SummaryWe present the results of searches for the Austral Rail Rallus antarcticus in Argentine and Chilean Patagonia between January 1998 and February 2006 and from subsequent visits. We surveyed 58 localities and found the rail in 22, which collectively cover approximately 85 km2 of habitat. A maximum of 175 individuals were detected. This poorly known species was rediscovered in 1998; since then, it has been found in 18 additional localities, providing further data on distribution, habitat and seasonal movements. During the searches, we found that the species faces different threats, such as reduction of wetlands due to cattle grazing, burning and abnormal water management, but also the presence of American mink Neovison vison. However, due to the lack of prior information we conclude that the species should be maintained as Vulnerable.

No abstract

No abstract

Many yeasts can aerobically catabolize exogenously supplied glycosides that are hydrolysed in the cytosol, but few do so anaerobically. This is so, even for yeasts that use one or more of the component hexoses anaerobically. The phenomenon, called the Kluyver effect, appears to be brought about by a combination of the following four factors: (i) fast transport of the glycosides into the cells involves proton symport and seems to require aerobiosis, so, under anaerobic conditions, the glycosides enter the cells much more slowly. This is probably because there is less ATP produced anaerobically than aerobically and, consequently, insufficient to supply the proton pump optimally, which is necessary to maintain proton symport; (ii) in addition, anaerobically, the transport carrier may have a lower substrate affinity; (iii) glycosidases generally have low substrate affinities; and (iv) the consequence of (i), (ii) and (iii) is a lowering of glycolytic flux and this deactivates pyruvate decarboxylase.

Peer review is a widely accepted instrument for raising the quality of science. Peer review limits the enormous unstructured influx of information and the sheer amount of dubious data, which in its absence would plunge science into chaos. In particular, peer review offers the benefit of eliminating papers that suffer from poor craftsmanship or methodological shortcomings, especially in the experimental sciences. However, we believe that peer review is not always appropriate for the evaluation of controversial hypothetical science. We argue that the process of peer review can be prone to bias towards ideas that affirm the prior convictions of reviewers and against innovation and radical new ideas. Innovative hypotheses are thus highly vulnerable to being "filtered out" or made to accord with conventional wisdom by the peer review process. Consequently, having introduced peer review, the Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses may be unable to continue its tradition as a radical journal allowing discussion of improbable or unconventional ideas. Hence we conclude by asking the publisher to consider re-introducing the system of editorial review to Medical Hypotheses.