929:
because WMF do not own the text. That belongs to the various authors who's work was taken. Perhaps WMF legal would offer to help those authors sue -- but what award would a judge give to two or three random people? What are their losses? They gave the work away for free. Just a few hundred words? It isn't like they stole a 50-page chapter. This seriously is not worth the legal expense. However, if we believe the text taken is too minimal to be copyright theft, the most the authors of the textbook are likely guilty of is plagiarism. Naughty. Slap on the wrist. Reputation harmed. But not illegal. Possibly Oxford will be more cautious about accepting work from those authors again.
94:
1116:. There was quite a discussion about this in Germany, the editor from Beck who was responsible for the book attended the WikiCon in Cologne to discuss Knowledge and academic publishing. Apparently there are those who find Knowledge in its present form "unciteable" or only a collection of "facts", and thus take texts and pictures at will. Wikimedia Germany determined that indeed, only the (many) authors of an article could sue for breach of copyright. Interesting is that in Germany, if they
914:"I looked for attribution of Knowledge in the Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses and a release of this book under an open license as required by Knowledge, and the result was that neither of these have been performed. The hardcover version of the Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses retails for $ 375. I discussed this issue with the legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation, who contacted the Oxford University Press. We were hoping that they could negotiate both attribution and release under an open license."
796:
121:
111:
448:
textbook chapter takes a fair length of time, likely weeks rather than a few days. Looking at the time line, it is questionable whether the OUP ever seriously intended to attribute
Knowledge. While our content passed their review processes, they claimed it was simply an âinadvertent omission of citationâ. It is likely that a replacement chapter was requested immediately after the WMF legal department contacted OUPâs team.
406:
attribute and use an open license would be difficult. The legal team at the WMF, however, was optimistic. Initial emails from OUP indicated that this case would take longer than usual, as the people involved were âall over the world doing important Ebola workâ. This, of course, is not the first time we have come across the academic literature copy and pasting from
Knowledge. In 2012, I discovered a medical textbook had also
37:
131:
91:
141:
101:
306:) collected from the Central African Republic (Peterson 2004). The virus was detected in the carcasses of gorillas, chimpanzees, and duikers during outbreaks in 2001 and 2003, which later became the source of human infections. However, the high mortality from infection in these species makes them unlikely as a natural reservoir.
979:
are not on firm ground, AFAICT). OPU may indeed have found a lazy employee who plagiarized a bit - a student would get suspended at many schools - but it unclear as to whether the
Knowledge article has any literary value. By the way, Knowledge is so often used by newspapers etc. as to make concerns now a tad risible.
994:
To echo the comments below, this is an incredible find. It seems that the author of the chapter, who copied major sections from
Knowledge, is more responsible than the publisher, who can't be expected to source-check every submission. OUP's reported inaction, however, begins to put them on the side
405:
The reputation of
Knowledge in academia often seems to be that it is good enough for academics to use and even occasionally claim as their own work, but not good enough for either students or the âunwashed massesâ. Thus I believed that convincing one of the worldâs foremost medical publishers to both
1070:
Let me repeat: they don't "need" to do anything. They haven't broken a criminal law. Only the authors of the copied material can sue, and they are both unlikely to do so and unlikely to win enough to bother with. Photographs are a different story with a track-record of achieving pay-outs. Has anyone
978:
It is, moreover, dictum that copyright does not attach to mere logical statement or compilation of facts. To the extent that the statements of numbers are such compilations, they are not covered by copyright no matter who publishes them (sports leagues which assert "copyright" over scores and stats
936:
Another example is if someone uses a picture from
Commons then they should provide appropriate licence information and attribution. But it only makes that one picture free (i.e., someone could scan or photograph the picture from the book and publish it again with a free licence) -- it doesn't affect
928:
Have they taken sufficient text for this to be considered a copyright violation? I am no lawyer but if this is less than a page of text taken from part of an article and used in a 900 page book, I very much doubt it. And even if it was a copyright violation, it isn't the WMF legal team who could sue
308:
Plants, arthropods, and birds have also been considered as possible reservoirs; however, bats are now considered the most likely candidate. Bats were known to reside in the cotton factory in which the Ebola index cases for the 1976 and 1979 outbreaks were employed. They have been implicated in the
590:
Morvan, J.; Deubel, V.; Gounon, P.; Nakouné, E.; BarriÚre, P.; Murri, S.; PerpÚte, O.; Selekon, B.; Coudrier, D.; Gautier-Hion, A.; Colyn, M.; Volehkov, V. (1999). "Identification of Ebola virus sequences present as RNA or DNA in organs of terrestrial small mammals of the
Central African Republic".
932:
If they want future editions of the book to be free of legal issues while retaining the same text, then some attribution would be added and at most the chapter by those authors would be released under a free licence. It depends how integrated the text is with the chapter. Alternatively, they could
920:
book to be released under an open licence. The CC licence is not viral and was not designed to be. Additionally, a licence has no legal power to compel anyone - because if they don't obey the terms of the licence then the benefits of the licence cease to exist along with those terms. Without those
447:
On
February 5, 2015, I emailed the OUP offering to rewrite and update the chapter in question in collaboration with fellow Wikipedians. The next day, they replied via e-mail stating that they had already âindependently decided to update the chapter and that that work already in handâ. Writing a
1106:
There were three cases of plagiarism from the
Knowledge in academic books this past year in Germany, all three have been taken off the market. One was a book about sea battles, one on the history of computing (!), and one about a Venetian printer; they were published with supposedly respectable
954:
As to whether the amount of text would constitute a copyvio, certainly that is debatable. The size of the book or chapter it is in, however, is irrelevant (were it otherwise
Knowledge, being so large would be able to copy almost anything with impunity). It is a significant portion of the work
1093:
Ultimately, my point is that fussing over legal and licence-related issues of the incorrect re-use of Knowledge text is somewhat pointless. It will only induce an ulcer. The more fundamental issue is the moral one of plagiarism. And on that issue Knowledge is at least, if not more, guilty than
1080:
for digital content online, but I have no idea if any country has the powers to block continued publication of book that is 99% original text. And as I said, any company faced with such a legal challenge would offer cash before even paying for one hour for an expensive lawyer's time. As for
358:
Initially, I made an assumption that someone had copied and pasted from this book into Knowledge. However, thankfully we have the ability to go back and view every version of Knowledge that has ever existed. I could thus determine that the content in question was added to Knowledge
30:
Text from Knowledge good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own: Doc James tells us that "The one good thing that has come out of all of this is that Knowledgeâs content passing a major textbook publisher review processes is some external validation of Knowledgeâs
871:
114:
464:
include "The absence of clinical signs in these bats is characteristic of a reservoir species. In a 2002â2003 survey of 1,030 animals which included 679 bats from Gabon and the Republic of the Congo, 13 fruit bats were found to contain Ebolavirus RNA". Knowledge cites
1031:
Yes simply attributing Knowledge is not technically enough, but at least it shows someone is trying and that is good enough for me. People can then come to Knowledge and figure out who the real authors are which we do not make easy. But that is our own fault.
313:, only bats became infected (Swanepoel 1996). The absence of clinical signs in these bats is characteristic of a reservoir species. In a 2002-2003 survey of 1,030 animales, which included 679 bats from Gabon and the DRC, 13 fruit bats were found to contain
924:
I assume "attribution of Knowledge" is a simple mistake since Knowledge is not the author -- attribution belongs to all the (many) authors who wrote that text collectively. But it is a mistake many publishers make in their attribution when they do give it.
1027:
Yes I am not under the impression that they need to release the whole book under an open license. They do need to release the one chapter however under an open license as much of it was more or less from Knowledge (from a few different articles in fact).
1075:
received court-awarded payment for re-use of text contributed to a multi-author free-content project? So they have broken some moral/ethical laws but in practice they "can" continue to publish that book with the small amount of copied material. There is
955:(article) copied. Moreover the question could be decided in English courts, American courts or indeed any country where OUP publishes. Would there be sense in suing? Probably not, but if the practice were not reined in, it might provide motivation.
950:
I think the author was a little optimistic to hope for either the chapter or book to be released under an open license, but it does no harm to ask. The article does not imply that there was a legal requirement to release anything new under on open
134:
440:, I found more inconsistencies. For example, while parts of the text were exactly the same, the author had not consistently used the same references. The references used on the Knowledge article supported the text, but the references in the
104:
144:
1009:
They don't have to source-check every submission. Running it through Turnitin would be sufficient to pick up stuff like this. Of course the PR outcome of admiting to needing to run a $ 300 textbook through Turnitin would cause its own
1107:
publishing houses C. H. Beck, Springer, and Wagenbach. Apparently, the editing process, should it actually take place, does not include checks for plagiarism. Portions of the plagiarism have been documented on the VroniPlag Wiki:
401:
retails for $ 375. I discussed this issue with the legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation, who contacted the Oxford University Press. We were hoping that they could negotiate both attribution and release under an open license.
995:
of defending their, and their author's, actions. If contact with OUP is ineffective, perhaps it would be appropriate to contact the author and/or his employers about this action, taking full caution about British libel laws.
382:. I contacted the user who had made the majority of the contributions, who turned out to be a virologist in Australia who assured me that while he had contributed to Knowledge, he had never contributed to the
435:
On January 20, 2015, the OUP acknowledged that the content originated from Knowledge and agreed to attribute Knowledge, but were having difficulty with the open licensing. Following further inspection of the
1035:
Yes we asked for the whole book to be release. And yes I considered this a very looong shot which it was. Those not the least bit surprised that they refused as they have no legal requirement to do so.
234:
for the 1976 and 1979 outbreaks were employed, and they have also been implicated in Marburg infections in 1975 and 1980. Of 24 plant species and 19 vertebrate species experimentally inoculated with
444:
that were changed did not support the text in question. The question remains as to why the references were changed. As a result of these changes, the quality of the copied content was lowered.
704:
Leroy, E. M.; Kumulungui, B.; Pourrut, X.; Rouquet, P.; Hassanin, A.; Yaba, P.; DĂ©licat, A.; Paweska, J. T.; Gonzalez, J. P.; Swanepoel, R. (2005). "Fruit bats as reservoirs of Ebola virus".
217:
during outbreaks in 2001 and 2003, which later became the source of human infections. However, the high mortality from infection in these species makes them unlikely as a natural reservoir.
1081:"attributing Knowledge" being enough, well that might be a reasonable sentiment for multi-authored text but sure isn't enough for a photographer who's work is attributed to "Wikimedia". --
428:, which creates open access textbooks mostly based on Knowledge content for first year university students, on how to appropriately attribute. These books were already released under a
328:
Reston ebolavirusâunlike its African counterpartsâis non-pathogenic in humans. The high mortality among monkeys and its recent emergence in pigs makes them unlikely natural reservoirs.
451:
The one good thing that has come out of all of this is that Knowledgeâs content passing a major textbook publisher review processes is some external validation of Knowledgeâs quality.
238:, only bats became infected. The absence of clinical signs in these bats is characteristic of a reservoir species. In a 2002â2003 survey of 1,030 animals which included 679 bats from
1124:
that have at times quite extensive, unattributed use of the Knowledge in doctoral dissertations. One 61 page thesis in medicine has 13 pages taken from just one Knowledge article
556:
Pourrut, X.; Kumulungui, B.; Wittmann, T.; Moussavou, G.; DĂ©licat, A.; Yaba, P.; Nkoghe, D.; Gonzalez, J. P.; Leroy, E. M. (2005). "The natural history of Ebola virus in Africa".
290:...Between 1976 and 1998, various mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and arthropods from outbreak regions have been studied to determine the natural Fiolovirus reservoir. No
77:
278:âunlike its African counterpartsâis non-pathogenic in humans. The high mortality among monkeys and its recent emergence in swine, makes them unlikely natural reservoirs.
343:(OUP). I noticed that chapter 31, "Marburg and Ebola viruses", contained a fair bit of text that was nearly identical, word for word, as that in the Knowledge article
855:
71:
835:
1004:
850:
525:
Both state "Of 24 plant species and 19 vertebrate species experimentally inoculated with Ebolavirus, only bats became infected" and both use the same reference,
1168:
1136:
1019:
845:
820:
418:
1266:
1120:
to sue, the use of the text is considered unlicensed, as OUP did not follow the rules. That makes a settlement much more expensive. VroniPlag Wiki also has a
1220:
1101:
1088:
830:
916:
This contains an important fallacy: that by using some paragraphs of text from Knowledge in a 900-page multi-author textbook somehow legally requires the
124:
1242:
813:
886:
650:
Swanepoel, R. L.; Leman, P. A.; Burt, F. J.; Zachariades, N. A.; Braack, L. E.; Ksiazek, T. G.; Rollin, P. E.; Zaki, S. R.; Peters, C. J. (Oct 1996).
1280:
378:
Next, I wondered whether one of these individuals was the author of the OUP chapter, namely, Graham Lloyd of the Special Pathogens Reference Unit at
807:
56:
45:
840:
355:, with at least the "natural reservoirs" section being nearly verbatim and some parts of the rest of the chapter containing great similarities.
1064:
921:
benefits, they are simply in the same situation as if the textbook had lifted some text from another all-rights-reserved book under copyright.
407:
988:
944:
1332:
860:
1201:
1127:. I have suggested, only partially in jest, that Knowledge needs to be granted an honorary doctorate for its widespread use in academia.
372:
933:
just offer those two authors $ 100 to waive their licence terms, which would probably be much more attractive option to everyone.
21:
1307:
1302:
1297:
891:
776:
898:
1292:
397:
as required by Knowledge, and the result was that neither of these have been performed. The hardcover version of the
364:
309:
Marburg infections in 1975 and 1980. Of 24 plant species and 19 vertebrate species experimentally inoculated with
1160:
1056:
454:
1287:
795:
518:
50:
36:
17:
1253:
analysis of the participatory grantmaking article in News & Notes, I'm going to call it. This week's
1164:
1060:
907:
1178:
747:
230:
are considered the most likely candidate. Bats were known to reside in the cotton factory in which the
875:
966:
1000:
206:
1262:
485:
424:
At Knowledge, we are happy to work with publishers. A year or so ago, I helped guide the company
340:
256:
492:
Both include "no Ebolavirus was detected apart from some genetic material found in six rodents (
170:
360:
348:
243:
1313:
1213:
1121:
1077:
963:
713:
268:
8:
1156:
1132:
1052:
996:
425:
368:
344:
166:
717:
1258:
1235:
682:
651:
604:
1227:
Completely agree. The second of two great op-eds from Doc James in the last month.
1039:
I agree that "release of this book under an open license" should be "release of this
984:
882:
729:
687:
671:
608:
573:
262:
201:
771:
are those of the authors only; responses and critical commentary are invited in the
480:
1143:
Yes German masters thesis in public health that was mostly based up our article on
721:
678:
663:
600:
565:
471:
1208:
1099:
1086:
942:
569:
625:
1197:
1184:
1148:
1128:
1044:
1015:
505:
466:
154:
526:
1326:
1228:
674:
325:) have been identified as carrying the virus while remaining asymptomatic...
272:) have been identified as carrying the virus while remaining asymptomatic...
185:
175:
Between 1976 and 1998, from 30,000 mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and
1114:
1108:
367:. From this I could conclude that it was partly written by the Wikipedians
1111:
980:
748:"Ebola-Reston Virus in Pigs: Disease situation in swine in the Philippines"
732:
667:
611:
576:
394:
352:
72:
Text from Knowledge good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own
690:
379:
363:
and was subsequently edited and expanded between then and 2010, when the
1095:
1082:
938:
504:) collected from the Central African Republic". Knowledge cites it to
231:
226:, and birds have also been considered as possible reservoirs; however,
223:
1192:
1011:
251:
176:
725:
294:
was detected apart from some genetic material found in six rodents (
183:
was detected apart from some genetic material found in six rodents (
1125:
429:
555:
432:
license. We attempted to work with the OUP in the same fashion.
1144:
652:"Experimental inoculation of plants and animals with Ebola virus"
210:
191:
214:
537:
768:
703:
649:
239:
219:
196:
958:
Regardless the text, unattributed, constitutes plagiarism.
317:
RNA (Pourrut 2009). As of 2005, three fruit bat species (
750:. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
589:
227:
162:
389:
Finally, I looked for attribution of Knowledge in the
896:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
775:. Editors wishing to submit their own op-ed should
1324:
421:on the misappropriation of Wikimedia content.)
551:
549:
547:
209:. The virus was detected in the carcasses of
152:
544:
319:Hypsignathus monstrosus, Epomops franqueti
681:
583:
558:Microbes and infection / Institut Pasteur
899:
14:
1325:
246:, 13 fruit bats were found to contain
1249:I fourth the motion! Paired with the
165:
55:
29:
393:and a release of this book under an
1333:Knowledge Signpost archives 2015-02
745:
522:which does not support the content.
27:
794:
626:"Fruit bats may carry Ebola virus"
179:sampled from outbreak regions, no
57:
35:
28:
1344:
1279:is written by editors like you â
881:These comments are automatically
512:which does support it, while the
408:extensively copied from Knowledge
335:Last October, I came across the
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
972:12:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC).
892:add the page to your watchlist
739:
697:
643:
618:
475:, which does support it. The
13:
1:
1267:20:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
1243:18:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
1221:17:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
1202:14:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
1169:22:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
1137:21:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
1122:collection of doctoral theses
1102:13:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
1089:13:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
1065:01:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
1020:17:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
1005:20:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
989:13:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
945:11:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
772:
767:The views expressed in these
605:10.1016/S1286-4579(99)00242-7
1094:professional publishers. --
867:
656:Emerging Infectious Diseases
570:10.1016/j.micinf.2005.04.006
531:Emerging Infectious Diseases
519:Emerging Infectious Diseases
489:, which does not support it.
18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost
7:
514:Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses
477:Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses
462:Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses
442:Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses
438:Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses
399:Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses
391:Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses
384:Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses
365:greatest similarities occur
337:Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses
285:Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses
10:
1349:
282:
164:
1207:Totally agree with Cirt.
283:
1183:Great contribution from
455:A look at the references
207:Central African Republic
1043:under an open license"
486:BMC Infectious Diseases
460:Both Knowledge and the
341:Oxford University Press
257:Hypsignathus monstrosus
250:RNA. As of 2005, three
171:15:21, 25 December 2010
889:. To follow comments,
799:
668:10.3201/eid0204.960407
593:Microbes and Infection
510:Microbes and Infection
40:
798:
244:Republic of the Congo
205:) collected from the
39:
1147:was finally pulled.
1078:Notice and take down
912:The text above says
885:from this article's
349:A page from the book
339:(2011) published by
323:Myonycteris torquata
269:Myonycteris torquata
908:The text above says
718:2005Natur.438..575L
345:Ebola virus disease
213:, chimpanzees, and
167:Ebola virus disease
1179:Great contribution
937:anything else. --
876:Discuss this story
856:WikiProject report
800:
564:(7â8): 1005â1014.
46:â Back to Contents
41:
1241:
973:
900:purging the cache
712:(7068): 575â576.
599:(14): 1193â1201.
502:Sylvisorex ollula
500:) and one shrew (
410:. (Also see the
333:
332:
304:sylvisorex ollula
302:) and one shrew (
287:(2011). page 364
276:Reston ebolavirus
263:Epomops franqueti
202:Sylvisorex ollula
51:View Latest Issue
1340:
1316:
1238:
1233:
1231:
1216:
1153:
1049:
971:
903:
901:
895:
874:
836:Featured content
818:
810:
808:25 February 2015
803:
785:
773:comments section
759:
758:
756:
755:
743:
737:
736:
701:
695:
694:
685:
647:
641:
640:
638:
637:
622:
616:
615:
587:
581:
580:
553:
416:
163:
157:
143:
142:
133:
132:
123:
122:
113:
112:
103:
102:
93:
92:
63:
61:
59:
58:25 February 2015
1348:
1347:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1312:
1310:
1305:
1300:
1295:
1290:
1283:
1273:
1272:
1236:
1229:
1219:
1214:
1181:
1149:
1045:
910:
905:
897:
890:
879:
878:
872:+ Add a comment
870:
866:
865:
864:
851:Recent research
811:
806:
804:
801:
783:
763:
762:
753:
751:
746:Lubroth, Juan.
744:
740:
726:10.1038/438575a
702:
698:
648:
644:
635:
633:
624:
623:
619:
588:
584:
554:
545:
540:
457:
414:
351:may be seen on
158:
151:
150:
149:
140:
130:
120:
110:
100:
90:
84:
81:
70:
66:
64:
54:
53:
48:
42:
32:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1346:
1336:
1335:
1311:
1306:
1301:
1296:
1291:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1275:
1274:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1257:game: strong.â
1246:
1245:
1224:
1223:
1211:
1180:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1104:
1091:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
997:SteveMcCluskey
976:
975:
974:
961:All the best:
959:
956:
952:
909:
906:
880:
877:
869:
868:
863:
858:
853:
848:
846:Traffic report
843:
838:
833:
828:
823:
821:News and notes
817:
805:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
761:
760:
738:
696:
662:(4): 321â325.
642:
617:
582:
542:
541:
539:
536:
535:
534:
527:a 1996 article
523:
506:a 2005 article
490:
481:a 2009 article
467:a 2005 article
456:
453:
419:special report
369:ChyranandChloe
331:
330:
288:
281:
280:
173:
160:
148:
147:
137:
127:
117:
107:
97:
86:
85:
82:
76:
75:
74:
73:
68:
67:
65:
62:
49:
44:
43:
34:
33:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1345:
1334:
1331:
1330:
1328:
1315:
1309:
1304:
1299:
1294:
1289:
1282:
1278:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1259:Neil P. Quinn
1256:
1252:
1248:
1247:
1244:
1239:
1232:
1226:
1225:
1222:
1217:
1210:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1194:
1188:
1187:, thank you.
1186:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1152:
1146:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1112:
1109:
1105:
1103:
1100:
1097:
1092:
1090:
1087:
1084:
1079:
1074:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1048:
1042:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1002:
998:
993:
992:
991:
990:
986:
982:
969:
968:
965:
960:
957:
953:
949:
948:
947:
946:
943:
940:
934:
930:
926:
922:
919:
915:
902:
893:
888:
884:
873:
862:
859:
857:
854:
852:
849:
847:
844:
842:
839:
837:
834:
832:
829:
827:
824:
822:
819:
815:
809:
802:In this issue
797:
787:
780:
778:
774:
770:
765:
764:
749:
742:
734:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
700:
692:
689:
684:
680:
676:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
646:
631:
627:
621:
613:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
586:
578:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
552:
550:
548:
543:
532:
528:
524:
521:
520:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
494:Mus setulosus
491:
488:
487:
482:
478:
474:
473:
468:
463:
459:
458:
452:
449:
445:
443:
439:
433:
431:
427:
422:
420:
413:
409:
403:
400:
396:
392:
387:
385:
381:
376:
374:
370:
366:
362:
356:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
329:
326:
324:
320:
316:
312:
305:
301:
297:
296:Mus setulosus
293:
289:
286:
279:
277:
273:
271:
270:
265:
264:
259:
258:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
216:
212:
208:
204:
203:
198:
194:
193:
188:
187:
186:Mus setulosus
182:
178:
174:
172:
168:
161:
156:
155:James Heilman
146:
138:
136:
128:
126:
118:
116:
108:
106:
98:
96:
88:
87:
79:
60:
52:
47:
38:
23:
19:
1277:The Signpost
1276:
1254:
1250:
1191:
1189:
1182:
1150:
1117:
1072:
1046:
1040:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
977:
962:
935:
931:
927:
923:
917:
913:
911:
831:In the media
825:
814:all comments
782:
766:
752:. Retrieved
741:
709:
705:
699:
659:
655:
645:
634:. Retrieved
632:. 2005-12-11
629:
620:
596:
592:
585:
561:
557:
530:
517:
516:cites from
513:
509:
501:
497:
493:
484:
476:
470:
461:
450:
446:
441:
437:
434:
423:
411:
404:
398:
395:open license
390:
388:
383:
377:
361:back in 2006
357:
353:Google Books
336:
334:
327:
322:
318:
314:
310:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
284:
275:
274:
267:
261:
255:
247:
235:
218:
200:
190:
184:
180:
159:
1314:Suggestions
883:transcluded
380:Porton Down
232:index cases
1209:Smallbones
967:Farmbrough
754:2009-09-27
636:2008-02-25
538:References
315:Ebolavirus
311:Ebolavirus
292:Ebolavirus
248:Ebolavirus
236:Ebolavirus
224:arthropods
195:) and one
181:Ebolavirus
177:arthropods
83:Share this
78:Contribute
22:2015-02-25
1308:Subscribe
1251:fantastic
1215:smalltalk
1185:Doc James
1151:Doc James
1129:WiseWoman
1047:Doc James
1010:problems.
887:talk page
786:s editor.
675:1080-6040
426:Boundless
254:species (
252:fruit bat
31:quality."
1327:Category
1303:Newsroom
1298:Archives
1281:join in!
1255:Signpost
1230:Gamaliel
1161:contribs
1057:contribs
951:license.
781:Signpost
733:16319873
630:BBC News
612:10580275
577:16002313
430:CC BY SA
412:Signpost
242:and the
211:gorillas
125:LinkedIn
105:Facebook
20: |
1145:obesity
981:Collect
841:Gallery
714:Bibcode
691:8969248
683:2639914
498:Praomys
417:s 2012
300:Praomys
215:duikers
192:Praomys
115:Twitter
918:entire
769:op-eds
706:Nature
479:cites
472:Nature
321:, and
266:, and
220:Plants
135:Reddit
95:E-mail
1293:About
1165:email
1096:Colin
1083:Colin
1061:email
1012:©Geni
939:Colin
826:Op-ed
777:email
529:from
508:from
483:from
469:from
240:Gabon
197:shrew
69:Op-ed
16:<
1288:Home
1263:talk
1237:talk
1198:talk
1193:Cirt
1157:talk
1133:talk
1118:were
1073:ever
1053:talk
1041:text
1016:talk
1001:talk
985:talk
964:Rich
861:Blog
779:the
730:PMID
688:PMID
672:ISSN
609:PMID
574:PMID
496:and
373:Rhys
371:and
298:and
228:bats
189:and
145:Digg
722:doi
710:438
679:PMC
664:doi
601:doi
566:doi
375:.
153:By
80:â
1329::
1265:)
1200:)
1190:â
1167:)
1163:·
1159:·
1135:)
1113:-
1110:-
1063:)
1059:·
1055:·
1018:)
1003:)
987:)
970:,
728:.
720:.
708:.
686:.
677:.
670:.
658:.
654:.
628:.
607:.
595:.
572:.
560:.
546:^
386:.
347:.
260:,
222:,
169:,
1261:(
1240:)
1234:(
1218:)
1212:(
1196:(
1155:(
1131:(
1098:°
1085:°
1051:(
1014:(
999:(
983:(
941:°
904:.
894:.
816:)
812:(
784:'
757:.
735:.
724::
716::
693:.
666::
660:2
639:.
614:.
603::
597:1
579:.
568::
562:7
533:.
415:'
199:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
