Library

Notes: An endocrine assessment was made in 78 post-menopausal women.The urinary excretion of oestriol was greater than 10 μg. per 24 hours in 14 out of 31 cases with malignant ovarian tumours, in 2 out of 24 cases with benign ovarian tumours, and in 6 out of 23 cases without ovarian tumours. Although the urinary oestriol excretion was increased in all 8 cases with mucinous carcinoma it was raised in only 4 out of 18 cases with serous carcinoma. Some of the greatest amounts of urinary oestriol were found in cases without ovarian tumours.The urinary excretion of pregnanediol was increased in 6 out of 18 cases. These six patients also had increased oestriol excretion.The excretion of steroids was normal after oöphorectomy.Tests of adrenal cortical activity and ovarian vein blood analysis also point to the diseased ovary as the site of increased steroid synthesis.The correlation of increased urinary oestriol with vaginal cornification index was fair, but with vaginal bleeding and endometrial activity was poor.

Notes: Information about and histological preparations from 728 patients treated between 1955 and 1965 for dysplasia, carcinoma in situ or microcarcinoma (microinvasive carcinoma) were submitted to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynae-cologists. The results of treatment were analyzed as well as discrepancies between the diagnosis made by the original hospital pathologist and a panel of pathologists.

Notes: The three isoenzymes of rat brain enolase (2-phospho d-glycerate hydrolase EC 4.2.1.11.) χχ, χγ and γγ were separated by ion-exchange chromatography and were tested for reaction with an antiserum against brain specific antigen 14-3-2. This monospecific antiserum affects the enolase activity of only the χγ and γγ isoenzymes.Immunoelectrophoretic experiments show that the two proteins which react as 14-3-2 both contain γ enolase subunits, and one of these also contains χ enolase subunits.It is concluded that the 14-3-2 antigen and the γ enolase subunit are identical, and that the two proteins which react immunologically as 14-3-2 are the χγ and γγ enolase isoenzymes.

Notes: Atypical pigment was observed in pre-flexion, flexion and post-flexion larval Sebastes collected off central California in 1991 and 1992 that otherwise resembled Sebastes jordani. Atypical pigment occurred on the axillary region at the base of the pectoral fin (most prominent on the inner edge of the pectoral fin base adjacent to the gut), on the median and distal regions of the pectoral fin and on the median and distal regions of the pelvic fin. In addition, lower and upper jaw pigment was observed at a much smaller size in these specimens than previously described in the literature. Identifications of these atypical specimens as S. jordani were confirmed using meristic and otolith characters as well as mitochondrial DNA sequence data. The ontogenetic variability of S. jordani is described. Specimens collected north of Point Conception were more pigmented than larval S. jordani described in the literature (collected predominately south of Point Conception), suggesting geographic variation in pigment development during the larval stage.

Notes: Four articles have been published in this Journal about the historic cattle trial, Pickett v Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., in which Plaintiff cattlemen alleged that Tyson/IBP--the buyer--used captive (contracted) supplies of cattle to manipulate the cash market in violation of the 1921 Packers & Stockyards Act (PSA). The first article gave a Trial's eye view by David Domina who served as co-lead counsel representing Plaintiff cattlemen. Domina's article led to a published comment by Thomas Green who was the lead attorney representing Tyson during the Trial phase of lengthy legal proceedings. Green alleged that Domina's article was "littered with rank speculation and baseless opinion." Domina countered that "proof is not litter, and evidence is not rank speculation" and that Green's commentary was "abusive." The adversarial exchange between Domina and Green was followed by another advocacy article in which William Rosales maintained that Pickett "represents an opportunity for the judiciary to reform the meatpacking industry (and) awaken the (PSA's) intended power to dethrone the economic kings of the meatpacking industry."After a five week Trial in Federal Court, the Jury found Tyson/IBP guilty on all counts and assessed actual damages of $1.28 billion over 2/1994 -10/2002. Justice for Plaintiff cattlemen was short, as the Trial Judge set aside the Jury's verdict--a rare but not unprecedented legal action--and entered summary judgment for Tyson. The Eleventh Appellate Court subsequently sided with the Trial Judge. On March 24, 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied without comment Plaintiff's Petition to rehear the case, thus ending legal activities in Pickett v Tyson and effectively killing similar legal action pending against two other major beef packers, Excel (Cargill) and Swift (ConAgra).This article emphasizes three significant and troubling legal and economic issues from the historic litigation: (1) the Courts' narrow and extreme interpretation of the antitrust rule-of-reason; (2) the Courts' endorsement of a "meeting the competition" defense, and (3) whether the Courts inserted themselves above the Jury as fact-finders in the case, contrary to the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that establishes the Jury as the only fact-finder in civil litigation.In essence Pickett was filed under the Packers and Stockyards Act, tried under Sherman and Clayton antitrust law, and overturned, in part, under the Robinson-Patman Act.