News Article | November 2, 2016
LONDON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Tourico Holidays, the world’s fastest growing wholesale travel brokerage company, today shared fiscal results reporting a 300 percent revenue increase in the past five years in Europe and the Middle East. Tourico now has over 10,000 hotel partners in the EME region and demand for the company’s unique pre-purchased hotel rooms, or “ExclusiveDeals”, continues to grow – with bookings increasing 25 percent year-over-year in EME. Travel from the United States to EME is a dri
News Article | February 16, 2017
NEW YORK, Feb. 16, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- EME Blood Gas and Electrolyte Analyzers Market: Trends and Opportunities With a surge in point-of-care diagnostic devices due to obvious advantage of faster disease diagnosis, the market for blood gas and electrolyte analyzers is expected to...
News Article | February 23, 2017
NORWALK, Conn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--EMCOR Group, Inc. (NYSE:EME) today reported results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. For the fourth quarter of 2016, net income from continuing operations attributable to EMCOR was $42.2 million, or $0.69 per diluted share, compared to $50.4 million, or $0.80 per diluted share, in the fourth quarter of 2015. Excluding an impairment charge detailed below, non-GAAP net income from continuing operations was $43.7 million, or $0.72 per diluted share, in the fourth quarter of 2016. Revenues for the fourth quarter of 2016 totaled $1.95 billion, an increase of 9.7%, compared to $1.78 billion in the fourth quarter 2015. Operating income for the fourth quarter of 2016 was $74.5 million, or 3.8% of revenues, compared to operating income of $84.1 million, or 4.7% of revenues, in the fourth quarter of 2015. Included in the operating income for the fourth quarter of 2016 was an impairment charge of $2.4 million. Excluding this impairment charge, non-GAAP operating income in the fourth quarter of 2016 was $76.9 million, or 3.9% of revenues. Included in both GAAP and non-GAAP operating income for the fourth quarter of 2016 was a $20.5 million project loss associated with a contract dispute on a completed project within our U.S. Mechanical Construction segment. Please see the attached tables for a reconciliation of non-GAAP operating income, non-GAAP net income from continuing operations and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share from continuing operations to the comparable GAAP figures. Selling, general and administrative expenses for the 2016 fourth quarter were $194.9 million, or 10.0% of revenues, compared to $168.5 million, or 9.5% of revenues, in the fourth quarter of 2015. Backlog as of December 31, 2016 was $3.90 billion, an increase of 3.5% from $3.77 billion at the end of the fourth quarter of 2015. Total domestic backlog grew $107.3 million year-over-year and backlog in our U.K. Building Services segment increased $24.4 million. Year-over-year growth in backlog in our U.S. Mechanical Construction and U.S. Electrical Construction segments more than offset declines in our U.S. Building Services and U.S. Industrial Services segments. From an end-market perspective, backlog growth in the commercial, healthcare, industrial and water & wastewater markets was partially offset by declines in the institutional, transportation and hospitality sectors. Tony Guzzi, President and Chief Executive Officer of EMCOR, commented, “The Company delivered record revenues and diluted earnings per share from continuing operations in the 2016 full-year period, with growth of 12% and 14%, respectively, excluding transaction expenses and an impairment charge. This was driven by double-digit revenue growth in our combined U.S. businesses, with strong operating income contributions from our U.S. Electrical Construction segment and our U.S. Industrial Services segment and bottom-line growth from our U.K. business. We are particularly pleased with these results given the obstacles that were presented throughout the year, including the losses incurred from several large scale projects in both of our U.S. Construction segments, with respect to which we are seeking recovery.” Mr. Guzzi added, “In the quarter, our U.S. Electrical Construction segment, a standout in the quarter, delivered a 111% increase in operating income, with over 200 basis points of operating margin expansion. While revenues increased 9.4% in our U.S. Mechanical Construction segment for the quarter, this revenue growth unfortunately did not lead to a corresponding increase in segment profitability. This was due to the execution of a fast-paced process facility project that resulted in a $20.5 million loss due to a contract dispute at the completion of our work. Our U.S. Building Services segment reported an exceptional quarter, with operating income increasing by 35% on a 120 basis point margin expansion, driven by strong performance in its mobile mechanical services operations. Our U.S. Industrial Services segment’s operating income was essentially flat for the quarter; however, for the year, revenues and operating income increased close to 16% and 38%, respectively, on the strength of a significant field services capital project. Lastly, our U.K. segment was able to expand operating margins by 70 basis points in the quarter.” Revenues for the 2016 full-year period increased 12.4% to $7.55 billion, compared to $6.72 billion for the 2015 full-year period. Net income from continuing operations attributable to EMCOR for the 2016 full-year period was $185.1 million, or $3.02 per diluted share, compared to $172.3 million, or $2.72 per diluted share, in the prior year. Excluding transaction expenses and the impairment charge recorded in the fourth quarter, non-GAAP net income from continuing operations attributable to EMCOR in the 2016 full-year period was $188.9 million, or $3.09 per diluted share. Operating income for the 2016 full-year period was $308.5 million, or 4.1% of revenues, compared to $287.1 million, or 4.3% of revenues, in the 2015 full-year period. Included in operating income for the 2016 full-year period were $3.8 million of transaction expenses related to the Ardent acquisition and a $2.4 million impairment charge. Excluding the aforementioned expenses, non-GAAP operating income in the 2016 full-year period was $314.7 million, or 4.2% of revenues. Please see the attached tables for a reconciliation of non-GAAP operating income, non-GAAP net income from continuing operations and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share from continuing operations to the comparable GAAP figures. For the 2016 full-year period, selling, general and administrative expenses were $725.5 million, or 9.6% of revenues, compared to $656.6 million, or 9.8% of revenues, in the 2015 full-year period. Based on the favorable backlog mix and assuming continued improvement in market conditions, EMCOR expects full-year 2017 revenues to be between $7.5 billion and $7.6 billion, and full-year 2017 diluted earnings per share from continuing operations to be in the range of $3.10 to $3.50. Mr. Guzzi concluded, “After a solid 2016, we are encouraged by our prospects as we look to 2017 and beyond. Our backlog continues to expand despite record revenues, and we are especially pleased with the strong pipeline in our U.S. Construction segments. We remain optimistic that the non-residential construction market will continue to improve in 2017, and we are well positioned to capture our share of the market. Our healthy balance sheet continues to provide us with the flexibility to pursue strategic acquisitions while returning capital to shareholders through share repurchases and dividends.” EMCOR Group, Inc. is a Fortune 500 leader in mechanical and electrical construction services, industrial and energy infrastructure and building services. This press release and other press releases may be viewed at the Company’s website at www.emcorgroup.com. EMCOR Group's fourth quarter conference call will be available live via internet broadcast today, Thursday, February 23, at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. The live call may be accessed through the Company's website at www.emcorgroup.com. This release may contain certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Reform Act of 1995. Any such comments are based upon information available to EMCOR management and its perception thereof, as of this date, and EMCOR assumes no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements may include statements regarding market opportunities, market share growth, gross profit, backlog mix, projects with varying profit margins, and selling, general and administrative expenses. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements. Accordingly these statements are no guarantee of future performance. Such risk and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, adverse effects of general economic conditions, changes in the political environment, changes in the specific markets for EMCOR’s services, adverse business conditions, availability of adequate levels of surety bonding, increased competition, unfavorable labor productivity and mix of business. Certain of the risks and factors associated with EMCOR's business are also discussed in the Company's 2016 Form 10-K and in other reports filed from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission. All these risks and factors should be taken into account in evaluating any forward-looking statements. In our press release, we provide actual 2016 and 2015 fourth quarter and year-to-date December 31, 2016 and 2015 operating income. The following table provides a reconciliation between 2016 and 2015 operating income based on non-GAAP measures to the most direct comparable GAAP measures. In our press release, we provide actual 2016 and 2015 fourth quarter and year-to-date December 31, 2016 and 2015 net income from continuing operations attributable to EMCOR Group, Inc. The following table provides a reconciliation between 2016 and 2015 net income from continuing operations attributable to EMCOR Group, Inc. based on non-GAAP measures to the most direct comparable GAAP measures. (1) Amount is income from continuing operations less net income attributable to noncontrolling interest. (2) Amount is net of tax effect of $1.5 million in the 2016 year-to-date period. (3) Amount is net of tax effect of $1.0 million in the 2016 quarter and year-to-date periods. EMCOR GROUP, INC. RECONCILIATION OF 2016 AND 2015 DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE FIGURES (Unaudited) In our press release, we provide actual 2016 and 2015 fourth quarter and year-to-date December 31, 2016 and 2015 diluted earnings per share from continuing operations. The following table provides a reconciliation between 2016 and 2015 EPS based on non-GAAP measures to the most direct comparable GAAP measures. (1) Amount is net of tax effect of $1.5 million in the 2016 year-to-date period. (2) Amount is net of tax effect of $1.0 million in the 2016 quarter and year-to-date periods.
News Article | November 19, 2016
Researchers at Queen's University Belfast together with University of St Andrews and Aberdeen have found that the procedure used to remove cataracts is more successful than current standard treatments with laser in treating Primary Angle-Closure Glaucoma -- a leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide. Professor Azuara-Blanco at the Centre for Public Health at Queen's led an international trial comparing two treatments for glaucoma -- the standard treatment, or 'laser iridotomy', which uses a laser to open a tiny hole in the eye to allow fluid to drain away and reduce the increased eye pressure that causes glaucoma; and 'lens extraction with intraocular lens implantation', a surgical procedure to remove the eye's natural lens and replace it with an artificial plastic lens. The surgical technique of lens extraction and replacement with an artificial plastic lens has been used successfully for decades to restore vision in patients' with cataracts. The Queen's-led Effectiveness in Angle-closure Glaucoma of Lens Extraction (EAGLE) study, supported by the EME Programme, an MRC and NIHR partnership, compared the outcomes for 419 patients -- 208 of whom received lens extraction treatment and 211 of whom received laser iridotomy. The patients were treated at hospitals in the UK, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong-Kong and Australia. The results show that at three years, initial clear lens extraction surgery is more effective than standard laser treatment in terms of patient reported health and vision and for lowering eye pressure. Less eye drops are needed to control the glaucoma. Also, balancing costs and benefits, initial clear lens extraction surgery was more efficient for the NHS. The findings have been published in The Lancet Journal earlier this month. Glaucoma is an age-related and chronic eye disease typically associated with increased eye pressure and progressive optic nerve damage that may lead to blindness if untreated. According to the World Health Organisation, glaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible blindness, with the current prevalence of 20 million expected to rise to 34 million by 2040, including 5.3 million with blindness. Although most people with glaucoma do not become blind, many have substantially impaired quality of life due to restricted peripheral vision and the need for long-term treatment. Explaining the condition, Professor Augusto Azuara-Blanco, from the Centre for Public Health at Queen's, who led the trial, said: "There are two major types of glaucoma, depending on the drainage channels that take the fluid outside the eye: open or closed angle glaucoma. Angle-closure glaucoma is less common but more severe. It is most prevalent among people of East Asian origin, and in the UK it accounts approximately for 2 out of 10 cases of glaucoma. "In angle-closure glaucoma, the iris (coloured part of the eye) moves forward and blocks the drainage channels that allow fluids to drain away from the eye. When the drainage channels are closed the inner eye pressure increases, and this leads to damage and impaired vision. "For many years, this has been treated by using lasers to open tiny holes in the iris of the eye and open the drainage channels, allowing fluid to drain away. But we have found that removing the eye's own lens opens up the natural drainage channels more effectively, and patients are happier because many do not need to use to use glaucoma eye drops and their vision is improved. This surgical technique has been used successfully for years to restore sight in patients with cataracts. Advances in technology and surgical techniques over the past decade mean that it is quite safe and it can now be used to treat people with this type of glaucoma. This trial is the first in which the two treatments have been compared." Professor Azuara-Blanco continued: "Patients who received the lens extraction and implantation were more likely to report better quality of life and better vision. It is also more cost-effective than the current standard treatment. Both options appear to be equally safe. "Vision loss is costly to individuals and society and can have a huge impact on an individual's quality of life. The superiority of clear-lens extraction in terms of patient outcomes and cost-saving , along with the absence of any serious safety issues with this technique, should help contribute to a case for this approach to be considered as the initial treatment for people with primary angle-closure glaucoma."
News Article | December 26, 2016
WASHINGTON, Dec. 26, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- EME Reorganization Trust (OTCBB: EMEZU) announced that its board of managing trustees has approved a final net cash liquidation distribution of $0.00908 per beneficial interest (the "Distribution"). The Distribution will be paid on December 29,...
News Article | February 17, 2017
NEW YORK, February 17, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- For today, Stock-Callers.com presents the following Industrial Goods stocks for review: Quanta Services Inc. (NYSE: PWR), Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. (NYSE: CBI), EMCOR Group Inc. (NYSE: EME), and Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises Inc....
News Article | October 27, 2016
NORWALK, Conn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--EMCOR Group, Inc. (NYSE:EME) today reported results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2016. For the third quarter of 2016, net income from continuing operations attributable to EMCOR was $51.9 million, or $0.85 per diluted share, compared to $41.8 million, or $0.66 per diluted share, in the third quarter of 2015. Revenues for the third quarter of 2016 were $1.92 billion, an increase of 13.2% compared to revenues of $1.70 billion for the third quarter of
News Article | February 24, 2017
Arguably among the weirdest and most exciting of extinct Cretaceous creatures are the giant azhdarchids, a group of enormous pterosaurs that were, as a generalisation, long-necked, stork-billed animals equivalent in quadrupedal standing height to a good-sized giraffe. As will be familiar to the majority of readers here, azhdarchids were variously considered vulture-like terrestrial scavengers, marine skim-feeders or dip-feeders, heron analogues or sandpiper analogues prior to 2008. That was the year in which Mark Witton and I argued that anatomical, trackway and environmental data better supported a model of azhdarchids as terrestrial stalkers: as proficient, narrow-gauge terrestrial walkers that foraged in Cretaceous environments, reaching down to pick up and swallow small vertebrates and whatever else took their fancy (Witton & Naish 2008, 2015, Witton 2013). Such a view is by no means inconsistent with the giant wingspans (of c 10 m) and excellent soaring abilities of these animals. In 2002, Eric Buffetaut and colleagues named the new giant azhdarchid Hatzegopteryx thambema from the Maastrichtian Densuş-Ciula Formation of the Haţeg Basin, Romania (Buffetaut et al. 2002). The remains included the occipital region of the skull (and part of the palate) and a giant humerus (Buffetaut et al. 2002, 2003). Since then, numerous additional giant azhdarchid remains have been discovered in Romania, many from the Sebeş region of the Transylvanian Basin, east of the Haţeg Basin. These shed substantial additional information on the anatomy and diversity of Romanian azhdarchids (see citations in Vremir et al. 2013, 2015). Among these remains is a very interesting cervical vertebra – specimen EME 315 (of the Transylvanian Museum Society, Cluj-Napoca, Romania) – discovered by Matyas Vremir at the amazing Râpa Roşie locality. In a new paper published within the open-access journal PeerJ, Mark Witton and I explain how this specimen presents us with a new, dynamic view of Hatzegopteryx, and with an improved understanding of azhdarchids in general (Naish & Witton 2017). EME 315 is not a new discovery, and in fact was first described back in 2010 (Vremir 2010). It’s our interpretation and analysis of it that’s new. To start with, what’s with our proposal that the Transylvanian Basin azhdarchid remains are attributable to Hatzegopteryx? Both the Haţeg Basin and Transylvanian Basin remains possess the same spongiose internal bone texture, they’re consistent in size, and they’re geographically and stratigraphically close enough to suggest synonymy. Furthermore, we haven’t yet found any places in the world where two giant azhdarchid taxa were sympatric. Admittedly, identification of the Transylvanian Basin material as Hatzegopteryx is provisional and pends on the discovery of material that overlaps with the Hatzegopteryx holotype. Nevertheless, it seems like a strong argument to me: we should assume for now that all the giant Romanian azhdarchid material pertains to the same one taxon (Naish & Witton 2017). Anatomically, EME 315 is remarkable for several reasons. It’s large and chunky overall, short and broad for an azhdarchid vertebra, and with especially thick bone walls. Much of the neural spine is missing, but its base shows that it was bifid, consisting of two distinct sections separated by a gap in the middle. The bone that forms the ventral surface of the vertebral body (or centrum) is – at between 4 and 6 mm (depending on where you measure it) – extremely thick for a pterosaur. A more normal bone thickness would be 2.6 mm or less. Oh, and EME 315 is definitely from an azhdarchid: no other group of animals possess the shallow centrum, large, flattened zygapophyses (the prong-like structures that articulate with a pair of matching structures on the adjacent vertebra) and bifid (two part) neural spine present here. The pneumatic structures and so on are also consistent with an azhdarchid identification. Neck proportions and neck length. Identifying an isolated vertebra – I mean, working out the position of a given vertebra within the neck series – is somewhat challenging. Having said that, a number of specific details pertaining to proportions, neural spine anatomy, prezygapophyseal anatomy, the presence and distribution of pneumatic foramina, and the presence or absence of a ventral structure termed the hypapophysis allow us to work out the likely positions of isolated azhdarchid vertebrae. On this basis, we reject a previous proposal that EME 315 might be a cervical III (Vremir 2010) and instead find that it possesses a list of features identifying it as cervical VII (Naish & Witton 2017). We could be wrong on that, but it’s well supported by what we know right now. Identified as such (as a cervical VII; CVII for shorthand), EME 315 can be used to make some extrapolations about the remaining proportions of this animal. Associated neck vertebrae from other azhdarchids (in particular Phosphatodraco from Morocco) show us what the proportional relationship is like between CVII and other vertebrae, and between the length of CVII and the better part of the neck as a whole. It turns out that the whole neck must ‘only’ have been about 1.5 m long, which is low compared to the overall size of the animal, and low compared to what we calculate for large azhdarchids with much longer cervical vertebrae (Naish & Witton 2017). In contrast, Arambourgiania – a large Middle Eastern azhdarchid named for a very slender CV perhaps 77 cm long when complete – would have had a neck about 2.6 m long. Incidentally, the relationship between CVII and CV known for other azhdarchids indicates that the unknown CV of Hatzegopteryx would have been about 41 cm long. So, about half that of Arambourgiania. Again, the concept of short-neckedness for the animal represented by EME 315 is not novel to our study but has been around for a while (Vremir 2010). So by now it’s looking likely that we have markedly slender-boned, long-necked azhdarchids on the one hand, and thick-boned, short-necked azhdarchids on the other. And remember that this is not the only indication we have of relative robust-neckedness in azhdarchids: we have in the past proposed the presence of a relatively short, stocky neck in R.2395, a small (currently unnamed) azhdarchid taxon from Romania (Vremir et al. 2015). It’s significant that this notion of a robust-necked giant azhdarchid is consistent with the other data we have on Hatzegopteryx. The Hatzegopteryx holotype skull is robustly constructed and broad, being an impressive 50 cm wide across the jaw joints and with an occipital condyle (5.5 cm wide) exactly proportional to the 15-cm-wide articulate face of EME 315. As Mark has emphasised elsewhere, a long-jawed, giant animal with 50-cm-wide jaws is, potentially, a formidable predator that could have swallowed reasonably big animals. Like, human-sized animals. That’s not a ridiculous idea when you consider the food items swallowed by storks, herons and other modern birds superficially similar to azhdarchids in head and neck anatomy. Neck strength. Do the proportions and dimensions of EME 315 allow us to say anything specific about the way the neck worked in this animal? The uncrushed, three-dimensional form of this bone, its intact bone walls, and its relatively simple elliptical cross-section inspired the idea that we might be able to investigate its mechanical strength, the aim being to see how much load it (and thus the whole neck) could handle. There’s enough existing research on the strength of pterosaur bone to make this possible, and after crunching the numbers, the indications are that EME 315 was highly resistant to loading, bending and deformation, so much so that Hatzegopteryx was potentially able to resist the transferring of its entire body weight through this one bone alone (Naish & Witton 2017). This is consistent with the presence of a presumably large, relatively heavy skull, but also with the possibility that this pterosaur was capable of picking up objects quite a bit heavier than those handled by other azhdarchids. A thicker, deeper, more muscular neck. A related point we also make in the paper – and this is essentially the first time it’s properly been made in the technical literature – is that the neck in the live animal would have been substantially thicker and deeper than indicated by vertebrae alone. There’s good evidence, both from the anatomy of living archosaurs, and from the bones of azhdarchids, that a number of muscles were not just present, but well developed and prominent (Naish & Witton 2017). All of this might seem obvious if you’re familiar with the soft tissues of the tetrapod neck but it’s a subject all too often ignored in palaeontology, the tradition until recently being to imagine the azhdarchid neck as little more than a rod-like beam of vertebrae encased in a thin veneer of skin. Both the (broken) neural spine of EME 315 and the deep, prominently scarred occipital region indicate that the neck had some reasonably depth – it wasn’t just broad. The bigger picture: of robust-necked top-tier predators. As should be obvious by now, we propose a view of Hatzegopteryx as a giant, robust-necked, heavily built azhdarchid, well adapted to terrestrial predation, and capable of handling and swallowing relatively large prey items (Naish & Witton 2017). In our previous work on azhdarchids, we’ve imagined large species as predators of vertebrates and large invertebrates up to the size of, say, a domestic cat. For Hatzegopteryx, we consider it plausible that it was grabbing and tackling animals of tens of kilos. Small dinosaurs – up to the size of humans – were very plausibly on the menu for this animal. A peculiar thing about the Maastrichtian faunas of Romania is that large theropods are absent, the biggest being the paravian Balaur, and it was less than 2 m long (and quite probably not a dedicated predator anyway: see Cau et al. (2015) and this Tet Zoo article for more). Nothing in the way of large theropods has been discovered in the relevant strata so far – not even a single tooth (the Megalosaurus hungaricus teeth often listed as being from the Haţeg Basin are not, but are actually from older rocks). So, did azhdarchids occupy the role of top-tier terrestrial predator?* We compiled the hypothesis of Hatzegopteryx as a top-tier predator on the basis of the anatomical evidence discussed here (and in the paper), not because we were looking for animals that might fill an otherwise empty niche. But, yes, there might be something in this: giant azhdarchids might, in some places, have evolved to fill a niche elsewhere occupied by large theropods. * An aside on terminology. We originally used the term ‘apex predator’ in the title of our paper, the intended meaning being that the animal might have been the largest predator in its ecosystem; the one species that was not, itself, at risk of predation from anything else. But we changed this since a colleague and reviewer rightly pointed out that ‘apex predator’ is actually used in a specific way in the ecological literature: it refers to predators that consume other predators and do not have predators themselves (this use of the term is commonest in the literature on marine ecology). We therefore opted to go with ‘arch predator’, this being (so we assumed) a vernacular term, again, for ‘top predator in the ecosystem’. This was also then questioned, apparently by people who thought that we were describing the animal as a predator of arches. Personally, I think it’s obvious what we meant: ‘apex predator’ is not applied as specifically as it should be according to the version preferred by marine ecologists, and ‘arch predator’ is neither, from my reading, unfamiliar nor difficult to understand. An inevitable question that arises whenever these giant, island-dwelling, seemingly predatory azhdarchids are discussed is: were they flightless? Several pterosaur workers have already suggested, informally at conferences and technically in print (Henderson 2010), that giant azhdarchids of some species might have been flightless. As yet, however, there’s no anatomical support for this, and what we know of their skeletons indicates that they were fully flight-capable. I should also add that the additional – unpublished – skeletal material from Romania, alluded to above, has some bearing on this. Finally, long-time readers with really, really good memories might recall that an initial corollary of our terrestrial stalking hypothesis was that all azhdarchids were essentially alike as goes proportions, bar variation in size (Witton & Naish 2008). We can now say that this is incorrect, and that the group does indeed include some modicum of variation in overall robustness and in neck form and neck length, at least (I should also say that Dave Unwin made some references to this variation in his 2005 book The Pterosaurs From Deep Time). Indeed, we can’t say for sure what Hatzegopteryx was like overall, nor do we know enough to make confident pronouncements on its size or wingspan, though we assume that it was similar in wingspan to other giants. Remember that you can download the full technical paper yourself here. Mark’s take on the paper is here. This story has been quite popular and widely covered by the media. For reasons I do not intend to discuss, I did not talk to any journalists on this story, and all the promotion and reporting you’ve seen happened without my involvement. A result is that some of the news articles have been hilariously bad; I especially enjoyed those that referred to Hatzegopteryx as a T. rex-like giant bird that ate prehistoric horses. Sigh. Additional azhdarchoid-themed work is underway right now and more on these amazing animals will be discussed here in time. For previous Tet Zoo articles on azhdarchids and other azhdarchoid pterosaurs, see… Buffetaut, E., Grigorescu, D. & Csiki, Z. 2002. A new giant pterosaur with a robust skull from the latest Cretaceous of Romania. Naturwissenschaften 89, 180-184. Buffetaut, E., Grigorescu, D. & Csiki, Z. 2003. Giant azhdarchid pterosaurs from the terminal Cretaceous of Translyvania (western Romania). In Buffetaut, E. & Mazin, J.-M. (eds) Evolution and Palaeobiology of Pterosaurs. Geological Society Special Publication 217. The Geological Society of London, pp. 91-104. Cau, A., Brougham, T. & Naish, D. 2015. The phylogenetic affinities of the bizarre Late Cretaceous Romanian theropod Balaur bondoc (Dinosauria, Maniraptora): dromaeosaurid or flightless bird? PeerJ 3:e1032. Naish, D. & Witton, M. P. 2017. Neck biomechanics indicate that giant Transylvanian azhdarchid pterosaurs were short-necked arch predators. PeerJ 5:e2908. Vremir, M. 2010. New faunal elements from the Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) continental deposits of Sebeş area (Transylvania). Acta Musei Sabesiensis 2, 635-684. Vremir, M., Kellner, A. W. A., Naish, D. & Dyke, G. J. 2013. A new azhdarchid pterosaur from the Late Cretaceous of the Transylvanian Basin, Romania: implications for azhdarchid diversity and distribution. PLOS ONE 8, e54268. Vremir, M., Witton, M., Naish, D., Dyke, G., Brusatte, S. L., Norell, M. & Totoianu, R. 2015. A medium-sized robust-necked Azhdarchid Pterosaur (Pterodactyloidea: Azhdarchidae) from the Maastrichtian of Pui (Haţeg Basin, Transylvania, Romania), American Museum Novitates 3827, 1-16. Witton, M. P. & Naish, D. 2008. A reappraisal of azhdarchid pterosaur functional morphology and paleoecology. PLoS ONE 3 (5): e2271.
News Article | November 17, 2016
LONDON, Nov. 16, 2016 /PRNewswire/ --EME Blood Gas and Electrolyte Analyzers Market: Trends and OpportunitiesWith a surge in point-of-care diagnostic devices due to obvious advantage of faster disease diagnosis, the market for blood gas and electrolyte analyzers is expected to witness...
News Article | December 5, 2016
This report studies Medical Chart Paper in Global market, especially in North America, Europe, China, Japan, Southeast Asia and India, focuses on top manufacturers in global market, with Production, price, revenue and market share for each manufacturer, covering Cardinal Health Medtronic VERMED EME Kokusai Chart Modul USA MISC Diagramm Halbach Cardinal Health InterFORM TechMed Market Segment by Regions, this report splits Global into several key Regions, with production, consumption, revenue, market share and growth rate of Medical Chart Paper in these regions, from 2011 to 2021 (forecast), like North America Europe China Japan Southeast Asia India Split by product type, with production, revenue, price, market share and growth rate of each type, can be divided into Type I Type II Type III Split by application, this report focuses on consumption, market share and growth rate of Medical Chart Paper in each application, can be divided into Application 1 Application 2 Application 3 1 Medical Chart Paper Market Overview 1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Medical Chart Paper 1.2 Medical Chart Paper Segment by Type 1.2.1 Global Production Market Share of Medical Chart Paper by Type in 2015 1.2.2 Type I 1.2.3 Type II 1.2.4 Type III 1.3 Medical Chart Paper Segment by Application 1.3.1 Medical Chart Paper Consumption Market Share by Application in 2015 1.3.2 Application 1 1.3.3 Application 2 1.3.4 Application 3 1.4 Medical Chart Paper Market by Region 1.4.1 North America Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.2 Europe Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.3 China Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.4 Japan Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.5 Southeast Asia Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.6 India Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.5 Global Market Size (Value) of Medical Chart Paper (2011-2021) 2 Global Medical Chart Paper Market Competition by Manufacturers 2.1 Global Medical Chart Paper Production and Share by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.2 Global Medical Chart Paper Revenue and Share by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.3 Global Medical Chart Paper Average Price by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.4 Manufacturers Medical Chart Paper Manufacturing Base Distribution, Sales Area and Product Type 2.5 Medical Chart Paper Market Competitive Situation and Trends 2.5.1 Medical Chart Paper Market Concentration Rate 2.5.2 Medical Chart Paper Market Share of Top 3 and Top 5 Manufacturers 2.5.3 Mergers & Acquisitions, Expansion 3 Global Medical Chart Paper Production, Revenue (Value) by Region (2011-2016) 3.1 Global Medical Chart Paper Production and Market Share by Region (2011-2016) 3.2 Global Medical Chart Paper Revenue (Value) and Market Share by Region (2011-2016) 3.3 Global Medical Chart Paper Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 3.4 North America Medical Chart Paper Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 3.5 Europe Medical Chart Paper Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 3.6 China Medical Chart Paper Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 3.7 Japan Medical Chart Paper Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 3.8 Southeast Asia Medical Chart Paper Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 3.9 India Medical Chart Paper Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 4 Global Medical Chart Paper Supply (Production), Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016) 4.1 Global Medical Chart Paper Consumption by Regions (2011-2016) 4.2 North America Medical Chart Paper Production, Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016) 4.3 Europe Medical Chart Paper Production, Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016) 4.4 China Medical Chart Paper Production, Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016) 4.5 Japan Medical Chart Paper Production, Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016) 4.6 Southeast Asia Medical Chart Paper Production, Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016) 4.7 India Medical Chart Paper Production, Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2011-2016) 5 Global Medical Chart Paper Production, Revenue (Value), Price Trend by Type 5.1 Global Medical Chart Paper Production and Market Share by Type (2011-2016) 5.2 Global Medical Chart Paper Revenue and Market Share by Type (2011-2016) 5.3 Global Medical Chart Paper Price by Type (2011-2016) 5.4 Global Medical Chart Paper Production Growth by Type (2011-2016) 6 Global Medical Chart Paper Market Analysis by Application 6.1 Global Medical Chart Paper Consumption and Market Share by Application (2011-2016) 6.2 Global Medical Chart Paper Consumption Growth Rate by Application (2011-2016) 6.3 Market Drivers and Opportunities 6.3.1 Potential Applications 6.3.2 Emerging Markets/Countries 7 Global Medical Chart Paper Manufacturers Profiles/Analysis 7.1 Cardinal Health 7.1.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.1.2 Medical Chart Paper Product Type, Application and Specification 188.8.131.52 Type I 184.108.40.206 Type II 7.1.3 Cardinal Health Medical Chart Paper Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.1.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.2 Medtronic 7.2.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.2.2 Medical Chart Paper Product Type, Application and Specification 220.127.116.11 Type I 18.104.22.168 Type II 7.2.3 Medtronic Medical Chart Paper Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.2.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.3 VERMED 7.3.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.3.2 Medical Chart Paper Product Type, Application and Specification 22.214.171.124 Type I 126.96.36.199 Type II 7.3.3 VERMED Medical Chart Paper Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.3.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.4 EME 7.4.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.4.2 Medical Chart Paper Product Type, Application and Specification 188.8.131.52 Type I 184.108.40.206 Type II 7.4.3 EME Medical Chart Paper Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.4.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.5 Kokusai Chart 7.5.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.5.2 Medical Chart Paper Product Type, Application and Specification 220.127.116.11 Type I 18.104.22.168 Type II 7.5.3 Kokusai Chart Medical Chart Paper Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.5.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.6 Modul USA 7.6.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.6.2 Medical Chart Paper Product Type, Application and Specification 22.214.171.124 Type I 126.96.36.199 Type II 7.6.3 Modul USA Medical Chart Paper Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.6.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.7 MISC 7.7.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.7.2 Medical Chart Paper Product Type, Application and Specification 188.8.131.52 Type I 184.108.40.206 Type II 7.7.3 MISC Medical Chart Paper Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.7.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.8 Diagramm Halbach 7.8.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.8.2 Medical Chart Paper Product Type, Application and Specification 220.127.116.11 Type I 18.104.22.168 Type II 7.8.3 Diagramm Halbach Medical Chart Paper Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.8.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.9 Cardinal Health 7.9.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.9.2 Medical Chart Paper Product Type, Application and Specification 22.214.171.124 Type I 126.96.36.199 Type II 7.9.3 Cardinal Health Medical Chart Paper Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.9.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.10 InterFORM 7.10.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.10.2 Medical Chart Paper Product Type, Application and Specification 188.8.131.52 Type I 184.108.40.206 Type II 7.10.3 InterFORM Medical Chart Paper Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.10.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.11 TechMed 8 Medical Chart Paper Manufacturing Cost Analysis 8.1 Medical Chart Paper Key Raw Materials Analysis 8.1.1 Key Raw Materials 8.1.2 Price Trend of Key Raw Materials 8.1.3 Key Suppliers of Raw Materials 8.1.4 Market Concentration Rate of Raw Materials 8.2 Proportion of Manufacturing Cost Structure 8.2.1 Raw Materials 8.2.2 Labor Cost 8.2.3 Manufacturing Expenses 8.3 Manufacturing Process Analysis of Medical Chart Paper 9 Industrial Chain, Sourcing Strategy and Downstream Buyers 9.1 Medical Chart Paper Industrial Chain Analysis 9.2 Upstream Raw Materials Sourcing 9.3 Raw Materials Sources of Medical Chart Paper Major Manufacturers in 2015 9.4 Downstream Buyers 12 Global Medical Chart Paper Market Forecast (2016-2021) 12.1 Global Medical Chart Paper Production, Revenue Forecast (2016-2021) 12.2 Global Medical Chart Paper Production, Consumption Forecast by Regions (2016-2021) 12.3 Global Medical Chart Paper Production Forecast by Type (2016-2021) 12.4 Global Medical Chart Paper Consumption Forecast by Application (2016-2021) 12.5 Medical Chart Paper Price Forecast (2016-2021)