Unilateral giant renal angiomyolipoma and pulmonary lymphangioleiomyomatosis

Angiomyolipomas (AMLs) are mesenchymal neoplasms, named so because\ud of the complex tissue composition represented by variable proportions of\ud mature adipose tissue, smooth muscle cells, and dysmorphic blood vessels.\ud Although AMLs may rise in different sites of the body, they are mostly observed\ud in the kidney and liver. In the case of renal AMLs, they are described in two\ud types: isolated AMLs and AMLs associated with tuberous sclerosis (TS). While\ud most cases of AMLs are found incidentally during imaging examinations and\ud are asymptomatic, others may reach huge proportions causing symptoms.\ud Pulmonary lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM) is a rare benign disease\ud characterized by cystic changes in the pulmonary parenchyma and smooth\ud muscle proliferation, leading to a mixed picture of interstitial and obstructive\ud disease. AML and LAM constitute major features of tuberous sclerosis\ud complex (TSC), a multisystem autosomal dominant tumor-suppressor gene\ud complex diagnosis. The authors report the case of a young female patient\ud who presented a huge abdominal tumor, which at computed tomography (CT)\ud show a fat predominance. The tumor displaced the right kidney and remaining\ud abdominal viscera to the left. Chest CT also disclosed pulmonary lesions\ud compatible with lymphangioleiomyomatosis. Because of sudden abdominal\ud pain accompanied by a fall in the hemoglobin level, the patient underwent an\ud urgent laparotomy. The excised tumor was shown to be a giant renal AML with\ud signs of bleeding in its interior. The authors call attention to the diagnosis of\ud AML and the huge proportions that the tumor can reach, as well as for ruling\ud out the TSC diagnosis, once it may impose genetic counseling implications

Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences

The question whether taxonomic descriptions naming new animal species without type specimen(s) deposited in collections should be accepted for publication by scientific journals and allowed by the Code has already been discussed in Zootaxa (Dubois & Nemésio 2007; Donegan 2008, 2009; Nemésio 2009a–b; Dubois 2009; Gentile & Snell 2009; Minelli 2009; Cianferoni & Bartolozzi 2016; Amorim et al. 2016). This question was again raised in a letter supported by 35 signatories published in the journal Nature (Pape et al. 2016) on 15 September 2016. On 25 September 2016, the following rebuttal (strictly limited to 300 words as per the editorial rules of Nature) was submitted to Nature, which on 18 October 2016 refused to publish it. As we think this problem is a very important one for zoological taxonomy, this text is published here exactly as submitted to Nature, followed by the list of the 493 taxonomists and collection-based researchers who signed it in the short time span from 20 September to 6 October 2016