Solitary humpback whales manufacture bubble-nets as tools to increase prey intake.

Several animal species use tools for foraging; however, very few manufacture and/or modify those tools. Humpback whales, which manufacture bubble-net tools while foraging, are among these rare species. Using animal-borne tag and unoccupied aerial system technologies, we examine bubble-nets manufactured by solitary humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Southeast Alaska while feeding on krill. We demonstrate that the nets consist of internally tangential rings and suggest that whales actively control the number of rings in a net, net size and depth and the horizontal spacing between neighbouring bubbles. We argue that whales regulate these net structural elements to increase per-lunge prey intake by, on average, sevenfold. We measured breath rate and swimming and lunge kinematics to show that the resulting increase in prey density does not increase energetic expenditure. Our results provide a novel insight into how bubble-net tools manufactured by solitary foraging humpback whales act to increase foraging efficiency.

[Rotavirus-Salmonella coinfection due to turtles: Two cases with exotic pets]. / Co-infection rotavirus-Salmonella lié aux tortues : à propos de 2 cas de zoonoses domestiques.

Salmonellosis is a leading cause of bacterial gastroenteritis, responsible for invasive infections especially in young children. Reptiles are salmonella reservoirs, and the indirect contact via parents' hands may be responsible for contamination. We report on two cases of Salmonella-rotavirus coinfection secondary to the presence of turtles in the home.

[Comparison of refraction with or without cycloplegia using Retinomax® or Plusoptix® devices]. / Comparaison de la réfraction avec ou sans cycloplégie au Retinomax® vs Plusoptix®.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the refraction in children measured with Plusoptix® without cycloplegia vs. Retinomax® apparatus with cycloplegia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Measure of refraction with Plusoptix® in children>1year old referred for systematic vision screening, then measurement after cycloplegia with cyclopentolate by the Retinomax® device. RESULTS: Thirty-three children were included, i.e. 66eyes. Mean age was 40.7months (minimum 12; maximum 114). The Spearman correlation coefficient for the spherical equivalent was 0.52 (Plusoptix® vs. Retinomax® comparison; P<0.0001=moderate correlation). The Spearman correlation coefficient was 0.73 for astigmatism (Plusoptix® vs. Retinomax® comparison; P<0.0001=strong correlation). The Plusoptix® sensitivity for measurement of refraction was 57%, 43% and 43% respectively for spherical equivalent, sphere and astigmatism. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The correlation of astigmatism values is strong, whereas the correlation of sphere values is moderate. Plusoptix® seems to be unable to measure the exact refraction, because there is too large a dispersion of refraction measurements with Plusoptix®, compared to the exact refraction measured with the Retinomax®. Moreover, the sensitivity of Plusoptix® is low. Cycloplegic refraction remains indispensable in children.