Search

The subspecific taxonomy and distribution of geladas (Theropithecus gelada Rüppell, 1835) remains uncertain. Recent molecular studies based on mitochondrial sequence data revealed a geographically structured, three‐deme population, suggesting that there are three evolutionary units of geladas. However, mitochondrial distributions do not always recover population relationships, particularly in taxa with a complex history of isolation and gene flow. We therefore analysed the nuclear genetic population structure of the global gelada population based on 20 microsatellite loci in 43 samples from across its geographic range. FST values, a STRUCTURE analysis and a principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) confirmed the three‐deme population structure corresponding to the mitochondrial population structure. Therefore, our analyses provide additional support for three evolutionary units in geladas, corresponding to (a) a northern (north of Lake Tana, primarily in the Simien Mountains, previously classified as Theropithecus gelada gelada Rüppell, 1835), (b) a central (between Addis Ababa and the highlands east of Lake Tana, previously classified as Theropithecus gelada obscurus Heuglin, 1863) and (c) a southern (south of the Rift Valley, previously tentatively classified as Theropithecus gelada arsi Shotake et al., 2016, Anthropological Science, 124, 157) population. These results pave the way for future conservation decisions and highlight that the gelada population boundaries need more fine‐grained genetic sampling and phenotypic analyses, in particular for their taxonomic ranking.

Many clinicians are moving away from the traditional expert role towards a more collaborative approach to clinical decision making. Collaboration with patients has implications for the power distribution between clinician and patient, how health is defined, and what counts as evidence in the decision-making process. A critical social science perspective provides the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings for collaborative clinical decision making. Key issues of critical social science are critical self-reflection, questioning taken-for-granted practice, and transforming current practice. The way that clinicians define their role in clinical decision making reflects their beliefs and values about health, power and practice knowledge. Clinicians who adopt a collaborative clinical decision-making approach reject the objective scientific view of evidence-based practice, and embrace cultural and political influences on what counts as evidence. The purpose of collaboration is to increase understanding between the clinician and the patient. A distinction is made in this debate between manipulating and emancipating patients. Including patients in the decision-making process promises to result in more realistic and appropriate treatments, reduced patient concerns and complaints and better, sustainable health outcomes, and increased patient and clinician satisfaction. In this article we re-think practice knowledge and the notion of clinician–patient relationships.