Corbicula (Bivalvia: Sphaeriacea) vs. Indigenous Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionacea) in U.S. Rivers: A Hard Case for Interspecific Competition?

At a time when populations of indigenous river mussels havebeen dwindling and/or disappearing, the introduced Asian clam,Corbicula, has spread through many U.S. rivers from Californiato Florida. In the Arkansas River Navigation System, a heavilymanaged waterway, Corbicula presently has a different "competitive"presence than it does in the relatively unmanaged Buffalo Riverin Arkansas. Comparative studies of both Corbicula and indigenousbivalved mollusks reveal biological bases for the contrastingkinds of benthic faunal change. There are ecologically relevant,distinctive differences between the two kinds of animals: inmantle/shell and mantle/gill apparatus, in the reproductivecomplex and neuroanatomy, and in spawning and locomotor behaviors.It is argued that the conservative molluscan characteristicsof Corbicula enable it to function in an exclusive, "contradictory"role with indigenous bivalves in a heavily managed waterway,and in a "contrary" competitive role elsewhere. Rationale ispresented for incorporating organismic evaluation into studiesof competition between distantly related taxa.     

Calculations of population differentiation based on GST and D: forget GST but not all of statistics!

G _ST‐values and its relatives (F_ST) belong to the most used parameters to define genetic differences between populations. Originally, they were developed for allozymes with very low number of alleles. Using highly polymorphic microsatellite markers it was often puzzling that G_ST‐values were very low but statistically significant. In their papers, Jost (2008) and Hedrick (2005) explained that G_ST‐values do not show genetic differentiation, and Jost suggested calculating D‐values instead. Theoretical mathematical considerations are often difficult to follow; therefore, we chose an applied approach comparing two artificial populations with different number of alleles at equal frequencies and known genetic divergence. Our results show that even for more than one allele per population G_ST‐values do not calculate population differentiation correctly; in contrast, D‐values do reflect the genetic differentiation indicating that data based on G_ST‐values need to be re‐evaluated. In our approach, statistical evaluations remained similar. We provide information about the impact of different sample sizes on D‐values in relation to number of alleles and genetic divergence.     

ONTOLOGY OR PHENOMENOLOGY? HOW THE LVAD CHALLENGES THE EUTHANASIA DEBATE

This article deals with the euthanasia debate in light of new life‐sustaining technologies such as the left ventricular assist device (LVAD). The question arises: does the switching off of a LVAD by a doctor upon the request of a patient amount to active or passive euthanasia, i.e. to ‘killing’ or to ‘letting die’? The answer hinges on whether the device is to be regarded as a proper part of the patient's body or as something external. We usually regard the switching off of an internal device as killing, whereas the deactivation of an external device is seen as ‘letting die’. The case is notoriously difficult to decide for hybrid devices such as LVADs, which are partly inside and partly outside the patient's body. Additionally, on a methodological level, I will argue that the ‘ontological’ arguments from analogy given for both sides are problematic. Given the impasse facing the ontological arguments, complementary phenomenological arguments deserve closer inspection. In particular, we should consider whether phenomenologically the LVAD is perceived as a body part or as an external device. I will support the thesis that the deactivation of a LVAD is to be regarded as passive euthanasia if the device is not perceived by the patient as a part of the body proper.