Tokyo Congress Research Articles

(170–174) Proposal to revise Article 10.2, and some further implications

(170–174) Proposal to revise Article 10.2, and some further implications

Bariatric/Metabolic Surgery in the Asia-Pacific Region: APMBSS 2018 Survey.

The Asia-Pacific Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Society (APMBSS) held its congress in Tokyo at the end of March, 2018, and representatives from Asia-Pacific countries presented the current status of bariatric/metabolic surgery in the "National Reports" session. The data are summarized here to show the current status and problems in the Asia-Pacific region in 2017. A questionnaire including data of 2016 and 2017 and consisting of eight general questions was prepared and sent to representatives in 18 Asia-Pacific countries by e-mail before the congress. After the congress, the data were analyzed and summarized. Seventeen of 18 countries responded to the survey. The frequency of obesity (BMI ≥ 30) in the 4 Gulf countries was > 30%, much higher than that in the other countries. In total, 1640 surgeons and 869 institutions were engaging in bariatric/metabolic surgery. In many East and Southeast Asian countries, the indication for bariatric surgery was BMI ≥ 35 or ≥ 37, whereas in many Gulf countries and Australia, it was BMI ≥ 40 or ≥ 35 with obesity-related disease. Ten of the 17 countries (58.8%) but only one of the 5 Southeast Asian countries (20.0%) had public health insurance coverage for bariatric surgery. In 2017, 95,125 patients underwent bariatric/metabolic surgery, with sleeve gastrectomy accounting for 68.0%, bypass surgery for 19.5%, and others for 12.5%. Current problems included public insurance coverage, training system, national registry, and lack of awareness and comprehension. This summary showed that bariatric/metabolic surgery is rapidly developing along with various problems in Asia-Pacific countries.

Xylem executives participate in IWA World Water Congress in Tokyo

A number of Xylem executives took part in industry discussions during the IWA World Water Congress & Exhibition which was held in Tokyo, Japan from 16–21 September 2018.

Xylem executives participate in IWA World Water Congress in Tokyo

A number of Xylem executives took part in industry discussions during the IWA World Water Congress & Exhibition which was held in Tokyo, Japan from 16–21 September 2018.

55.2/2017

55.2/2017 Liz Page (bio) IBBY-Asahi Reading Promotion Award 2016 Introduction by Angela Lebedeva It is a great honor and a pleasure for me to present the winners of the 2016 IBBY-Asahi Reading Promotion Award. This Award was founded in 1986 in commemoration of the 20th IBBY Congress in Tokyo, and it is made possible by sponsorship by the Asahi Shimbun Japanese newspaper company. For the last thirty years, the Award has been presented to outstanding activities by groups or institutions around the world that have been judged to be making a lasting contribution to reading promotion programs for children and young people. For the 2016 Award, we received eleven submissions from fourteen IBBY National Sections: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Iran, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, France, and Germany. The Jury, selected from the members of the current IBBY Executive Committee, judge every nominated project very strictly based on the following criteria: • How well does the project support IBBY’s Mission Statement? • Is there existing or possible support for the project from other funding sources? • Has the project been in existence for at least two years prior to its nomination? Is the project sustainable? Does it provide a framework for growth? • What is the impact of the project? Does it reach its stated target audience? • Is the project original and innovative? • Can the project provide a model for others? Is it easily replicated? Are any printed materials available, and are they of high literary quality? • Can the results of the project be evaluated? I would like to express my very special gratitude to my colleagues of the 2016 IBBY-Asahi Reading Promotion Award Jury: Evelyn Freeman (USA), Sunjidmaa Jamba (Mongolia), Vagn Plenge (Denmark), Serpil Ural (Turkey), and Timotea Vrablova (Slovakia). You worked hard and honestly to make a choice, and I am proud to be a member of this fine team with you. Thank you. This Award is unique, prestigious, independent, and the only international award that supports concrete projects in the sphere of children’s reading [End Page 74] promotion. Today, the world is a very disturbing and changeable place, and our children need protection of their rights, including the right to read, as never before. This Award represents the goal and tasks of our organization—the spirit of IBBY—connecting children and books in often very difficult and different situations, including hot spots of military conflicts and in regions facing a huge influx of refugees. It was a pleasure for me to announce the winners in April 2016 at the Bologna Children’s Book Fair, and now it is a very special feeling and a historic moment because the winners are among us and they are waiting for me to invite to the stage and tell you in their own words about their wonderful work. The 2016 IBBY-Asahi Reading Promotion Awards are given to the following two projects: Read with Me, Iran; and Big Brother Mouse, Laos. Read with Me was nominated by IBBY Iran, and Big Brother Mouse was nominated by IBBY Switzerland and endorsed by the IBBY sections of Denmark, France, and Germany. Warm congratulations to these two winning projects and to all the people who work for them! Many thanks to the IBBY National Sections for their nominations, and I would especially like to thank again the Asahi Shimbun, our generous long-time sponsor of this valuable award. Thank you. Angela Lebedeva President of the 2016 IBBY-Asahi Reading Promotion Award Auckland, 18 August 2016 Acceptance Speech: Big Brother Mouse, Laos Click for larger view View full resolution Big Brother Mouse, Laos: Kamala Panyasouk, Siphone Wuttisaky, Fusako Go, and Angela Lebedeva (photo by Doris Breitmoser) It is an honor to receive this award along with Read with Me from Iran. Big Brother Mouse is ten years old this summer. Most of that time, we have just tried to do the best job we can in Laos. Our job is to make books that children are eager to read and then give them opportunities to read. That keeps us very busy. We put some pictures on Facebook but do not do much [End Page 75] other publicity. So that...

Invasive species and Pacific island bird conservation: a selective review of recent research featuring case studies of Swinhoe’s storm petrel and the Okinawa and Guam rail

Nowhere are the negative impacts of invasive species, such as ecosystem modification, predation, parasitism, and disease, more apparent than in the Pacific islands, where human contact triggered a massive avian extinction event that is still ongoing. Island bird species are inherently vulnerable to extinction due to their small, isolated populations and lack of evolved defenses against many predators. To prevent further extinctions, effective bird conservation strategies must be implemented to mitigate invasive species’ impacts, which often interact synergistically and collectively comprise some of the greatest threats to global biodiversity. At the 2014 International Ornithological Congress in Tokyo, Japan, researchers convened a symposium to address research and management of invasive species to benefit Pacific island bird conservation. Speakers presented research and conservation efforts from Japan, Korea, Guam, the Galapagos, and New Zealand, highlighting novel, poorly known threats to birds (e.g., mortality from invasive plant entanglement and invasive nest parasites) and providing updates on ongoing efforts to prevent island endemic species extinctions driven by invasive predators. In this paper we provide new details of research and conservation efforts on Swinhoe’s storm petrel (Oceanodroma monhris), the Okinawa rail (Gallirallus okinawae), and the Guam rail (G. owstoni), and put this research in context by briefly reviewing and synthesizing other relevant, recent studies on impacts of invasive species as they affect Pacific island bird conservation. We conclude by highlighting successful management strategies, recommending improvements for ongoing conservation efforts, and suggesting directions for future research.

Guidelines for proposals to conserve or reject names

Introduction Since its initiation in 1951, Taxon has become the medium for the publication of proposals of “nomina conservanda” and, since 1975, of “nomina utique rejicienda” under Art. 14 and Art. 56, respectively, of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Melbourne Code) (ICN, McNeill & al Regnum Veg. 154. 2012). Publication in Taxon constitutes the submission to the General Committee required under Art. 14.12 and 56.2. The first formal guidelines for the preparation of such proposals appeared in 1994 (Nicolson & Greuter in Taxon 43: 109–113. 1994); these were most recently updated by McNeill & al. in Taxon 61: 248–251. 2012, and the following represents a further update reflecting the publication of the Melbourne Code and its Appendices (Wiersema & al. in Regnum Veg. 157. 2015). At the request of its Nomenclature Section, the Tokyo Congress in 1993 urged “plant taxonomists ... to avoid displacing well-established names for purely nomenclatural reasons”. This, and an instruction by the Section that the Permanent Nomenclature Committees “make full use of the options that the Code now provides”, emerged from the very substantial broadening of the scope for conservation and rejection of names that was adopted at that Congress. The prime criterion for conservation and rejection of names is the avoidance of “disadvantageous nomenclatural change” (Art. 14.1, 56.1). Botanists should, therefore, explore the possibility of conservation or rejection of names before introducing any such nomenclatural change (see “Deciding to make a proposal”, below).

Review: Metabolism: The City of the Future

Metabolism: The City of the Future . Mori Art Museum, Tokyo. 17 September 2011–15 January 2012. Today we often regard Japan’s Metabolists as young dreamers proffering technologically advanced, audaciously overscaled schemes. A show at the Mori Art Museum in Tokyo—the first retrospective dedicated to the group—underscored instead Metabolism’s ideological origins and, more importantly, unearthed a treasure trove of artifacts. The exhibition opened with a single image: a 1953 photograph of Kenzo Tange’s celebrated central structure at Hiroshima’s Peace Park. The Metabolists’ debut was still seven years away, via a booklet distributed at the 1960 World Design Congress in Tokyo that featured four architects—Masato Otaka, Kiyonori Kikutake, Fumihiko Maki, and Kisho Kurokawa—and others from related disciplines: author and editor Noboru Kawazoe, industrial designer Genji Ekuan, and graphic designer Kyoshi Awazu.1 Adjacent Japanese and English wall text used to isolate this image argued that Tange, though not a member of the movement, was its progenitor; the point was then followed by additional photographs of Peace Park interspersed with rarely seen construction and presentation documents from the Tange office, many now held by Harvard’s Frances Loeb Library. A public housing complex designed by Masato Otaka, built on an adjacent plot, was served up subsequently on the same wall. The Mori exhibition thus presented its first Metabolist with a subtlety that was untypical of the movement itself, via a grouping of residential towers overshadowed by Tange’s masterwork—an unappreciated complex not completed until the 1970s, designed by the only Metabolist architect who was more interested in Japan’s proletariat and never established an international reputation. The opposite wall of this opening gallery offered a historical preamble to the exhibition: on a panel some 45 feet long, a timeline tracked Japan’s population and economic growth from 1905 through 1960. Set against the data were computer animations, reproductions of photographs, and recently built models related to a period long ignored in polite circles: …

Special Issue on ^|^ldquo;Geography in the World^|^rdquo; for the IGU (International Geographical Union) Kyoto Regional Conference 2013

From August 4th to 9th 2013, the “IGU Kyoto Regional Conference 2013,” (hereafter “Kyoto Conference”), will be held at the Kyoto International Conference Center in Kyoto. With the IGU as the parent organization, more than 1,000 researchers and graduate students from all over the world are expected to participate. A research conference of this size for geographers has not been held in Japan for 33 years since the 24th International Geographical Congress in Tokyo in 1980. It was decided at the IGU General Assembly held in Tunis in August 2008 to hold the regional conference in Kyoto. Organized by the National Committee of Japan for the IGU, the Science Council of Japan has been added as a joint sponsoring organization. In August 2010, the Organizing Committee of the IGU Kyoto Regional Conference 2013, which plays a major role in promoting preparatory activities, was inaugurated. The Tokyo Geographical Society is also participating in planning as a joint sponsoring organization, carrying out preparatory activities and providing financial support. The main theme of the Kyoto Conference is “Traditional Wisdom and Modern Knowledge for the Earth’s Future.” Regarding the main subject, according to the Organizing Committee, more than 1,000 research presentations are expected to be given on geography from a cultural perspective on the dynamics of economic spaces, global transformation and population flows, geographic information science (GIS), biodiversity, natural disasters, land use/land cover change (LUCC), land degradation and desertification, sustainable agricultural systems, geo-parks, geography education, the Geography Olympiad, water sustainability, and others. In addition to general research presentations, a diverse program of special lectures, commissioned sessions, academic exhibitions, corporate exhibitions, excursions, and field trips, as well as public citizen lectures are being prepared. In April 2013 a special postage stamp will also be issued.

Marine and estuarine reserves in Australia with particular reference to New South Wales.

A gradual realization throughout the world that the resources of the oceans and estuaries are becoming more affected by the impacts of man, has highlighted an urgent need for the reservation of representation areas of marine and estuarine ecosystems. This idea of marine parks and reserves as a logical extension of the terrestrial park concept into the underwater realm, seems, like that of terrestrial national parks, to have flowered originally in the USA. The concept was given impetus by the first World Conference on National Parks held in Seattle in 1962 which “recognized that the oceans and their life are subject to the same dangers of human interference and destruction as the land, and encouraged that the governments of all countries with marine frontiers examine, as a matter of urgency, the possibility of creating marine parks and reserves”. (Randall 1971). Further impetus was given to the concept by a special symposium on marine parks held at the Eleventh Pacific Science Congress in Tokyo in 1966 and the International Conference on Marine Parks and Reserves, also held in Tokyo, in 1975.

The WFN comes of age

The WFN comes of age

(180–181) Report of the Special Committee on Electronic Publishing with two proposals to amend the Code

At the XVI International Botanical Congress in St. Louis in 1999, a Special Committee on Electronic Publishing was re-established (Barrie & Nicolson in Taxon 50: 893-896. 2001) with a charge to report to the XVII International Botanical Congress in Vienna in 2005 on the impact of electronic publishing on the Code. This followed approval of Gen. Prop. A, which authorized continuation of the Electronic Publications Committee established at the Tokyo Congress (Englera 20: 17-18. 2000). The convener was K. Wilson (NSW, Australia), the secretary R. Zander (MO, U.S.A.), with J. McNeill (E, U.K.), Rapporteur-general, and F. Barrie (F, U.S.A.), Secretary of the General Committee, as ex officio members. Committee members (additional to the convener and secretary, and restricted to those actually voting) were B. Baum (DAO, Canada); A. Chapman (CRIA, Campinas, SP, Brazil); M. Crosby (MO, U.S.A.); T. Daniel (CAS, U.S.A.); E. Farr (US, U.S.A.); N. Hind (K, U.K); V. Hollowell (MO, U.S.A.); P. Kirk (IMI, U.K.); J. Kirkbride (USDA U.S.A.); P.-A. Loizeau (G, Switzerland); R. Moe (UC, U.S.A.); A. Orchard (A.B.R.S., Canberra, Australia); P. Philipson (RUH, South Africa); D. Triebel (M, Germany); and J. Zarucchi (MO, U.S.A.). The acronyms are the herbarium abbreviations from Index Herbariorum (http://www.nybg.org/bsci/ih/ih. html). The Report of the previous Committee (Zander & Wilson in Taxon 47: 175-177. 1998) to the St. Louis Congress examined, among others, the following important questions: 1. How can an electronic publication be archived in a form that will remain readable by future hardware and software?

Report on the status of proposals, published until May 1999, to conserve and/or reject names or to oppress works

The previous status report (Taxon 42: 435-446. 1993) appeared shortly before the Tokyo Congress. Although earlier such reports had been taken care of by the Rapporteurs, I agreed, then and now, to compile it from records kept as editor of the Nomenclature Column of and as Secretary of the General Committee. The previous report accounted for 190 new proposals, up to No. 1060; this report accounts for 356 additional proposals, up to No. 1416, almost a doubling! The Nomenclature Section of the XV International Congress, Yokohama 1993, sanctioned all approvals, by the General Committee, of proposals for conservation or rejection (see Englera 14: 253. 1994), including some that were decided during the Congress that were not published until afterwards (in 43: 279-281. 1994). The numbers of these proposals, for which the entries already appear in the Toyko Code, are placed between square brackets ([]). The tabular overview lists all proposals on which General Committee action was not completed at the time of the previous report, as well as all subsequent proposals published by May All cited publications are in Taxon, for which the volume number is 1951 years short of the year of publication, so that a reference such as 48:129 can be read as Taxon 48: 129. 1999. In the columns relating the recommendations of the permanent committees for the relevant taxonomic groups (Rec. Sp. C.) and the actions by the General Committee (Act. G. C.), a plus sign (+) means that the proposal was recommended / approved; a minus sign (-) means that it was not recommended / refused; a plus-minus sign (?) means that the Committee failed making a recommendation or postponed action (a 60 % majority of Committee members, for or against a proposal, being now required to make a recommendation or take action: see 45: 526. 1996); the letter w stands for: withdrawn by the proposer. The Berlin Congress asked for a Committee to report on the typification of Linnaean generic names affected by the current anathemisation of types designated by members of the Brittonian school (see Art. 10, voted Ex. 6). The report by Jarvis & al. (in 41: 552-583. 1992), recommending type stabilisation by conservation of 72 such names, was not brought up at the 1993 Congress and defaulted to the General Committee which asked the pertinent Permanent Committees for recommendations, which all made. However, one Committee recommended all proposals indiscriminately, with few specific exceptions, although a large majority of them are technically unnecessary, and action by the General Committee on these was therefore deferred. All these unnumbered proposals have been inserted in the appropriate place in the sequence of published proposals.

(88‐95) Proposals to implement mandatory registration of new names

Nomenclature Section at the Tokyo Congress decided by a large majority, on a show of hands, to embody the principle of mandatory registration of future new names in the Code, while at the same time postponing the originally proposed starting date (1995) until after the next International Botanical Congress. details of the discussion were minuted and can be looked up in the published proceedings of the Section meetings (see Englera 14: 138-156, 168-169. 1994). principle of registration was in no way disputed, but some concern was expressed at the still unknown details of the mechanism by which it was to be implemented. Section therefore wisely decided that confirmation (at a qualified majority) by the next Congress would be required before registration could become mandatory. By this decision, the Section gave to the IAPT the mandate, accepted by its Officers, to set up a registration mechanism on a trial basis. Greuter (in Englera 14: 149) outlined some of the basic aspects that would have to be taken care of. Some main points from his statement of intent (which raised no contradiction or controversy) are quoted here for convenience: The person submitting the name for registration was unimportant: it could be the secretary or the widow of a deceased botanist, or the publisher of the journal. Hopefully the latter would become the rule... Authors would have the option of publishing either in a journal taking care of the registration procedure or in a perhaps more parochial or less botanical journal ... when registration would be the author's responsibility... There would be many [registration] offices throughout the world... On average, postal delays in developing countries would not be longer than in, e.g., the United States... IAPT felt confident that the system could be made to work. present proposals were perhaps undetailed, but not vague. In six years' time, there would be a possibility..., based on the gained experience, to add details of implementation. After careful preparations, the IAPT-sponsored trial registration phase was launched in December 1997 and is planned to last two full years (or up to such date as the next Congress may decide as the starting point for mandatory registration). So far, no serious technical problems were encountered that would justify scepticism as to the functionality of registration. response to IAPT's request for collaboration was very satisfactory. Details have been reported elsewhere and need not be repeated here (see Taxon 46: 811-814. 1997; 47: 497-502. 1998). Information on the trial phase has been published in several journals and newsletters in addition to Taxon. number of registration offices who have agreed to participate as by 1 October 1998 is 35, and 180 journals have already asked for and been granted accredited status for registration purposes. Last but not least, at the central registra-

(211‐212) Two proposals concerning the recognition of living types

TAXONVolume 47, Issue 4 p. 953-954 Proposal to Amend the Code (211-212) Two proposals concerning the recognition of living types W. Gams, W. Gams Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures, P. O. Box 273, NL-3740 AG Baam, NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorJ. A. Stalpers, J. A. Stalpers Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures, P. O. Box 273, NL-3740 AG Baam, NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorP. M. Jørgensen, P. M. Jørgensen Botanical Institute, University of Bergen, N-5007 Bergen, NorwaySearch for more papers by this authorG. J. Samuels, G. J. Samuels USDA-ARS, Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory, Beltsville, MD, 20705-2350 U.S.A.Search for more papers by this author W. Gams, W. Gams Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures, P. O. Box 273, NL-3740 AG Baam, NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorJ. A. Stalpers, J. A. Stalpers Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures, P. O. Box 273, NL-3740 AG Baam, NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorP. M. Jørgensen, P. M. Jørgensen Botanical Institute, University of Bergen, N-5007 Bergen, NorwaySearch for more papers by this authorG. J. Samuels, G. J. Samuels USDA-ARS, Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory, Beltsville, MD, 20705-2350 U.S.A.Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 November 1998 https://doi.org/10.2307/1224219Citations: 1AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume47, Issue4November 1998Pages 953-954 RelatedInformation

(62) A proposal to amend Art. 11.6 to give autonyms priority over their validly published homotypic synonyms

Prior to the Tokyo Code, little difficulty was experienced in the application of Art. 22 and 26 with respect to autonyms. Once the name of any subordinate taxon not including the of the name of the higher (principal) taxon had been validly published, an autonym was considered to have been established, and had priority over the name that established it. Whether or not the of the name of the higher taxon was included in the subordinate taxon did not depend on the relative dates of valid publication of the name of the subordinate taxon and of effective publication of the nomenclatural act typifying the name of the higher taxon. Any name of a subordinate taxon that did include the of the name of the higher taxon, but did not repeat the epithet of the name of the higher taxon unaltered, was to be considered not to have been validly published, and could therefore be ignored for all purposes of priority, irrespective of the relative dates of establishment of the name and of effective publication of the typifying nomenclatural act. For example, Kobjakova (in Trudy Prikl. Bot. 23(3): 487. 1930) validly published two subspecific names under Lagenaria vulgaris Ser. 1825, subsp. asiatica Kobjakova and subsp. afrikana Kobjakova, encompassing the entire circumscription of the species, and without any indication that one or other of them included the of the name of the species. Jeffrey (in Milne-Redhead & Polhill, Fl. Trop. E. Africa, Cucurbitaceae: 51. 1967) lectotypified Lagenaria vulgaris (a replacement name for Cucurbita lagenaria L. 1753) by specimen No. 1151.1 in the Linnaean Herbarium, London (LINN), referable to L. vulgaris. subsp. afrikana, thus became the type of L. vulgaris. In consequence, the name L. vulgaris. subsp. afrikana had then to be considered as not validly published. The simultaneous publication of the other subspecific name, L. vulgaris subsp. asiatica, automatically established L. vulgaris subsp. vulgaris. The correct names for the two subspecies would therefore have been L. vulgaris subsp. vulgaris and L. vulgaris subsp. asiatica, and L. vulgaris subsp. afrikana would have been a non-name without nomenclatural status. In order to prevent the possibility of names being rendered invalidly published retrospectively by a subsequent act of typification, new paragraphs (Art. 22.2 and 26.3) were introduced by the Tokyo Congress and appear in the current edition of the Code. These stipulate that names of subordinate taxa that include the of but do not repeat unaltered the epithet of the name of the higher taxon are to be treated as validly published if, in the case of names of subdivisions of genera, they do not include the original or all elements eligible as or the previously designated type; or if, in the case of names of infraspecific taxa, they do not include the holotype or all syntypes or the previously designated type, of the adopted, legitimate name of the genus or species respectively, unless the author clearly indicated that the taxon so named included the element of the name of the higher taxon. Consideration of the Lagenaria case just mentioned will illustrate the effects of these changes. When, as by Kobjakova, L. vulgaris is considered to be the accepted,

FID/FT (情報ドキュメンテーションの基礎理論に関するFID委員会)の活動について ( 第47回FID東京大会あれこれ)

FID/FT (情報ドキュメンテーションの基礎理論に関するFID委員会)の活動について ( 第47回FID東京大会あれこれ)

第47回FID大会に参加して : 一般講演会 (Conference and Congressの部)( 第47回FID東京大会あれこれ)

第47回FID大会に参加して : 一般講演会 (Conference and Congressの部)( 第47回FID東京大会あれこれ)

FID/CR (Classification Research) ( 第47回FID東京大会あれこれ)

FID/CR (Classification Research) ( 第47回FID東京大会あれこれ)

FID/ARM (Archives and Records Management) ( 第47回FID東京大会あれこれ)

FID/ARM (Archives and Records Management) ( 第47回FID東京大会あれこれ)