Notulae to the Italian flora of algae, bryophytes, fungi and lichens: 13

In this contribution, new data concerning bryophytes, fungi and lichens of the Italian flora are presented. It includes new records and confirmations for the bryophyte genera Bryum, Cryphaea, Didymodon, and Grimmia; the fungal genera Bryostigma, Cercidospora, Conocybe, Cortinarius, Endococcus, Inocybe, Psathyrella, and Sphaerellothecium; the lichen genera Agonimia, Anisomeridium, Bilimbia, Diplotomma, Gyalecta, Huneckia, Lecidella, Lempholemma, Myriolecis, Nephroma, Pannaria, Pycnothelia, Pyrrhospora, Rinodina, Stereocaulon, Thalloidima, Trapelia, Usnea, Variospora, and Verrucaria

Notulae to the Italian flora of algae, bryophytes, fungi and lichens: 9

In this contribution, new data concerning bryophytes, fungi, and lichens of the Italian flora are presented. It includes new records and confirmations for the bryophyte genera Encalypta, Grimmia, and Riccia, for the fungal genera Hericium, Inocybe, Inocutis, Pluteus, and Russula, and for the lichen genera Bryoria, Farnoldia, Hypocenomyce, Lecania, Paracollema, Peltigera, Sarcogyne, and Teloschistes

Notulae to the Italian flora of algae, bryophytes, fungi and lichens: 12

In this contribution, new data concerning bryophytes, fungi and lichens of the Italian flora are presented. It includes new records, confirmations or exclusions for the bryophyte genera Acaulon, Campylopus, En-tosthodon, Homomallium, Pseudohygrohypnum, and Thuidium, the fungal genera Entoloma, Cortinarius, Mycenella, Oxyporus, and Psathyrella and the lichen genera Anaptychia, Athallia, Baeomyces, Bagliettoa, Calicium, Nephroma, Pectenia, Phaeophyscia, Polyblastia, Protoparmeliopsis, Pyrenula, Ramalina, and San-guineodiscus

Notulae to the Italian flora of algae, bryophytes, fungi and lichens: 8

In this contribution, new data concerning algae, bryophytes, fungi, and lichens of the Italian flora are presented. It includes new records and confirmations for the algae genus Chara, the bryophyte genera Homalia, Mannia, and Tortella, the fungal genera Cortinarius, Russula, and Stereum, and the lichen genera Cetrelia, Cladonia, Enterographa, Graphis, Lecanora, Lepraria, Multiclavula, Mycomicrothelia, Parmelia, Peltigera, Pleopsidium, Psora, Scytinium, Umbilicaria, and Rhizocarpon

Notulae to the Italian flora of algae, bryophytes, fungi and lichens: 7

In this contribution, new data concerning algae, bryophytes, fungi, and lichens of the Italian flora are presented. It includes new records and confirmations for the algae genus Chara, the bryophyte genera Cephalozia, Conardia, Conocephalum, Didymodon, Sphagnum, Tetraplodon, and Tortula, the fungal genera Endophyllum, Gymnosporangium, Microbotryum, Phragmidium, and Pluteus, and the lichen genera Candelariella, Cladonia, Flavoplaca, Lichenothelia, Peltigera, Placolecis, Rinodina, Scytinium, and Solenopsora

Humanistic psychotherapy research 1990-2015 : from methodological innovation to evidence-supported treatment outcomes and beyond

Over the past twenty five years, humanistic psychotherapy (HP) researchers have actively contributed to the development and implementation of innovative practice-informed research measures and coding systems. Qualitative and quantitative research findings, including meta-analyses, support the identification of HP approaches as evidence-based treatments for a variety of psychological conditions. Implications for future psychotherapy research, training and practice are discussed in terms of addressing the persistent disjunction between significant HP research productivity and relatively low support for HP approaches in university-based clinical training programs, funding agencies and government-supported clinical guidelines. Finally, specific recommendations are provided to further enhance and expand the impact of humanistic psychotherapy research for clinical training programs and the development of treatment guidelines

Differential coding of perception in the world’s languages

Is there a universal hierarchy of the senses, such that some senses (e.g., vision) are more accessible to consciousness and linguistic description than others (e.g., smell)? The long-standing presumption in Western thought has been that vision and audition are more objective than the other senses, serving as the basis of knowledge and understanding, whereas touch, taste, and smell are crude and of little value. This predicts that humans ought to be better at communicating about sight and hearing than the other senses, and decades of work based on English and related languages certainly suggests this is true. However, how well does this reflect the diversity of languages and communities worldwide? To test whether there is a universal hierarchy of the senses, stimuli from the five basic senses were used to elicit descriptions in 20 diverse languages, including 3 unrelated sign languages. We found that languages differ fundamentally in which sensory domains they linguistically code systematically, and how they do so. The tendency for better coding in some domains can be explained in part by cultural preoccupations. Although languages seem free to elaborate specific sensory domains, some general tendencies emerge: for example, with some exceptions, smell is poorly coded. The surprise is that, despite the gradual phylogenetic accumulation of the senses, and the imbalances in the neural tissue dedicated to them, no single hierarchy of the senses imposes itself upon language