Embryology in Helosis cayennensis (Balanophoraceae): Structure of Female Flowers, Fruit, Endosperm and Embryo

Helosis cayennensis (Balanophoraceae s.str.) is a holoparasite characterised by aberrant vegetative bodies and tiny, reduced unisexual flowers. Here, we analysed the development of female flowers to elucidate their morpho-anatomy and the historical controversy on embryo sac formation. We also studied the developmental origin of inflorescences and the ontogeny of fruits, embryo and endosperm and discussed in a phylogenetic framework. Inflorescences were analysed by optical, fluorescence and scanning electron microscopy. Inflorescences of H. cayennensis arise endogenously. Female flowers lack perianth organs, thus only consist of the ovary, two styles and stigmata. Ovules are undifferentiated; two megaspore mother cells develop inside a nucellar complex. The female gametophyte, named Helosis-type, is a bisporic four-celled embryo sac, provided with a typical egg apparatus and a uni-nucleated central cell. Fertilization was not observed, yet a few-celled embryo and cellular endosperm developed. In sum, results confirm that, among Santalales holoparasites, Helosis is intermediate in the reduction series of its floral organs. Although perianth absence best supports the Balanophoraceae s.str. clade, our literature survey on female flower developmental data across Balanophoraceae s.l. highlights the many gaps that need to be filled to really understand these features in the light of new phylogenetic relationships.

Guiding students in Singapore to investigate historical controversy using a disciplinary approach

In this article, we make the case for teaching historical controversy on disciplinary and educational grounds. We outline an approach for teaching controversial history topics that engages students with authentic historical problems, such as historical controversies or actual debates taken up by historians, and allows students to participate in history as an interpretative enterprise. The disciplinary approach we suggest can also help teachers practically manage the challenges of teaching contentious topics by drawing on the disciplinary methods and standards used in history. Teaching controversial topics is challenging in many contexts, and in this article we highlight some of the challenges teachers in Singapore face when teaching controversial topics in history classrooms. We also draw on research that examines the conceptions Singaporean students hold about history and the nature of accounts in history. We argue that teaching historical controversy can help students develop their conceptual understanding of historical accounts, understand the nature of history as a discipline, and build their historical knowledge. We conclude by arguing that in a time of widespread access to multiple and often competing accounts about past and present in social media, a discipline-based history education is more important than ever.

Trusteeship Council

The Trusteeship Council, a UN principal organ, is responsible for the Trusteeship System, an institutionalized form of colonial administration broadly following the League of Nations Mandates arrangements. This system came to be repudiated, alongside other forms of colonialism, by the external self-determination entitlement that emerged in international law after the creation of the UN in 1945. The present chapter details the concept of ‘trust’ in international policy; the central features of the Mandates and Trusteeship arrangements; the territories covered; the objectives and duration of the arrangements; the structure of administration and supervision; the historical controversy over South West Africa/Namibia; the self-determination entitlement; the revival of trusteeship; reform proposals; the new Peacebuilding Commission; and the continuing use of the Trusteeship Council chamber.

Darwinism and the Survival of Religion

It is a great honour and privilege to give the Constantinos Th. Dimaras Lecture for 2016. I am grateful to the National Hellenic Research Foundation for the opportunity to do so and to Dr Efthymios Nicolaidis for kindly issuing the invitation.In our age of the internet, there are few topics that excite such strong opinions in the blogosphere as the relations between science and religion. Deeply embedded in the consciousness, both scholarly and popular, of Western Europe is the belief that science and religion have continuously been, and must be, in conflict. This belief has been described as “the idea that wouldn’t die”, despite excellent historical research drawing attention to its shortcomings. It is certainly not the only view. Those, including scientists themselves, who represent different religious traditions, have often argued that, when “science” and “religion” are properly understood, there can be a deeper relationship of harmony, or at least compatibility, between them. When, during the 1960s, I studied the history of science at Cambridge University, I realised that these two master narratives of conflict and harmony are too general to capture the complexity of historical controversy and debate. One of my aims in this lecture is to illustrate this complexity by examining religious responses to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.