Estructura genética de dos especies de pseudoescorpión que viven en los huecos de árboles en Suecia

Two saproxylic pseudoscorpions, Larca lata and Allochernes wideri, were compared in an analysis of genetic structure in southern Sweden. Allochernes wideri is a relatively widely distributed species that occurs in single–standing trees and in small tree hollows, while L. lata is on the Swedish red list and confined to larger assemblages of very old trees with hollows containing large amounts of wood mould. In A. wideri, the polymorphism of PGM was used, whereas in L. lata the variation for PGI was studied. The genetic differentiation between trees within a site was low for both species, indicating that the migration between nearby trees is considerable despite the fact that phoretic dispersal has only been occasionally observed in these species. Between sites, situated four to 900 km from each other, the genetic differentiation was small both in A. wideri and L. lata with no difference between the species, when considered on the mainland only. The small differentiation suggests the habitat was fragmented recently (100–170 years ago). The relation between the rate of migration and long–term population survival and the risk of mis–interpretation due to selection for alleles is discussed.Se comparan dos pseudoescorpiones saproxílicos, Larca lata y Allochernes wideri, del sur de Suecia mediante un análisis de su estructura genética. Allochernes wideri es una especie de distribución relativamente amplia que se encuentra en árboles aislados y en pequeños huecos de árboles, mientras que L. lata aparece en la lista roja sueca y se encuentra confinado en grandes agrupaciones de árboles muy viejos cuyos huecos contienen gran cantidad de moho. En A. wideri se empleó el polimorfismo de PGM mientras que en L. lata se estudió la variación por PGI. La diferenciación genética entre árboles de un mismo lugar fue baja para ambas especies, indicando que la migración entre árboles cercanos es considerable aun cuando sólo se observó dispersión forética ocasionalmente en ambas especies. Entre zonas situadas a una distancia de 4 a 900 km, la diferenciación genética fue escasa en ambas especies, A. wideri y L. Lata, sin ninguna diferencia entre las mismas cuando se consideró únicamente la zona principal. Esta pequeña diferenciación sugiere que el hábitat se fragmentó recientemente (100–700 años antes). Se discute la relación entre la tasa de migración y la supervivencia de la población a largo plazo y el riesgo de una mala interpretación debida a la selección de los alelos

Nota preliminar sobre sistemática molecular gen-aloenzimática de algunas formas españolas y marroquíes del grupo albicans del género Cataglyphis (Hym., Formicidae)

Debido a las pocas diferencias morfológicas entre Cataglyphis albicans y C. ibericus del este de España y C. albicans ruber de Marruecos, hemos realizado estudios electroforéticos enzimáticos, con 10s resultados de que no hay diferencias entre esas poblaciones. Por ello deducimos que pertenecen al mismo taxón. Hasta que no hayarnos concluido el estudio de C . albicans de Africa del norte, asumimos que en el este español sólo está presente C. albicans. En Tarifa, la población que creíamos pertenecer a C. albicans, es un taxón diferente, cuyo valor debe ser confirmado por estudios morfológicos y biogeográficos, y análisis más extensos de variación aloenzimática.Due to scarce morphological differences, if any, between Cataglyphis albicans and C. ibericus from the east of Spain and C. albicans ruber from Morocco, we have done allozyme electrophoretical studies, with the results that there are no differences between these populations. Consequently, we deduce that they belong to the same taxon. Unti1 we study C. albicans from the north of Africa, we assume that in the east of Spain only C. albicans is present. In Tarifa, the population which we assumed to belong to C. albicans is a different taxon, which value must be confirmed by morphological and biogeographical studies, and more extended analyses of allozyme variation

IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans

Background: Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans. Objectives: The authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed. Discussion: We concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed. Conclusions: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public’s health

Nota preliminar sobre sistemática molecular gen-aloenzimática de algunas formas españolas y marroquíes del grupo albicans del género Cataglyphis (Hym., Formicidae)

Debido a las pocas diferencias morfológicas entre Cataglyphis albicans y C. ibericus del este de España y C. albicans ruber de Marruecos, hemos realizado estudios electroforéticos enzimáticos, con 10s resultados de que no hay diferencias entre esas poblaciones. Por ello deducimos que pertenecen al mismo taxón. Hasta que no hayarnos concluido el estudio de C . albicans de Africa del norte, asumimos que en el este español sólo está presente C. albicans. En Tarifa, la población que creíamos pertenecer a C. albicans, es un taxón diferente, cuyo valor debe ser confirmado por estudios morfológicos y biogeográficos, y análisis más extensos de variación aloenzimática.Due to scarce morphological differences, if any, between Cataglyphis albicans and C. ibericus from the east of Spain and C. albicans ruber from Morocco, we have done allozyme electrophoretical studies, with the results that there are no differences between these populations. Consequently, we deduce that they belong to the same taxon. Unti1 we study C. albicans from the north of Africa, we assume that in the east of Spain only C. albicans is present. In Tarifa, the population which we assumed to belong to C. albicans is a different taxon, which value must be confirmed by morphological and biogeographical studies, and more extended analyses of allozyme variation

The arthropod community of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) canopies in Norway

We summarise the findings of arthropods collected by fogging the canopy of 24 pine trees in two sites in Eastern and Western Norway. From the samples, taken in 1998 and in 1999, almost 30,000 specimens were determined to 512 species, with Diptera being most species rich (210 species), followed by Coleoptera (76 species) and Araneae (49 species). Of the 96 new species records, nine were new to science (5 Diptera and 4 Oribatida), two were new to the European, three to the Scandinavian and 82 to the Norwegian faunas. The paper demonstrates the need for detailed faunistical inventories of European forests

IARC monographs: 40 years of evaluating carcinogenic hazards to humans.

BackgroundRecently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.ObjectivesThe authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DiscussionWe concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.ConclusionsThe IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health

IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans

Background: Recently the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups’ failures to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans. Objectives: The authors of this paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed. Discussion: We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed. Conclusions: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public’s health.This work was conducted with no direct funding, butwas supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH/NCIand NIH/NIEH