Nomenclature and syntaxonomic notes on some high-rank syntaxa of the European grassland vegetation

We present descriptions of a new order (Ranunculo cortusifolii-Geranietalia reuteri and of a new alliance (Stachyo lusitanicae-Cheirolophion sempervirentis) for the herbaceous fringe communities of Macaronesia and of the southwestern Iberian Peninsula, respectively. A new alliance, the Polygalo mediterraneae-Bromion erecti (mesophilous post-cultural grasslands), was introduced for the Peninsular Italy. We further validate and typify the Armerietalia rumelicae (perennial grasslands supported by nutrient-poor on siliceous bedrocks at altitudes characterized by the submediterranean climate of central-southern Balkan Peninsula), the Securigero-Dasypyrion villosae (lawn and fallow-land tall-grass annual vegetation of Italy), and the Cirsio vallis-demoni-Nardion (acidophilous grasslands on siliceous substrates of the Southern Italy). Nomenclatural issues (validity, legitimacy, synonymy, formal corrections) have been discussed and clarified for the following names: Brachypodio-Brometalia, Bromo pannonici-Festucion csikhegyensis, Corynephoro-Plantaginion radicatae, Heleochloion, Hieracio-Plantaginion radicatae, Nardetea strictae, Nardetalia strictae, Nardo-Callunetea, Nardo-Galion saxatilis, Oligo-Bromion, Paspalo-Heleochloetalia, Plantagini-Corynephorion and Scorzoneret alia villosae. 

Co-evaluation as a strategy to improve working group dynamics: an experience in Sport Sciences

The aim of this study was to analyze if the perceptions of students before and after carrying out the work, that is, their perception of different aspects of the functioning of the group, the working skills acquired as well as those they think that need to be improved, varied depending on whether the contribution of the different members of the group was being co-evaluated or not. 144 students of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences participated in this study. In order to analyze the students' perception of group work the adapted questionnaire by Bourne et al. (2001) was used. Results showed that groups which implemented co-evaluation assessed more negatively the experience in general than those which did not. However, co-evaluation groups perceived their competence to work as a team had improved to a greater extent than the groups without co-evaluation, evaluating more positively both the performance and the result of work and increasing their knowledge of the other team members. Using a co-evaluation system seems to generate both a better assessment of the running of the team and the result of its work.