FROM INTEGRATIVE BIOETHICS TO PSEUDOSCIENCE

Integrative bioethics is a brand of bioethics conceived and propagated by a group of Croatian philosophers and other scholars. This article discusses and shows that the approach encounters several serious difficulties. In criticizing certain standard views on bioethics and in presenting their own, the advocates of integrative bioethics fall into various conceptual confusions and inconsistencies. Although presented as a project that promises to deal with moral dilemmas created by modern science and technology, integrative bioethics does not contain the slightest normativity or action‐guiding capacity. Portrayed as a scientific and interdisciplinary enterprise, integrative bioethics displays a large number of pseudoscientific features that throw into doubt its overall credibility.     

Congruent patterns of lineage diversity in two species complexes of planktonic crustaceans,Daphnia longispina (Cladocera) and Eucyclops serrulatus (Copepoda), in East European mountain lakes

Cladocerans and copepods are globally important freshwater zooplankton groups, differing in reproductive modes and dispersal abilities. We compared genetic variation of two common taxa of these crustaceans, the Daphnia longispina species complex (known to harbour multiple cryptic lineages) and Eucyclops serrulatus (morphologically and ecologically variable morphospecies), in lakes of ten Eastern European mountain ranges. We expected to discover cryptic lineages in both groups, and to observe different geographical patterns of diversity because of differences in life cycles. Within E. serrulatus, limited sampling through lowland habitats indeed showed the presence of eight highly divergent clades, probably cryptic species, but most of these were not found in the studied mountain lakes. Such a pattern was congruent with the diversity of the D. longispina complex. Regional coexistence of multiple clades within respective species complexes (two in Eucyclops and three in Daphnia) was observed only in the Tatra Mountains (on the Polish?Slovak border). In all other studied mountain ranges (in the Balkans), only single lineages of Daphnia and Eucyclops, respectively, were present, showing similar intraspecific patterns and no evidence for stronger dispersal limitation in Eucyclops than in Daphnia. Our results indicate that substantial cryptic variation may be expected in seemingly widespread copepod taxa. However, detection of cryptic lineages is not a general pattern in mountain lakes, although these habitats harbour substantial genetic diversity in crustacean zooplankton. © 2012 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2012, 166 , 754–767.     

Relationship between water-soluble Ca and other elements and bitter pit occurrence in 'Idared' apples: a multivariate approach

The mineral composition of sound fruits of Idared apple and those with symptoms of bitter pit was investigated at two sites on M9 rootstock (Sites 1 and 2) and two sites on MM 106 rootstock (Sites 3 and 4). Concentrations of N, P, K, Ca and Mg were measured. Mg and Ca concentration were determined in water soluble (WS) and water-insoluble (WI) fractions. The sum of these fractions was regarded as the total concentration (T). At all four sites, Ca (WS) was significantly higher in sound fruit. Principal component analysis (PCA) of data from individual locations showed that the first PCA component accounted for a high proportion of total variance (85% and 70% for Sites 1 and 2 and 70% and 69% for Sites 3 and 4, respectively). Projections of the samples into the planes of the first two PCA components revealed exact classification of the bitter pit status for all samples. The projections revealed that the first PCA component was essential for classification of the status. Determination of the distribution of components of the first PCA indicated that deficiency of water soluble Ca was the most significant factor related to development of bitter pit in ‘Idared’ apples.     

Cranial distinctiveness in the Apennine brown bear: genetic drift effect or ecophenotypic adaptation?

Molecular studies highlighted a strong genetic affinity between the remnant and isolated population of the Apennine brown bear and other southern European populations. Despite this genetic closeness a recent morphometric study revealed a marked phenotypic distinctiveness of the Apennine population, supporting the reinstatement of a distinct taxon (Ursus arctos marsicanus). By building upon previous morphological analyses, we adopted geometric morphometrics to better investigate the skull morphology of the Apennine brown bear with reference to the other, closely related southern European populations. Both skull shape and size differences confirmed the strong divergence of U. arctos marsicanus. In particular, the Apennine bears are characterized by an enlargement of the supraorbital apophysis and a larger distance across the zygomatic arches. Furthermore, our analyses highlighted significant shape differences of the first upper molar in the Apennine bears. Our results suggest that the Apennine bears underwent a rapid morphological change, possibly driven by genetic drift and local selective pressures. Because the greatest morphological differentiation is likely to be related to the muscles involved in mastication, we hypothesize that local selective pressures might be related to a shift in food habits, with highly reduced depredation and feeding on large carcasses in favour of vegetation and hard mast (beech nuts and acorns). These results suggest an adaptive distinctiveness of the Apennine bears, which should be carefully considered in any management and conservation action addressed to this highly endangered population. Although more in‐depth molecular studies are required to better assess the taxonomic and genetic status of the Apennine brown bear population, our study emphasizes the importance of morphological analyses as a complementary tool for a more thorough characterization of variation and divergence in endangered taxa. © 2012 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2012, ?? , ??–??.