Conservation planning involves selecting target taxa, establishing the geographic and taxonomic breadth of the conservation actions and producing some form of strategy or action plan for implementation. The selection of which taxon or taxa to conserve should be based on a series of measurable criteria such as the threat of genetic erosion / extinction, value of the taxon to humankind or the ecosystem, or the potential ease of use of the taxon or taxa. Once the target taxon is chosen, its geographic distribution, habitat preferences, phenology, and taxonomy are established to identify gaps in existing conservation actions to formulate an effective conservation strategy. Gap analysis is used to analyse the literature, passport data on gene bank accessions, label information on herbarium specimens for each taxon, as well as consulting taxonomic experts, and databases and concludes with strategic action to enhance conservation. Increasingly these strategic actions are tested in terms of their mitigation of climate change for the target taxon / taxa and formulated into a national strategy and action plan that gives background to their selection and clearly establishes the required conservation actions needed. The success of these actions is then measured against biodiversity indicators, so progress can be reviewed.

Here we convey the variety and complexity of late-antique Greek and Latin correspondences, tracing their antecedents from Classical times, their indebtedness to the apostle Paul, and subsequently to the post-apostolic writers. In the course of this overview we consider the considerable influence which Adolf Deissmann wielded in the first quarter of the twentieth century, and subsequently, on the question of what exactly a letter is. Now we are more cautious about writing and speaking about ‘letters’ and the ‘letter-genre’. Our next step in this chapter was to attempt a taxonomy of the more than 9,000 literary letters from Christian Late Antiquity, beginning with the category of dissenting voices.

This chapter introduces the following three, which survey the principal forms of Renaissance polyphony. Crucial to these forms is the relationship of music and text, which reveals considerable differences in approach during the period itself and relative to later periods from the Baroque to the present day. In unravelling these differences, the notion of genre and its pertinence to Renaissance music is critiqued in the light of recent scholarship, showing that Renaissance approaches to the concept of the musical work were also considerably different. Whilst this is a somewhat contentious issue, the points of tension uncovered here make sense of the evidence of primary sources (especially before the advent of print) concerning the re-purposing of polyphony outwith the context of its composition. The key difference from subsequent periods is that the notion of an ‘original’ would likely have had little pertinence to Renaissance musicians, and certainly none of the baggage that pertains to it in a later, Urtext-driven age. It also explains the relative porousness of the categories that later become studied under the heading of genre.

This second chapter devoted to forms considers that most malleable of genres, the motet, which served an especially wide range of functions and was therefore especially adaptable. Since a survey of the motet in a book of this size (let alone a single chapter) is practically impossible, a single source is taken as a snapshot of the repertory at precisely the midpoint of the period covered in this book: the Medici Codex, compiled c.1519 at the behest of pope Leo X (Giovanni de’ Medici, r.1513–1521) as a wedding-gift for a young relative. Whilst spanning little more than twenty years, the Medici Codex’s contents includes music by composers of at least two generations and represents nearly all the techniques then available, from the most up-to-date to those whose pertinence was then on the wane. It offers an ideal vantage-point from which to survey the Renaissance motet.

In Chapter 6: Milestones, you will choose summative milestones, which provide tangible evidence of learners’ knowledge of the topics and acquisition of skills at the end of a learning activity.

This chapter introduces the proliferation of festivals and ‘festivalization’ internationally in the twenty-first century, offers definitions and exclusions, and outlines a typology of theatre and performance festivals that now exist globally (elite festivals, alternative and fringe festivals, ‘second-wave’ festivals, and festivals that focus on a single culture or region). It briefly summarizes the book’s chapters on theorizing festivals, research methodology, festival cities, Indigenous festivals, European festivals, the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, Under the Radar, Australian festivals, Arab festivals, the Kampala International Theatre Festival, the National Arts Festival in Grahamstown, Asian Festivals, francophone festivals, festivals in Latin America, and the RUTAS festival.

What does it mean to take a “public reason approach to courts”? Public reason conceptions come in a wide range of varieties, but such conceptions do not necessarily translate into a specific jurisprudence. This chapter attempts to outline the main ways in which philosophical conceptions of public reason and jurisprudential approaches tend to correlate in the current literature. It characterizes the public reason approach to courts in an inclusive way, subsuming authors who accept (1) the general “idea of public reason” or the idea that legitimate legal and political impositions must be publicly justifiable and (2) an “ideal of public reason for courts” or the idea of public reason as conferring a duty on at least some courts, in some cases, to help secure the public justifiability some types of political and legal impositions. On this basis the chapter then identifies and characterizes six dominant public reason approaches to courts in the literature: “political liberal,” “liberal,” “classical liberal,” “deliberative,” “natural law,” and “public reason as justification vis-à-vis a broader audience.” The final sections discuss limitations and objections to the proposed taxonomy.

In this rejoinder the author responds to the commentaries to the chapter. While the commentaries favor taxomonetric/categorical vs. dimensional approaches, the author explores various possibilities to integrate these two perspectives. Such an approach would better fit research finding and allows for preservation of the merits of each approach. Such integration has to resolve such challenges as definition of conceptually and clinically meaningful dimensions, identification of the disorder-specific concepts that are not dimensional, conceptualization of orthogonal dimensions, and integration of the dimensional and categorical approaches through identification of moderators.

The following commentary on Jang and Choi’s chapter Issues and New Directions in Personality Disorder (PD) Genetics (This Volume) echoes their call to harness advances in PD assessment rather than rely on politically derived "top down" nosologies. We first discuss how recent work in the joint hierarchical structure of PD traits and psychopathology, as well as, personality dynamics (i.e., how personality manifests in different situations) likely offer fruitful avenues for exploring the more nuanced role of genetics in the development and maintenance of PD. Second, we highlight the need to better understand the role of environment in PD genetics and discuss emerging models (e.g., common pathway model). Third, we stress the need for more research and larger samples in order to arrive at stronger conclusions. Fourth, we consider how advances in gene-environment research can help to determine targets for PD prevention and treatment.

Over the past twenty years, several taxonomies of personality and psychopathology have been developed. More recently, many studies have compared dimensional models of personality pathology to categorical diagnoses of personality disorders. Altogether, this proliferation of research suggests the value of articulating the desirable properties of a good taxonomic system. Here, the authors extend basic research in cognitive science on the limitations of representational capacity, which suggests that humans need to compress complex clinical presentations to make good judgments. With this in mind, the authors propose that information compression and information fidelity are two principles that are essential to good taxonomy. The principle of information compression is that taxonomies should prune the complexities of a detailed clinical presentation to focus on important sources of covariation. The principle of information fidelity is that a good taxonomy should maintain essential features that reasonably approximate the structure of an individual or the population. They conclude with the claim that the overarching goal of taxonomic science in classifying personality pathology is to provide clinicians and researchers with empirically based informative priors that help to bias thinking toward useful clinical distinctions.

This comment concurs with Miller and Widiger’s review on the five-factor model’s potential to describe personality pathology. Remaining challenges are the definition of the domain that one wants to cover and how to separate personality description from dysfunction.

Categorical rubrics are the prevailing approach to personality disorder (PD) assessment and diagnosis. Diagnostic manuals, funding bodies, and training programs tend to follow this categorical model. Yet there is now abundant evidence that PD categories are impeding research progress on personality pathology. This chapter describes an emerging dimensional perspective on personality problems, the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP). The HiTOP framework encapsulates factor analytically derived higher- and lower-order dimensions of personality pathology, ranging from an overarching general factor of psychopathology at the hierarchy’s apex to homogeneous maladaptive personality traits and acute symptoms at the base. This multi-level system bypasses aspects of categorical PD diagnoses that researchers find problematic (e.g., comorbidity, within-diagnosis heterogeneity, and insufficient coverage of personality problems encountered in the clinic). HiTOP has the potential to renew field-wide interest in PD and streamline social, psychological, and biological research on personality pathology.