Suchergebnisse

"Serial no. 106-69." ; Shipping list no.: 2000-0144-P. ; Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Shipping list no.: 99-0342-P. ; Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Shipping list no.: 2000-0064-P. ; Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Shipping list no.: 99-0153-P. ; Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Anthropoid primates other than humans show a conspicuously disjunct geographic distribution today, inhabiting mostly tropical and subtropical parts of Asia, Africa, and Central and South America. During the latter part of the Eocene, early anthropoids showed a similarly disjunct distribution, although South America and Africa were both island continents then. Attempts to explain the historical biogeography of anthropoids as resulting from vicariance caused by tectonic rifting between South America and Africa conflict with both the chronology and the topology of anthropoid evolution. The only viable hypotheses that remain entail sweepstakes dispersal across marine barriers by early monkeys on natural rafts. Early anthropoids and certain Asian rodent clades seem to have been especially adept at accomplishing sweepstakes dispersal, particularly during the Eocene, although this process has classically been envisioned as highly random and extremely rare. This article identifies and discusses biological and geological factors that make sweepstakes dispersal by certain taxa at given times far less random than previously conceived.

"July 1, 1999." ; Shipping list no.: 99-0307-P. ; Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche. ; Mode of access: Internet.

"Why legal history?" There is no general scientific answer, as usefulness is always concrete and practical. General clauses are illusions. So what do we do? As a good marketing effort today is always useful, let's assume we make use of complex sweepstakes. They must be simple, constructive and attractive. Then they produce satisfaction with the product among participants, joy with the producer about the brand loyalty and a good distribution of the product itself – like the very successful sweepstakes of "Bild", ADAC, Readers Digest etc. But seriously: What would constitute a good sweepstake on the market of legal history? So much is "out" already…, the "inner necessity", the "eternal" Roman law, the "German" unswerving faith with oneself, the hop-skip-andjump from Roman law over Savigny towards the BGB of yesterday and today, the history of legal etymology and dogmatics, the hermeneutic circling, the return of one and the same legal types on the carrousel of law, the eternally critical view on law – and so on. They are out not without reason, because they are too mystic, too eternal, too pseudo-Roman, too doctrinal, too circular, too metaphorical, too socially logical, or just too arbitrary. My suggestion: "Stories of legal problems". They interpret and represent norms based on vast amounts of decisions of certain problems under certain conditions. If there is a certain identity of problems, the history of problems can link the various solutions in a thrilling way. If the identity is missing, the threads are cut. One doesn't step into the old traps but neither into chaos said to be impeding. A genuine sweepstake. ; Rechtsgeschichte wozu? Die Frage drängt, diesen und jenen Nutzen anzuführen oder zu bestreiten. Doch wozu? Vor welchem Forum? Vor welchem Maßstab? Nützlich oder unnütz für wen: – für Laien, Juristen, Historiker, Wissenschaftler überhaupt, – für Jus-Studierende, Rechtsprofessoren, Juristen überhaupt, – für Rechtspolitiker, Hochschulpolitiker, Politiker überhaupt, – für Geschichtsspieler, Rechtsspieler, Spieler überhaupt, usw.? Für Quellenliebhaber, Exotikfreunde, Fällesammler, – usw.? .