Sampling multiple life stages significantly increases estimates of marine biodiversity

Biodiversity assessments are critical for setting conservation priorities, understanding ecosystem function and establishing a baseline to monitor change. Surveys of marine biodiversity that rely almost entirely on sampling adult organisms underestimate diversity because they tend to be limited to habitat types and individuals that can be easily surveyed. Many marine animals have planktonic larvae that can be sampled from the water column at shallow depths. This life stage often is overlooked in surveys but can be used to relatively rapidly document diversity, especially for the many species that are rare or live cryptically as adults. Using DNA barcode data from samples of nemertean worms collected in three biogeographical regions—Northeastern Pacific, the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Tropical Pacific—we found that most species were collected as either benthic adults or planktonic larvae but seldom in both stages. Randomization tests show that this deficit of operational taxonomic units collected as both adults and larvae is extremely unlikely if larvae and adults were drawn from the same pool of species. This effect persists even in well-studied faunas. These results suggest that sampling planktonic larvae offers access to a different subset of species and thus significantly increases estimates of biodiversity compared to sampling adults alone. Spanish abstract is available in the electronic supplementary material.Fil: Maslakova, Svetlana A.. University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Ellison, Christina I.. University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Hiebert, Terra C.. University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Conable, Frances. University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Heapy, Maureen C.. University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Venera Pontón, Dagoberto E.. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute; PanamáFil: Norenburg, Jon L.. National Museum Of Natural History. Departamento de Zoología. Area de Invertebrados; Estados UnidosFil: Schwartz, Megan L.. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Boyle, Michael J.. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute; PanamáFil: Driskell, Amy C.. National Museum Of Natural History. Departamento de Zoología. Area de Invertebrados; Estados UnidosFil: Macdonald, Kenneth S.. National Museum Of Natural History. Departamento de Zoología. Area de Invertebrados; Estados UnidosFil: Zattara, Eduardo Enrique. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universidad Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; ArgentinaFil: Collin, Rachel. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute; Panam

Case 3849 – Emplectonematidae Bürger, 1904 and Emplectonema Stimpson, 1857 (Nemertea, Monostilifera): proposed conservation of current usage by reversal of precedence of the family name with respect to Eunemertidae Joubin, 1894 and designation of a new type species for the genus

The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3, 41, 65.2, and 70.2 of theCode, is to conserve the current usage and year of priority of the name Emplectonematidae Bürger, 1904 for a family of ribbon worms by reversing its precedence with respect toa senior synonym, E unemertidae Joubin, 1894, and to conserve the current concept andusage of its type genus, Emplectonema Stimpson, 1857, by designating Emplectonemaviride Stimpson, 1857 as the type species. In preparation for these rulings, a common typespecies, Nemertes gracilis Johnston, 1837, is designated herein for the nominal generaNemertes Johnston, 1837 (a largely neglected junior homonym of Nemertes Cuvier, 1816)and Eunemertes Joubin, 1894, thereby rendering the latter an objective junior synonym ofthe former and of its valid substitute name. The type species of Nemertes Cuvier, 1816was excluded from N emertidae sensu McIntosh, 1874 and sensu Hubrecht, 1879, which,having been recognized as a valid grouping by later authors, required a new name. Ofthe two available candidates, Eunemertidae Joubin, 1894 has been almost unused sincethe 1900s, whereas Emplectonematidae Bürger, 1904 has been in universal use sinceits proposal. The latter name has an uncertain date of priority; 1874, 1894 or 1904,depending on whether and how Art. 40.2 applies to it. Emplectonema viride Stimpson,1857, or its senior synonym Emplectonema gracile (Johnston, 1837), has universally beenregarded as the type species of Emplectonema since the 1950s; however, two overlookedfixations in 1892 and 1893 of Borlasia camillea Quatrefages, 1846 as the type speciesof this genus now threaten the stability of nemertean genus- and family-level taxonomy.Fil: Kajihara, Hiroshi. Hokkaido University; JapónFil: Grygier, Mark J.. National Taiwan Ocean University; ChinaFil: Andrade, Sónia C. S.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Bartolomaeus, Thomas. Universitat Bonn; AlemaniaFil: Cherneva, Irina A.. Lomonosov Moscow State University; RusiaFil: Chernyshev, Alexei V.. Russian Academy Of Science; RusiaFil: von Döhren, Jörn. Universitat Bonn; AlemaniaFil: Ellison, Christina I.. University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Gibson, Ray. Liverpool John Moores University (liverpool John M. University);Fil: Giribet, Gonzalo. Harvard University; Estados UnidosFil: Hiebert, Terra. University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Hookabe, Natsumi. University of Tokyo; JapónFil: Junoy, Juan. Universidad de Alcalá. Facultad de Ciencias; EspañaFil: Kvist, Sebastian. Royal Ontario Museum; CanadáFil: Maslakova, Svetlana A.. University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Mendes, Cecili B.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Norenburg, Jon L.. National Museum Of Natural History. Departamento de Zoología. Area de Invertebrados; Estados UnidosFil: Polyakova, Neonila E.. Russian Academy Of Science; RusiaFil: Sagorny, Christina. Universitat Bonn; AlemaniaFil: Schwartz, Megan L.. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Strand, Malin. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; SueciaFil: Sun, Shichun. Ocean University Of Chin; ChinaFil: Turbeville, James M.. Virginia Commonwealth University; Estados UnidosFil: Zattara, Eduardo Enrique. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universidad Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentin

Serious Asthma Events with Fluticasone plus Salmeterol versus Fluticasone Alone

BACKGROUND: The safe and appropriate use of long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) for the treatment of asthma has been widely debated. In two large clinical trials, investigators found a potential risk of serious asthma-related events associated with LABAs. This study was designed to evaluate the risk of administering the LABA salmeterol in combination with an inhaled glucocorticoid, fluticasone propionate. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, adolescent and adult patients (age, ≥12 years) with persistent asthma were assigned to receive either fluticasone with salmeterol or fluticasone alone for 26 weeks. All the patients had a history of a severe asthma exacerbation in the year before randomization but not during the previous month. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had a history of life-threatening or unstable asthma. The primary safety end point was the first serious asthma-related event (death, endotracheal intubation, or hospitalization). Noninferiority of fluticasone-salmeterol to fluticasone alone was defined as an upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the risk of the primary safety end point of less than 2.0. The efficacy end point was the first severe asthma exacerbation. RESULTS: Of 11,679 patients who were enrolled, 67 had 74 serious asthma-related events, with 36 events in 34 patients in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 38 events in 33 patients in the fluticasone-only group. The hazard ratio for a serious asthma-related event in the fluticasone-salmeterol group was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.66), and noninferiority was achieved (P=0.003). There were no asthma-related deaths; 2 patients in the fluticasone-only group underwent asthma-related intubation. The risk of a severe asthma exacerbation was 21% lower in the fluticasone-salmeterol group than in the fluticasone-only group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.89), with at least one severe asthma exacerbation occurring in 480 of 5834 patients (8%) in the fluticasone-salmeterol group, as compared with 597 of 5845 patients (10%) in the fluticasone-only group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received salmeterol in a fixed-dose combination with fluticasone did not have a significantly higher risk of serious asthma-related events than did those who received fluticasone alone. Patients receiving fluticasone-salmeterol had fewer severe asthma exacerbations than did those in the fluticasone-only group