Reappraisal of Austrosaurus mckillopi Longman, 1933 from the Allaru Mudstone of Queensland,Australia’s first named Cretaceous sauropod dinosaur

Poropat, S.F., Nair, J.P., Syme, C.E., Mannion, P.D., Upchurch, P., Hocknull, S.A., Cook, A.G., Tischler, T.R. &; Holland, T. XX.XXXX. 2017. Reappraisal of Austrosaurus mckillopi Longman, 1933 Longman, H.A., 1933. A new dinosaur from the Queensland Cretaceous. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 10, 131–144. [Google Scholar] from the Allaru Mudstone of Queensland, Australia’s first named Cretaceous sauropod dinosaur. Alcheringa 41, 543–580. ISSN 0311-5518

Austrosaurus mckillopi was the first Cretaceous sauropod reported from Australia, and the first Cretaceous dinosaur reported from Queensland (northeast Australia). This sauropod taxon was established on the basis of several fragmentary presacral vertebrae (QM F2316) derived from the uppermost Lower Cretaceous (upper Albian) Allaru Mudstone, at a locality situated 77 km west-northwest of Richmond, Queensland. Prior to its rediscovery in 2014, the type site was considered lost after failed attempts to relocate it in the 1970s. Excavations at the site in 2014 and 2015 led to the recovery of several partial dorsal ribs and fragments of presacral vertebrae, all of which clearly pertained to a single sauropod dinosaur. The discovery of new material of the type individual of Austrosaurus mckillopi, in tandem with a reassessment of the material collected in the 1930s, has facilitated the rearticulation of the specimen. The resultant vertebral series comprises six presacral vertebrae—the posteriormost cervical and five anteriormost dorsals—in association with five left dorsal ribs and one right one. The fragmentary nature of the type specimen has historically hindered assessments of the phylogenetic affinities of Austrosaurus, as has the fact that these evaluations were often based on a subset of the type material. The reappraisal of the type series of Austrosaurus presented herein, on the basis of both external morphology and internal morphology visualized through CT data, validates it as a diagnostic titanosauriform taxon, tentatively placed in Somphospondyli, and characterized by the possession of an accessory lateral pneumatic foramen on dorsal vertebra I (a feature that appears to be autapomorphic) and by the presence of a robust ventral mid-line ridge on the centra of dorsal vertebrae I and II. The interpretation of the anteriormost preserved vertebra in Austrosaurus as a posterior cervical has also prompted the re-evaluation of an isolated, partial, posterior cervical vertebra (QM F6142, the ‘Hughenden sauropod’) from the upper Albian Toolebuc Formation (which underlies the Allaru Mudstone). Although this vertebra preserves an apparent unique character of its own (a spinopostzygapophyseal lamina fossa), it is not able to be referred unequivocally to Austrosaurus and is retained as Titanosauriformes indet. Austrosaurus mckillopi is one of the oldest known sauropods from the Australian Cretaceous based on skeletal remains and potentially provides phylogenetic and/or palaeobiogeographic context for later taxa such as Wintonotitan wattsi, Diamantinasaurus matildae and Savannasaurus elliottorum.

Stephen F. Poropat* [sporopat@swin.edu.au; stephenfporopat@gmail.com] Department of Chemistry and Biotechnology, Swinburne University of Technology, John St, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122, Australia; Jay P. Nair [j.nair@uq.edu.au; jayraptor@gmail.com] School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia; Caitlin E. Syme [caitlin.syme@uqconnect.edu.au] School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia; Philip D. Mannion [philipdmannion@gmail.com] Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK; Paul Upchurch [p.upchurch@ucl.ac.uk] Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK; Scott A. Hocknull [scott.hocknull@qm.qld.gov.au] Geosciences, Queensland Museum, 122 Gerler Rd, Hendra, Queensland 4011, Australia; Alex G. Cook [alex.cook@y7mail.com] School of Earth Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia; Travis R. Tischler [travisr.tischler@outlook.com] Australian Age of Dinosaurs Museum of Natural History, Lot 1 Dinosaur Drive, PO Box 408, Winton, Queensland 4735, Australia; Timothy Holland [drtimothyholland@gmail.com] Kronosaurus Korner, 91 Goldring St, Richmond, Queensland 4822, Australia. *Also affiliated with: Australian Age of Dinosaurs Museum of Natural History, Lot 1 Dinosaur Drive, PO Box 408, Winton, Queensland 4735, Australia.     

Hegel,Analytic Philosophy’s Pharmakon

In this article I argue that Hegel has become analytic philosophy’s “pharmakon”—both its “poison” and its “cure.” Traditionally, Hegel’s philosophy has been attacked by Anglo-American analytical philosophers for its alleged charlatanism and irrelevance. Yet starting from the 1970s there has been a revival of interest in Hegel’s philosophical work, which, I suggest, may be explained by three developments: (1) the revival of interest in Aristotelianism following Saul Kripke’s and Hilary Putnam’s work on natural kinds, and Elizabeth Anscombe’s, Philippa Foot’s, and Putnam’s opposition to the fact-value distinction; (2) the rehabilitation of Hegel’s theories by various philosophers, including Robert Pippin, Terry Pinkard, Fred Beiser, Robert Stern, and Stephen Houlgate; and (3) the Sellars-inspired philosophy of mind of John McDowell and of Robert Brandom. The first and third of these reasons, I argue, have led several analytic theorists to cast Hegel in a more positive light as the “cure” for analytic philosophy. The combined outcome of these changes, both ironic and fitting, is that the Hegelian principle of internal critique has played a significant role not only in analytic philosophy’s rapprochement with Hegel’s philosophy but also in overcoming the Analytic-Continental philosophical divide.     

The Twenty-First Century Federalist

It is unlikely a “third party” will arise to threaten the two-party duopoly that has governed American politics since 1828. It is, however, possible that a new political movement will arise within the Republican Party, stake out new ideological terrain, and make a bid for control of the party apparatus. Movements arise when parties fail to address public challenges, policy entrepreneurs recognize the opportunity, and resources are available to make a bid feasible. Today the two parties have failed to address the increasing fragmentation of American public life. They have, in fact, contributed to fragmentation by appealing to identity politics and by attempting to use the national government as a tool of legal and judicial force against their opponents. A new political movement centered on federalism—the restoration of state and local government and a balance of power between the states and the national government—offers the hope of allowing cultural pluralism to flourish within an overarching political unity. It remains for enterprising candidates to recognize the opportunity and donors to fund them.