Revision of Oxandra (Annonaceae)

A taxonomic revision is given of the Neotropical genus Oxandra (Annonaceae). Within the genus 27 species are recognized, 4 of which are new to science. Most of the species are occurring in tropical South America, whereas a few (6) are found in Mexico and Central America and two in the West Indies (Greater and Lesser Antilles). A key to all species is provided. The treatment includes chapters about the history of the genus and morphology. All species are fully described, including full synonymy, notes on distribution and ecology, field observations (when available), vernacular names (when given), and mostly short notes about relationships of the species concerned. For each species a distribution map is made. At the end of the revision a complete list of vernacular names is included.Peer reviewe

National Protocol for Model-Based Selection for Proton Therapy in Head and Neck Cancer

In the Netherlands, the model-based approach is used to identify patients with head and neck cancer who may benefit most from proton therapy in terms of prevention of late radiation-induced side effects in comparison with photon therapy. To this purpose, a National Indication Protocol Proton therapy for Head and Neck Cancer patients (NIPP-HNC) was developed, which has been approved by the health care authorities. When patients qualify according to the guidelines of the NIPP-HNC, proton therapy is fully reimbursed. This article describes the procedures that were followed to develop this NIPP-HNC and provides all necessary information to introduce model-based selection for patients with head and neck cancer into routine clinical practice.</p

The undebated issue of justice: silent discourses in Dutch flood risk management

Flood risk for all types of flooding is projected to increase based on climate change projections and increases in damage potential. These challenges are likely to aggravate issues of justice in flood risk management (henceforth FRM). Based on a discursive-institutionalist perspective, this paper explores justice in Dutch FRM: how do institutions allocate the responsibilities and costs for FRM for different types of flooding? What are the underlying conceptions of justice? What are the future challenges with regard to climate change? The research revealed that a dichotomy is visible in the Dutch approach to FRM: despite an abundance of rules, regulations and resources spent, flood risk or its management, are only marginally discussed in terms of justice. Despite that the current institutional arrangement has material outcomes that treat particular groups of citizens differently, depending on the type of flooding they are prone to, area they live in (unembanked/embanked) or category of user (e.g. household, industry, farmer). The paper argues that the debate on justice will (re)emerge, since the differences in distributional outcomes are likely to become increasingly uneven as a result of increasing flood risk. The Netherlands should be prepared for this debate by generating the relevant facts and figures. An inclusive debate on the distribution of burdens of FRM could contribute to more effective and legitimate FRM