Talk:Colony collapse disorder

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DrChrissy (talk | contribs) at 15:45, 20 August 2015 (→Geomagentism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:45, 20 August 2015 by DrChrissy (talk | contribs) (→Geomagentism)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Colony collapse disorder article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Colony collapse disorder has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 1, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
February 18, 2010	Good article reassessment	Kept

A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 15, 2007.

Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Agriculture Mid‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Insects Mid‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Veterinary medicine Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veterinary medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Veterinary medicine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veterinary medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicineTemplate:WikiProject Veterinary medicineVeterinary medicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Colony collapse disorder: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2009-03-30

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Middle sections, much too technically worded and turgid

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Colony collapse disorder article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Misplaced Pages CD selection

There is a request, submitted by GVnayR (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages.

The rationale behind the request is: "a very important topic about one of the worst environment issues facing today's society".

An image for "Possible Causes" Section

I would like to add an image that gives an overview of all the possible causes at a glance, and that explains that "some these factors in combination may lead to CCD"--Giuliade (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

i guess you mean this? What are the sources for the content of that image? thx Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The image I created is completely based on what is written in this wikipedia article. I simply tried to translate the content of the section in a scheme. The sources are the same of the article then.--Giuliade (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

please see WP:VERIFY, thanks, Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That the image is based on the article is actually a bit of the problem. What you've basically done is a novel synthesis not only of the subject matter, but we also should not be using Misplaced Pages as a source (WP:CIRC). If we were going to have such an image, it would need to have been published somewhere as Jytdog alluded to so we could verify it came from a source with expertise to review this topic. The effort is definitely appreciated though as I'm sure some time went into making the image. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh? The WP:OI policy says "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments".

The WP:CIRC policy mentions one special case where the content from a Misplaced Pages article is considered reliable. As far as I can tell this image uses that special case.

Is there some way to tweak that image to emphasize that these factors are well-informed initial guesses at what might be the problem, and not an exhaustive list of "all the possible causes"?

However, even though I think that Giuliade's first rough draft of the image is imperfect, I think it should go into the article, until we have a better replacement.

My understanding is that the WP:IMPERFECT policy allows imperfect things in the articles.

I am mystified as to where Kingofaces43 got the idea that images "need to have been published somewhere" before we can use them on Misplaced Pages. --DavidCary (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, there are a few things there. That policy you mention applies much more to articles that we can easily improve over time. That spirit relates more to starting with something sub-standard, but acceptable that can be improved over time. When a flaw is pointed out from the beginning though, we don't need to automatically accept that. The other problem is that images cannot be easily edited like text in an article. You need access to GIS software for this.

Otherwise, the main issue is that the image is trying to synthesize too much information (which can make it look sloppy), but mainly is drifting into too much original research beyond the spirit of what we're given for images. You really need a review (or at least an individual source) saying how and why the things chosen to be on the map are important. Generally, we focus on text, and images are optional. When we use images, we keep things very simple in either purpose or any amalgamation of statistics. The flaw is not only in stretching a bit too far in synthesis, but also choosing what to present as I mentioned above and below . Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

CCD map

I was recently asked about removing this image and wanted to give an explanation besides what at the user's talk page. This image had a few errors in it, but the main issue is that this image was created for a class and appears to be a single summary map with multiple things going on besides the map. Being multi-purpose is great for maps in some cases if done right, but it can lead to issues in many cases too. That's where it's getting to be a bit too much synthesis. The possible causes and signs text boxes are already described in text, and if those ever change in some fashion, we'd need to remove the image. Honey production is interesting, but not really needed in terms of CCD, especially since the number of commercial hives is already shown. The second source leads to a broken link. The first source is for Fall 2007 to Spring 2008, yet for some reason this is represented as two years when it's describing just a single winter (didn't catch this detail when talking to the editor). It's also not clear that those overwintering losses in the sources are actually due to CCD and not combined with other factors and I don't believe the authors are claiming it would only be just CCD too. Basically the map tries to bite off a bit too much information and there are multiple minor issues that would be somewhat ok on their own, but accumulate when you have them all together. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I replaced the map. We do not delete maps because they synthesize reliable sources, per WP:OI. Are there some facts which you think the map gets wrong? EllenCT (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I explained the issues above, but we were ok within WP:OI at least. The problem was that it tries to synthesize too much information at once and is too busy. That's ok for a student presentation in these kind of map design classes, but an ecyclopedic image isn't quite the same. Think of the telephone game. The more information you try to synthesize in an image, the more easily that information can be misinterpreted. The main reason for removing the image for now is the above and the spelling errors in the causes textbox that stick out like a sore thumb. Those aren't spelling errors we can fix unless the image is replaced. Addressing these things would improve it to the point we'd have a useable image for this article:

Removing the Causes and Signs textboxes would keep it from becoming dated if/when that information changes. Also leaves more room for the actual map as it's redundant with the text already.
Why are only some states labeled as having CCD losses? Is there none in those states, just not recorded (sampling bias), etc.? Are those losses actually CCD or is there unspecified overwintering loss?
Does 2007-2008 mean just one winter, a full calendar year, two full calendar years? Also, why should we be showcasing 2007-2008 on Misplaced Pages? I get the feeling this is just Fall 2007-Spring 2008 at first glance, but this isn't clear from the image.
The symbols for commercial colonies clutter the map, are difficult to gauge, and are somewhat redundant with honey production. Would be best to drop the symbols, and replace honey production with colonies instead to be represented by color.

When dealing with scientific content, images should be relatively standalone. We can't expect readers to have read the actual sources, so some of the things I listed above need to be made clear within the image. If for instance mites were no longer a cause, we'd have an outdated image. If we keep it to just number of hives and % losses (specified as general overwintering losses or as actual CCD) we'd have a good image with a few of the text changes. I haven't heard from the author recently, so Mallonna and Zachac, I'm tagging you so that you're aware of this conversation. I have access to ArcGIS, so feel free to email me or stop by my talk page if you just want to send the files to me as I could do some edits pretty quickly myself too. If not, I can probably build it from scratch (just would take a bit longer). Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've decided to leave a map out. CCD does not imply overwintering mortality, and such mortality can be due to other factors associated with general bee decline. I did find an interesting source that continues this train of thought though: http://beeinformed.org/2015/03/the-colony-loss-map-is-up-and-running/. It's a survey of bee-keepers though, so it's a very, very primary source with various caveats. Probably best over at Pollinator decline if it is going to be used though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

New research on neonicotinoids

Please see this. Is it relevant enough to include here? JRSpriggs (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The first issue for us here is that this source isn't addressing CCD. The main problem beyond that is that it's a news piece reporting on two primary studies, so it's not reliable for scientific content. We'd need reviews for the latter to indicate the findings are considered noteworthy, the study findings weren't unreliable due to design issues, etc. This is a field where reviews come out pretty often, so there shouldn't be issues once we have that if some content was to be added over at neonicotinoid or more related articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Since neonicotinoids are banned in Europe, I think there's more than just theoretical association with CCD. The Bayer piece reads like a Bayer PR handout also, I know bee keepers who all know what's responsible, as in the real world rather than the theoretical, fully referenced world. This reads like a brush off of any idea neonics could be implicated, it's partial to Bayer, when erring on the side of caution should always be the preferred option, and not just in agriculture. Or do we wait for the last bee colony to collapse and the final definitive trial results to be published so Misplaced Pages can staick resolutely to impartiality. If you all aren't aliens you really ought to care what's going down.PetePassword (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Right now, the research isn't showing a smoking gun for neonics being the cause. If it were so simple, we'd have a much easier to write article. Otherwise, we don't use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox or place for advocacy and rather wait for reliable sources to state what the current case is. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

There are abundant secondary sources implicating neonics as a primary cause, and zero ruling them out. is an example of a WP:MEDRS-grade review article (according to PubMed) which implicates neonicotinoids as the sole cause of CCD. Amazingly it is three years old but has not yet been incorporated into the article. EllenCT (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

um no. that article is advancing a hypothesis, as its title, abstract, and discussion section all make clear. Reviews don't advance new hypotheses. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

PubMed shows it as a review, and the hypothesis it advances is, contrary to the title, hardly unique. Maybe it was when it was written, but not by the time it was published. The article already cites work reaching the same conclusions. EllenCT (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: do you have any evidence that the Farooqui paper is not a bona fide literature review? Or that Farooqui's hypothesis was not already confirmed in other secondary sources when the Farooqui paper was submitted for publication? That explains the title. EllenCT (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

as already mentioned, the title includes the phrase, "A unique hypothesis" (the author wrote that, the reviewers accepted it) and he writes: According to my hypothesis, chronic exposure of biogenic amines-based-pesticides to honeybee foragers in hives and agricultural fields can disrupt neural cholinergic and octopaminergic signaling. ... This overview is an attempt to discuss a hypothetical link among biogenic amines-based pesticides, olfactory learning and memory, and CCD." That is the whole point of the paper. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you familiar enough with the literature to answer my question about whether the "unique" hypothesis wasn't already confirmed when the article was under review? Are the reviewers or editors under any obligation to request a title change if it was clear that they hypothesis was arrived at independently? You have repeatedly deferred to MEDLINE as the authority as to what is and what is not a literature review. Did they get it wrong this time? EllenCT (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Several countries have banned these pesticides. I believe this ban has been effect for a few years. Once these pesticides are removed, does the rate of colony collapse decrease? I suppose if the soil has been overloaded with the pesticides this could take some time but they should at least show some amount. ( I am currently watching "Vanishing of the Bees". The narrator has just said that European countries that banned the pesticides had an improvement in one year - questioned answered I guess. Answered while I was typing!) 73.149.116.253 (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
P.S. - I stopped raising a couple of hives because of this problem. Dairy farms inn my area raise mostly corn and my bees died within months of purchasing them. Of course varroa mites didn't help. Receiving a package of half-breed killer bees also really scared the h** out of me and the neighbors - luckily they died off quickly also. 73.149.116.253 (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This is, of course, the definitive question in the neonic-CCD debate. In my opinion, the evidence has conclusively disproven that link.

Several studies have strongly suggested that what we now call CCD has occurred several time in the past including times that were decades before the invention of neonics.
As the anon user notes, several European countries have banned neonics. Contrary to that one video, subsequent research has not shown that the rate of CCD changed any differently than it did in countries that continued to allow neonics.
Even within countries that allow neonics, there are geographies and crops which are preferentially treated with more less neonics. See, for example, the canola fields in Canada. The known patterns of CCD do not correlate well with the known patterns of neonic usage.

No one thread in that analysis conclusively disproves the hypothesis but taken together, they make it highly unlikely that neonics are more than a tangential contributor (if even that). Rossami (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Initiatives to ban neonicotinoids in the United States

This section was written by Worthywords (talk · contribs) and consequently may be the result of paid advocacy. (see here): e.g. . It would be good if could be reviewed in light of this. SmartSE (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Naïve question about European bee colonies

Since neonics have been banned in Europe, what has the result been? Is the rate of CCD declining? DonPMitchell (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

In 2015, data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showed that U.S. honeybee colony numbers were at a 20 year high, and U.S. honey production was at a 10 year high.

I just added this to the intro, but someone else deleted it:

Thanks to the efforts of beekeepers, the problem had been largely solved by 2015, when data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showed that U.S. honeybee colony numbers were at a 20 year high, and U.S. honey production was at a 10 year high.

References

Bee-pocalypse Now? Nope., National Review, June 5, 2015

71.182.248.162 (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

this is scientific information, and needs to be sourced from the scientific literature, not from a pundit. See WP:SCIRS. Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog. I wonder what we should do about this: Property and Environment Research Center? :P Gandydancer (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The US stats could be sourced to that, but saying that CCD is "largely solved" would most certainly need a better source. Oh and that other article is was a copyvio... "dedicated" always sets of alarm bells for me. SmartSE (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like misunderstanding from the general public again on what CCD is. In this case, people are assuming CCD isn't a problem, but they don't know about the high hive losses being masked be the extremely ramped up (and expensive) replacement of hives. Doesn't look like there's anything to add at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Geomagentism

about this and this and this

There is growing evidence that interference of the honeybee's geomagnetic sense can result in disruptions to their orientation. Evidence indicates that their homing ability is interfered with by induced static or oscillating magnetic fields, or natural disturbances in the Earth’s geomagnetic field. The loss of bees increases as the intensity of exposure to altered magnetic fields and release distances increase. This has been named as "magneto reception disorder". Further work shows that bee losses are highly correlated with days when severe geomagnetic storm activity occurs in Earth’s magnetosphere and with the intensity of extraterrestrial protons that impacted Earth’s outer atmosphere.

References

^ Ferrari, T.E. and Tautz, J. (2015). "Severe honey bee (Apis mellifera) losses correlate with geomagnetic and proton disturbances in Earth's atmosphere". Astrobiol Outreach. 3 (134): 2332–2519.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

This is a brand new primary source. Please wait for a review in the scientific literature to discuss these findings. Jytdog (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

As indicated in my ES, the first part of this paragraph is paraphrasing of the "Introduction" section of the cited research paper. It is reviewing previous work and is therefore a secondary source - see heredoi:10.4172/2332-2519.1000134. The removal of material with suitable sourcing is highly disruptive.DrChrissy 11:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree very strongly with this removal. The Journal it was published in is edited by Chandra Wickramasinghe who is well-known for linking astrological events to earthly phenomena using very flakey evidence. See for example this about how aliens were supposedly on 67P. There is no way, whatsoever that this study should be included in the article per WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. SmartSE (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The paraphrased section reviews articles published in the Journal of Apicultural Research (2014), J. Comp. Physiol. A (1985) and J. Exp. Biol. (1986). These are all RS journals so the original sources of the information are robust.DrChrissy 12:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps better to just cite the original sources. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was planning to do once this supposed edit warring 24 hrs has expired. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the accusation of OR was then thrown at me!DrChrissy 12:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Smartse, are you suggesting that because of the identity of this editor, WP should not use any articles published in this journal?DrChrissy 13:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

the issue I raised each time was that in general WP should be based on secondary sources, not brand new primary ones. The secondary literature is where we find out if some primary source is crackpot. or actually worth something. I didn't want to make things worse by writing what Smartse did but yes, that source is the kind of thing you find published sometimes in the literature, that is most likely to get ignored in reviews. But it is not for us as WP editors to judge if some primary source is worthwhile or not - we let experts in the field tell us in review articles published in high quality journals. Also, DrChrissy, what you wrote here is an intention to edit war - gaming the 24 hour limit is explicitly discussed in WP:3RR so I suggest you work toward consensus on this content, instead of continuing to try to force this content into WP via edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit-warring warning, I suggest you remember it takes 2 to edit-war. You are now deflecting from the issue by saying "published in high quality journals". Your original contention in this thread was that I was using a primary source. I was not. I was paraphrasing the Introduction of a scientific paper which is almost always a review of the pertinent literature. WP:RS defines secondary sources as "i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." What part of the first section of the paragraph was not a secondary source?DrChrissy 14:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

the review sections of primary sources are very poor "reviews" - they are generally written to fit whatever hypothesis the authors of the paper are working to prove in the original part; they are not independent of that effort. Review articles are what we should be using as sources in science-based WP articles - every policy and emphasizes that in general. This is not about what one ~can~ do, it is about what we ~should~ do in writing high quality content. Will you please wait to see if this gets picked up in any reviews? Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

So you are admitting it is a secondary source, albeit in your opinion, a poor one?DrChrissy 14:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No it is a primary source that has a review section. This is not about who is right about X or wrong about Y, it is just about trying to make sure that what is added to WP is based on great sources. Will you please wait until this is discussed in a secondary source - in a review article? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Well that depends on whether you are thinking about the article as a whole or the source of the material I included and you deleted. The paraphrasing was definitely reflecting a review of pertinent literature and is therefore secondary.DrChrissy 15:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It's irrelevant though when this is such a fringe theory that there isn't even a single paper linking CCD and geomagnetism listed in google scholar: . SmartSE (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You are referring to only the second part of the material removed. Who is calling that "Fringe"? But more importantly, why was the first part that of the section disruptively deleted?DrChrissy 15:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a paper linking CCD and geomagnetism....the article we are discussing...I found it on google scholar!DrChrissy 15:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate, Jytdog, that generally review articles are preferred reliable sources, and in general should be used where medical claims are involved. But can you point to the Misplaced Pages policy or policies that you are using as your rationale for removing primary sources in non-medical science articles? --Epipelagic (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Every policy and guideline says we should use secondary sources. CCD is a controversial topic and the useful essay on controversial articles advises editors to raise source quality - to be even more careful to do what we should be doing. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, where in policy is it stated that primary sources may not be used in non-medical scientific articles? Smartse points out above and below compelling reasons why this particular primary source shouldn't be used, but those were not reasons you gave when you removed the source. You seem to implying it is policy. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I never cited WP:MEDRS and I have responded to the point; it is not about what we can do but what we should do. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You have been making statements as if they are policy when they are not, something you have been accused of very recently elsewhere.DrChrissy 15:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You have not responded to my question. I never said you cited WP:MEDRS. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't spelled out in policy because it depends on the subject. If you're writing about an obscure topic where there are few sources available then it is probably ok to use primary sources. For an article like this though where there are plenty of secondary sources and many dodgy primary sources we should stick to only using the bext reviews. SmartSE (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as that - they might have a function in an astrobiology article for example, but the views espoused are extremely WP:FRINGE. Jytdog's right that we rely on what others ciet to guide what sources to include, but that doesn't exclude us from using common sense either and in this specific example it should be very obvious that this is a wacky theory. Also, note that the 2014 paper is by the same author as this one, and the others were written before CCD was even really a thing so it wouldn't be a good idea to cite them here. SmartSE (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure we all know that RS of a journal depends on context. Could you please offer evidence that this journal is non-RS compliant in respect of the effects of magnetism on Honey bee behaviour.DrChrissy 15:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you're asking this and no I can't "offer evidence" beyond what I've written above about the editor, but if you want to gain consensus to include it, I suggest you visit WP:RSN. SmartSE (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have searched the journal for other articles on the behaviour of bees. I can not find any. Therefore, there is no evidence that it is an unreliable source in this context. I repeat User:Smartse, do you have any evidence this source is RS non-compliant in this context?DrChrissy 15:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories: