The composition, structure, and distribution of benthic ostracod fauna (Ostracoda, Myodocopa) in Antarctic waters
The benthic fauna of ostracods of the order Myodocopida of Antarctic waters is characterized by high diversity, relative species abundance, and a complicated taxonomic and ecological structure, with a simplified biogeographical structure. This fauna, which is distinguished by a high level of endemicity, although at a low taxonomic rank, includes a great share of deep-sea and subtidal elements. Ostracod populations of High and Low-Antarctic subzones differ qualitatively and quantitatively. A distinct impoverishment of fauna is observed in the region of the Antarctic divergence compared to the more northern areas. The number of species increases with depth to reach its maximum in the lower subtidal zone and on the upper continental slope at depths of 200–500 m. The number of species decreases with increasing depth. Myodocopida have not been yet found in the Antarctic waters deeper than 5000 m.
XXIV.—The Entomostraca of the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition, 1902–1904
The Entomostraca recorded here were collected by the S.Y. Scotia on its way to and from the Antarctic, and also while carrying on investigations there during the years 1902 to 1904. The Entomostraca in these collections belong chiefly to the Copepoda, but the Cladocera and Ostracoda are also represented, the last by a considerable number of species. These three groups are described below in the order mentioned.
Positive Rights and State Constitutions: The Limits of Federal Rationality Review
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1132 I. STATE CONSTITUTIONAL WELFARE PRACTICE ............................................................. 1144 A. A Mandatory Obligation: The New York Example .................................................. 1144 B. A Typology of Current State Court Decisions .......................................................... 1145 IT. RECONSIDERING FEDERAL RATIONALITY REVIEW IN STATE CONSTITUTIONAL WELFARE CASES ................................................................................ 1153 A. Rationality Review and Positive Rights .................................................................. 1155 B. Rationality Review and Democratic Legitimacy .................................................... 1157 C. Rationality Review and Judicial Finality ............................................................. xi61 D. Rationality Review and Federalism ......................................................................... i166 E. Rationality Review Revisited .................................................................................... 1169 III. TOWARD A NEW STANDARD OF REVIEW ......................................................................... 1169 A. The Need for Judicial Review .................................................................................. 1170 B. Institutional Competence and Welfare Litigation ................................................... 1175 I. State Courts as Fact Gatherers ......................................................................... 1175 2. State Courts as Policymakers ......................................................................... " 179 3. State Courts as Rights Enforcers ..................................................................... 1182 C. A Jurisprudence of Consequences .............................................................................. 1183 D. Why Education and Not Welfare? ........................................................................... i86 E. Implications for Welfare Litigation ........................................................................... i9i IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 1194