建议以桂花为省花 以紫薇为市花

《生物学杂志》开展对省花和市花的讨论,我们教研组的同志怀着浓厚的兴趣也进行了评议,一致认为安徽省省花以桂花为好,合肥市市花以紫薇为宜。桂花[Osmanthus fragrans(Th-unb.)Lour.],木犀科,为常绿树。四季常青,树身挺秀明洁,树冠婆娑茂密,树龄可达百年千年之久。陕西省汉中圣水寺庙内有一株大桂树,相传是公元前206年汉高祖刘邦之丞相肖何亲手栽培。据有关     

桂花适宜生境条件的调查和分析

一、前言我国人民非常喜爱桂花。全国现已有1个省区(广西壮族自治区)和10个城市(苏州,杭州,桂林,咸宁,恩施和老河口,合肥与马鞍山,南阳及泸州)把桂花选定为省(区)花或市花。了解和掌握桂花的适宜生境条件,用以指导桂花的种植实践,成为中国园林界所共同关心的问题。为此,作者进行了本课题研究。     

梅花与梅州

梅花是梅州的市花,梅州人民之所以选择梅花作为市花,是因它千百年来为梅州人民所珍爱。梅州,地以梅为名,人以梅为模,在如今的梅州大地,种梅,赏梅,爱梅更是蔚成风气,成为一种时尚,一种文化。     

札幌市丁香节掠影

世界上丁香约有31种,日本仅产1种.日本国民与我国人民一样都酷爱丁香,1960年,日本北海道首府札幌市将丁香指定为市花.为增强市花意识,国际丁香协会日本支部每年要举行一次规模盛大的丁香花节,并邀请国外丁香专家前往参加学术交流.1993年5月,我作为中国代表被邀请参加了日本35届丁香花节.     

市花还是月季好

读了胡世晨同志《谈谈安徽的省花和合肥的市花》一文(见本刊83年第2期)我们对选紫薇为省花深表同意:至于市花,我们认为还是选月季为好。 "花落花开无断,春来春去不相关。"苏东坡诗中赞美的即是月季花。月     

基于数据包络分析方法的城市水资源利用效率研究

为了对我国城市水资源利用效率问题进行分析和评价,本文基于数据包络分析方法,从农业、工业、生活、社会等几个方面共选取了5个输入指标及6个输出指标,利用AIC信息准则(Akaike information criterion)进行了变量选择,构建了较为科学合理的用水效率评价指标体系.在此基础上,采用香农熵指数提升了传统CCR(由Charnes A,Cooper W W,Rhodes E提出)模型的识别能力,选取我国31个省会城市为研究对象,给出了省会城市水资源效率的完整排名。结果表明:①绝大部分城市综合效率得分(CES,Comprehensive efficiency score)普遍不高,投入产出比仍有较大的进步空间;②拉萨、北京、天津、银川、海口、上海等城市CES得分相对较高,这说明一个城市水资源利用效率的高低与经济发展水平可能没有必然的联系,其他城市应结合自身情况向CES得分靠前的城市进行学习;③重庆、南宁、南昌、长沙等水资源较丰富的城市CES得分反而较低,表明这些城市可能存在大量水资源被浪费,应建立起节水机制,同时优化产业结构。     

香港市花洋紫荆

香港市花的确定本世纪60年代以前,香港并无法定的市花。在30年代出版的（香港年鉴）扉页上,刊登了一幅绣球彩图,作为香港代表花卉。因为当时外国人聚居的太平山顶,遍植绣球（又称为洋绣球花）。四五十年代,有人认为姜花可作为香港市花。但二者都未正式为港人所认同。直至1965年,香港市政局才正式选定广泛种植在香港全境的花木洋紫荆为香港市花。并采用洋紫荆花型为市政局的徽号。1990年4月4日,中国全国人民代表大会通过的（香港特别行政区基本法）中第一章第十条规定“香港特别行政区的区旗是五星花蕊的紫荆花红旗”和“香港特别行政…     

中国城市生态基础设施对碳排放量的影响

在碳达峰、碳中和的时代背景下,探究城市生态基础设施的碳减排效应对实现城市的可持续性发展、现代化发展具有重要的现实意义。选用中国2003-2019年中国214个地级市为样本,采用熵权法量化中国城市生态基础设施发展水平,构建空间计量模型研究城市生态基础设施发展对碳排放量的影响及其空间溢出效应。研究发现：（1）中国城市碳排放总量整体呈上升趋势,并且碳排放量较高的地区是人口密度较大的城市,以及传统工业城市。城市生态基础设施发展水平总体呈先下降,后上升的趋势,发展较好的城市分布在东部沿海地区,西北城市,中部省会与直辖市。（2）城市生态基础设施发展显著促进了本地城市和邻地城市的碳排放量,该结果通过稳健性检验。并且,城市生态基础设施的碳减排效应存在滞后性,城市生态基础设施在发展至12期时,具有显著的碳减排效应。（3）城市第二产业发展具有集聚效应,降低了邻地城市的碳排放量;城市对外开放程度越高,地区间贸易加速流动,促进了邻地城市的碳排放量。（4）与其他城市相比,西部地区城市、非省会城市和直辖市,以及资源型城市的生态基础设施发展显著促进了城市碳排放。（5）政策制定上,一方面应全力推进城市生态基础设施发展和第二产业转型,重视城市绿化覆盖、垃圾废水处理等设施建设。另一方面需特别关注西部地区城市、非直辖市和非省会城市、以及资源型城市,因地制宜,激发其生态基础设施建设动力,助推碳达峰、碳中和目标的实现。     

关于我国的市花评选——回顾十年成就与问题

1981年以来,《植物杂志》开展了评选国花、省花、市花的讨论。1982年该刊第6期我写了《关于省花和市花问题》,那篇拙文产生了较大的推波助澜作用。十年成绩斐然十年(1982—1992)成就辉煌,分析起来,有如下四端。     

歌一江春水 爱一花满城

<正>松花江畔,冰城夏都,一曲太阳岛上,一缕丁香芬芳,穿越巴洛克建筑,萦绕拜占庭教堂。徜徉于此,欣赏音乐,陶醉花香,浪漫了城市,惊艳了时光。无论身处何方,这满城丁香都见证了冰城人对哈尔滨的美好记忆与模样。市花文化丁香是木犀科丁香属（Syringa L.）植物,因“花筒细长如丁且香”而得名,是世界著名观赏花灌木。我国古人常用“丁香结”寓意着思念、愁绪及哀伤,在西方丁香花则象征着天真、幸运和纯洁。19世纪,伴随着中东铁路的修建,丁香落户哈尔滨。     

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