Australia’s largest land predator, the dingo Canis dingo, is
<

Australia’s largest land predator, the dingo Canis dingo, is

a controversial taxon that is threatened by hybridization. Since their arrival smaller than 5000 yBP (years Before Present) dingoes have been subject to isolation, leading to them becoming a unique canid. GDC-0068 in vitro However, the dingo’s taxonomic status is clouded by hybridization with modern domesticated dogs and confusion about how to distinguish pure’ dingoes from dingo-dog hybrids. Confusion exists because there is no description or series of original specimens against which the identities of putative hybrid and pure’ dingoes can be assessed. Current methods to classify dingoes have poor discriminatory abilities because natural variation within dingoes Y 27632 is poorly understood, and it is unknown if hybridization may have altered the genome of post-19th century reference specimens. Here we provide a description of the dingo based on pre-20th century specimens that are unlikely to have been influenced by hybridization. The dingo differs from the domestic dog by relatively larger palatal width, relatively longer rostrum, relatively shorter

skull height and relatively wider top ridge of skull. A sample of 19th century dingo skins we examined suggests that there was considerable variability in the colour of dingoes and included various combinations of yellow, white, ginger and darker variations from tan to black. Although it remains difficult to provide consistent and clear diagnostic

features, our study places morphological limits on what can be considered a dingo.”
“Context: Urine specific gravity (U-sg), measured by a handheld manual refractometer (MAN), has been recognized as a valid and practical means of assessing hydration status. Newer, digital refractometers are faster and more user friendly but have not been validated against the traditional MAN. Objective: Bafilomycin A1 order To compare the reliability and validity of 2 digital refractometer models and a MAN. Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Setting: Research laboratory. Patients or Other Participants: Sample of convenience was recruited from the local university and surrounding community (n = 82). Intervention(s): Participants provided multiple urine samples (n = 124) over a 5-month period under various hydration conditions. Main Outcome Measure(s): Urine specific gravity was compared among a MAN, a digital refractometer requiring the prism to be dipped (DIP) into a urine sample, and a digital refractometer that requires urine to be pipetted (PIP) onto its prism for analysis. Results: The MAN measurements were strongly correlated with the DIP (r = 0.99, P smaller than .001) and PIP (r = 0.97, P smaller than .001) measurements. Bland-Altman analyses revealed slight mean underestimation (95% upper and lower levels of agreement) between MAN and DIP (-0.0012 [0.

Comments are closed.