Tournefort published several Rubus taxa in his Institutiones and its Corollarium. Most of these have been validated by authors in the second half of the eighteenth century. Tournefort's species have been investigated, and most of them identified and typified here, and the later validations have been investigated as well. Some of the publications will have impact on present day nomenclature. The most significant are the identifications of R. aetnicus Cupani ex Weston with R. canescens auct. non DC (= R. tomentosus Willd. non Borkh.) and of R. creticus Tourn. ex L. with R. sanctus Schreb., which has to be regarded as co-specific with R. ulmifolius Schott. Next to this, the identification of R. polonicus Barr. ex Weston as R. nessensis Hall, and the publications of R. vulgaris Tourn. ex J. de Vries and R. laciniatus (Tourn. ex Weston) Tollard are remarkable. Since the latter is a form of R. ulmifolius a new combination is published: Rubus ulmifolius f. laciniatus (Tourn. ex Weston) A.Beek., comb. nov., stat. nov. Because the series which is presently named Canescentes H.E. Weber turned out to have no correct name, it is published here again as the series Argyrophylli A.Beek, ser. nov. RÉSUMÉ Validation des taxa de Rubus dans les Institutiones de Tournefort et leur Corollarium dans la littérature ultérieure. Tournefort a publié plusieurs taxons de Rubus dans ses Institutiones et leur Corollarium. Ceux-ci ont été en grande partie validés par des auteurs de la seconde moitié du XVIII ème siècle. Dans ce travail, toutes les espèces de Tournefort sont revues, pour la plupart identifiées et typifiées, tandis que les validations plus tardives ont été également recherchées. Certaines de ces publications modifient la nomenclature actuelle du genre, notamment par l'identification de R. aetnicus Cupani ex Weston comme R. canescens auct. non DC. (= R. tomentosus Willd. non Borkh.) et de R. creticus Tourn. ex L. comme R. sanctus Schreb., lequel doit être considéré comme conspécifique de R. ulmifolius Schott. De même, il faut signaler l'identification de R. polonicus Barr. ex Weston à R. nessensis Hall, et les publications de R. vulgaris Tourn. ex J. de Vries et R. laciniatus (Tourn. ex Weston) Tollard. Ce dernier étant une forme de R. ulmifolius, une nouvelle combinaison est proposée : Rubus ulmifolius f. laciniatus (Tourn. ex Weston) A.Beek., comb. nov., stat. nov. Enfin, la série nommée actuellement Canescentes H.E. Weber apparaît incorrecte et est republiée ici comme la série Argyrophylli A.Beek, ser. nov.

This article deals with the relevance of Christian faith. It is expected of religion to be of relevance to society, to inform politics, to guide people in their personal development, and so forth. The article wants to explore the argument of whether religion should be relevant at all, and what the consequences of denying the relevance of religion would be.

No abstract

No abstract

The seemingly harsh texts about God's justice and wrath in the Heidelberg Catechism turn out to be the core of the comfort that the catechisms proclaims, if we read the catechism contextually. The same is the case with regard to providence when the catechism claims that also poverty and illness come from God's fatherly hand.