认真贯彻《药品管理法》 为防病治病提供优质生物制品——一九八六年全国生物制品计划平衡会议在兰召开

<正>一九八六年全国生物制品计划平衡会议在卫生部主持下于一九八五年八月十九日至二十三日在兰州召开。参加这次会议的有:卫生部药政局和防疫局的负责人;卫生部药品生物制品检定所和部属六个生物制品研究所的代表;医科院医学生物研究和输血研究所的代表;全国各省、市、自治区卫生防疫站的代表;还有兰州、昆明民航局的代表共计八十八人。 这是继去年长春计划会议之后的又一次生产、检定和使用相结合的会议。在会议中,各生物制品生产研究单位汇报了一九八四至一九八五年生产及科研情况,检定所汇报了抽检各生产单位的制品质量情况,各防     

全国麦类病毒病综合防治研究协作会议

全国麦类病毒病综合防治研究协作会议于1977年8月15—22日在北京市密云县召开。15个省、市、自治区的科研、教学、行政单位的78名代表出席了会议。会议期间传来了党的“十一大”胜利召开的喜讯,代表     

第四届全国干扰素学术会议在广州召开

第四届全国干扰素学术会议于一九八三年十二月二十日至二十三日在广州召开。这次会议是中国微生物学会根据上届会议建议,通过广东省微生物学会委托广州医学院举办的。会议由中国微生物学会、中国医学科学院病毒学研究所、广东省微生物学会医学组和广州医学院微生物学教研室共同主持。出席会议共107名代表,来自全国20个省市自治区74个单位,(正式代表     

盐碱滩涂变绿洲 第二届全国盐碱土造林绿化研讨会纪事

在全国绿委的关注下,1992年9月6日至10日,全国盐碱土绿化协作组在江苏召开了全国盐碱土造林绿化研讨会二届会议。会议有来自西北、东北、北京、天津、山东、江苏等13个省、市、区的44个单位代表52人,会议收到论文27篇。     

全国首次农业生态座谈会在南京召开

1980年4月25日至5月1日在南京举行了全国首次农业生态座谈会。座谈会是由中国生态学会委托中国科学院南京土壤研究所与林业土壤研究所共同筹备召开的。来自全国各有关研究机构、高等院校、出版社等30个单位的54名代表参加了会议,中国科协及江苏省科协也派代表出席了会议。     

中国生理学会张锡钧基金会第十届全国青年优秀生理学学术论文交流会和第八届全国青年生理学工作者学术会议在南昌召开

中国生理学会张锡钧基金会第十届全国青年优秀生理学学术论文交流会和第八届全国青年生理学工作者学术会议于2009年5月22—24日在南昌召开,来自全国各地方生理（科）学会推荐的代表和评委,以及青年科技工作者代表和企业代表及工作人员近百人参加了会议。张锡钧基金会的代表是地方生理（科）学会推荐的。青年生理学工作者会议,是以自由来稿和约稿相结合,保证了会议参加人员的层次和学术论文的水平。青年会议报告中有多篇学术论文,内容非常精彩,展现了我国新生代青年生理科学家的前沿研究成果,对思考中国生理学研究的现状和未来是很好的启示。     

全国氨基酸生产工艺学术交流会

由中国轻工协会和中国微生物学会联合主持召开的全国氨基酸生产工艺学术交流会,于1983年11月10—14日在昆明市召开。来自全国23个省市自治区的科研、高等院校、生产单位的115名代表出席了会议。会议期间共宣读论文13篇,然后进行分组交流和讨论。代表们畅所欲言,各抒已见,表现出良好的学风和求实精神。代表们对国内外氨基酸生产发展趋向有了较明确的认识。     

全国自然保护区区划工作会议在成都市召开

由全国自然资源调查和农业区划委员会自然保护区专业组主持召开的《全国自然保护区区划工作会议》,于1980年9月16—25日在四川省成都市召开。参加会议的有各省(区)、市有关单位的负责同志、代表和     

中国植物学会第15届全国会员代表大会暨80周年学术年会在南昌召开

2013年10月13～16日,中国植物学会第15届全国会员代表大会暨80周年学术年会在南昌召开。来自全国的1000余名代表参加了会议。会议由中国植物学会主办,南昌大学、江西省植物学会承办。     

第一届全国纤维素酶学术讨论会

本次会议由中国微生物学会、中国轻工业协会发酵学会、中国林学会林产化学化工学会于1985年6月21—26日在陕西临潼召开。参加这次会议的有来自全国12个省市的30个单位48名代表。会议收到有关综述和研究报告27篇。代表们认为,在我     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor