Kampala Trauma Score (KTS): Is it a new triage tool?

In North America, injury surveillance has generated an accumulation of data regarding trauma events and outcomes through the implementation of trauma registries. Trauma registries have been predominantly instituted in response to the desire to be accredited by the American College of Surgeons (ACS). Committee on Trauma as an ACS Trauma Center1. These registries play a key role in research that determines epidemiological patterns of injury, advances injury prevention actions and finally, measures outcomes2. For example, they have been used extensively in the US to monitor reductions in mortality which has been attributed to the institution of “trauma systems”, coordinated hospital-based systems for the management of injured patients3. As interventions to reduce and prevent injuries are sought, registries allow the calculation of injury rates, identification of causes and measurement of outcomes produced by implementation of interventions4. Trauma registry data is made universally comparable across different strata through the routine use of trauma scores, such as the revised trauma score (RTS) and injury severity score (ISS)

Hoarding and Emotional Reactivity: The Link Between Negative Emotional Reactions and Hoarding Symptomatology

Hoarding disorder (HD) is characterized by difficulty discarding, clutter, and frequently excessive acquiring. Theories have pointed to intense negative emotional reactions (e.g., sadness) as one factor that may play a critical role in HD\u27s etiology. Preliminary work with an analogue sample indicated that more intense negative emotions following emotional films were linked with greater hoarding symptoms. Symptom provocation imaging studies with HD patients have also found evidence for excessive activation in brain regions implicated in processing emotions. The current study utilized a sample with self-reported serious hoarding difficulties to examine how hoarding symptoms related to both general and hoarding-related emotional reactivity, taking into account the specificity of these relationships. We also examined how two cognitive factors, fear of decision-making and confidence in memory, modified this relationship. 628 participants with self-identified hoarding difficulties completed questionnaires about general emotional reactivity, depression, anxiety, decision-making, and confidence in memory. To assess hoarding-related emotional reactivity, participants reported their emotional reactions when imagining discarding various items. Heightened general emotional reactivity and more intense emotional reactions to imagined discarding were associated with both difficulty discarding and acquisition, but not clutter, controlling for age, gender, and co-occurring mood and anxiety symptoms. Fear of decision-making and confidence in memory interacted with general emotional reactivity to predict hoarding symptoms. These findings provide support for cognitive-behavioral models of hoarding. Experimental research should be conducted to discover whether emotional reactivity increases vulnerability for HD. Future work should also examine whether emotional reactivity should be targeted in interventions for hoarding

Cranial morphometrics of the dire wolf, Canis dirus, at Rancho La Brea: temporal variability and its links to nutrient stress and climate

The tar pits of Rancho La Brea are a unique window onto the biology and ecology of the terminal Pleistocene in southern California. In this study we capitalize on recent advances in understanding of La Brea tar pit chronology to perform the first morphometric study of crania of the dire wolf, Canis dirus, over time. We first present new data on tooth fracture and wear from pits dated older than heretofore analyzed, and demonstrate that fracture and wear events, and the increased competition and heightened carcass utilization they are thought to represent, were of varying intensity across the sampled time intervals. Skull size, and by extension body size, is shown to differ significantly among pits at La Brea, with the strongest single observation being reduction in body size at the last glacial maximum. Skull size variation is shown to be a result of both ontogenetic and evolutionary factors, neither of which is congruent with a temporal version of Bergmann’s rule. Skull shape difference among the pits is also significant, with shape variability attributable to both neotenic effects in populations with high breakage and wear, and evolutionary changes possibly due to climate change. Testing of this hypothesis requires better accuracy and precision in La Brea carbon data, a program that is within the reach of current AMS dating technology

Dic(9;20)(p13;q11) in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia is related to low cellular resistance to asparaginase, cytarabine and corticosteroids.

To access publisher full text version of this article. Please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links fieldDic(9;20)(p13;q11) was first described as a nonrandom chromosome abnormality in B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (BCP ALL) in the mid 1990s,1, 2 and 71 dic(9;20)-positive cases have since then been reported.3, 4, 5 Approximately 90% of these cases were children or adolescents, with dic(9;20) occurring in about 2% of childhood BCP ALL.6 The recent review by Forestier et al.5 describes that dic(9;20)-leukaemias are of B-cell precursor immunophenotype, never have a high hyperdiploid modal number, show a female predominance, and have a significant age incidence peak at 3 years. Most patients are allocated to non-standard risk treatment arms due to high WBC (median 24 109/l) and a relatively high frequency of CNS disease or other extra-medullary leukaemia (EML) at diagnosis. The prognostic implications of dic(9;20) are to a large extent unknown. A relatively large proportion of the relapses reported in the literature have been extra-medullary, and post-relapse treatment including block therapy has been successful in several patients, as illustrated by a p-EFS of 0.62 and a predicted overall survival of 0.82 at 5 years for the 24 Nordic cases.

Intermittent random walks for an optimal search strategy: One-dimensional case

We study the search kinetics of an immobile target by a concentration of randomly moving searchers. The object of the study is to optimize the probability of detection within the constraints of our model. The target is hidden on a one-dimensional lattice in the sense that searchers have no a priori information about where it is, and may detect it only upon encounter. The searchers perform random walks in discrete time n=0,1,2, ..., N, where N is the maximal time the search process is allowed to run. With probability \alpha the searchers step on a nearest-neighbour, and with probability (1-\alpha) they leave the lattice and stay off until they land back on the lattice at a fixed distance L away from the departure point. The random walk is thus intermittent. We calculate the probability P_N that the target remains undetected up to the maximal search time N, and seek to minimize this probability. We find that P_N is a non-monotonic function of \alpha, and show that there is an optimal choice \alpha_{opt}(N) of \alpha well within the intermittent regime, 0 < \alpha_{opt}(N) < 1, whereby P_N can be orders of magnitude smaller compared to the "pure" random walk cases \alpha =0 and \alpha = 1.Comment: 19 pages, 5 figures; submitted to Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter; special issue on Chemical Kinetics Beyond the Textbook: Fluctuations, Many-Particle Effects and Anomalous Dynamics, eds. K.Lindenberg, G.Oshanin and M.Tachiy

Perfectionism, achievement motives, and attribution of success and failure in female soccer players

While some researchers have identified adaptive perfectionism as a key characteristic to achieving elite performance in sport, others see perfectionism as a maladaptive characteristic that undermines, rather than helps, athletic performance. Arguing that perfectionism in sport contains both adaptive and maladaptive facets, the present article presents a study of N 5 74 female soccer players investigating how two facets of perfectionism—perfectionistic strivings and negative reactions to imperfection (Stoeber, Otto, Pescheck, Becker, & Stoll, 2007)—are related to achievement motives and attributions of success and failure. Results show that striving for perfection was related to hope of success and self-serving attributions (internal attribution of success). Moreover, once overlap between the two facets of perfectionism was controlled for, striving for perfection was inversely related to fear of failure and self-depreciating attributions (internal attribution of failure). In contrast, negative reactions to imperfection were positively related to fear of failure and self-depreciating attributions (external attribution of success) and inversely related to self-serving attributions (internal attribution of success and external attribution of failure). It is concluded that striving for perfection in sport is associated with an adaptive pattern of positive motivational orientations and self-serving attributions of success and failure, which may help athletic performance. In contrast, negative reactions to imperfection are associated with a maladaptive pattern of negative motivational orientations and self-depreciating attributions, which is likely to undermine athletic performance. Consequently, perfectionism in sport may be adaptive in those athletes who strive for perfection, but can control their negative reactions when performance is less than perfect

THE AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE

The evidentiary basis of the currently accepted classification of living amphibians is discussed and shown not to warrant the degree of authority conferred on it by use and tradition. A new taxonomy of living amphibians is proposed to correct the deficiencies of the old one. This new taxonomy is based on the largest phylogenetic analysis of living Amphibia so far accomplished. We combined the comparative anatomical character evidence of Haas (2003) with DNA sequences from the mitochondrial transcription unit H1 (12S and 16S ribosomal RNA and tRNAValine genes, ø 2,400 bp of mitochondrial sequences) and the nuclear genes histone H3, rhodopsin, tyrosinase, and seven in absentia, and the large ribosomal subunit 28S (ø 2,300 bp of nuclear sequences; ca. 1.8 million base pairs; x¯ 5 3.7 kb/terminal). The dataset includes 532 terminals sampled from 522 species representative of the global diversity of amphibians as well as seven of the closest living relatives of amphibians for outgroup comparisons. The primary purpose of our taxon sampling strategy was to provide strong tests of the monophyly of all ‘‘family-group’’ taxa. All currently recognized nominal families and subfamilies were sampled, with the exception of Protohynobiinae (Hynobiidae). Many of the currently recognized genera were also sampled. Although we discuss the monophyly of genera, and provide remedies for nonmonophyly where possible, we also make recommendations for future research. A parsimony analysis was performed under Direct Optimization, which simultaneously optimizes nucleotide homology (alignment) and tree costs, using the same set of assumptions throughout the analysis. Multiple search algorithms were run in the program POY over a period of seven months of computing time on the AMNH Parallel Computing Cluster. Results demonstrate that the following major taxonomic groups, as currently recognized, are nonmonophyletic: Ichthyophiidae (paraphyletic with respect to Uraeotyphlidae), Caeciliidae (paraphyletic with respect to Typhlonectidae and Scolecomorphidae), Salamandroidea (paraphyletic with respect to Sirenidae), Leiopelmatanura (paraphyletic with respect to Ascaphidae), Discoglossanura (paraphyletic with respect to Bombinatoridae), Mesobatrachia (paraphyletic with respect to Neobatrachia), Pipanura (paraphyletic with respect to Bombinatoridae and Discoglossidae/Alytidae), Hyloidea (in the sense of containing Heleophrynidae; paraphyletic with respect to Ranoidea), Leptodactylidae (polyphyletic, with Batrachophrynidae forming the sister taxon of Myobatrachidae 1 Limnodynastidae, and broadly paraphyletic with respect to Hemiphractinae, Rhinodermatidae, Hylidae, Allophrynidae, Centrolenidae, Brachycephalidae, Dendrobatidae, and Bufonidae), Microhylidae (polyphyletic, with Brevicipitinae being the sister taxon of Hemisotidae), Microhylinae (poly/paraphyletic with respect to the remaining non-brevicipitine microhylids), Hyperoliidae (para/polyphyletic, with Leptopelinae forming the sister taxon of Arthroleptidae 1 Astylosternidae), Astylosternidae (paraphyletic with respect to Arthroleptinae), Ranidae (paraphyletic with respect to Rhacophoridae and Mantellidae). In addition, many subsidiary taxa are demonstrated to be nonmonophyletic, such as (1) Eleutherodactylus with respect to Brachycephalus; (2) Rana (sensu Dubois, 1992), which is polyphyletic, with various elements falling far from each other on the tree; and (3) Bufo, with respect to several nominal bufonid genera. A new taxonomy of living amphibians is proposed, and the evidence for this is presented to promote further investigation and data acquisition bearing on the evolutionary history of amphibians. The taxonomy provided is consistent with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999). Salient features of the new taxonomy are (1) the three major groups of living amphibians, caecilians/Gymnophiona, salamanders/Caudata, and frogs/Anura, form a monophyletic group, to which we restrict the name Amphibia; (2) Gymnophiona forms the sister taxon of Batrachia (salamanders 1 frogs) and is composed of two groups, Rhinatrematidae and Stegokrotaphia; (3) Stegokrotaphia is composed of two families, Ichthyophiidae (including Uraeotyphlidae) and Caeciliidae (including Scolecomorphidae and Typhlonectidae, which are regarded as subfamilies); (4) Batrachia is a highly corroborated monophyletic group, composed of two taxa, Caudata (salamanders) and Anura (frogs); (5) Caudata is composed of two taxa, Cryptobranchoidei (Cryptobranchidae and Hynobiidae) and Diadectosalamandroidei new taxon (all other salamanders); (6) Diadectosalamandroidei is composed of two taxa, Hydatinosalamandroidei new taxon (composed of Perennibranchia and Treptobranchia new taxon) and Plethosalamandroidei new taxon; (7) Perennibranchia is composed of Proteidae and Sirenidae; (8) Treptobranchia new taxon is composed of two taxa, Ambystomatidae (including Dicamptodontidae) and Salamandridae; (9) Plethosalamandroidei new taxon is composed of Rhyacotritonidae and Xenosalamandroidei new taxon; (10) Xenosalamandroidei is composed of Plethodontidae and Amphiumidae; (11) Anura is monophyletic and composed of two clades, Leiopelmatidae (including Ascaphidae) and Lalagobatrachia new taxon (all other frogs); (12) Lalagobatrachia is composed of two clades, Xenoanura (Pipidae and Rhinophrynidae) and Sokolanura new taxon (all other lalagobatrachians); (13) Bombinatoridae and Alytidae (former Discoglossidae) are each others’ closest relatives and in a clade called Costata, which, excluding Leiopelmatidae and Xenoanura, forms the sister taxon of all other frogs, Acosmanura; (14) Acosmanura is composed of two clades, Anomocoela (5 Pelobatoidea of other authors) and Neobatrachia; (15) Anomocoela contains Pelobatoidea (Pelobatidae and Megophryidae) and Pelodytoidea (Pelodytidae and Scaphiopodidae), and forms the sister taxon of Neobatrachia, together forming Acosmanura; (16) Neobatrachia is composed of two clades, Heleophrynidae, and all other neobatrachians, Phthanobatrachia new taxon; (17) Phthanobatrachia is composed of two major units, Hyloides and Ranoides; (18) Hyloides comprises Sooglossidae (including Nasikabatrachidae) and Notogaeanura new taxon (the remaining hyloids); (19) Notogaeanura contains two taxa, Australobatrachia new taxon and Nobleobatrachia new taxon; (20) Australobatrachia is a clade composed of Batrachophrynidae and its sister taxon, Myobatrachoidea (Myobatrachidae and Limnodynastidae), which forms the sister taxon of all other hyloids, excluding sooglossids; (21) Nobleobatrachia new taxon, is dominated at its base by frogs of a treefrog morphotype, several with intercalary phalangeal cartilages—Hemiphractus (Hemiphractidae) forms the sister taxon of the remaining members of this group, here termed Meridianura new taxon; (22) Meridianura comprises Brachycephalidae (former Eleutherodactylinae 1 Brachycephalus) and Cladophrynia new taxon; (23) Cladophrynia is composed of two groups, Cryptobatrachidae (composed of Cryptobatrachus and Stefania, previously a fragment of the polyphyletic Hemiphractinae) and Tinctanura new taxon; (24) Tinctanura is composed of Amphignathodontidae (Gastrotheca and Flectonotus, another fragment of the polyphyletic Hemiphractinae) and Athesphatanura new taxon; (25) Athesphatanura is composed of Hylidae (Hylinae, Pelodryadinae, and Phyllomedusinae, and excluding former Hemiphractinae, whose inclusion would have rendered this taxon polyphyletic) and Leptodactyliformes new taxon; (26) Leptodactyliformes is composed of Diphyabatrachia new taxon (composed of Centrolenidae [including Allophryne] and Leptodactylidae, sensu stricto, including Leptodactylus and relatives) and Chthonobatrachia new taxon; (27) Chthonobatrachia is composed of a reformulated Ceratophryidae (which excludes such genera as Odontophrynus and Proceratophrys and includes other taxa, such as Telmatobius) and Hesticobatrachia new taxon; (28) Hesticobatrachia is composed of a reformulated Cycloramphidae (which includes Rhinoderma) and Agastorophrynia new taxon; (29) Agastorophrynia is composed of Bufonidae (which is partially revised) and Dendrobatoidea (Dendrobatidae and Thoropidae); (30) Ranoides new taxon forms the sister taxon of Hyloides and is composed of two major monophyletic components, Allodapanura new taxon (microhylids, hyperoliids, and allies) and Natatanura new taxon (ranids and allies); (31) Allodapanura is composed of Microhylidae (which is partially revised) and Afrobatrachia new taxon; (32) Afrobatrachia is composed of Xenosyneunitanura new taxon (the ‘‘strange-bedfellows’’ Brevicipitidae [formerly in Microhylidae] and Hemisotidae) and a more normal-looking group of frogs, Laurentobatrachia new taxon (Hyperoliidae and Arthroleptidae, which includes Leptopelinae and former Astylosternidae); (33) Natatanura new taxon is composed of two taxa, the African Ptychadenidae and the worldwide Victoranura new taxon; (34) Victoranura is composed of Ceratobatrachidae and Telmatobatrachia new taxon; (35) Telmatobatrachia is composed of Micrixalidae and a worldwide group of ranoids, Ametrobatrachia new taxon; (36) Ametrobatrachia is composed of Africanura new taxon and Saukrobatrachia new taxon; (37) Africanura is composed of two taxa: Phrynobatrachidae (Phrynobatrachus, including Dimorphognathus and Phrynodon as synonyms) and Pyxicephaloidea; (38) Pyxicephaloidea is composed of Petropedetidae (Conraua, Indirana, Arthroleptides, and Petropedetes), and Pyxicephalidae (including a number of African genera, e.g. Amietia [including Afrana], Arthroleptella, Pyxicephalus, Strongylopus, and Tomopterna); and (39) Saukrobatrachia new taxon is the sister taxon of Africanura and is composed of Dicroglossidae and Aglaioanura new taxon, which is, in turn, composed of Rhacophoroidea (Mantellidae and Rhacophoridae) and Ranoidea (Nyctibatrachidae and Ranidae, sensu stricto). Many generic revisions are made either to render a monophyletic taxonomy or to render a taxonomy that illuminates the problems in our understanding of phylogeny, so that future work will be made easier. These revisions are: (1) placement of Ixalotriton and Lineatriton (Caudata: Plethodontidae: Bolitoglossinae) into the synonymy of Pseudoeurycea, to render a monophyletic Pseudoeurycea; (2) placement of Haideotriton (Caudata: Plethodontidae: Spelerpinae) into the synonymy of Eurycea, to render a monophyletic Eurycea; (3) placement of Nesomantis (Anura: Sooglossidae) into the synonymy of Sooglossus, to assure a monophyletic Sooglossus; (4) placement of Cyclorana and Nyctimystes (Anura: Hylidae: Pelodryadinae) into Litoria, but retaining Cyclorana as a subgenus, to provide a monophyletic Litoria; (5) partition of ‘‘Limnodynastes’’ (Anura: Limnodynastidae) into Limnodynastes and Opisthodon to render monophyletic genera; (6) placement of Adenomera, Lithodytes, and Vanzolinius (Anura: Leptodactylidae) into Leptodactylus, to render a monophyletic Leptodactylus; (7) partition of ‘‘Eleutherodactylus’’ (Anura: Brachycephalidae) into Craugastor, ‘‘Eleutherodactylus’’, ‘‘Euhyas’’, ‘‘Pelorius’’, and Syrrhophus to outline the taxonomic issues relevant to the paraphyly of this nominal taxon to other nominal genera; (8) partition of ‘‘Bufo’’ (Anura: Bufonidae) into a number of new or revived genera (i.e., Amietophrynus new genus, Anaxyrus, Chaunus, Cranopsis, Duttaphrynus new genus, Epidalea, Ingerophrynus new genus, Nannophryne, Peltophryne, Phrynoidis, Poyntonophrynus new genus; Pseudepidalea new genus, Rhaebo, Rhinella, Vandijkophrynus new genus); (9) placement of the monotypic Spinophrynoides (Anura: Bufonidae) into the synonymy of (formerly monotypic) Altiphrynoides to make for a more informative taxonomy; (10) placement of the Bufo taitanus group and Stephopaedes (as a subgenus) into the synonymy of Mertensophryne (Anura: Bufonidae); (11) placement of Xenobatrachus (Anura: Microhylidae: Asterophryinae) into the synonymy of Xenorhina to render a monophyletic Xenorhina; (12) transfer of a number of species from Plethodontohyla to Rhombophryne (Microhylidae: Cophylinae) to render a monophyletic Plethodontohyla; (13) placement of Schoutedenella (Anura: Arthroleptidae) into the synonymy of Arthroleptis; (14) transfer of Dimorphognathus and Phrynodon (Anura: Phrynobatrachidae) into the synonymy of Phrynobatrachus to render a monophyletic Phrynobatrachus; (15) placement of Afrana into the synonymy of Amietia (Anura: Pyxicephalidae) to render a monophyletic taxon; (16) placement of Chaparana and Paa into the synonymy of Nanorana (Anura: Dicroglossidae) to render a monophyletic genus; (17) recognition as genera of Ombrana and Annandia (Anura: Dicroglossidae: Dicroglossinae) pending placement of them phylogenetically; (18) return of Phrynoglossus into the synonymy of Occidozyga to resolve the paraphyly of Phrynoglossus (Anura: Dicroglossidae: Occidozyginae); (19) recognition of Feihyla new genus for Philautus palpebralis to resolve the polyphyly of ‘‘Chirixalus’’; (20) synonymy of ‘‘Chirixalus’’ with Chiromantis to resolve the paraphyly of ‘‘Chirixalus’’; (21) recognition of the genus Babina, composed of the former subgenera of Rana, Babina and Nidirana (Anura: Ranidae); (22) recognition of the genera Clinotarsus, Humerana, Nasirana, Pelophylax, Pterorana, Pulchrana, and Sanguirana, formerly considered subgenera of Rana (Anura: Ranidae), with no special relationship to Rana (sensu stricto); (23) consideration of Glandirana (Anura: Ranidae), formerly a subgenus of Rana, as a genus, with Rugosa as a synonym; (24) recognition of Hydrophylax (Anura: Ranidae) as a genus, with Amnirana and most species of former Chalcorana included in this taxon as synonyms; (25) recognition of Hylarana (Anura: Ranidae) as a genus and its content redefined; (26) redelimitation of Huia to include as synonyms Eburana and Odorrana (both former subgenera of Rana); (27) recognition of Lithobates (Anura: Ranidae) for all species of North American ‘‘Rana’’ not placed in Rana sensu stricto (Aquarana, Pantherana, Sierrana, Trypheropsis, and Zweifelia considered synonyms of Lithobates); (28) redelimitation of the genus Rana as monophyletic by inclusion as synonyms Amerana, Aurorana, Pseudoamolops, and Pseudorana, and exclusion of all other former subgenera; (29) redelimitation of the genus Sylvirana (Anura: Ranidae), formerly a subgenus of Rana, with Papurana and Tylerana included as synonyms

Scrupulosity and Hoarding

Objective: Recent evidence suggests that avoiding waste may be a prominent motive to save in hoarding disorder. Such beliefs are reminiscent of scrupulosity obsessions in OCD. This paper reports on three studies examining scrupulosity-like beliefs in hoarding and the development and validation of a measure of material scrupulosity. Methods: Study one examined the reliability and validity of a measure of material scrupulosity (MOMS) and its relationship to hoarding in a college student sample, as well as the relationship between hoarding and OCD-base scrupulosity. Study 2 examined the psychometric properties of the MOMS in a replication of study 1 with a sample of people with hoarding problems. Study 3 examined the reliability and validity of the MOMS in a large nonclinical/community sample. Results: Findings across the studies provided evidence for the reliability and validity of the MOMS. It was highly correlated with hoarding symptoms, especially difficulty discarding, and hoarding related beliefs, especially responsibility beliefs. It accounted for significant variance in hoarding symptoms independent of other correlates, including other hoarding beliefs. OCD-based scrupulosity was correlated with hoarding in sample 1, but not in the hoarding sample in study 2. Conclusions: Material Scrupulosity refers to an exaggerated sense of duty or moral/ethical responsibility for the care and disposition of possessions to prevent their being harmed or wasted. It appears to be distinct from other hoarding-related beliefs and a significant predictor of hoarding symptoms. The MOMS appears to possess good reliability and validity in both clinical and nonclinical samples

Does the Reading of Different Orthographies Produce Distinct Brain Activity Patterns? An ERP Study

Orthographies vary in the degree of transparency of spelling-sound correspondence. These range from shallow orthographies with transparent grapheme-phoneme relations, to deep orthographies, in which these relations are opaque. Only a few studies have examined whether orthographic depth is reflected in brain activity. In these studies a between-language design was applied, making it difficult to isolate the aspect of orthographic depth. In the present work this question was examined using a within-subject-and-language investigation. The participants were speakers of Hebrew, as they are skilled in reading two forms of script transcribing the same oral language. One form is the shallow pointed script (with diacritics), and the other is the deep unpointed script (without diacritics). Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded while skilled readers carried out a lexical decision task in the two forms of script. A visual non-orthographic task controlled for the visual difference between the scripts (resulting from the addition of diacritics to the pointed script only). At an early visual-perceptual stage of processing (∼165 ms after target onset), the pointed script evoked larger amplitudes with longer latencies than the unpointed script at occipital-temporal sites. However, these effects were not restricted to orthographic processing, and may therefore have reflected, at least in part, the visual load imposed by the diacritics. Nevertheless, the results implied that distinct orthographic processing may have also contributed to these effects. At later stages (∼340 ms after target onset) the unpointed script elicited larger amplitudes than the pointed one with earlier latencies. As this latency has been linked to orthographic-linguistic processing and to the classification of stimuli, it is suggested that these differences are associated with distinct lexical processing of a shallow and a deep orthography

Is The Amphibian Tree of Life really fatally flawed?

Wiens (2007, Q. Rev. Biol. 82, 55–56) recently published a severe critique of Frost et al.\u27s (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 297, 1–370) monographic study of amphibian systematics, concluding that it is “a disaster” and recommending that readers “simply ignore this study”. Beyond the hyperbole, Wiens raised four general objections that he regarded as “fatal flaws”: (1) the sampling design was insufficient for the generic changes made and taxonomic changes were made without including all type species; (2) the nuclear gene most commonly used in amphibian phylogenetics, RAG-1, was not included, nor were the morphological characters that had justified the older taxonomy; (3) the analytical method employed is questionable because equally weighted parsimony “assumes that all characters are evolving at equal rates”; and (4) the results were at times “clearly erroneous”, as evidenced by the inferred non-monophyly of marsupial frogs. In this paper we respond to these criticisms. In brief: (1) the study of Frost et al. did not exist in a vacuum and we discussed our evidence and evidence previously obtained by others that documented the non-monophyletic taxa that we corrected. Beyond that, we agree that all type species should ideally be included, but inclusion of all potentially relevant type species is not feasible in a study of the magnitude of Frost et al. and we contend that this should not prevent progress in the formulation of phylogenetic hypotheses or their application outside of systematics. (2) Rhodopsin, a gene included by Frost et al. is the nuclear gene that is most commonly used in amphibian systematics, not RAG-1. Regardless, ignoring a study because of the absence of a single locus strikes us as unsound practice. With respect to previously hypothesized morphological synapomorphies, Frost et al. provided a lengthy review of the published evidence for all groups, and this was used to inform taxonomic decisions. We noted that confirming and reconciling all morphological transformation series published among previous studies needed to be done, and we included evidence from the only published data set at that time to explicitly code morphological characters (including a number of traditionally applied synapomorphies from adult morphology) across the bulk of the diversity of amphibians (Haas, 2003, Cladistics 19, 23–90). Moreover, the phylogenetic results of the Frost et al. study were largely consistent with previous morphological and molecular studies and where they differed, this was discussed with reference to the weight of evidence. (3) The claim that equally weighted parsimony assumes that all characters are evolving at equal rates has been shown to be false in both analytical and simulation studies. (4) The claimed “strong support” for marsupial frog monophyly is questionable. Several studies have also found marsupial frogs to be non-monophyletic. Wiens et al. (2005, Syst. Biol. 54, 719–748) recovered marsupial frogs as monophyletic, but that result was strongly supported only by Bayesian clade confidence values (which are known to overestimate support) and bootstrap support in his parsimony analysis was \u3c 50%. Further, in a more recent parsimony analysis of an expanded data set that included RAG-1 and the three traditional morphological synapomorphies of marsupial frogs, Wiens et al. (2006, Am. Nat. 168, 579–596) also found them to be non-monophyletic. Although we attempted to apply the rule of monophyly to the naming of taxonomic groups, our phylogenetic results are largely consistent with conventional views even if not with the taxonomy current at the time of our writing. Most of our taxonomic changes addressed examples of non-monophyly that had previously been known or suspected (e.g., the non-monophyly of traditional Hyperoliidae, Microhylidae, Hemiphractinae, Leptodactylidae, Phrynobatrachus, Ranidae, Rana, Bufo; and the placement of Brachycephalus within “Eleutherodactylus”, and Lineatriton within “Pseudoeurycea”), and it is troubling that Wiens and others, as evidenced by recent publications, continue to perpetuate recognition of non-monophyletic taxonomic groups that so profoundly misrepresent what is known about amphibian phylogeny