科动物,会伤害乌林鸮的卵或者幼鸟,巢下排泄物会暴露它的位置,而外出排泄是一种安全行为和生存智慧.     

“超级粮食”藜麦

<正>藜麦是一种古老的安第斯粮食作物,在蒂瓦纳科和印加文明中,藜麦在人们的饮食中占有重要地位。它对人类和动物来说都是一种营养价值很高的食物,被称为"印加稻米"。近年来,科学家们通过研究又发现了它许多隐藏的营养价值,因此藜麦也受到了全世界的关注。那么,相比其他谷物,藜麦具体有哪些较高的营养价     

中国竹 意无穷

<正>中国是世界上认识和利用竹子最早的国家,也是与竹子有着最密切关系的国家。英国学者李约瑟在《中国科学技术史》中指出,东亚文明过去被称为"竹子"文明。从竹子与中国历史文化发展的源远流长的关系、竹子在中华民族精神文明发展中所产生的巨大作用、竹子与中华民族物质文明进化的息息相关中都可以得到丰富的证明,中国不愧被誉为"竹子文明的国度"。熊文愈教授曾有精辟概括:华夏竹文化,上下五千年;衣食住行用,处处竹相连!     

教育需要理解与包容——记班主任工作随想

我们总是喊着"理解万岁"。可见理解是多么的可贵,一件事情能达到让彼此理解是否说已经做到了换位思考?或是说是已经对于事件的包容呢?在我们的社会交友中理解与包容何尝不是占着重要的作用,同样理解与包容也是爱的一种表达方式。这种方式的表达在班主任的工作中我感受到她的奇特魅力。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor