Distribution and abundance of Pale-bellied Brent Geese and Wigeon on Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland

Strangford Lough, County Down holds internationally important numbers of wintering Pale-bellied Brent Geese Branta bernicla hrota with peak counts of up to 16 000. In the past, the Lough was also important for overwintering Wigeon Anas penelope with peak counts up to 20 000 in the early 1970s. However, this population has declined drastically with winter peaks at fewer than 2000 since the mid-1980s. As the overall flyway numbers of Wigeon have not fallen over this period, it has been suggested that the reasons for the decline are intrinsic to Strangford Lough. Wigeon did not decline uniformly throughout Strangford Lough. The greatest fall in numbers occurred on the northern mudflats suggesting a decline in carrying capacity. Factors responsible for this decline may include the reduction of Eelgrass Zostera spp. which is the main food of both species, and increases in human activity near and on the foreshore, especially in the case of Wigeon. Indirect interspecific interactions between Brent Geese and Wigeon are discussed as they may have been significant in reducing the numbers of Wigeon in the system.

Quality of food consumed by over wintering pale-bellied Brent geese Branta bernicla hrota and wigeon Anas penelope

The seasonal selection of food by pale-bellied Brent geese and wigeon on Strangford Lough was analysed with respect to nutritive quality. Both species selected food plants to maximise nutrition. In wigeon, food selection may also have been affected by the intolerance of this species to disturbance, forcing many individuals to feed in secondary habitats. Minerals do not seem to affect food selection, with most plant species in the diet providing a sufficiently balanced complement of nutrients. It is concluded that interspecific differences in food selection and reaction to human disturbance may have contributed to the decline in numbers of wigeon in Strangford Lough while numbers of Brent geese have been maintained. Some implications are discussed and recommendations for management are proposed.

An ultrastructural study of carcinoid tumor of the iris

An iris tumor developed in a 37-year-old woman who had had a bronchial carcinoid tumor resected nine years previously. The iris tumor was locally excised with a modified trabeculectomy approach. Histologic studies showed it to be a metastatic carcinoid tumor. Electron microscopy demonstrated typical dark and pale carcinoid cells with neurosecretory granules, basal bodies, and apical microvilli. The cisternae of the granular endoplasmic reticulum were disposed in a series of concentric rings encapsulating a central core of mitochondria. This unusual type of subcellular organization and specialization is probably a reflection of the slow-growing and highly differentiated nature of the iris tumor.

The Kremlin's Scholar. A Memoir of Soviet Politics under Stalin and Khrushchev

The memoirs are dominated by two grand figures of Soviet history, Stalin and Khrushchev. The account of Stalin is riddled with ambiguities. There is an undoubted personal admiration for Stalin, his intellectual and political capacity (Stalin allegedly read 300 pages per day), his simplicity in daily life seen in "an old tunic, patched-up socks, almost constant isolation" (p. 190). At the same time, Shepilov acknowledged the paranoid aspects of Stalin's personality, especially towards the end of his life. Stalin's mechanisms of power are illustrated by Shepilov's account of work on a new book on political economy. Stalin personally chose key people for important tasks and controlled them at key junctures to ensure the desired outcome. In this light, Shepilov's claims that the Great Purges of the late 1930s could have been outside of Stalin's immediate control seem implausible, to say the least (p. 41).

All Stalin's deficiencies, however, pale in comparison with those of Khrushchev, the bête noire of Shepilov's memoirs. There is plenty of criticism of Khrushchev's policies, particularly in agriculture and foreign affairs. What comes across most pungently is, however, Shepilov's disdain of Khrushchev's personality and leadership style. In this respect, the book is unashamedly biased and remarkable for its omissions as much as for its revelations.