Molecular Analysis Confirming the Introduction of Nile Crocodiles, Crocodylus niloticus Laurenti 1768 (Crocodylidae), in Southern Florida, with an Assessment of Potential for Establishment, Spread, and Impacts.

The state of Florida, USA, has more introduced herpetofauna than any other governmental region on Earth. Four species of nonnative crocodilians have been introduced to Florida (all since 1960), one of which is established. Between 2000–2014 we field-collected three nonnative crocodilians in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and one in Hendry County, Florida. We used DNA barcoding and molecular phylogenetics to determine species identification and native range origin. Also, we described diet, movement, and growth for one crocodile. Our molecular analyses illustrated that two of the crocodiles we collected are most closely related to Nile Crocodiles (Crocodylus niloticus) from South Africa, suggesting this region as a source population. We, thus, documented the first known introduction of C. niloticus in Florida. Two, and possibly three of the introduced crocodiles shared the same haplotype, suggesting they are likely from the same introduction pathway or source. One animal was captured, measured, marked, and released, then recaptured 2 y later allowing us to calculate growth rate (40.5 cm/y) and movement. The most likely route of travel by waterway (i.e., canal) illustrates that this animal traveled at least 29 km from its original capture site. One crocodile escaped from a facility in Hendry County, Florida, and survived in 1,012 ha of semi-wild habitat for three to four years, confirming that this species can survive in southern Florida

Beyond individualism:Is there a place for relational autonomy in clinical practice and research?

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from SAGE Publications via the DOI in this recordThe dominant, individualistic understanding of autonomy that features in clinical practice and research is underpinned by the idea that people are, in their ideal form, independent, self-interested and rational gain-maximising decision-makers. In recent decades, this paradigm has been challenged from various disciplinary and intellectual directions. Proponents of ‘relational autonomy’ in particular have argued that people’s identities, needs, interests – and indeed autonomy – are always also shaped by their relations to others. Yet, despite the pronounced and nuanced critique directed at an individualistic understanding of autonomy, this critique has had very little effect on ethical and legal instruments in clinical practice and research so far. In this article, we use four case studies to explore to what extent, if at all, relational autonomy can provide solutions to ethical and practical problems in clinical practice and research. We conclude that certain forms of relational autonomy can have a tangible and positive impact on clinical practice and research. These solutions leave the ultimate decision to the person most affected, but encourage and facilitate the consideration of this person’s care and responsibility for connected others.The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: ESD is supported by a Wellcome Senior Investigator Award ‘Confronting the Liminal Spaces of Health Research Regulation’ (Award No: WT103360MA)

Windows on Japanese education

ix, 334 p. : il.; 21 cm