History and nomenclature of the theropod dinosaur tracks Bueckeburgichnus and Megalosauripus

The most recent account of Bueckeburgichnus maximus Kuhn 1958, a distinctive theropod dinosaur track from the Lower Cretaceous of Germany, is shown to be based on a referred specimen mistakenly identified as the holotype and the correct name of this taxon is deemed to be Megalosauripus maximus (Kuhn 1958). This minor revision has important consequences for nomenclature of the many European, Asian, North American and Australian dinosaur tracks attributed to megalosaurian theropods. Many of those tracks were named Megalosauripus, but that name has a confusing multiplicity of meanings and it should be restricted to the highly characteristic dinosaur track formerly identified as Bueckeburgichnus. Other tracks named "Megalosauripus”; (in its several other senses) will require new nomenclature, despite their extensive and repeated revision since 1996. It is recommended that future revision should adopt conventions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Although previous revisions expressed an intention to adhere to those conventions, these were not put into practice, with the unfortunate result of multiplying the problems that surround the nomenclature of megalosaur tracks. Introduction of the name Megalosauripus maximus (Kuhn 1958) eliminates those burgeoning problems and permits the introduction of new and objective nomenclature for presumed megalosaur tracks.

Recording and preserving legal history

The lack of a systematic approach in Australia to recording and preserving legal history was highlighted in the article by Catherine Hutchins in the August 2002 issue of the Australian Bar Review. This article describes the modest, albeit continuing, efforts on the part of the Supreme Court Library to meet this need in the State of Queensland. The efforts began in 1983 and have recently escalated with a series of exhibitions, talks, displays, interviews and preservations of documents (from online publication).

Did they read Marx? Marx reception and social democratic party members in imperial Germany, 1890-1914

Did rank-and-file members of the German Social Democratic party before 1914 bother to read Marx? A number of studies of borrowing from trade union and other workers' libraries since the 1970s have indicated that workers who read Marx were rare, although this does not mean that workers' reading habits were not influenced by socialist ideas. However, for a broader understanding of the reception of Marx's writings among rank-and-file German socialists, it is necessary to consider not only books, but the pamphlet literature produced by the SPD in huge quantities, serialisations and other treatments in the party press, and oral communication. When the full range of sources is considered, the extent of the reception of Marx's writings, albeit often in very simplified forms, can be more fully appreciated.

Issues in Australian Foreign Policy: January to June 2002

No abstract

'Why does cultural studies want history?'

Cultural studies has often been accused of maintaining too strong a focus on the contemporary and the immediate as a result of its primary interest in popular culture and the media. The role of history, such criticisms suggest, has been displaced by this contemporary emphasis. Nonetheless, much cultural studies work takes a principled stand on the necessity of historicising the products of its research. Consequently, it is worth asking, with British historian Carolyn Steedman--'why does cultural studies want history?' This article begins to answer that question through the discussion of some aspects of a specific research project within Australian cultural studies.