A fossilFuchsia(Onagraceae) flower and an anther mass with in situ pollen from the early Miocene of New Zealand

2013 ◽  
Vol 100 (10) ◽  
pp. 2052-2065 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daphne E. Lee ◽  
John G. Conran ◽  
Jennifer M. Bannister ◽  
Uwe Kaulfuss ◽  
Dallas C. Mildenhall
Keyword(s):  
2010 ◽  
Vol 162 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
John G. Conran ◽  
Uwe Kaulfuss ◽  
Jennifer M. Bannister ◽  
Dallas C. Mildenhall ◽  
Daphne E. Lee

The Auk ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 126 (3) ◽  
pp. 649-656 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor H. Worthy ◽  
Suzanne J. Hand ◽  
Jennifer P. Worthy ◽  
Alan J. D. Tennyson ◽  
R. Paul Scofield
Keyword(s):  

2012 ◽  
Vol 92-93 ◽  
pp. 52-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenichi Fukuda ◽  
Daniel B. Thomas ◽  
Russell D. Frew ◽  
R. Ewan Fordyce
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Dew ◽  
L Signal ◽  
J Stairmand ◽  
A Simpson ◽  
D Sarfati

© The Author(s) 2018. This study identified ways in which patients and medical specialists negotiated decisions about cancer treatment by observing decision-making discussion in situ. Audio-recordings of cancer care consultations with 18 patients, their support people, and their medical specialists, including medical oncologists, radiation oncologists and surgeons were collected in different regions of New Zealand. Patients were followed up with interviews and specialists provided consultation debriefings. The interpretation of the data drew on the concepts of epistemic and deontic rights to argue that in complex consultations, such as occur in cancer care, we need to reconsider the simple dichotomy of preferred consultations styles as paternalistic or based on shared decision-making. Decision-making is a dynamic process with specialists and patients linked into networks that impact on decision-making and where rights to knowledge and rights to decision-making are interactionally negotiated. The level of information and understanding that patients desire to exercise rights needs to be reconsidered.


2007 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 565-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daphne E. Lee ◽  
Jennifer M. Bannister ◽  
Jon K. Lindqvist

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 525-541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daphne E. Lee ◽  
Uwe Kaulfuss ◽  
John G. Conran ◽  
Jennifer M. Bannister ◽  
Jon K. Lindqvist
Keyword(s):  

1996 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penny D. Olsen

SummaryThe Norfolk Island Boobook Ninox novaeseelandiae undulata is confined to the small, isolated Norfolk Island group, an Australian territory. On morphological and biogeographical grounds, it is here classified as a large, distinctive subspecies of the New Zealand Morepork N. novaeseelandiae. In 1986 only one specimen, a female, survived. A shortage of large trees with suitable nesting holes appeared to be the immediate problem. The Australian Nature Conservation Agency, islanders and New Zealand wildlife authorities have cooperated in an attempt to re-establish an owl population in situ. Nest-boxes were erected in trees in the area frequented by the female and were used readily as roosts. In September 1987, two male New Zealand Moreporks were introduced. The female paired with one male and produced four hybrid F offspring (in 1989 and 1990). Two of these paired in mid-1991 and have since produced five F offspring (two in 1993 and three in 1994). The original female remains paired but now appears to be reproductively senile. At present there seems to be a shortage of mature males, since two female offspring are paired and both lay eggs and attempt to incubate them in the same nest; and a lone female has established a territory. In early 1995 all eleven owls appeared to be alive in the wild. The effort is low-cost, requires relatively little manpower, is carried out with minimal disturbance to the owls, and goes hand in hand with other conservation programmes.


2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 423-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen K. Mather ◽  
Alan J. D. Tennyson ◽  
R. Paul Scofield ◽  
Vanesa L. De Pietri ◽  
Suzanne J. Hand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document