118,067 research outputs found
Acanthonotozomella barnardi Watling & Holman 1980
No full text<i>Acanthonotozomella barnardi</i> Watling & Holman, 1980 <p> <i>Acanthonotozomella barnardi</i> Watling & Holman, 1980: 612–614, figs 1–3.</p> <p> <i>Acanthonotozomella barnardi</i> – Watling & Thurston 1989: 303, 310, fig. 2d. — Coleman 2007: 15, fig. 1c–d, map 1 (circle).</p> Distribution <p>Off extreme southern Patagonia, 384–494 m (Watling & Holman 1980).</p>Published as part of <i>d'Acoz, Cédric d'Udekem & Verheye, Marie L., 2017, Epimeria of the Southern Ocean with notes on their relatives (Crustacea, Amphipoda, Eusiroidea), pp. 1-553 in European Journal of Taxonomy 359</i> on page 161, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2017.359, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/3855694">http://zenodo.org/record/3855694</a>
Alexandrellinae Holman & Watling 1983
No full textSubfamily Alexandrellinae Holman & Watling, 1983 Alexandrellinae Holman & Watling, 1983: 28. Tironidae – Chevreux 1911: 1167 (in part). Acanthonotozomatidae – Schellenberg 1931: 116 (in part). Stegocephalidae – Nicholls 1938: 40 (in part) Astyridae – Birstein & Vinogradova 1960: 152 (in part). Stilipedidae – J.L. Barnard 1969: 451 (in part). Alexandrellinae – Andres & Lott 1986: 134 (discussion). non Stegocephalinae Dana, 1852: 310. non Acanthonotozomatidae Stebbing, 1906: 210. non Tironidae Stebbing, 1906: 273 non Stilipedidae Holmes, 1908: 535. non Astyridae Pirlot, 1934: 175. Remarks According to the phylogenetic analyses of Verheye et al. (2016b, 2017), the Alexandrellinae are extremely close to the Epimeriidae, and might even be nested within Epimeria.Published as part of d'Acoz, Cédric d'Udekem & Verheye, Marie L., 2017, Epimeria of the Southern Ocean with notes on their relatives (Crustacea, Amphipoda, Eusiroidea), pp. 1-553 in European Journal of Taxonomy 359 on page 166, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2017.359, http://zenodo.org/record/385569
Council cottages and community in inter-war Britain: a study of class, culture,politics and place.
No full textPhDThis thesis makes a contribution to the debates surrounding the idea of community
on the cottage council estates of inter-war Britain. It questions the conventional
wisdom that community was lacking upon these estates. Recognising the
problematic nature of the notion of community, this thesis overcomes the confusion
inherent in the term when it is used to describe social structures by viewing
community instead as a structure of meaning, as a discursive rather than material
reality. This guides my examination of community on the estates. Rather than
there being no community, it is argued that there were at least three different
discourses of community, and what is important is the relationships between them.
Chapter One discusses the contexts in which these estates were built, and then sets
out the ways in which community is understood in this thesis. Chapter Two
explains the methodology that was used, a combination of archival and oral histoiy.
In Chapter Three Roehampton and Watling - the two estates this research focuses
upon - are described in order to provide the contextual setting for my interpretation
of the discourses of community that were present there. Chapter Four is concerned
with community from the viewpoint of the residents who lived on the estates.
Chapter Five considers discourses of community from the point of view of the
tenants' and residents' associations that developed upon Roehampton and Watling.
Chapter Six explores the discourse of community that was promoted on the estates
by the Community Association movement.
Overall the thesis argues that the discourses of community on inter-war
housing estates have to be understood in terms of the occupational structures,
cultures and politics of these estates
Cladarisis nouvianae Watling, 2015, new species
No full textCladarisis nouvianae new species Figures 1–7 Material examined. Holotype: Collected off Rum Cay, Bahama Islands, 23 ° 38.0756 'N, 74 ° 57.2196 'W, depth 1117 m, 24 March 2009, specimen RUM 107 - 2, YPM IZ 0 70870. Other material: Off Cat Island, Bahama Islands, 24 °08.9927'N, 75 ° 12.0680 'W, depth 1243 m, 21 March 2009, specimen CAT 207 - 1 (most of the specimen deteriorated during storage, after sclerite examination and genetic analysis; small fragments exist in the lab of S.C. France at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, USA). Diagnosis. With the characters of the genus. Description of Holotype. The colony is long and slender, sparsely branched, with branches emanating from nodes. The holdfast is very small, not much larger than the diameter of the axis (Fig. 1 A). From the holdfast to the first branch point is about 10 cm, subsequent branches are spaced about 9 to 14 cm apart, with one interbranch distance of 4.5 cm. The two main branches carry two or three subsequent branches, one of which is branched twice more, resulting in two third-order branches that are approximately 18 cm long. Total colony length is about 75 cm (as determined by measurements made on the in situ image in Fig. 1 A). Axial internodes are solid, except for those newly forming at the ends of the branches. The internode hollow center appears to be secondarily calcified (Fig. 2 C). Internodes (Fig. 2 A, B) range in length from 3.5 to 14.9 mm (mean= 9.76 mm, std. dev.= 2.36, n= 49), and in width from 0.33 to 0.93 mm (mean= 0.67 mm, std. dev.= 0.21, n= 12). Nodes are very short, about 1 mm in length and do not seem to be very heavily calcified resulting in a very flexible colony whose branch tips are often curved (e.g., Fig. 1 B, 2 B). Polyps are small, less than 3 mm tall when contracted, and are arranged in two irregular rows along the branches, often in alternate fashion (Fig. 2 A,B). Interpolyp distances in each row range from 5 to 18 mm, but are most frequently about 10 mm. No polyps are present on the distal-most 3 cm of the branches and polyps and tissue appears to be absent along part of the axis from the holdfast to the first branch-point. Because of the relative shortness of the internodes, each internode supports only one or two polyps; occasionally a polyp is located on a node. Polyps are short cylinders, being as wide as tall (Fig. 3 A-D). When contracted the tentacles are not visible and the top of the polyp is covered with a logjam of rod-shaped sclerites (Fig. 3 D). The outside of the polyp is festooned with curved rods that are loosely organized. The longer sclerites originate at the base of the polyp, often extending the width of the skeletal axis, and are oriented diagonally. The shorter sclerites are mostly located higher on the polyp and can be oriented either horizontally or longitudinally. None of the sclerites appear to be aligned directly with the mesenterial insertions on the polyp body wall (Fig. 3 B). All sclerites on the polyp body are robust rods with blunt or rounded tips (Fig. 4). Each is ornamented with small regularly spaced tubercles (Fig. 2 D, E). Most of the rods are curved or have irregular outlines. Only those at the base of the tentacles are more or less straight (Fig. 5 D). Rods are oriented longitudinally along the aboral side of the tentacles, becoming progressively smaller toward the tentacle tip. Flat rods (Fig. 5 C) are common in the pinnules and along the oral surface of the tentacles. Polyp body sclerites range in length from 1.0 to 2.5 mm, the rods along the aboral side of the tentacles are 0.4 to 0.9 mm long, and tentacle flat rods are 0.06 to 0.15 mm (Fig. 6). The pharyngeal sclerites are 0.07 to 0.14 mm in length. The tentacles contract completely into the oral cavity of the polyp (Fig. 3 D, 7 A). The “mouth” is funnelshaped, demarcated from the pharynx by a flat ring (R, Fig 7 A). The pharynx (as determined by the presence of pharyngeal sclerites) continues the structure ventrally, terminating in a hypopharynx (H, Fig 7 A, 7 C) uniting the eight septa. The sclerites of the pharynx region consist of two distinct types, those that are flat rods with tooth-like protuberances (Fig. 5 B) being found at the junction with the oral funnel, while the more typical short and wide toothed rods (Fig. 5 A, 7 D) occupy the lower part of the pharynx. Variation. The only other specimen collected, CAT 207 - 1, was about 30 cm in length and branched twice. The polyps of the latter specimen were examined in detail and differed from those of the holotype only in having slightly smaller sclerites on the polyp body. The largest sclerites were 2.4 mm in length whereas on the larger holotype the largest body sclerites are about 2.5 mm in length (Fig. 6). But the smaller CAT 207 - 1 had a much larger array of smaller rods on the polyp body and the rods in the tentacles were much smaller than on the holotype. Etymology. This species is named in honor of Claire Nouvian, founder of the organization Bloom Association, in recognition of her tireless efforts working to reduce the destruction of deep-sea habitats by bottom trawls. Remarks. Within the Keratoisidinae, the genera Lepidisis, Jasonisis, Acanella, and Isidella were known to branch at the nodes if they branched at all (France 2007, Alderslade and McFadden 2012). Cladarisis branches at the nodes once the colony reaches sufficient size to begin branching. Among this group, the pattern of branching of Cladarisis is most similar to that seen in Isidella (sparse and lateral, not in whorls), and in fact, the specimens collected were provisionally assigned to that genus as samples were sorted on board the ship. The genus Isidella currently comprises the species I. elongata Esper, 1788 (type species), I. lofotensis Sars, 1868, I. trichotoma Bayer, 1990, I. longiflora (Verrill, 1883), and I. tentaculum Etnoyer, 2008. Only the first three are likely to remain in the genus. Isidella longiflora was originally described and placed in the genus Lepidisis by Verrill, but since that genus came to be thought of as unbranched, Grasshoff (1986; Grasshoff and Zibrowius 1983) moved longiflora to Isidella on the basis of dichotomous branching from the nodes. The exact placement of this species remains to be determined since the existing museum material is not in very good condition. Further, Verrill (1883) noted that branches arising at the nodes could arise singly, or two at a time. In a manuscript that was unfortunately not published before his death, Verrill suggested that L. longiflora should be moved to a new genus “ Acanellides ” (this manuscript is in the collection of the Yale Peabody Museum and photocopies of the pages can be obtained from this author). Isidella tentaculum differs from all the others in having sclerites in the form of rods, the mesenterially placed sclerites are rods rather than needles, and the branches, while originating at the nodes form more of a candelabra shape. In addition, the axis internodes are thick and heavy, rather than thin and moderately delicate. Unpublished genetic sequence data suggests that I. tentaculum belongs to a clade different from that in which the other three Isidella species (including the type) reside (Scott C. France, personal communication). Thus, for this discussion, the genus Isidella will be considered to consist only of the first three species noted above. The species Isidella elongata, I. lofotensis, and I. trichotoma have moderately long to very long, thin hollow internodes, polyps armed with sclerites predominantly in the form of needles, with larger needles in groups of 2-3 placed at the mesenterial insertions on the body wall (Bayer 1990) and usually projecting between the tentacle bases. Branching at the nodes has been termed dichotomous (Bayer 1990), but should be lateral according to Alderslade (1998), and sparse. The tentacles, when contracted, fold over the mouth but remain exposed. Isidella lofotensis needs redescription (in preparation); however, colonies recently studied in the collection of the Tromsø Museum are bushy, branching at the nodes in all planes, and the sclerites arranged along the mesenterial insertions are large pointed rods rather than thin needles. A very small colony collected in 1872 at the type locality by G.O. Sars, from the collection of the Copenhagen Museum, has a similar arrangement of polyp body sclerites, but all are needles rather than rods (inviting the supposition that as the colony grows and ages the needles either become thicker or are replaced). Both colonies have solid internodes. The tentacles contract but stay exposed. The genus Cladarisis resembles these three species of Isidella in the form of the colony, the long and thin branches, branching sparse and lateral, and with branches originating at the nodes. Cladarisis differs, however, in several ways. The internodes are generally shorter (mean length, 9 mm). Measurements made on photos of specimens of I. elongata and pieces of a specimen of I. lofotensis, show that internode length in those two species range from 13 to 17 mm and 9 to 15 mm, respectively. Internode lengths in I. trichotoma reach 85 mm (Bayer 1990). The polyp body of Cladarisis possesses sclerites that are exclusively rods, and the sclerites are organized haphazardly such that none are aligned with the mesenteries. Indeed, the rods are arranged almost randomly along the outside of the polyp, with some on the distal part of the polyp oblique to horizontal, and with longitudinally oriented smaller rods only along the aboral surface of the tentacles. The pharyngeal sclerites of Cladarisis also differ significantly from those of I. trichotoma (details for the other two species are missing). In the latter, the sclerites are elongate, slightly toothed rods, verging on being flat rods, whereas in Cladarisis one group of pharyngeal sclerites are short, wide, and thick, with protuberances on all sides.Published as part of Watling, Les, 2015, A new genus of bamboo coral (Octocorallia: Isididae) from the Bahamas, pp. 239-249 in Zootaxa 3918 (2) on pages 240-244, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3918.2.5, http://zenodo.org/record/23807
Alexandrella subchelata Holman & Watling 1983, s. lat.
No full text<i>Alexandrella subchelata</i> Holman & Watling, 1983 s. lat. <p> <i>Alexandrella subchelata</i> Holman & Watling, 1983: 42.</p> <p> <i>Alexandrella subchelata</i> – Berge & Vader 2005a: 1327–1346. — Serejo 2014: 139 (key).</p> <p> <i>Alexandrella dentata</i> – J.L. Barnard 1961: 77, fig. 46.</p> <p> <i>non</i> <i>Alexandrella dentata</i> Chevreux, 1912: 213.</p> Distribution <p> For clarity, it seems necessary to give the station details in full for all known specimens identified as <i>Alexandrella subchelata</i> in literature: holotype: RV <i>Galathea</i>, stn 554, 5 December 1951, 37°28ʹ S, 138°55ʹ E, Great Australian Bight, 1320–1340 m (J.L. Barnard 1961 as <i>A. dentata</i>, Holman & Watling 1983). — RV <i>Eltanin</i>, cruise 26, stn 4, 41°56ʹ S, 160°07ʹ E [between Tasmania and New Zealand], 4846–4929 m. — RV <i>Eltanin</i>, cruise 27, stn 1880, 49°40ʹ S, 178°53ʹ E [Antipodes Island], 103 m. — RV <i>Polarstern</i>, ANT-XIX/3-4 (ANDEEP II), stn 133-3, 65°20.15ʹ S, 54°14.35ʹ E to 65°20.06ʹ S, 54°14.51ʹ E [Antarctica: Kong Håkon VII Sea], 1119–1122 m (Berge & Vader 2005a).</p>Published as part of <i>d'Acoz, Cédric d'Udekem & Verheye, Marie L., 2017, Epimeria of the Southern Ocean with notes on their relatives (Crustacea, Amphipoda, Eusiroidea), pp. 1-553 in European Journal of Taxonomy 359</i> on page 176, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2017.359, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/3855694">http://zenodo.org/record/3855694</a>
Hyalella pseudoazteca González & Watling 2003, n. sp.
No full textHyalella pseudoazteca n. sp. (figures 17–22) Hyalella azteca: Pereira, 1983: 21–30, figures 1–3, not synonymy, not H. azteca (Saussure). Type material. Holotype, male 6.3 mm (+ slides mount), Museu Nacional /UFRJ, Brazil, MNRJ 7611. Paratypes, one male and one female (+ slide mount), Museu Nacional /UFRJ, Brazil, MNRJ 15585. Type locality. Reserva Ecologica de Taim, Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil (32 ° 27 ∞ S, 52 ° 38 ∞ W). Material examined. Reserva Ecologica de Taim, Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil. Diagnosis. Body with dorsal flanges on peraeonite 7 and pleonites 1 and 2. Coxa 4 excavated posteriorly. Eyes pigmented. Antenna 1 shorter than antenna 2. Antenna 2 half the body length. Mandible incisor toothed. Maxilla 1 palp minute, reaching less than half of the distance between base of palp and tip of setae on outer plate; inner plate slender, with two strong and pappose apical setae. Maxilla 2 inner plate with one strong pappose seta on inner margin. Gnathopod 1 propodus length less than twice maximum width (quadrangular), hammer-shaped, inner face with one to three pappose setae, setose scales on disto-posterior and disto-anterior border. Gnathopod 2 propodus ovate, palm shorter than posterior margin, slope oblique, anterior edge with a small process. Peraeopods 3 and 4 merus and carpus posterior margin with three hind marginal clusters of short setae; propodus posterior margin with five to eight groups of setae. Uropod 3 peduncle with two strong distal setae; outer ramus same length as peduncle, basal width twice or less tip of ramus. Telson as wide as long, apically pointed, with two closely spaced, long simple setae, symmetrically distributed, no additional apical setae present. Sternal gills on peraeonites 3–7. Female. Gnathopod 1 smaller, and different shape to gnathopod 2. Gnathopod 2 different from male gnathopod 2 in shape and smaller, propodus length two to three times maximum width, normally subchelate, palm slightly reverse oblique. Description of male. Size 6.3 mm. Body with dorsal flanges on peraeonite 7 and pleonites 1 and 2 (figure 17; figure 18 E). Epimeral plates 1–3 acuminate (figure 18 E). Coxae 1–4 subequal in size and shape, slightly overlapping. Acumination in coxae absent. Coxa 1 same as coxae 2 and 3. Coxa 3 narrower than 4. Coxa 4 deeper than wide, excavated posteriorly. Coxa 5 posterior lobe deeper than anterior lobe. Coxa 6 anterior lobe small. Head smaller than first two thoracic segments, typically gammaridean, rostrum absent. Eyes pigmented, large, oval, located behind insertion of antenna 1. Antenna 1 less than half of body length, shorter than antenna 2, longer than peduncle of antenna 2; peduncle longer than head, article 1 longer than article 2, article 3 shorter than article 1, and as long as article 2; flagellum with 10 articles, longer than peduncle, basal article not elongated; aesthetascs on flagellum, from article 5 distally (figure 19 A1). Antenna 2 half of body length; peduncle slender, longer than head, article 4 shorter than article 5, setal groups on articles 4 and 5 scarce; flagellum with eight to nine articles, longer than article 5, basal article slightly elongated (figure 19 A2). Basic amphipodan mandible (in the sense of Watling, 1993); incisor toothed; left lacinia mobilis with five teeth; setae row on left mandible with three main setae plus accessory setae; right mandible with two main setae plus accessory setae; molar large, cylindrical, triturative, accessory seta present. Labrum ventral margin slightly rounded to truncate. Lower lip outer lobes rounded without notches or excavations, mandibular projection of outer lobes round (figure 20 Ml, L, U). Maxilla 1 palp uniarticulate, minute, less than half as long as the distance between base of palp and tip of setae on outer plate, distal setae absent; inner plate slender, smaller than outer plate, with two strong and pappose apical setae; outer plate with nine stout and serrate setae (figure 20 X1r). Maxilla 2 inner plate shorter, and subequal in width to outer plate, one strong pappose seta on inner margin, outer and inner plates with scarce setules (figure 20 X2r). Maxilliped inner plates apically truncated, with one or two connate setae, pappose setae apically and medially; outer plates larger than inner plates, apically rounded, apical, medial and facial setae simple; palp longer than outer plate, with four articles; article 2 as wide as long, medial margin with long simple setae; article 3 outer distal face with few long simple setae, inner distal face with long plumose setae, inner distal margin with long setae, outer margin with one or two strong and long plumose setae; dactylus unguiform, subequal in length to third article, distal setae simple and shorter than nail, inner border with setae, distal nail present (figure 18 S). Gnathopod 1 subchelate; carpus longer than wide, longer and wider than propodus, with weak posterior lobe, produced and forming a scoop-like structure, open to the medial side, inner face with one to three pappose setae, border pectinate and with several pappose setae; propodus length less than twice maximum width (quadrangular), hammer-shaped, with no setae on anterior border, inner face with one to three pappose setae, small triangular setae absent, setose scales on distoposterior and disto-anterior border, palm slope transverse, margin straight, posterior distal corner with robust setae; dactylus claw-like, with one to three endal setae, congruent with palm (figure 20 G1). Gnathopod 2 subchelate; basis hind margin with one to three groups of setae; merus with fewer than seven setae on posterior margin, postero-distal margin concave, distal corner subacuminate; carpus posterior lobe elongated, produced between merus and propodus, border pectinate with several pappose setae; propodus ovate, disto-posterior and disto-anterior borders without setose scales, palm shorter than posterior margin, slope oblique, margin irregular, with few strong short setae, few long setae, and several medium-sized setae, anterior edge of palm with a small process, posterior distal corner with strong setae, and with cup for dactyl; dactylus claw-like, congruent with palm, with a few endal setae (figure 18 G2). Peraeopods 3–7 simple. Peraeopods 3 and 4 merus and carpus posterior margin with three hind marginal clusters of short setae; propodus posterior margin with five to eight groups of setae; dactylus half length of propodus. Peraeopods 5–7 all similar in structure and slightly longer successively; dactylus less than half length of propodus. Peraeopod 5 subequal to peraeopod 4, basis posterior lobe deeper than wide, smaller than posterior lobe of peraeopod 7, merus with two posterior marginal setae, proximal setae smaller than more distal. Peraeopod 6 same length as peraeopod 4, basis posterior lobe deeper than wide, similar to posterior lobe of peraeopod 5, and smaller than posterior lobe of peraeopod 7. Peraeopod 7 subequal to peraeopod 6, basis posterior lobe wider than deep (figure 21 P3, P4, P5; figure 19 P6, P7). Pleopods not modified; peduncle slender; longest ramus longer than peduncle. Uropod 1 longer than uropod 2; peduncle longer than rami; rami subequal; inner ramus with one dorsal seta, and five distal setae, only one seta longer, male without curved setae on inner side of the ramus; outer ramus with three dorsal and four distal setae; peduncle setae present (figure 21 R 1). Uropod 2 rami subequal; inner ramus with two dorsal and five distal setae; outer ramus with two dorsal and four distal setae; peduncle setae present (figure 18 R 2). Uropod 3 longer than urosomite 3, longer than peduncle of uropod 1, shorter than peduncle of uropod 2; peduncle quadrate, same width as ramus, with two strong distal and no marginal setae; inner ramus absent; outer ramus uniarticulate, as long as peduncle, proximally twice as wide or less than distally, with four simple apical slender setae, and one connate seta (figure 18 R 3). Telson as wide as long, entire, apically pointed, with two closely spaced, long simple setae, symmetrically distributed on the apical margin, no additional apical setae present (figure 20 T). Coxal gills sac-like, on peraeopods 2–6. Sternal gills tubular, on peraeonites 3–7. Characters of female that differ from male. Size 4.6 mm. Antenna 1 flagellum with seven articles. Antenna 2 similar in shape to male, flagellum with nine articles. Gnathopod 1 smaller, and different shape to gnathopod 2; similar to male gnathopod 1 in size and shape. Gnathopod 2 different from male gnathopod 2 in shape and smaller, propodus length two to three times maximum width, normally subchelate, palm slightly reverse oblique (figure 22 fG1, fG2). Habitat. Freshwater, epigean, littoral. Remarks. This new species was determined as H. azteca by Pereira (1983), mainly for the supposed presence of dorsal carinae on peraeonite 7 and pleonites 1 and 2. The lack of an accurate description of H. azteca at the time of Pereira’s (1983) work made her mistakenly consider the flanges of the Brazilian species as the carinae of H. azteca. After examining part of the material that Pereira (1983) had on hand, and comparing it with the redescription of H. azteca (Gonzalez and Watling, 2002), it was clear that the Brazilian material corresponds to a new species. Hyalella pseudoazteca differs from H. azteca in the shape of the propodus of gnathopod 2 in male and female, having two pappose setae on the palp of maxilla 1, one big seta on inner margin of inner plate of maxilla 2, and a large eye. H. azteca and its allied species have three setae on inner plate of maxilla 1 and two setae on the inner border of inner plate in maxilla 2.Published as part of González, Exequiel R. & Watling, Les, 2003, A new species of Hyalella from Brazil (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyalellidae), with redescriptions of three other species in the genus, pp. 2045-2076 in Journal of Natural History 37 (17) on pages 2067-2074, DOI: 10.1080/00222930210133237, http://zenodo.org/record/526310
Biochemical and pharmacological studies on dopamine receptors
No full textA study has been made of dopamine receptors in rat brain using the dopamine-sensitive adenylate cyclase system, with particular attention being paid to dopamine receptors in the nucleus accumbena. The only active phenylethylamine derivatives in homogenates of this brain region were those containing hydroxy groups at the 3 and 4 positions on the benzene ring, a two carbon-side chain and a terminal nitrogen, either unaubstituted or containing a single methyl group. The a- and 3-adrenergic agonists, phenylephrine and isoprenaline respectively, were both inactive.The typical neuroleptic drugs, fluphenazine and a-flupenthixol,were both potent antagonists of the dopamine response as opposed to the atypical neuroleptics metoclopramide and sulpiride, and the sand f-adrenergic blocking agents, phentolamine and propranolol respectively, which were all inactive. The inability of sulpiride, a drug known to behave as a potent dopamine antagonist in certain behavioural systems, to inhibit dopamine-stimulated adenylate cyclase activity in slices of rat corpus striatum, adds further support to the hypothesis that some dopamine receptors in the brain may not be coupled to adenylate cyclase. Several 2-amino-1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene derivatives were also examined for their ability to both stimulate dopamine-sensitive adenylate cyclase in homogenates of rat striatum and nucleus accumbens, and to induce locomotor activity following their bilateral injection into the nucleus accumbens of rats. The most active compound at stimulating adenylate cyclase from both brain regions was 2-amino-6,7dihydroxy-l,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene (ADTN), this compound being equipotent or more potent than dopamine. A series of N-alkylated 2-amino-5,6-dihydroxy-1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene derivatives also stimulated adenylate cyclase activity in these brain areas with the 2-dipropylamino derivative being almost equipotent with dopamine. These data, together with results obtained with other rigid analogues, including apomorphine and norsalsolinol, are discussed in terms of the preferred conformation of dopamine at its receptor site. The ability of a hypothetical metabolite of the drug nomifensine, 3',4'-dihydroxy-nomifensine, to stimulate adenylate cyclase activity in the above two brain regions emphasises not only the necessity for the 3,4-dihydroxy moiety, but also suggests that some of the dopaminergic effects of nomifensine could be mediated via this derivative. The similar results obtained with various 2-amino-1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene, nomifensine, ergot alkaloid and phenylethylamine derivatives together with antagonist data, suggests that the dopamine receptors coupled to adenylate cyclase in the rat nucleus accumbens and corpus striatum possess similar structure-activity requirements. Studies on the tissue distribution, metabolism and elimination of,j3H)-ADTN in the rat indicate that little ADTN crossed the blood rain barrier and the compound underwent rapid metabolism and excretion.</p
Out of sight, but within reach: a global history of bottom-trawled deep-sea fisheries from > 400 m depth
No full textDeep-sea fish species are targeted globally by bottom trawling. The species captured are often characterized by longevity, low fecundity and slow growth making them vulnerable to overfishing. In addition, bottom trawling is known to remove vast amounts of non-target species, including habitat forming deep-sea corals and sponges. Therefore, bottom trawling poses a serious risk to deep-sea ecosystems, but the true extent of deep-sea fishery catches through history remains unknown. Here, we present catches for global bottom trawling fisheries between years 1950-2015. This study gives new insight into the history of bottom trawled deep-sea fisheries through its use of FAO capture data combined with reconstructed catch data provided by the Sea Around Us- project, which are the only records containing bycatches, discards and unreported landings for deep-sea species. We illustrate the trends and shifts of the fishing nations and discuss the life-history and catch patterns of the most prominent target species over this time period. Our results show that the landings from deep-sea fisheries are miniscule, contributing less than 0.5% to global fisheries landings. The fisheries were found to be overall under-reported by as much as 42%, leading to the removal of an estimated 25 million tons of deep-sea fish. The highest catches were of Greenland halibut in the NE Atlantic, Longfin codling from the NW Pacific and Grenadiers and Orange roughy from the SW Pacific. The results also show a diversification through the years in the species caught and reported. This historical perspective reveals that the extent and amount of deep-sea fish removed from the deep ocean exceeds previous estimates. This has significant implications for management, conservation and policy, as the economic importance of global bottom trawling is trivial, but the environmental damage imposed by this practice, is not.</p
Bioleaching of a low-grade copper ore, linking leach chemistry and microbiology
No full textAbstract not availableH. R. Watling, D. M. Collinson, J. Li, L. A. Mutch, F. A. Perrot, S. M. Rea, F. Reith, E. L. J. Watki
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
No full textThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
