top of page

Group

Public·58 members

F1 2018 Headline Edition Free Download ((TOP))


Compare prices with GG.deals to find the cheapest cd key for F1 2018 PC. Head over to one of the trusted game stores from our price comparison and buy cd key at the best price. Use the indicated client to activate key and download and play your game.




F1 2018 Headline Edition Free Download



All shops featured on GG.deals will deliver your game immediately after the payment has been approved. This will be either in the form of direct download or PC key - depending on the store of your choice. After you activate key on a corresponding platform, you will be able to download and play your game for free. If you don't know how to activate the key, check out the tutorials section on the bottom of the page.


The game is available to download for free via The Humble Store until Monday. While it is free for this weekend, the Humble Bundle page does list that supplies are limited so grab it fast. The code for F1 2018 is a Steam key, so a Steam account is required to play.


Chen et al. develop a new set of microsatellites for the critically endangered Blue-crowned Laughingthrush. The motivation of the study is to provide a conservation genetics tool for monitoring genetic diversity and divergence that was exemplarily applied to two captive populations. The authors discuss their results in the context of current conservation strategies for the bird. The study is more than justified and gets is significance from the fact that genetics can substantially contribute to monitoring activities in combination with other disciplines, e. g. field work or ecology. This makes the content of the manuscript publishable and interesting for the scientific community particularly for people working in the field of ornithology and/or conservation. However, I cannot support the publication of this manuscript in its current form. This primarily arises from what I said in respect to Experimental design and Validity of the findings. Furthermore, the paper has a strong focus and does not provide information for a broad scientific community in biosciences. Apart from this strong focus, the conclusions drawn about the population origin and the genetic status (e.g., inbreeding) of the two captive populations are limited (see discussion and conclusions part). I did not lose the impression that the content of the paper should be presented in the style of a Primer Note with an extended discussion covering the specific aspects of conservation. Consequently, I recommend substantial shortening the text just focussing on the main aspects, i.e. the need for this molecular tool, the basic properties of the loci, the main results and interpretations of the study of these two captive populations. I also think that the manuscript might get more attention in a journal with particular focus on ornithology. I recommend addressing the aspects raised particularly in the paragraphs on "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the findings" and give some additional comments below. Once all these aspects are addressed I may be able to guaranty correctness of the study and may support publication. Additional comments:Figure 4: Please double check Figure 4. The document that I downloaded for review shows a bar chart rather than a network and the caption appears to not fit with what is shown there.Comparison between diversity and divergence between different species and marker sets (Table 3):Comparing between independent estimates of mitochondrial and microsatellite diversity between different species and different marker sets is dificult and under many circumstances even impossible and misleading. This is because different species have different life cycles and histories and one has to argue why a comparison is meaningful. Further, the comparison refers to non-orthologous loci which further limits the validity of the comparison. Genetic drift and/or selection acts differentially on the freely recombining nuclear loci and, therefore, affects locus specific estimates.Discussion: This part of the manuscript provides a lot of general statements not least about the importance of conservation genetics (there is no doubt about). This makes the discussion overly long and partly unfocussed. The authors should rather concentrate on how their marker set could be incorporated in monitoring activities of free living populations and/or how their results on captive populations can be used for the management. Is it feasible to use the captive animals for reintroduction in the wild? If yes, I suggest an extensive discussion about putative problems arising from releases of captive animals in the wild, e.g. outbreeding depression. I argue that the scientific value of this manuscript greatly depends on the potential use of the data in a management plan (that could be developed or outlined here). 041b061a72


About

Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...
bottom of page