No abstract

While employed as Tertiary paleontologist to the Geological Survey of Texas during the years 1892 and 1893, the writer prepared a large monograph on the Tertiary mollusca of the State with the intention of publishing it in the 5th Annual Report of that Survey. For want of funds the printing of this report has been indefinitely postponed, and accordingly the following facts and descriptions of new species, taken from the monograph in question, have here found an appropriate place for publication. The points in stratigraphy brought out by the study of the various Tertiary faunas of the State have been included with other matter in an article published by the State Geologist in the Journal of Geology, 1894, p. 549. Suffice it to say here that the Midway stage, so well developed in Georgia and Alabama and known also in Mississippi and Arkansas, exists also in Texas, as is proved by the occurrence of such species as Enclimatoceras ulric-hi, Ostrea pulaskensis, Cucullcea macrodonta, Volutilithes limopsis and others. The Lignitic stage, so far as has been observed, is destitute of molluscan remains. The exposure on Brazos River, known as "Smiley's Bluff," two miles above the mouth of Pond Creek, is evidently about synchronous with the Matthews Landing beds of Alabama. These are now included in the Midway stage. The Lower Claiborue beds are replete with fossils, many of which are common to this horizon in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina. Besides these well-known forms there are many new ones, some of which are described below. The true Claiborne, the Jackson, and the Vicksburg stages seem to have no representatives in Texas. This fact cannot be too strongly emphasized since most writers on Texas geology have referred certain fossil bearing outcrops to some of these upper Eocene stages.

Harris-Eocene Deposits qf ]-lal'yland and Vi'l'gbda. 301 ART. XXIX.-Vn tM Geological Position qf the Eocene IJeposits qf Maryland and Vil'yin-ia,. by GILBERT D. HARRIS. IN the spring of 1830,* T. A. Oonrad made a visit to the western shore of Maryland for the purpose of collecting fossil remains and observing the geological features of the region. He discovered in the vicinity of Ft. Washington beds that he correlated with the London Olay of England since they contained among other extinct species Venerical'dia planicosta of Lamarck. A few years lateJ•t he called attention to the resemblance of UUc'ltZZ(l3a gigantea of this locality to a European species, and noted the similarity of Ost1'ea compressirost'l'a and the European Osireu bellnvacina. In the same work he described many new species from Olaiborne, Alabama, mentioned others from Vallce's Ferry. South Oarolina, and classified Maryland, Alabama, and South Oarolina deposits alike as " Middle Tertiary or London OhW and Oalcaire Gl'Ossier. " The Rogers in 1839:1: difIet'entiated this series from the overlying Miocene and underlying Oretaceous in Virginia and correctly referred it to an Eocene horizon and described several of its characteristic species. Oonrad, in the Proceedings of the National Institution, 1841, § mentioned many Eocene localities in the Gulf and Atlantic slope States and pointed out the resemblance of the Upper Marlboro rocks of Mat'yland to those of Bangor, England, Ost1'ea bellovaai7la he affirmed was found at either locality. Up to this time, no stl'ess had been laid on the stratigraphic position of the \'arious Eocene outcrops in America; to know that they were Eocene was all sufficing. In 1855, however, Oonradll established three subdivisions in the Alabama and Mississippi deposits of this series, naming them in descending order, the Vicksburg, Jackson and Olaiborne groups. In 1865 he instituted another, the I_ignite Formation, ~r wherein he seemingly dedil'ed to include beds lying between the" Buhr-stone~" as described by Tnomey, and the Oretaceous. To this formation he refelTed the dark colot'ed friable clays of Piscataway Oreek and the basal bed of Tuomey's section on Bashia Creek, Olark 00., Alabama; but the" Marlboro rock" to nse

The debate over the appropriateness of the term 'patient' within modern medical practice Does the term patient conjure notions of passivity and unequal relationships6 or does it reflect a 'partnership built on mutual trust, openness and respect"? Several alternatives to the term patient have been discussed, including 'client', 'consumer' and 'health service user'.6 In turn these have been questioned with regards to their likelihood of attracting 'less adverse connotations' than patients and for Their potential for bringing about improvements in the attitudes of health care worker^.^ A seemingly major, yet relatively silent, voice in the debate so far is that of the public.A previous study surveyed people attending outpatients departments of a university teaching hospital.' Of the 307 responses, 83% of men and 88% of women preferred the term patient. This survey extends those earlier findings by surveying a random community sample for their preferred title.Ethics approval was granted by the University of Newcastle Human Ethics Research Committee. A questionnaire was sent in July 1999 to 400 people randomly selected from the state electoral roll of New South Wales. The electorates correspond to the catchment area of the university teaching hospital used as a recruitment site in the previous study,' and contain both rural and urban districts. Non-responders were followed up with a second questionnaire two weeks later.Participants were asked their preference of patient, client, customer or another title and space was provided for comments. Presentation of patient and client as the first option were alternated to avoid bias.Frequencies of title preference were calculated. Those respondents indicating that title was dependent on the type of service sought were coded as other.A total of 214 surveys was received; 14 surveys could not be delivered (return to sender), one participant had died and one person declined participation. A response rate of 56% was achieved (214/385).Most of the respondents (6 1 %) were female. The age distribution of respondents was 3% aged under 20 years, 27% aged 21-40 years, 39% aged 41-60 years and 3 1 % were older than 60 years.Patient was nominated as the preferred term by 86% of the respondents (Figure l), including 83% of men and 88% of women. Preferences for title were not significantly associated with age or sex (p0.05).Participants' comments on the questionnaire indicated that the term patient was deemed to be more appropriate for a number of reasons: 'patient traditionally relates to all health matters' (~13); it has a care component to it (n=4)

No abstract