A VEGETATION RECONSTRUCTION OF UNION COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DURING THE EARLY HISTORICAL PERIOD (1755-1855)

This thesis assesses relationships between vegetation and topography and the impact of human tree-cutting on the vegetation of Union County during the early historical era (1755-1855). I use early warrant maps and forestry maps from the Pennsylvania historical archives and a warrantee map from the Union County courthouse depicting the distribution of witness trees and non-tree surveyed markers (posts and stones) in early European settlement land surveys to reconstruct the vegetation and compare vegetation by broad scale (mountains and valleys) and local scale (topographic classes with mountains and valleys) topography. I calculated marker density based on 2 km x 2 km grid cells to assess tree-cutting impacts. Valleys were mostly forests dominated by white oak (Quercus alba) with abundant hickory (Carya spp.), pine (Pinus spp.), and black oak (Quercus velutina), while pine dominated what were mostly pine-oak forests in the mountains. Within the valleys, pine was strongly associated with hilltops, eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) was abundant on north slopes, hickory was associated with south slopes, and riparian zones had high frequencies of ash (Fraxinus spp.) and hickory. In the mountains, white oak was infrequent on south slopes, chestnut (Castanea dentata) was more abundant on south slopes and ridgetops than north slopes and mountain coves, and white oak and maple (Acer spp.) were common in riparian zones. Marker density analysis suggests that trees were still common over most of the landscape by 1855. The findings suggest there were large differences in vegetation between valleys and mountains due in part to differences in elevation, and vegetation differed more by topographic classes in the valleys than in the mountains. Possible areas of tree-cutting were evenly distributed by topographic classes, suggesting Europeans settlers were clearing land and harvesting timber in most areas of Union County.

[Historical review and future orientations of the conventional vascular microanastomoses]

Microvascular surgery has become an important method for reconstructing surgical defects due to trauma, tumors or after burn. The most important factor for successful free flap transfer is a well-executed anastomosis. The time needed to perform the anastomosis and the failure rate are not negligible despite the high level of operator's experience. During the history, many alternatives were tried to help the microsurgeon and to reduce the complications. A Medline literature search was performed to find articles dealing with non-suture methods of microvascular anastomosis. Many historical books were also included. The non-suture techniques can be divided into four groups based on the used mechanism of sutures: double intubation including tubes and stents, intubation-eversion including simple rings, double eversion including staples and double rings, and wall adjustement with adhesives or laser. All these techniques were able to produce a faster and easier microvascular anastomosis. Nevertheless, disadvantages of the suturless techniques include toxicity, high cost, leakage or aneurysm formation. More refinement is needed before their widespread adoption. Thus, laser-assisted microvascular anastomosis using 1,9 μm diode laser appeared to be a safe and reliable help for the microsurgeon and may be further developed in the near future.

Parochialism or self-consciousness? Internationality in medical history journals 1997-2006

Research councils, universities and funding agencies are increasingly asking for tools to measure the quality of research in the humanities. One of their preferred methods is a ranking of journals according to their supposed level of internationality. Our quantitative survey of seventeen major journals of medical history reveals the futility of such an approach. Most journals have a strong national character with a dominance of native language, authors and topics. The most common case is a paper written by a local author in his own language on a national subject regarding the nineteenth or twentieth century. American and British journals are taken notice of internationally but they only rarely mention articles from other history of medicine journals. Continental European journals show a more international review of literature, but are in their turn not noticed globally. Increasing specialisation and fragmentation has changed the role of general medical history journals. They run the risk of losing their function as international platforms of discourse on general and theoretical issues and major trends in historiography, to international collections of papers. Journal editors should therefore force their authors to write a more international report, and authors should be encouraged to submit papers of international interest and from a more general, transnational and methodological point of view.