Line	Antonia Castañeda has utilized scholarship from
	women’s studies and Mexican-American history to
	examine nineteenth-century literary portrayals of
	Mexican women. As Castañeda notes, scholars of
(5)	women’s history observe that in the United States,
	male novelists of the period—during which, according
	to these scholars, women’s traditional economic role
	in home-based agriculture was threatened by the
	transition to a factory-based industrial economy—
(10)	define women solely in their domestic roles of wife and
	mother. Castañeda finds that during the same period
	that saw non-Hispanic women being economically
	displaced by industrialization, Hispanic law in territorial
	California protected the economic position of
(15)	“Californianas” (the Mexican women of the territory) by
	ensuring them property rights and inheritance rights
	equal to those of males.
	For Castañeda, the laws explain a stereotypical
	plot created primarily by male, non-Hispanic novelists:
(20)	the story of an ambitious non-Hispanic merchant or
	trader desirous of marrying an elite Californiana.
	These novels’ favorable portrayal of such women
	is noteworthy, since Mexican-American historians
	have concluded that unflattering literary depictions
(25)	of Mexicans were vital in rallying the United States
	public’s support for the Mexican-American War
	(1846–1848). The importance of economic alliances
	forged through marriages with Californianas explains
	this apparent contradiction. Because of their real-
(30)	life economic significance, the Californianas were
	portrayed more favorably than were others of the
	same nationality.

    Why firms adhere to or deviate from their strategic plans is poorly understood. However, theory and limited research suggest that the process through which such plans emerge may play a part. In particular, top management decision-sharing consensus-oriented, team-based Decision -making-may increase the likelihood that firms will adhere to their plans, because those involved in the decision-making may be more committed to the chosen course of action, thereby increasing the likelihood that organizations will subsequently adhere to their plans.

    However, the relationship between top management decision-sharing and adherence to plans may be affected by a firm's strategic mission (its fundamental approach to increasing sales revenue and market share, and generating cash flow and short-term profits). At one end of the strategic mission continuum, "build" strategies are pursued when a firm desires to increase its market share and is willing to sacrifice short-term profits to do so. At the other end, "harvest" strategies are used when a firm is willing to sacrifice market share for short-term profitability and cash-flow maximization. Research and theory suggest that top management decision-sharing may have a more positive relationship with adherence to plans among firms with harvest strategies than among firms with build strategies. In a study of strategic practices in several largefirms, managers in harvest strategy scenarios were more able to adhere to their business plans. As one of the managers in the study explained it, this is partly because "[t] ypically all a manager has to do [when implementing a harvest strategy] is that which was done last year." Additionally, managers under harvest strategies may have fewer strategic options than do those under build strategies; it may therefore be easier to reach agreement on a particular course of action through decision-sharing, which will in turn tend to promote adherence to plans. Conversely, in a "build" strategy scenario, individual leader-ship, rather than decision-sharing, may promote adherence to plans. Build strategies-which typically require leaders with strong personal visions for a firm's future, rather than the negotiated compromise of the team-based decision-maybe most closely adhered to when implemented in the context of a clear strategic vision of an individual leader, rather than through the practice of decision-sharing.

    In addition to conventional galaxies, the universe contains very dim galaxies that until recently went unnoticed by astronomers. Possibly as numerous as conventional galaxies, these galaxies have the same general shape and even the same approximate number of stars as a common type of conventional galaxy, the spiral, but tend to be much larger. Because these galaxies' mass is spread out over larger areas, they have far fewer stars per unit volume than do conventional galaxies. Apparently these low-surface-brightness galaxies, as they are called, take much longer than conventional galaxies to condense their primordial gas and convert it to stars—that is, they evolve much more slowly.

    These galaxies may constitute an answer to the longstanding puzzle of the missing baryonic mass in the universe. Baryons—subatomic particles that are generally protons or neutrons—are the source of stellar, and therefore galactic, luminosity, and so their numbers can be estimated based on how luminous galaxies are. However, the amount of helium in the universe, as measured by spectroscopy, suggests that there are far more baryons in the universe than estimates based on galactic luminosity indicate. Astronomers have long speculated that the missing baryonic mass might eventually be discovered in intergalactic space or as some large population of galaxies that are difficult to detect.