No abstract

Pteropodid bats damage a wide range of fruit crops, exacerbated by continuing loss of their natural food as forests are cleared. In some countries where such damage occurs, bats are not legally protected. In others, as a result of pressure from fruit growers, legal protection is either not implemented or overridden by legislation specifically allowing the killing of bats. Lethal control is generally ineffective and often carried out with shotguns making it an animal welfare issue, as many more animals are injured or orphaned than are killed. Here, we review the literature and current state of the conflict between fruit growers and pteropodids and describe a wide range of potential mitigation techniques. We compile an extensive list of bats and the fruit crops on which they feed where this has resulted in conflicts, or could lead to conflict, with fruit growers. We also discuss the legal status of bats in some countries where such conflicts occur. We found the most effective means of preventing bat damage to crops is the use of fixed nets (that generally prevent entanglement) covering a whole orchard. Netting individual trees, or fruit panicles, using small net bags, is also effective. Management methods that assist netting include pruning to maintain low stature of trees. These

To hold a little microbat in your hand, its body the size of the end of your thumb, is nothing but astounding. Its head is nearly the size of a man’s fingernail, its tiny ears are twitching as it struggles to get free, and then it bares its teeth to try and scare you into letting it go. Inside that tiny head is a powerhouse of information. Some of our little bats know the entire landscape of our east coast, and can pinpoint a cave entrance in dense forest 500 km from its last home. When they get there they know what to do – where to forage, which bat to mate with and how to avoid local predators. A Natural History of Australian Bats uncovers the unique biology and ecology of these wonderful creatures. It features a description of each bat species found in Australia, as well as a section on bat myths. The book is enhanced by stunning colour photographs from Steve Parish, most of which have never been seen before.

No abstract

No abstract

It is hardly necessary to recapitulate Rhys Roberts' cumulative and convincing proof that the treatise ‘On the Sublime’ was not written by Cassius Longinus, the tutor of Zenobia, but belongs to the early days of the Empire. Not the least convincing of the arguments for this date is the fact that the treatise is suggested by and put out as a substitute for the Περ ״ϒψоνς of Caecilius of Calacte, who according to Suidas taught rhetoric (σоφστενσε) in Rome in the time of Augustus. Now Caecilius was an intimate friend of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ep. ad Pomp. 776 τῷφιλττῳ Kαικιλψ): they were both Atticists and fellow-workers in leading literary Romans back to the best models of Greek prose style. But Dionysius is no candidate for the authorship of the extant treatise, which is not one that he could have written. On the other hand he gives a plain indication by which to identify its writer, which Rhys Roberts mentioned but did not adopt. It is the object of this paper to put this identification seriously forward.

A General treatment of Greek compounds seems much to be desired. It would have to be undertaken by one who had an up-to-date philological equipment, to which I cannot lay claim. But rather with the hope of eliciting discussion on the subject and learning from others I offer the following observations, and in further study of the subject should be grateful to anyone who would advise as to the exact statistics that may be desirable over and above what I give below. I was led to the subject by a feeling that the treatment of many individual compounds by editors was far from satisfactory, and that possibly a collection of the material might help to bring out the exact meaning of some of the well-known difficulties in the Tragedians. One is dealing here with a highly developed and somewhat arbitrary poetic idiom, and it may perhaps be impossible, as one must admit from the outset, always to make precise the poet's meaning, but it is worth while to make the attempt.

Dr. Leaf's article in the Journal of Hellenic Studies has recalled our attention to the venerable problem of the Rhesus. I hasten to give my adhesion to his main contention (in which he was partly anticipated by W. Christ) that the play is a pièce d'occasion justifying or sanctifying the foundation of the city of Amphipolis. But, as he remarks, seeing that the oracle ordering the removal of the bones of Theseus from Skyros to Athens preceded the actual removal by some years, so this play may be intended to prepare for the actual removal of the bones of Rhesus from Troy by Hagnon, and may be prior to it by several years. For this official theft—doubtless arranged beforehand—we have only the authority of Polyainos' Strategemata, but it is a story which seems likely in itself, and goes far to explain the previously obscure lament of the Muse at the end of the play. My object is to examine the play afresh and see whether anything prevents our believing that it was written and exhibited somewhere near 440 B.C., in which case of course it is almost certainly the work of Euripides and not far from his Cyclops in date.